Mobility Hubs

Exhibit B

Los Angeles/Long Beach Integrated Mobility Hubs Project Needs Assessment Study

Prepared for:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

On behalf of:

City of Los Angeles City of Long Beach

APRIL 2014

Table of Contents

Section Page Executive Summary ...... 1 Overview ...... 1 Objective ...... 1 Methodology ...... 2 Demographic and Travel Analysis ...... 2 DPSS Client Evaluation ...... 3 Community College Student Evaluation ...... 4 Conclusion ...... 5 Demographic and Travel Analysis ...... 1-1 1.1 Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Demographic Analysis...... 1-1 1.3 Travel Analysis ...... 1-15 DPSS Client Evaluation ...... 2-1 2.1 Overview ...... 2-1 2.2 Transportation Findings ...... 2-3 2.3 Travel Scenario Modeling ...... 2-23 Community College Student Evaluation ...... 3-1 3.1 Overview ...... 3-1 3.2 Spring 2010 LACC Student Transportation Survey ...... 3-2 3.3 Spring 2012 Los Angeles Community College District Survey ...... 3-3 3.4 Spring 2013 Job Training Outreach Survey ...... 3-11 3.5 2011-2012 Commute Distance Data ...... 3-13 Summary of Findings ...... 4-1 4.1 Downtown Los Angeles ...... 4-1 4.2 Hollywood ...... 4-1 4.3 City of Long Beach ...... 4-2 4.4 Next Steps- Operating Plan ...... 4-2

Tables E-1 Transit Dependency Index by Location (Top 10 Locations) ...... 3 1-1 Commute Mode and Median Individual Income in Los Angeles County...... 1-2 1-2 CTDI by Location ...... 1-3 1-3 Low Income Metro Rail Transit Ridership ...... 1-16 2-1 GAIN Transportation Assistance by Mode (May 2012-April 2013) ...... 2-5 2-2 Transportation Assistance By GAIN Activity – February 2013 ...... 2-6 2-3 Transportation Assistance By GROW Program Activity – March 2013...... 2-6 2-4 Top Origin and Destination Zip Codes ...... 2-9 2-5 Pico Station Travel Modeling ...... 2-23 2-6 Washington Station Travel Modeling ...... 2-23 2-7 El Monte Bus Station Travel Modeling ...... 2-24

TBG032514113638LAC III TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-1 Community Colleges in the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach ...... 3-1 3-2 Annual Total Family Income of LACC Students ...... 3-4 3-3 Hours Per Week Spent Commuting to School and/or Work ...... 3-4 3-4 LATTC Spring 2012 Study Survey – Total Family Income ...... 3-6 3-5 LATTC Spring 2012 Study Survey – Hours Spent Commuting ...... 3-6 3-6 Student Commute Distance from Place of Residence to LACC Campus ...... 3-13 3-7 Student Commute Distance from Place of Residence to LATTC Campus ...... 3-15 3-8 Commute Distance by Students from Residence to LBCC ...... 3-15

Figures 1-1 Population Density ...... 1-5 1-2 Low-Income Population ...... 1-6 1-3 Employment Density...... 1-7 1-4 Unemployment Density ...... 1-8 1-5 Density of Low-Earning Jobs ...... 1-9 1-6 CalFresh Recipients ...... 1-10 1-7 Zero Vehicle Households ...... 1-11 1-8 Population Density Age 65 and Up ...... 1-12 1-9 Population Density Under Age 18...... 1-13 1-10 Composite Transit Dependency Index ...... 1-14 1-11 Average Weekday Passenger Activity at Metro Rail Stations ...... 1-18 1-12 Metro Rail Weekday Activity Among Low Income Passengers ...... 1-19 1-13 Regional Bicycle Network ...... 1-20 1-14 Downtown Los Angeles Travel Analysis ...... 1-21 1-15 Hollywood Travel Analysis ...... 1-22 1-16 Downtown Long Beach Travel Analysis ...... 1-23 2-1 DPSS Service Provider Locations ...... 2-4 2-2 DPSS Trip Origins (Residences) by Zip Code ...... 2-11 2-3 DPSS Trip Destinations (Employment/Education/Job Training) by Zip Code ...... 2-12 2-4 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90044 Zip Code ...... 2-13 2-5 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90037 Zip Code ...... 2-14 2-6 Destinations for Trips Originating in 91205 Zip Code ...... 2-15 2-7 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90003 Zip Code ...... 2-16 2-8 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90221 Zip Code ...... 2-17 2-9 Origins for Trips Ending in 90021 Zip Code ...... 2-18 2-10 Origins for Trips Ending in 90015 Zip Code ...... 2-19 2-11 Origins for Trips Ending in 90045 Zip Code ...... 2-20 2-12 Origins for Trips Ending in 90746 Zip Code ...... 2-21 2-13 Origins for Trips Ending in 91731 Zip Code ...... 2-22 2-14 Travel Scenarios for Pico and Washington Stations in Downtown Los Angeles ...... 2-25 2-15 Travel Scenarios for El Monte Bus Station in Downtown Los Angeles ...... 2-25 3-1 Modal Split of LACC Students Based on Employment Status ...... 3-2 3-2 LACC Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius ...... 3-5 3-3 LATTC Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius ...... 3-8 3-4 LBCC – Liberal Arts Campus (LAC) Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius ...... 3-9 3-5 LBCC – Pacific Coast Campus (PCC) Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius ...... 3-10 3-6 LACC Student Residential Locations by Zip Code ...... 3-13 3-7 LATTC Student Residential Locations by Zip Code ...... 3-16 3-8 LBCC Student Residential Locations by Zip Code ...... 3-17

TBG032514113638LAC IV

Executive Summary

Overview In March 2010, the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach (Project Sponsors) collaboratively submitted a proposal to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in response to its Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Solicitation for Proposals funded by the Federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom programs. Metro is the Designated Recipient of Los Angeles County’s share of JARC funds apportioned to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Urbanized Area that were made available for the FY 2010 Solicitation for Proposals. The Project Sponsors requested $8.35 million in JARC funds to implement the Los Angeles/Long Beach Integrated Mobility Hubs Project (“the Project”). The Project aims to provide new first/last mile transportation options at designated mobility hub locations in the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These services will enhance the accessibility of low income individuals and welfare recipients to transit services connecting to employment centers, job training sites, community colleges, and other educational facilities. Specifically, the Project aims to offer an integrated suite of demand-based transportation services at several locations in the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which may include bicycle sharing, secure bicycle parking, dynamic ride sharing, vehicle sharing, and shuttle and jitney services. The objectives of the Project are consistent with the overall goals of the JARC Program, which also aims to transport residents of urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities regardless of their income. In June 2010, the Metro Board of Directors recommended that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fully award the request of the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach. In September 2010, FTA executed grant CA- 37- X123 with Metro to award JARC funds to projects recommended for a funding award as a result of the FY 2010 Solicitation for Proposals. This grant included a conditional (“Category B”) award by FTA of $8.35 million to implement the Project. Accordingly, the funds could only be drawn down upon FTA’s determination that the Project can advance to “Category A.” To assist FTA in making this determination, FTA allowed the Project Sponsors to use some of the funds from the grant award to develop a Needs Assessment Study (NAS) and Operating Plan. Per the request from the Project Sponsors, Metro procured the professional services of the Consultant Team, CH2M HILL, to develop the NAS on their behalf. The Consultant Team is also working on developing the Operating Plan. Metro also assembled a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Project that included representatives from the Project Sponsors, Metro, and Long Beach Transit (LBT).

Objective The objective of the NAS is to demonstrate to FTA that the Project, including the location of the mobility hubs specified in the Project Sponsors’ proposal, is planned to benefit the target population of the JARC Program. The NAS will be used to develop the Operating Plan for the Project that will also address two other issues raised by FTA: i) identify the mix of transportation services to be funded by the grant that would enhance the accessibility to jobs and job-related opportunities for welfare recipients and persons of low income; and ii) identify procedures and technologies that would allow persons of low income and from the general public who may not have access to a bank account, credit card, debit card, and/or smart phone to access transportation services to be provided by the Project. The NAS in particular, it aims to provide the information requested by FTA necessary for approval to advance the Project to Category A.

TBG032514113638LAC ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Methodology The Consultant Team, with input from TAC, conducted extensive research and analyses to achieve the first objective of the NAS, including: i) demographic and travel analysis using the U.S. Census and other sources of data; ii) evaluation of transportation needs and preferences of clients from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS); and iii) evaluation of transportation needs and preferences of students from three community colleges in the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach. DPSS clients and community college students were used as a proxy for the target population of the JARC Program. The analyses and results from this first phase of the NAS will be used by the Consultant Team (with input from TAC) to develop the Operating Plan for the Project. The Operating Plan will include: i) review of best practices for transportation services that will benefit persons of low income and welfare recipients to access jobs and job-related opportunities, such as bike sharing, vehicle sharing (including car sharing with the understanding that it is an ineligible JARC expense), shuttle/jitney services, and other ride sharing programs; ii) site evaluation and identification of potential locations for mobility hubs and satellite kiosk locations; iii) supply-demand analysis of eligible JARC-funded transportation services; iv) review of legal and administrative regulations; v) budget analysis, including identification of administrative, capital, and operating costs (including marketing), revenue sources, and public-private partnership opportunities; and vi) development of a detailed Scope of Work for Project implementation.

Demographic and Travel Analysis Extensive demographic information was analyzed for Los Angeles County. This was done to:  Determine where JARC target populations are traveling from and to in order to access employment centers, job training sites, community colleges, and other educational facilities.  Identify where installation of mobility hubs would improve accessibility of persons of low income to jobs and job related opportunities. Demographic characteristics were selected for evaluation, relevant specifically to the access of low income populations to employment sites and job training/education facilities. The analysis of those demographic characteristics resulted in the following key findings:  Population Density: The highest population densities are in Mid-Wilshire, Westlake/MacArthur Park, South Los Angeles, East Los Angeles, the cities of Huntington Park and Hawthorne, and portions of Hollywood and the cities of Glendale and Long Beach. The areas include population densities that can typically support regular fixed route transit and mobility hub services (2,000 persons per square mile and above).  Low Income Population Density: Areas with the highest percentages of low income residents (defined in FTA’s JARC Program guidance as those who live in households that are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level) include Mid-Wilshire, Westlake/MacArthur Park, South Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles. Percentages are also relatively high along the Metro Blue Line (the cities of South Gate, Lynwood, and Compton) and in portions of Long Beach.  Low Earning Jobs Density: Areas with high densities of low earning jobs (persons earning less than $1,250 per month, or typically below the federal poverty level) include Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, Vernon, Commerce, and portions of Burbank.  Zero Vehicle Households: Percentages of zero vehicle households are highest in Downtown Los Angeles, Westlake/ MacArthur Park, and East Los Angeles. A composite transit dependency index was developed on a scale from 0 to 20. It weighted the four key factors listed above equally. An average transit dependency index across U.S. Census Tracts for several locations throughout Los Angeles County was calculated. Table E-1 displays the results of the analysis.

TBG032514113638LAC ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table E-1: Transit Dependency Index by Location (Top 10 Locations) Rank (based on Initial Transit Dependency Average Transit Average Transit Location Focus Area Index Range Dependency Index Dependency Index) Mid-Wilshire * N 12 to 19 15.8 1 Hollywood * Y 12 to 17 14.6 2 Downtown Los Angeles * Y 12 to 17 14.5 3 City of Glendale N 12 to 16 13.5 4 Union Station * N 7 to 18 13.0 5 City of Long Beach Y 7 to 17 12.7 6 City of Huntington Park N 10 to 17 12.6 7 East Los Angeles ** N 8 to 13 10.6 8 City of Santa Monica N 10 to 12 10.5 9 City of Burbank N 6 to 14 10.4 10 * City of Los Angeles ** County of Los Angeles

Based on a review of the average transit dependency index and existing transit service levels (such as frequency and hours of operation for each potential location that was identified), areas with the highest concentration of both demand and need for new mobility services include the three areas originally identified by the Project Sponsors in the proposal: Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Long Beach. These areas not only have significant low income employment and population densities, but are surrounded by adjacent regions (within 1-3 miles) with similar characteristics.

DPSS Client Evaluation DPSS welfare-to-work participants were used as a proxy population to model the travel patterns of persons of low income seeking access to jobs and job-related opportunities, and determine their transportation needs. DPSS offers a well-defined network of potential low income travelers who could use and benefit from mobility hub services. Through surveys and data analysis, it was determined that DPSS clients are highly transit dependent, active users of cell phones and social media, and interested in potential Project services. By strategically placing transportation services to provide access to jobs and job training facilities, the Project can address first/last mile accessibility gaps for DPSS clients. Extensive documentation was reviewed to obtain an understanding of the existing transportation services that DPSS provides for its clients. Interviews with DPSS staff from the Greater Avenues of Independence (GAIN) and General Relief Opportunities for Work (GROW) divisions were also conducted to discuss the characteristics of these existing services. In addition, an extensive review of transportation-related data provided by DPSS was done. The review included conducting a survey of 47 DPSS GAIN clients and 27 DPSS GROW clients to discuss their perspectives and willingness to use potential mobility hubs services. Currently, DPSS supports transportation to job or job training locations by providing funds for trips related to eligible activities. Participants are issued funds to cover the cost of trips, most commonly via Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. DPSS provides funding to cover the cost of public transportation, or gas for a private vehicle or a taxi service if public transportation is not available or if a trip would take longer than 2 hours on transit. About 85 percent of transportation financial assistance for the GAIN program and 99 percent for the GROW program are currently used for public transportation. The GAIN Program surveys found that 74 percent of the clients surveyed are willing to use bike sharing, 79 percent are willing to use vehicle sharing, and 96 percent support the idea of a shuttle service between their job training center and the nearest Metro Rail station. Additionally, a high number of the clients surveyed indicated that they use cellular phones (68 percent) and social media (60 percent) to arrange for their transportation services, including looking at route schedules and using Google Maps.

TBG032514113638LAC ES-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The GROW Program surveys indicated that 63 percent of the clients surveyed are willing to try vehicle sharing and 74 percent are willing to try bike sharing. Almost all participants (98 percent) are willing to try dynamic (real-time) ride sharing, and 93 percent would be willing to use a shuttle service between their job training center or educational facility and the nearest Metro Rail station. About half of the participants (52 percent) have a smart or mobile phone, and about 48 percent use their phone to help address their travel needs. Using April 2013 origin and destination data from over 26,000 GAIN participants, travel scenarios were also developed to assess how the Project could expand access to jobs and job training locations for DPSS clients. The travel patterns analysis revealed that the clients’ trip destinations are relatively concentrated around Downtown Los Angeles. In addition, many of those trips are made via the Metro Blue, Silver, and Green Lines and originate from South Los Angeles. The southeast portion of Downtown Los Angeles (within roughly 1.5 miles from the Metro Blue Line running on Washington Blvd.) represents the most significant transportation service gap for DPSS clients. It also represents the best opportunity for Project services that would help DPSS clients with their travel needs given the high level of employment activity in this area. Another opportunity, although beyond the Project service area, is near Metro’s El Monte bus station, an area with both a DPSS facility and employment centers. Through travel scenario modeling, it was concluded that in some cases potential mobility hub bike share services in these areas could result in travel time savings of more than 15 minutes relative to existing transit services when waiting and walking times are considered. Overall, the feedback provided by DPSS clients indicates a high level of interest in the Project. There was a high level of interest in mobility hub services, with survey participants noting that although they are not familiar with bike sharing and vehicle sharing, they are willing to use these transportation services in the future. Nearly all participants perceived a great benefit from placing a mobility hub near their job training center or educational facility.

Community College Student Evaluation Community college students were also used as a proxy population to model travel patterns and assess transportation needs and preferences of persons of low income seeking access to jobs and job-related opportunities. The community colleges listed below were selected due to their location in or near the identified top-ranked transit-dependent locations of Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Long Beach. For each college, information was reviewed on the student population including place of residence, income levels, hours spent commuting, travel patterns, and transportation needs. Information was also reviewed about campus parking, job training programs, and the results from available transportation surveys conducted by the colleges. The following are key findings from this analysis:  The majority of students are considered low income (about $24,000 or less for a family of four). About 73 percent of Los Angeles City College (LACC) students, 78 percent of Los Angeles Trade-Technical College (LATTC) students, and 65 percent of Long Beach City College (LBCC) students are low income.  Average travel distances tend to be shorter for LACC students than for LATTC or LBCC students. About 68 percent of LACC students live within 5 miles of campus, compared to 53 percent of LATTC students and 27 percent of LBCC students.  A survey of 40 LACC students found that 55 percent currently use public transportation and that 70 percent use their phones to arrange for travel needs. About 76 percent of those surveyed are willing to try vehicle sharing, 50 percent are willing to try bike sharing, and 85 percent like the idea of a shuttle service.  A survey of 94 LATTC students found that 73 percent currently use public transportation and that 70 percent use their phones to arrange for travel needs. About 21 percent of those surveyed are willing to try vehicle sharing, 15 percent are willing to try bike sharing, and 76 percent like the idea of a shuttle service.

TBG032514113638LAC ES-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 A survey of 94 LBCC students found that 49 percent currently use public transportation and that 76 percent use their phones to arrange for travel needs. About 29 percent of those surveyed are willing to try vehicle sharing, 22 percent are willing to try bike sharing, and 79 percent like the idea of a shuttle service.

Conclusion The level of travel demand in Los Angeles County among low income travelers who access employment centers, job training sites, community colleges, and other educational facilities is significant. New first/last mile transportation services at designated mobility hub locations could help meet that demand and address connectivity gaps. The NAS confirmed that the three areas initially identified, Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Long Beach, are indeed the best locations to implement the Project and benefit the target population of the JARC Program. These three focus areas were identified through a combination of factors, including demographic characteristics, transit service levels and service span, existing transportation facilities, and presence of employment and job training locations. Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Long Beach exhibit high residential density, significant low income population density, high employment activity, and overall high transit dependency. Through an analysis of origin and destination data for DPSS clients, Downtown Los Angeles emerged as a major employment and job training center for DPSS clients. Surveys and demographic analysis conducted in Hollywood and Long Beach indicated that these locations serve a significant number of low income community college students, and contain job training opportunities. Mobility hub services in these areas would address first/last mile transportation service gaps, expanding access to job and job-related opportunities. The NAS also identified other locations where mobility hubs may be implemented in the future. Specifically, the DPSS client travel pattern analysis indicated concentrations of DPSS clients traveling to zip codes in the city of El Monte (near the Metro Bus Station), near the Los Angeles International Airport, and the northern San Fernando Valley. Detailed travel scenarios conducted in Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Long Beach further confirmed that Project services can help address first/last mile connectivity issues, especially at times when existing transit services are infrequent or unavailable. The specific features of bike sharing, vehicle sharing, ride sharing, and shuttle services at each location will be defined during the development of the Operating Plan for the Project. The Operating Plan will also specify the number of mobility hubs and satellite kiosks, as well as the transportation services to be provided, within each one of the three locations identified in the NAS.

TBG032514113638LAC ES-5

SECTION 1 Demographic and Travel Analysis

1.1 Overview This section provides a demographic and travel analysis of the Los Angeles County region. The demographic analysis section presents an overview of employment and residential population distribution in the region, as well as unemployment, low earning jobs, vehicle ownership, and age. The travel analysis section provides information on the transportation system in select geographies, including the transit and bicycle networks in each location, to identify particular gaps in connectivity and confirm the need for mobility hub services. 1.2 Demographic Analysis Los Angeles County is an incredibly diverse region, with high population and employment densities in a number of locations. For this NAS, the study team focused on evaluating characteristics that are particularly relevant to access of low-income populations to employment sites and job training/education facilities. Demographic characteristics, including population, age, and vehicle ownership, tell a story about the complex travel needs of residents and employees, especially as they relate to the use of transportation services. This section is based largely on a series of maps and tables that show regional population and employment characteristics, with a focus on those markets that may have a higher propensity to use public transit or consider an alternative commute mode. Figures 1-1 to 1-10, provided after the narrative of Section 1.2, show a graphical representation of the demographic analysis. 1.2.1 Population and Employment Density Figure 1-1 provides population densities based on 2011 data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS). The overall average population density in Los Angeles County is 2,420 people per square mile. High population densities of over 50,000 people per square mile can be found in certain areas, including Mid-Wilshire, Westlake/MacArthur Park, South Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles. Other areas with high population densities are located throughout much of the county, including the cities of Huntington Park and Hawthorne, and portions of Hollywood, and the cities of Glendale and Long Beach. Figure 1-2 displays the percentage of the population that is low income based on 2011 ACS data, defined as under 150 percent of the federal poverty level (the poverty level is about $24,000 for a family of four). The areas with high percentages of low-income residents are within a 5-mile radius of Downtown Los Angeles, including Westlake/MacArthur Park, Mid-Wilshire, South Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles. Percentages are also relatively high along the Metro Blue Line (the cities of South Gate, Lynwood, and Compton) and portions of Long Beach. Figure 1-3 provides employment densities based on data from the 2010 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program. The locations of jobs in the county tend to be much more concentrated than residential populations, with the highest concentrations (over 20,000 jobs per square mile) in Downtown Los Angeles and the city of West Hollywood, as well as Century City and the cities of Burbank and El Segundo. 1.2.2 Unemployment and Low Earning Jobs Based on December 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the unemployment rate for Los Angeles County as a whole is 8.9 percent. As shown in Figure 1-4, from 2011 ACS data, unemployment rates range from 10 to 35 percent in areas throughout the City of Los Angeles and south to Long Beach, with particularly high concentrations in and near Long Beach and Downtown Los Angeles. Figure 1-5 shows the relative concentrations of low-earning jobs (less than $1,250 per month) based on LEHD data. These jobs are concentrated in industrial and manufacturing areas such as the cities of Vernon and Commerce, as well as areas with high levels of service jobs such as Hollywood, Downtown Los Angeles, and Burbank.

TBG032514113638LAC 1-1 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS

1.2.3 Transit-Dependent Populations Some market segments of the general population are more likely than others to use transit service. Typically, these individuals, for reasons such as income levels and age, are less able to own or operate a private vehicle. As a result, these individuals are more likely to depend primarily on alternative methods of transportation such as public transit, and could find mobility hub services beneficial for serving their travel needs. 1.2.3.1 Low Income Households Based on U.S. Census information for Los Angeles County, as shown in Table 1-1, people who commute via public transportation typically have lower median individual incomes than commuters who drive alone or carpool.

TABLE 1-1 Commute Mode and Median Individual Income in Los Angeles County Commute Mode Median Individual Income*

Car, truck, or van: Drive alone $36,550

Car, truck, or van: Carpool $26,171

Public transportation (excluding taxicab) $16,273 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 ACS. * Median Individual Income is individual earnings in the past 12 months (in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars).

Based on ACS data, 16.3 percent of Los Angeles County residents live at or below the poverty line, compared to 14.4 percent statewide. Metro’s 2012 on-board survey indicated that 75 percent of Metro riders’ annual household income is below $25,000. About 58 percent have an annual household income below $15,000. Figure 1-2, provided previously, shows the percentage of low-income households by census tract. Figure 1-6 provides additional information, specifically the percentage of CalFresh (food stamp) recipients by census tract from 2011 ACS data. There are relatively high percentages of CalFresh recipients in South Los Angeles, East Los Angeles, and portions of the City of Long Beach. 1.2.3.2 Zero Vehicle Households Households that do not own a vehicle tend to utilize transit services more heavily than the general population. Figure 1-7 provides the percentage of zero vehicle households by census tract from ACS data. The percentages are highest in locations such as Downtown Los Angeles, Westlake/MacArthur Park, and East Los Angeles. 1.2.3.3 Seniors Seniors typically have higher than average rates of transit usage. Many seniors depend on public transportation for shopping, medical appointments, and other errands. Seniors age 65 and over make up 11 percent of the county’s total population based on 2011 ACS data. As shown in Figure 1-8, seniors reside throughout the county, with relatively high densities found in Downtown and Central Los Angeles, as well as around Hollywood. 1.2.3.4 Youth Another significant population segment that tends to be transit dependent is youth under the age of 18. Youth often rely heavily on local transit services because many of them are not able to drive themselves. Figure 1-9 shows population densities of youth under the age of 18 based on 2011 ACS data. In Los Angeles County, about 25 percent of the population is under the age of 18. Central and South Los Angeles have the highest concentrations of youth in the region, although there are high density pockets of youth throughout Los Angeles County from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach. 1.2.4 Composite Transit Dependency Index Figure 1-10 represents a composite transit dependency index (CTDI) of four key transit dependency factors, weighted equally: population density, low-income population, zero vehicle households, and low-income earning? yes jobs. Each of these factors is an important determinant in the likelihood of a household or individual to be reliant on public transportation as their method of transportation to and from work, school, and other critical

TBG032514113638LAC 1-2 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS destinations. The index is a measure of transit dependency ranging between 0 (low) and 20 (high). The CTDI value signifies the level of transit dependency in a particular Census Tract relative to other Census Tracts, as determined by the factors listed above. Higher values of the index indicate a greater need for transit. Households with the highest transit dependency are concentrated in central Los Angeles locations, around Downtown Los Angeles, and southward along the Interstate 110/Blue Line corridor. There are also substantial concentrations of transit dependent households in the Long Beach area, as well as in Hollywood and East Los Angeles. Based on a review of CTDI, the highest concentrations of need and demand (considering both residential and employment locations) include locations in and adjacent to Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, Glendale, Wilshire, Union Station, and Downtown Long Beach. These areas have high employment densities, as well as high population densities both locally and within 1 to 3 miles of the neighborhood center. In determining which of these areas warranted further review and analysis, the team averaged the transit dependency index across Census Tracts in each of 18 locations. Table 1-2 shows these areas.

TABLE 1-2 CTDI by Location Initial Rank (based on Location Focus Area Average CTDI CTDI Range Average CTDI) Top Ranked Transit Dependent Locations Mid-Wilshire * N 15.8 12 to 19 1 Hollywood * Y 14.6 12 to 17 2 Downtown Los Angeles * Y 14.5 12 to 17 3 City of Glendale N 13.5 12 to 16 4 Union Station * N 13.0 7 to 18 5 City of Long Beach Y 12.7 7 to 17 6 City of Huntington Park N 12.6 10 to 17 7 Other Regional Transit Dependent Locations East Los Angeles ** N 10.6 8 to 13 8 City of Santa Monica N 10.5 10 to 12 9 City of Burbank N 10.4 6 to 14 10 City of El Monte N 10.0 7 to 13 11 West Los Angeles * N 9.8 8 to 13 12 North Hollywood * N 9.5 8 to 10 13 Warner Center * N 9.2 8 to 11 14 City of Pasadena N 8.2 5 to 13 15 South Bay Region N 7.8 6 to 10 16 Los Angeles International Airport N 7.0 4 to 9 17 City of Norwalk N 6.9 6 to 8 18 * City of Los Angeles ** County of Los Angeles The top seven locations have a much higher than average transit dependency than the greater Los Angeles area as a whole. Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Downtown Long Beach were identified as initial focus areas due in part to the transit dependency index analysis. They were chosen over Mid-Wilshire, Glendale, and East Los Angeles due to additional factors, including demographics, transit service levels and service span, and existing

TBG032514113638LAC 1-3 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS transportation facilities. However, other highly transit dependent locations could be considered as locations for future mobility hub expansion. East Los Angeles and South Los Angeles in particular have high population densities and high low-income populations, but have relatively lower employment densities. In the city of Glendale, transit dependency is high; however, these populations tend to be located a significant distance away from the Metro Rail network.

TBG032514113638LAC 1-4 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-1 Population Density

TBG032514113638LAC 1-5 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-2 Low-Income Population

TBG032514113638LAC 1-6 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-3 Employment Density

TBG032514113638LAC 1-7 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-4 Unemployment Density

TBG032514113638LAC 1-8 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-5 Density of Low-Earning Jobs

TBG032514113638LAC 1-9 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-6 CalFresh Recipients

TBG032514113638LAC 1-10 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-7 Zero Vehicle Households

TBG032514113638LAC 1-11 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 1-8 Population Density Age 65 and Up

TBG032514113638LAC 1-12 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-9 Population Density Under Age 18

TBG032514113638LAC 1-13 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-10 Composite Transit Dependency Index

TBG032514113638LAC 1-14 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS 1.3 Travel Analysis The results of the demographic analysis identified Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Downtown Long Beach as areas with high composite transit dependency indices and high levels of employment. The study team conducted a more detailed travel analysis of those locations, focusing on two main factors:  Frequency and coverage of the transit network, concentrating on identifying particular locations where there are gaps in the network  Existing bicycle facilities Figures 1-11 to 1-16, provided after the narrative of Section 1.3, show a graphical representation of the travel analysis. 1.3.1 Regional Travel Analysis Figure 1-11 shows average weekday passenger activity (activity is defined as boardings plus alightings) at Metro Rail stations, based on FY 2012 data. For the Expo Line, preliminary data from Aug 2012 to Jan 2013 were used. The top five Metro Rail stations based on average weekday activity are as follows:  7th St./Metro Center: about 91,000; in Downtown Los Angeles; served by four lines: Red, Purple, Blue, and Expo  Union Station: about 64,000; in Downtown Los Angeles; served by three lines: Red, Purple, and Gold  Imperial/Wilmington: about 39,000; in South Los Angeles; served by the Blue and Green Lines  North Hollywood: about 32,000; in the San Fernando Valley; served by the Red Line  Wilshire/Vermont: about 26,000; in Mid-Wilshire; served by the Red and Purple Lines It should be noted that the activity numbers include transfer activity between lines; passengers who transfer from one line to another at a particular station are counted twice. Transfer-related activity explains in part the high activity levels observed at the top three stations: 7th St. /Metro Center, Union Station, and Imperial/Wilmington. Estimated activity levels (boardings plus alightings) of low-income passengers at Metro Rail stations were also evaluated. For this analysis, low income was defined as an annual household income of under $25,000. This corresponds to about 131 percent of the 2012 Federal poverty level for a household with 3.0 persons, the average household size in Los Angeles County. Figure 1-12 shows average Metro Rail weekday activity among low-income passengers, based on both FY 2012 activity data and the 2012 Metro On Board Survey of riders (note the Expo Line was not included in this survey). The On Board Survey asked riders their annual household income, using the following categories: less than $5,000; $5,000 - $9,999; $10,000 - $14,999; $15,000 - $24,999; $25,000 - $34,999; $35,000 - $49,999; $50,000 - $69,999; $70,000 - $134,999; and $135,000 or more. The top five Metro Rail stations based on average low-income rider weekday activity are:  7th St./Metro Center: about 55,800 (61.4 percent low-income ridership)  Union Station: about 30,800 (48.1 percent low-income)  Imperial/Wilmington: about 28,600 (72.8 percent low-income)  North Hollywood: about 21,100 (65.3 percent low-income)  Wilshire/Vermont: about 17,500 (66.7 percent low-income) Based on the 2012 On Board Survey, 58.3 percent of trips made by Metro riders are work-related trips and 18.6 percent are school-related trips (K-12 or college). Among Metro low-income riders, 58.8 percent of trips made are work-related and 16.1 percent are school-related. Table 1-3 provides average daily low-income ridership activity and the percentage of riders who are low-income, based on Metro FY 2012 data, for select Metro Rail stations located in designated geographies within the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The stations with the highest low-income ridership activity are 7th St./Metro Center and Union Station; the stations with the highest percentage of low-income riders are located in Hollywood and Mid-Wilshire.

TBG032514113638LAC 1-15 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS

TABLE 1-3 Low Income Metro Rail Transit Ridership Average Daily Low Percentage of Low Location Station Income Ridership Activity Income Ridership Mid-Wilshire Wilshire/Vermont 17,500 66.7% Hollywood Hollywood/Vine 8,500 70.0% Downtown Los Angeles 7th/Metro Center 55,700 61.4% Union Station Union Station 30,800 48.1% Downtown Long Beach Transit Mall 4,200 63.4% East Los Angeles Atlantic 2,400 60.5% North Hollywood North Hollywood 21,100 65.3% LAX Area Aviation 4,300 55.2%

Figure 1-13 shows the existing bikeways network in the region, including bike paths, lanes, and routes. Main observations are as follows:  Certain cities, including Long Beach, Pasadena, and Santa Monica, have extensive bicycle facilities. Other areas in Los Angeles County also have bicycle facilities, but the density of such facilities is lower.  Many of the Metro Rail stations have bike racks and lockers, including those in Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Downtown Long Beach. In addition, there is a bike station, operated by BikeNation, at the Long Beach Transit Mall. The study team conducted a more extensive travel evaluation in the three focus areas identified from the demographic analysis: Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Downtown Long Beach. While Downtown Long Beach has a lower concentration of low-income employment, the team identified it as a focus area due to its high residential density, robust bike network that affords users a safe and low-cost mobility option, geographic isolation from other parts of Los Angeles, relatively high low-income population, and relatively high overall transit dependency index. The focus of this analysis was to review the transit and bicycle networks in each location, to identify particular gaps in connectivity, and to confirm the three focus areas as appropriate locations for mobility hub services. 1.3.2 Downtown Los Angeles Travel Analysis Figure 1-14 shows the Downtown Los Angeles area travel analysis. Downtown Los Angeles has dense and extensive transit coverage within a defined rectangular area, covering the core central business district. This area is approximately bounded by Cesar Chavez Ave. to the north, Figueroa St. to the west, Washington Blvd. to the south, and Main St. to the east. Transit coverage and frequencies drop off significantly outside this area. Although other areas in and adjacent to Downtown Los Angeles, including parts of the Fashion District, Arts District, Westlake area, Chinatown, and south of the I-10 freeway, have transit service, the coverage is less dense and less frequent. These surrounding areas have a significant number of low-income jobs (Figure 1-3) as well as job training centers. Therefore, the gaps in these low coverage areas can be lessened by building mobility hubs that will extend the reach of the existing transportation network. The bicycle network, as shown, is also limited (Venice Blvd., Spring St.). However, there are several recently implemented bicycle facilities in Downtown Los Angeles, including on 1st St. and 7th St., which do not appear in the GIS bikeways layer. 1.3.3 Hollywood Travel Analysis Figure 1-15 shows the Hollywood area travel analysis. Transit service in Hollywood is significant on major arterials, including Hollywood Blvd., Sunset Blvd., Santa Monica Blvd., Vermont Ave., Western Ave., Vine St., and La Brea Ave. The large geographic area and grid network make certain subareas in Hollywood more challenging to access

TBG032514113638LAC 1-16 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS via transit, requiring one or more transfers to access as well as walking time. Examples of such locations include Fountain & Cahuenga and Melrose & Gower. The bicycle network is limited in these areas. Mobility Hub services at the Hollywood/Vine Red Line Station could provide a first/last mile link for the large concentration of low-income jobs at employment centers such as Paramount Pictures. According to U.S. Census data, Paramount Pictures has over 7,500 low-income jobs. Its campus at Melrose & Gower is approximately 1.5 miles from the Red Line Station, a roughly 30-minute walk. Current transit service is relatively infrequent, with limited span of service. The DASH Hollywood/Wilshire Line provides a direct 9-minute connection, but service only runs every 25 minutes from 7am to 7pm. Metro Line 210 on Vine is slightly more frequent (every 15-30 minutes) from 5 a.m. to 12.a.m, but trips take approximately 18 minutes because it is necessary to walk a distance of 1/3- mile on Melrose to reach the bus. Mobility hub services could help close this gap between Paramount Pictures and the Hollywood/Vine Station, either via expanded service of the DASH line or a new dedicated shuttle or jitney service. Bike share may be useful in this context as well. The introduction of Mobility Hub services could cut travel times by approximately 10-21 minutes, depending on time of day, by providing more frequent, direct service for a longer span. 1.3.4 Downtown Long Beach Travel Analysis Figure 1-16 shows the Downtown Long Beach area travel analysis. Transit service in this area is primarily located on major arterials, including Long Beach Blvd., Pacific Ave., Ocean Blvd., and Broadway. Other locations in and adjacent to Downtown Long Beach are more challenging to access via transit, such as south of Ocean Blvd. and east of Alamitos Ave. Long Beach also has a robust bicycle network, especially south of 4th St., including bike paths and cycle tracks as well as lockers, racks, and a bike station. These facilities offer a low-cost option for travel within and across Long Beach. Mobility Hub services at the Long Beach Transit Mall Blue Line Station could provide a first/last mile connection to low-income jobs around the Long Beach Convention Center. The area around the convention center has over 6,600 jobs, many of which are located at distances of 0.25-0.5 mile from the nearest Metro station, approximately a 5- to 10-minute walk. The introduction of bike share services as part of the Mobility Hub at this location could cut travel times by approximately 2-6 minutes.

TBG032514113638LAC 1-17 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-11 Average Weekday Passenger Activity at Metro Rail Stations

TBG032514113638LAC 1-18 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-12 Metro Rail Weekday Activity Among Low Income Passengers

TBG032514113638LAC 1-19 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-13 Regional Bicycle Network

TBG032514113638LAC 1-20 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-14 Downtown Los Angeles Travel Analysis

TBG032514113638LAC 1-21 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-15 Hollywood Travel Analysis

TBG032514113638LAC 1-22 SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL ANALYSIS FIGURE 1-16 Downtown Long Beach Travel Analysis

TBG032514113638LAC 1-23

SECTION 2 DPSS Client Evaluation

2.1 Overview 2.1.1 DPSS Program Overview The Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) GAIN program provides employment-related services to CalWORKs participants to help them find employment, stay employed, and move on to higher paying jobs. CalWORKs is a State of California welfare program that gives cash aid and services to eligible needy families. CalWORKs participants receive GAIN services in the GAIN Regional offices. Participation in GAIN is mandatory for all CalWORKs participants unless exempt. The goal of the DPSS GROW program is to transition GROW participants into the labor market. Participation is mandatory for all employable General Relief (GR) recipients. GR is a County-funded program that provides financial assistance to indigent adults who are ineligible for federal or State programs. A typical GR case consists of one person, living alone, with no income or resources. Both the DPSS GAIN and GROW programs provide transportation assistance to participants to travel to and from eligible job-training or job activities. In addition, GAIN provides participants with transportation payment to attend in-office appointments, including appraisal appointments, and to attend vocational and career assessments, learning disabilities assessments, and clinical assessments for mental health and substance abuse. 2.1.2 Objectives The main objectives of the study team’s evaluation of DPSS participants are to:  Obtain an understanding of the transportation patterns and needs of low-income people to jobs or job- training sites.  Develop baseline travel scenarios to demonstrate how Mobility Hubs can expand access to jobs and job- training sites.  Identify how Mobility Hubs can best be integrated with existing DPSS transportation services. DPSS welfare-to-work participants are used as a proxy population to model the travel patterns and determine transportation needs of the low-income population. Specifically, this analysis focuses on DPSS GAIN and GROW participants’ transportation needs and patterns. DPSS program participants must meet several eligibility criteria and receive assistance from the County in finding and retaining employment. DPSS offers a well-defined network of potential low-income mobility hub customers. 2.1.3 Methodology The DPSS analysis relied on quantitative data, published reports, interviews with DPSS staff, and surveys of DPSS program participants. The methodology used to evaluate the travel patterns and needs of low-income populations included four main components: 1. Literature review: Reviewed relevant published reports and websites to obtain a preliminary understanding of DPSS’ transportation-related services. 2. Key DPSS staff interviews: Conducted telephone and in-person meetings and interviews with DPSS staff from the GAIN and GROW divisions to obtain a more thorough and accurate understanding of how DPSS transportation services are currently being used. 3. Data collection and analysis: Relevant data from the DPSS GAIN and GROW divisions were collected and reviewed. The data included: a. Inventory of all job-related and transportation-related services offered by DPSS

TBG032514113638LAC 2-1 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

b. Inventory of all transit providers who currently collaborate with/support DPSS services c. DPSS eligibility requirements for job-related and transportation-related services and transportation financial allowances d. Location of all DPSS job training centers and offices where DPSS transportation program information or services are offered e. DPSS monthly reports, which identify user demographics, zip codes, trip origins and destinations, and method of transportation f. DPSS reports on amount of financial allowance provided, modes of distribution, and how financial allowances for transportation are calculated g. Information about how DPSS clients use their financial allowances to purchase transit services tickets/fares Based on the review of available documentation and key DPSS staff interviews, the study team identified how available DPSS transportation services are currently used and how existing transportation subsidies are distributed. DPSS monthly report data were compiled into the GIS to spatially analyze user distribution and travel patterns. 4. Travel scenarios: Travel scenarios for DPSS program participants were developed in order to demonstrate how Mobility Hubs would expand access to jobs and job training. The travel scenarios are based on the origin and destination patterns for 26,725 GAIN participants from April 2013. These data were provided by DPSS in a database that included participant home and destination zip codes, age, activity type, transportation used by children, type of transportation used, and amount issued. To protect DPSS program participants’ privacy, distribution and travel pattern information was provided by origin and destination zip codes, rather than specific addresses. The dataset only captures one type of trip per participant per month. If a participant had multiple destinations in one trip or had different types of trip in a month, only the trip associated with the activity for which DPSS transportation assistance was requested was counted. The dataset also included information on the type of transportation support issued, including public transportation (by fare type), carpool/vanpool, and auto mileage reimbursement. Although DPSS maintains records of what type of transportation support is issued, they are not able to confirm whether a participant has actually used the transportation allowance provided for the transportation type specified. For example, DPSS may issue a transit pass and a participant may choose to drive instead, but the trip will be recorded as a transit reimbursement trip. The study team aggregated the zip code origins and destinations and mapped the following: total number of trip origins per zip code; total number of trip destinations per zip code; total number of trip origins per zip code for the top five destination zip codes (90021, 90015, 90045, 90746, 91731),1 and total number of trip destinations per zip code for the top five origin zip codes (90044, 90037, 91205, 90003, 90221).2 The study team selected the top three most common destination zip codes to define DPSS clients’ baseline travel scenarios. Within each of the top three zip codes, the DPSS data were analyzed to determine the type of activity most often being traveled to (i.e., work or job training). Based on this analysis, specific destinations were selected within each zip code to model baseline travel scenarios. The study team mapped travel from potential mobility hubs to specific job or job-training locations via walking and public-transit Google maps. For each mode of travel, the range of time it would take to connect from a potential mobility hub location to selected destinations was identified from short (assuming frequent transit service and well-timed connections) to long (assuming missed connections or travel during infrequent nighttime service). To determine how Mobility Hubs could improve connections, the study team mapped the same trips assuming

1 The top six were mapped due to the close trip counts of the 4th through 6th zip codes. After the 6th zip code, trip counts diminished significantly. 2 These zip codes represent the 1st and 4th-7th highest trip counts due to the exclusion of Lancaster (2nd) and Palmdale (3rd). It was determined by DPSS and the TAC that these communities are too far away to serve with Mobility Hubs and should therefore not merit consideration.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-2 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

bike share is available and compared the time savings over walking or using transit to identify potential Mobility Hub benefits. Although the DPSS zip code data represent the best available at a large scale, it is important to note the limitations of these data: 1. Resolution: While zip codes provide more specific data compared to commonly used traffic analysis zones (TAZ), they are still areas significantly larger than census tracts, which at times can make it difficult to pinpoint the concentrations of DPSS clients. The shapes of zip codes can also pose a challenge, as some are particularly oblong. As a result, zip codes may not provide the necessary resolution to provide information on specific locations of individual mobility hubs. 2. Trip definition: DPSS data count only a single commute trip to work, job training, school, or other primary destinations per person; multiple trips, such as a morning trip to job training then an afternoon trip to a job, are not counted. Additionally, trip origins, destinations, and travel modes are self-reported and not verified by DPSS. Roughly two-thirds of trips counted were directly to DPSS facilities, while one-third were to employment (all in Downtown Los Angeles). 3. Sample independence: The DPSS population does not necessarily represent an independent, random sample for all low-income populations in Los Angeles County. The origins and destinations of DPSS client travel are influenced by the level of DPSS outreach involvement in individual communities as well as DPSS assignments to specific employers, job training centers, schools, and other services. As discussed below, these patterns do not always mirror general trends for low-income residents and communities—the destinations, especially, are often self-selecting based on accessibility and DPSS program connections. However, DPSS offers a well- defined and -implemented network to potential mobility hub customers who could be included for full-scale mobility hub roll-out. 4. Potential data errors: While nearly all zip codes showed some level of trip counts, a select few zip codes had null values in which high trip counts should be expected. Most notably, 90013 and 90014 (Central City East, Los Angeles) both show as null values despite large low-income employment concentrations and similar land uses to neighboring 90021, the largest destination in Los Angeles County (8,113 trips). Additionally, 90245 (El Segundo) shows a null value despite having 4,628 low-income jobs. Because all DPSS clients were still accounted for, it is possible that trip counts for these zip codes were combined with neighboring zip codes, inflating counts for 90021 and 90045. 2.2 Transportation Findings 2.2.1 Transportation Services Eligibility Requirements Figure 2-1 depicts the distribution of DPSS transportation service provider offices throughout Los Angeles County. All GAIN participants are eligible for transportation services as long as they are attending an approved Welfare-to- Work activity. Participants are not eligible for transportation services if the participant voluntarily chooses to walk to the approved activity, the participant receives free transportation, or transportation is paid through another program. For GROW, participants must be attending a GROW-approved activity to receive transportation payment. However, GROW is limited to 9 months in any 12-month period. After the ninth month, transportation is terminated and cash aid is discontinued. Participation in GROW is mandatory for all employable GR recipients. 2.2.2 Transportation Services Offered DPSS provides cash assistance for participants to use public transportation for travel to and from eligible activities. If public transportation is not available, or if a trip to a GAIN/GROW-eligible activity is longer than 1 hour each way on transit, participants may be issued money to pay for gas and parking for a private vehicle. Other modes of transportation payments may include carpool or taxi if public transportation is inaccessible (round trip exceeds 2 hours) and the participant does not have access to a private vehicle.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-3 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-1 DPSS Service Provider Locations

TBG032514113638LAC 2-4 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

Table 2-1 shows the various transportation modes for which assistance is provided to GAIN participants from May 2012 to April 2013.3 As shown, public transportation accounts for the vast majority of transportation assistance offered, at 85 percent, while mileage reimbursement for private vehicles accounts for only 7.4 percent of the total.

TABLE 2-1 GAIN Transportation Assistance by Mode (May 2012-April 2013) Mode No. of Participants % of Participants Fixed Route Transit 236,635 91.85% Adult Student Pass 35,818 EZ Transit Pass 29,655 Regular Bus Pass 151,389 Fare and Tokens 2,239 Child Student Pass 17,534 Metrolink 483 0.19% Rideshare 198 0.08% Shuttle 4 Vanpool 6 Carpool 188 Private Transportation 19,060 7.40% Other (including Lump Sum) 1,264 0.49% Greyhound 6 Taxi 26 Provider Trans Service 7 Other 1,225 Total 257,640 100.00% Source: Los Angeles County DPSS, Source: GEARS Report - Transportation Type Details GRRTRA11-01, 2013.

Currently, GROW does not have data on the types of transportation modes that participants utilize. Estimates indicate that the vast majority of transportation assistance issued to GROW participants is for public transit, at 99 percent. As shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, a majority of GAIN participants (78 percent) and GROW participants (73 percent) use transportation assistance to travel to job training and other specialized services. Less than 2 percent of GAIN participants and 7 percent of GROW participants use transportation assistance to travel to work or paid work activities.

3 The total number of participants in the chart (257,640) is duplicated by month so that a participant who may have received a regular bus pass and mileage for the same month was only counted once for that month, and then the totals are added for every month. For example, a participant who received a regular bus pass for all 12 months (May-April) would be counted 12 times under the ‘regular bus pass’ type.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-5 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

TABLE 2-2 Transportation Assistance By GAIN Activity – February 2013 Activity Description No. of Participants % of Participants Earned Income Cases (Employed) 8,106 15.14 Vocational Training 4,827 14.11 Job Club 3,209 11.30 Self-Initiated Program (education) 3,018 9.35 Remedial Education 2,497 4.26 Appraisal 1,137 3.24 Job Search 865 3.07 Job Skills Training 821 2.93 Community Service 562 1.82 Cal-Learn 485 1.76 Vocational/Career Assessment 471 1.03 Work Experience 276 0.79 Paid Work Experience 210 0.34 On the Job Training 90 0.15 Homeless Family Program 40 0.15 Work Study 40 0.10 Learning Disability Assessment 28 0.03 Other 31 0.03 Total 26,713 100 Source: GEARS Report - Transportation Type Details GRRTRA11-01.

TABLE 2-3 Transportation Assistance By GROW Program Activity – March 2013 Activity Description No. of Participants % of Participants Intensive Case Management 9,254 51.31 Job Skills Preparation Class 3,957 21.94 Work 1,266 7.02 Self-Initiated Program 1,134 6.29 Career Opportunities, Resources, and Employment 309 1.71 Pathways to Success 282 1.56 Education/Training 279 1.55 Substance Abuse Recovery 254 1.41 Clinical Assessment Services 225 1.25 Short-Term Training 221 1.23 General Education Diploma 157 0.87 Literacy 138 0.77 Life Skills 84 0.47

TBG032514113638LAC 2-6 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

TABLE 2-3 (CON’T) Transportation Assistance By GROW Program Activity – March 2013 Activity Description No. of Participants % of Participants Mental Health Services 78 0.43 Vocational Assessment 70 0.39 One-Stop 63 0.35 Job Fair Referral 54 0.30 Security Guard Assessment 53 0.29 Computer Application Class 31 0.17 Office Occupations 27 .15 Rapid Employment Promotion 24 0.13 Expungement 21 0.12 Domestic Violence Services 20 0.11 Security Guard Training 15 .08 Day Report Center 12 0.07 Youth 5 0.03 Post-Employment Services 3 0.02 Total 18,036 100 Source: MAPPER Report – GROW Participation Report – March 2013.

2.2.3 Rates and Issuance of Transportation Payments Rates for transportation support are determined by the established mode of transportation and the DPSS case manager. DPSS selects the rate for the least costly transportation mode to determine how much support is distributed to a participant. For example, a participant may have access to a private vehicle, but if transportation to the approved activity will take less than 2 hours round trip on public transportation, payment will be issued for public transportation and not for mileage reimbursement. For other transportation services, such as Metro, Metrolink, taxi, shuttles, vanpools, Amtrak, or Greyhound, the transit agency with the least costly fare that will not preclude participation, and that provides the service in the shortest length of time to reach the destination, is selected. If more than one type of transportation is used, and a common fare or pass is not honored, the combined transit agency costs are considered. DPSS issues transportation payments for participants to buy/pay for the appropriate transportation type/method such as bus, mileage, rail, shuttle, etc. Transportation payments are issued regardless of income considerations as long as the participant is enrolled in a GROW or GAIN activity. Participants are not required to have a bank account, since most payments are issued via the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card. Participants draw cash from their card balance to purchase a bus pass or pay for gas (mileage), taxi services, Metrolink, Metro Rail, Greyhound, etc. Some participants are issued warrants to purchase a bus pass or pay for gas. In some instances, participants are issued cash or tokens for one- day office visits, usually appraisal appointments or orientations. 2.2.4 DPSS Client Surveys The study team coordinated with DPSS and conducted qualitative surveys to collect feedback regarding travel patterns, access to public transportation, and preferences for improvements. The data were used to help identify the transportation needs and challenges within the DPSS GAIN and GROW Job Club populations. The data also helped in the development of convenient and flexible mobility options for participants traveling to and from job training centers/educational facilities.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-7 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

GAIN Surveys: The study team surveyed a total of 47 DPSS GAIN clients at the Downey Job Club to determine their attitudes and willingness to use Mobility Hub services. The surveys showed several transportation patterns in participants’ daily commute in four categories: Travel Patterns, Transportation Needs, Transportation Solutions, and Social Media. Travel Patterns: Nearly all of the participants (98 percent) travel to the Downey Job Club on weekdays, typically arriving between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The average one-way commute time is 30 minutes. Only a small percentage of participants travel during the weekends for job training. Over half of the participants (57 percent) drive to the Downey Job Club. About 36 percent use public transportation, about 21 percent are dropped off, 15 percent walk, and 2 percent bike. Respondents who vary their method of transportation during the week were allowed to select multiple options. Transportation Needs: About 45 percent of the participants reported not having access to a reliable car, and 72 percent reported not having access to a bike. Participants noted facing several challenges with respect to travel, including: spending long times in traffic, long waiting periods for public transportation, the cost of public transportation, and gas prices. Despite the transportation challenges expressed, 64 percent of the participants said they are happy with their current travel arrangements. Transportation Solutions: DPSS GAIN clients are generally unfamiliar with potential Mobility Hub programs, but are interested in their implementation. About 57 percent of the participants are unfamiliar with car sharing and 81 percent with bike sharing. Despite the unfamiliarity, 79 percent of the participants noted they are willing to try car sharing and 74 percent are willing to try bike sharing. Almost all participants (98 percent) are willing to carpool with someone they know, and 96 percent like the idea of a shuttle service that operates from their job training center or place of employment to the nearest Metro station. Social Media: Many DPSS GAIN clients are active users of smart phone technology, and the majority have a smart or mobile phone. Approximately 68 percent of the participants use their phone to arrange their travel needs such as looking for public transportation schedules, Metro routes, or using Google Maps. The majority of participants (60 percent) reported using social media. GROW Surveys: A total of 27 GROW surveys were conducted. Results are organized in four categories: Travel Patterns, Transportation Needs, Transportation Solutions, and Social Media. Travel Patterns: Most participants (93 percent) travel to their job training center or educational facility Monday through Friday, usually between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. They typically spend 30 minutes to 1 hour traveling. Only a small percentage of participants travel during the weekends. Participants travel throughout the Los Angeles area, although most origins and destinations are within the City of Los Angeles, Culver City, Pico Rivera, El Monte, Glendale, and Pasadena. Other noted destinations include Norwalk and Temple City. Over three-quarters, 78 percent, of the participants use public transportation as their main method of travel; 22 percent walk to their job center; 15 percent drive or ride their bicycle as a method of transportation; 11 percent are dropped off; and 7 percent carpool. Respondents who vary their method of transportation during the week were allowed to select multiple options. Transportation Needs: About 70 percent of the participants do not have access to a reliable automobile, while 37 percent do not have access to a bike. Most participants (70 percent) indicated the cost of travel determines their method of transportation; 53 percent of those participants indicated that bus fare was the most important cost in determining their travel method. Some of the other challenges participants face include spending longer times in traffic on highways and longer waiting periods for public transportation. Despite the transportation challenges expressed, 81 percent of the participants said they are happy with their current travel arrangements. Transportation Solutions: About 48 percent of the participants are unfamiliar with car-sharing and 56 percent are unfamiliar with bike sharing. Despite the unfamiliarity, 63 percent of the participants noted they are willing to try car sharing and 74 percent are willing to try bike sharing. Almost all participants (98 percent) are willing to try dynamic (real-time) ridesharing and 93 percent would be willing to carpool with someone they already know. Participants were highly responsive to a free shuttle service between their job center and the nearest Metro Rail

TBG032514113638LAC 2-8 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION system, and 93 percent indicated they would use it. This would provide a faster and more cost-effective option. Most participants reported that in order to improve their traveling experience, they need shorter commute times, less congestion on highways and streets, and more frequent and on-time public transportation. Social Media: Approximately half of the participants (52 percent) have a smart or mobile phone, and about 48 percent of the participants use their phone to arrange their travel needs such as looking for public transportation schedules, Metro routes, or using Google Maps. About 41 percent of the participants use social media. Overall, the feedback provided by DPSS clients indicates a high level of interest in the mobility hubs project. Survey participants noted that, although they are not familiar with the concepts of bike sharing and car sharing, they are willing to learn more and try it in the future. Nearly all participants agreed that they would benefit from placing a Mobility Hub near their job training center or educational facility. 2.2.5 Travel Pattern Analysis The travel patterns of DPSS clients mirror the decentralization of Los Angeles travel patterns as a whole. While DPSS client trip origins (residences) are spread across Los Angeles County with only a few moderate concentrations, only a few hubs for trip destinations (jobs, job training centers, schools, etc.) exist. Table 2-4 and Figures 2-2 and 2-3 (provided after the narrative of Section 2.2.5) illustrate the number of trip origins and destinations per zip code. The top 5 zip codes with the highest trip origins represent only 13 percent of trip origins, while the top 6 zip codes with the highest trip destinations represent 48 percent of total trip destinations.

TABLE 2-4 Top Origin and Destination Zip Codes Top Origin Zip Codes Count of Origin Trips Top Destination Zip Codes Count of Destination Trips 90044 898 90021 8,113 90037 597 90015 1,486 91205 551 90045 947 90003 464 90746 789 90221 458 91731 737

Other findings from the analysis of DPSS travel patterns were as follows: 1. Trip destinations are relatively centralized around Downtown Los Angeles and a few secondary hubs. Downtown Los Angeles represents a significant destination for DPSS clients: 9,599 trips (35.9 percent of total) end in Downtown. Notable secondary hubs exist at LAX, Carson, El Monte, and South Los Angeles, though each of these destinations has approximately 700-1,000 trips (2.5-3.7 percent of total). A moderate concentration occurs around Los Angeles City College. 2. Trip origins are highly decentralized and roughly mirror distributions of low-income populations. DPSS trip origins are spread across Los Angeles County at low to moderate densities. The highest concentration of trip origins (898) was in South Los Angeles (90044), equivalent to 3.3 percent of the total DPSS population. South Los Angeles, the Gateway Cities, northern San Fernando Valley, and the El Monte area demonstrated notable concentrations of trip origins. 3. Trip destinations are not completely consistent with low-income employment distributions. Trip destinations are unevenly distributed compared to the distribution of low-income employment in Los Angeles County. For example, while Downtown Los Angeles represents a significant hub for both low- income jobs (27,555 total) and DPSS trip destinations (10,412 total), Vernon (5,503 total low-income jobs) shows only 6 DPSS trips, while El Segundo (4,528 low-income jobs) shows 0. These anomalies may result from

TBG032514113638LAC 2-9 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

the DPSS trip definitions and potential data errors of DPSS trip counts discussed in Section 2.1.2. Additionally, most participants are using the DPSS transportation support for job training and DPSS support services, rather than travel to work, which may in part account for the discrepancy. 4. Trip patterns for individual zip code origins and destinations are decentralized. No strong patterns of travel between individual zip codes were found. The biggest zip code destination, 90021 (Downtown Los Angeles), drew 8,113 DPSS clients; however, its largest trip generator, 90044, resulted in 293 trips. Fifteen zip codes produced greater than 100 trips to 90021, while 252 zip codes generated less than 100 trips. Other zip codes demonstrated even greater decentralization, with few pairs showing greater than 100 trips and only 1 (discussed above) showing greater than 200. 5. Aggregating the zip code data presents clear travel patterns to Downtown Los Angeles via the Blue, Green, Silver, and Red Lines. While individual zip code data are decentralized, at the corridor level a clear pattern of DPSS trips emerges heading Downtown via Metro bus and rail lines. The largest traveler markets travel north along the Blue and Silver Lines from North Long Beach/Compton through South Los Angeles, with the Green Line providing feeder connections to the Norwalk and Hawthorne areas. The northern San Fernando Valley represents another relatively sizeable travel market to Downtown via the Red Line; however, these areas are not currently directly served by the Red or Orange Lines. The Expo Line offers a moderately sized travel market, while the Gold Line is fairly small. It is apparent that a notable proportion of travelers rely exclusively on Metro buses, particularly from the inner zip codes of South Los Angeles. 6. The majority of DPSS client trips are local. Although roughly one-third of DPSS client trips are from across Los Angeles County to employment in Downtown Los Angeles, the other two-thirds are relatively short distance trips to local facilities. These short trips are to nearby facilities for job training and education services in locations including Inglewood, South Los Angeles, Carson, El Monte, and other secondary hubs. The short distances of these trips suggest low usage of Metro Rail and a greater reliance on Metro Bus travel. Figures 2-4 through 2-13 depict the destination locations for the top origin zip codes, and the origin locations for the top destination zip codes. 2.2.6 Data Conclusions As a result of analyzing DPSS travel patterns, the following conclusions were reached in evaluating the placement of mobility hubs:  More DPSS clients would benefit from enhanced access to destinations than origins. Because trip destinations are more concentrated than trip origins, DPSS clients would be more efficiently served by enhancements to destination (last mile) stations than origin (first mile) stations.  The southern and eastern portions of Downtown represent a clear travel hub for DPSS clients and necessitate a stronger connection to Metro Rail. A large proportion of DPSS clients travel north on the Blue Line and Silver Line, and along numerous Metro bus corridors to Downtown; however, not all lines serve the last mile of these destinations. Mobility Hubs could benefit both rail and bus riders to make a more effective last mile connection. Additionally, new connections to areas such as the cities of Vernon and Commerce could provide travel benefits to DPSS clients.  The El Monte Bus Station represents an additional opportunity to strengthen first/last mile connections. Of the non-Downtown destinations surveyed, the El Monte Bus Station demonstrates the greatest opportunity to improve access to DPSS facilities and employment. The El Monte DPSS facility is a 45-minute walk away and is served by an infrequent bus connection. The Artesia Transit Center, Green Line Aviation Station, and Blue Line Artesia Station are additional candidates to enhance connectivity to DPSS job training facilities.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-10 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-2 DPSS Trip Origins (Residences) by Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-11 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-3 DPSS Trip Destinations (Employment/Education/Job Training) by Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-12 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-4 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90044 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-13 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-5 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90037 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-14 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-6 Destinations for Trips Originating in 91205 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-15 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-7 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90003 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-16 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-8 Destinations for Trips Originating in 90221 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-17 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-9 Origins for Trips Ending in 90021 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-18 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-10 Origins for Trips Ending in 90015 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-19 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-11 Origins for Trips Ending in 90045 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-20 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-12 Origins for Trips Ending in 90746 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-21 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-13 Origins for Trips Ending in 91731 Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 2-22 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

2.3 Travel Scenario Modeling Building upon the DPSS travel analysis above, the study team selected three Metro stations to model Mobility Hub improvements: Pico Station (Blue Line, Expo Line, and Silver Line), Washington Station (Blue Line), and the El Monte Bus Station (Silver Line, Metro buses). These stations were selected because they serve three of the top five zip code destinations in Los Angeles County (90015, 90021, and 91731), demonstrate high levels of DPSS client usage, and lack sufficient last mile connectivity for DPSS clients to reach their destinations. The study team modeled travel times for “Baseline” and “Mobility Hub” scenarios at two sample destinations for DPSS clients for each station. The sample destinations were selected to provide a range of distances of about ½ to 1½ miles from the station. The study team calculated a range of travel times for walking, bus, and bicycle connections using Google Maps—a fast time assuming timed bus connections; a slow time assuming uncoordinated bus connections, limited late-night/weekend service, or walking; and a mobility hub time assuming bike share access and modeling bicycle travel times. For some scenarios there were no bus connections available, so a range was not presented. The scenarios are summarized below and depicted in Figures 2-14 and 2-15. 2.3.1 Pico Station Pico Station serves as a major hub for DPSS clients traveling to job training facilities in 90015 from South Los Angeles via the Blue and Silver Lines, as well as the Expo Line corridor. Pico Station also serves as an access point to employment in 90021 for Silver and Expo Line DPSS passengers. As shown in Table 2-5, current travel times from Pico Station to the YWCA Job Corps range from 7 to 11 minutes, while travel times to employment in the 90021 zip code range from 19 to 29 minutes. TABLE 2-5 Pico Station Travel Modeling Destination YWCA Job 9th & Stanford Scenario Corps Employment Area Baseline (assumes bus & walk) 7-11 min. 19-29 min. Mobility Hub (assumes bike share) 4 min. 11 min. Time Savings 3-7 min. 8-18 min.

The addition of a Mobility Hub at Pico Station could reduce travel times to the YWCA Job Corps by 3-7 minutes, and reduce travel times to employment in the 9th & Stanford area by 8-18 minutes. 2.3.2 Washington Station Washington Station serves as the primary access point for DPSS clients traveling to employment in 90021 from South Los Angeles via the Blue Line. The 90021 zip code represents the most common destination for DPSS clients, serving 8,113 people (30.3 percent of total DPSS client base). The majority of these trips are made via the Blue, Green, and Silver Line corridors. Currently direct transit connections from the Blue Line to employment within 90021 are limited and transit frequencies in the area vary by line and time of day, so it is often fastest to walk. As shown in Table 2-6, travel time to employment around the intersection of Long Beach & Olympic is 15 minutes, while travel time to Mateo & Violet is 28 minutes. TABLE 2-6 Washington Station Travel Modeling Destination Long Beach & Olympic Mateo & Violet Scenario Employment Area Employment Area Baseline (assumes bus & walk) 15 min. 28 min. Mobility Hub (assumes bike share) 5 min. 8 min. Time Savings 10 min. 20 min.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-23 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

The addition of a Mobility Hub at Pico Station could reduce travel times to employment at Long Beach & Olympic by 10 minutes, and reduce travel times to employment in the Mateo & Violet by 20 minutes. 2.3.3 El Monte Bus Station The El Monte Bus Station serves as the primary transit hub in the San Gabriel Valley and the main transfer point between local bus service and the Silver Line. Many DPSS clients transfer through the El Monte Bus Station on their way to job training programs at the El Monte DPSS facility approximately 1.5 miles west. The station area is also home to large low income employment concentrations in Downtown El Monte and north of the station. Despite its close proximity, travel times to the DPSS facility vary considerably due to infrequent bus service and long walking distances. As shown in Table 2-7, travel times range from 12 minutes on the bus to 45 minutes walking or via a less direct bus route. Travel times to the employment area around Baldwin & Gidley range from 15 minutes to 30 minutes, also depending on bus connections and walking.

TABLE 2-7 El Monte Bus Station Travel Modeling Destination Baldwin & Gidley Scenario DPSS Facility Employment Area Baseline 12-45 min. 15-30 min.

Mobility Hub 10 min. 10 min.

Time Savings 2-35 min. 5-20 min.

The addition of a Mobility Hub at El Monte Station could reduce travel times by 2-35 minutes to the DPSS facility and by 5-20 minutes to the Baldwin & Gidley employment area. El Monte Station could also be an opportunity for an on-demand shuttle service as well.

TBG032514113638LAC 2-24 SECTION 2. DPSS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2-14 Travel Scenarios for Pico and Washington Stations in Downtown Los Angeles

FIGURE 2-15 Travel Scenarios for El Monte Bus Station in Downtown Los Angeles

TBG032514113638LAC 2-25

SECTION 3 Community College Student Evaluation

3.1 Overview This section evaluates how the Project could increase the accessibility of low income students to local community colleges and other job training locations. Colleges and universities often have the potential for a high transit ridership base, particularly when colleges assess a fee for parking, parking on campus is constrained, or when students have limited automobile access. The LACCD is the largest community college district in the United States and serves more than 250,000 students annually. It includes nine colleges and covers an area of greater than 882 square miles. The LBCCD is another Los Angeles County district of the California Community Colleges system and includes only LBCC. LBCC has two campuses and enrolls more than 27,000 students annually. Table 3-1 lists the LACCD and LBCC colleges and includes data on enrollment and proximity to Metro’s rail system.

TABLE 3-1 Community Colleges in the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach Nearest Metro Distance Community College City District Enrollment Line (miles)

Los Angeles City College Los Angeles LACCD 17,204 Red Line Adjacent

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College Los Angeles LACCD 13,194 Blue/Expo Lines Adjacent

Los Angeles Valley College Los Angeles LACCD 19,888 Orange Line Adjacent

Pierce College Los Angeles LACCD 21,230 Orange Line 0.6

Los Angeles Harbor College Los Angeles LACCD 10,511 Blue Line 5.9

East Los Angeles College Monterey Park LACCD 26,742 Gold Line 0.7

Los Angeles Southwest College Los Angeles LACCD 7,291 Green Line 0.9

West Los Angeles College Culver City LACCD 11,140 Expo Line 2.4

Los Angeles Mission College Los Angeles LACCD 11,357 Orange Line 10.1

Long Beach City College – Liberal Arts Long Beach LBCCD 17,874 Blue Line 4.6 Campus (LAC)

Long Beach City College – Pacific Long Beach LBCCD 7,660 Blue Line 1.0 Coast Campus (PCC)

The following three community colleges in the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach were included in the analysis: LACC, LATTC, and LBCC. LACC and LATTC are located in Hollywood and Downtown Los Angeles, respectively. There are high concentrations of population and employment density, including low earning jobs and low income populations, in the vicinity of the two colleges. These two campuses are located directly adjacent to a Metro Rail line. The main campus of LBCC (LAC) is located 4.6 miles from the closest Metro Rail station, and the second campus (PCC) is located 1.0 mile from the closest Metro Rail station. Access to the main LAC campus, located in an area with a moderately high concentration of low income households, is essential as a workforce education resource for households in and around the City of Long Beach.

TBG032514113638LAC 3-1 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

An extensive amount of survey data for these community colleges was evaluated, which included information on student demographic and travel patterns. The following is a brief description of the surveys: • Spring 2010 Los Angeles City College Student Transportation Survey – Conducted in Spring 2010 by the Diana Ho Consulting Group, to support developing the JARC application proposal for the Project. • Spring 2012 Los Angeles Community College District Survey – A district-wide survey conducted by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at LACCD. The survey included questions on LACCD enrollment trends, student characteristics, and service area population demographics. • Spring 2013 Job Training Outreach Survey – Conducted for the NAS by the study team, April - June of 2013. This survey focused on assessing the transportation needs of students enrolled in various job training programs at LACC, LATTC, and LBCC, as well as gauging their preferences for potential mobility hub locations and features to address their needs. 3.2 Spring 2010 LACC Student Transportation Survey A survey focusing on the transportation needs of LACC students was conducted in the spring of 2010. The survey was conducted by Diana Ho Consulting Group, with support from the LACC Workforce Development office and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), to gather preliminary information in support of the Project. The survey was completed by 212 students and administered by faculty during class time. It covered the following general topics: employment status, typical schedule on campus, commute characteristics, and perceptions of public transportation. Employment Status: More than two-thirds (68 percent) of LACC students reported that they are not employed. Of those who are employed, the majority had their jobs in zip codes that were not in or adjacent to the zip code of the LACC campus. Figure 3-1 shows the respondents’ modal split based on whether or not they hold jobs. Those who are employed are more likely to drive to campus than those who are not (35 percent versus 23 percent). Students who work tend to have more complex travel patterns, making it more challenging for them to use public transportation.

FIGURE 3-1 Modal Split of LACC Students Based on Employment Status

40%

35%

30%

25% Unemployed

20% Employed

15%

10%

5%

0%

Source: LACC Spring 2010 Student Transportation Survey

TBG032514113638LAC 3-2 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

Typical Schedule on Campus: Over 50 percent of survey respondents reported that they arrive on campus in the morning, compared to 17 percent of students arriving in the afternoon. About 12 percent of the students reported taking evening classes only. The remaining 21 percent of the students who were surveyed indicated that their schedules varied. The survey indicated that the time of day employed students work has little effect on their propensity to use public transit. However, the survey also indicated that students who are on campus in the afternoons and evenings only are more likely to use transit than students who start their day on campus in the morning. Commute Characteristics: About 64 percent of survey respondents stated that they use transit (bus and/or rail) to access campus. This high percentage reflects the area’s high transit accessibility and the fact that the majority of students live near LACC. Bus is the most common transit mode used (33 percent of respondents), followed by driving (25 percent), combined bus and rail travel (14 percent), and rail only (12 percent). About 8 percent of students stated that they walk to campus and 4 percent stated that they use both an automobile and transit. The remaining 4 percent marked “other.” The survey also indicated that multimodal trips vary by day of week. About 71 percent of respondents reported a commute to school of less than 1 hour. However, a student traveling by car is likely to have a shorter travel time than a student traveling by bus. About 70 percent of drivers reach campus within 1 hour, compared to 52 percent of bus riders. Two-thirds of those who use some form of public transportation can access their stop within three blocks of home. On the other end of the trip, almost three- quarters of the student’s bus stops are within three blocks of campus. Similar travel patterns exist for students’ work commutes. Most are able to access their jobs in under an hour, but those traveling by transit tend to experience a longer trip than those who drive. Almost two-thirds of those who work and take public transit are able to access their job within three blocks of a transit stop. Perceptions of Public Transportation: For those who currently do not take public transit, about 38 percent would be encouraged to do so if bus and/or rail service were more frequent or if it were easier to access a bus/rail stop. Safety, affordability, and reliability were minor concerns in comparison. Almost 82 percent responded that they would take a shuttle from home or work to a bus or train stop, while about 18 percent did not answer the question. The data suggest that 42 percent of those who currently drive are open to taking transit if it were more convenient and affordable. 3.3 Spring 2012 Los Angeles Community College District Survey 3.3.1 LACC LACCD conducted a district-wide survey in the spring of 2012. The survey was completed by 3,328 students enrolled at LACC during class time, with instructors administering the survey. While the survey questions primarily focused on students’ goals and occupational interests, several questions were applicable to the NAS, such as family income, time spent commuting, and parking availability. According to the survey, as shown in Table 3-2, nearly 60 percent of respondents reported a total family income (not including loans, grants, or scholarships) less than $24,000 per year. About 73 percent of LACC students are considered low income (at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line).

TBG032514113638LAC 3-3 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

TABLE 3-2 Annual Total Family Income of LACC Students Household Income Group % $0 - $24,000 57.8 $24,001 - $34,000 13.6 $34,001 - $44,000 6.6 $44,001 - $59,000 6.6 $59,001 or more 8.2 No answer to this question 7.2 Source: Spring 2012 Los Angeles Community College District Survey

Nearly 48 percent of students reported that they work off campus and 2 percent work on campus. Of the students who are employed, over a third work more than 20 hours per week. About 13 percent of students receive money from a public assistance program and 54 percent have applied for (and are eligible for) financial aid. About 61 percent of students indicated that job obligations are a problem affecting their success in class. Transportation: According to the survey, nearly half of the students spend 6 or more hours commuting to school and/or work each week. About 7 percent of the students reported spending more than 30 hours a week commuting, as shown in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3 Hours Per Week Spent Commuting to School and/or Work Hours per Week % < 1 7.5 1 - 5 42.2 6 - 10 22.2 11 - 20 11.6 21 - 30 5.1 30+ 7.3 No answer to this question 4.1 Source: Spring 2012 Los Angeles Community College District Survey

The LACC Campus is located adjacent to the Vermont/Santa Monica Metro Red Line station. The Metro Red Line runs seven days a week from about 4:30 a.m. to midnight, with extra late night trips on Fridays and Saturdays. Service frequencies are about every 10 to 15 minutes. Metro bus routes that serve the campus include Metro Local 4 (on Santa Monica Blvd.), Metro Local 204 (on Vermont Ave.), Metro Rapid 704 (on Santa Monica Blvd.), and Metro Rapid 754 (on Vermont Ave.). Both Metro Routes 4 and 204 are 24-hour Owl Services, which operate 24 hours a day including weekends with service frequencies of at least every 30 minutes (6 to 12 minutes during peak periods). A discounted Metro monthly pass is available for full-time students. Student discount application forms are available from LACC’s touch screen information kiosks. In addition, LADOT’s DASH Hollywood service provides a circulator bus that travels locally in a loop near the campus area from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Figure 3-2 shows the transit options available in a 1.0-mile radius around the campus. Campus Parking: The spring 2012 LACC survey also indicated that 29 percent of students perceive that there is not sufficient parking for their cars on campus and that about 20 percent do not drive to campus. The remaining 51 percent of respondents perceived that on-campus parking is adequate.

TBG032514113638LAC 3-4 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

FIGURE 3-2 LACC Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius

TBG032514113638LAC 3-5 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

3.3.2 LATTC LACCD’s 2012 district-wide survey was also completed by 3,730 students enrolled at LATTC during class time, with instructors administering the survey. As shown in Table 3-4, about 60 percent of students surveyed reported that their total family income (not including loans, grants, or scholarships) is less than $24,000 per year. About 78 percent of all students surveyed reported themselves as low income (below 150 percent of the federal poverty level). Based on survey results, LATTC has the highest percent of low income students among all the campuses in the LACCD. When asked if they are currently employed, nearly 45 percent of students reported that they work off campus compared to 1.5 percent reporting that they work on campus; the remainder reported that they are not currently employed. Of the students who are employed, over a third work more than 20 hours per week. About 19 percent of students are receiving money from a public assistance program and 53 percent have applied for (and are eligible for) financial aid. About 70 percent of students indicated that financial factors have been a problem affecting their ability to achieve success in their classes.

TABLE 3-4 LATTC Spring 2012 Study Survey – Total Family Income Total Family Annual Income %

$0 - $24,000 60.1 $24,001 - $34,000 12.8 $34,001 - $44,000 6.9 $44,001 - $59,000 5.9 $59,001 or more 7.4 No answer to this question 6.9

Transportation: Students were asked how many hours they spend commuting each week. As shown in Table 3-5, nearly half of the students reported that they spend 6 or more hours commuting to school and/or work each week. About 10 percent of students reported spending more than 30 hours a week commuting.

TABLE 3-5 LATTC Spring 2012 Study Survey – Hours Spent Commuting Hours per Week Spent Commuting (to school and/or work) % None 8.3 1 - 5 39.5 6 - 10 19.1 11 - 20 11.6 21 - 30 6.1 30+ 10.3 No answer to this question 5.1

The LATTC campus is located near the intersection of the Interstate 10 and 110 freeways and within 2 miles of the Interstate 5, 101, and 60 freeways. The Metro Blue Line Grand Street Station is located adjacent to the campus. The Blue Line runs 7 days a week from about 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with extra late night trips on Fridays and Saturdays. Service frequencies are about every 6 to 12 minutes. The Metro Expo Line 23rd St. Station is also near the campus. The Expo Line runs 7 days a week from about 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with extra late night trips on Fridays and Saturdays. Service frequencies are about every 12 to 20 minutes.

TBG032514113638LAC 3-6 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

Numerous bus routes have stops within a few blocks of the college. These bus routes are operated by Metro, LADOT (DASH and Commuter Express), and Montebello Bus Lines. Among these services are Metro Local 37/38 (which runs between Downtown Los Angeles and the Washington/Fairfax Transit Hub) and Metro Local 55 (which runs between Downtown Los Angeles and the Metro Blue Line Willowbrook Station). These lines operate 24 hours a day including weekends, with service frequencies of at least every 60 minutes (5 to 15 minutes during peak periods). Figure 3-3 shows the transit options available in a 1.0-mile radius around the campus. Campus Parking: The survey asked students if they felt there is sufficient parking available on campus. About 48 percent of students stated that they agree or strongly agree that there is sufficient parking and 34 percent feel there is not sufficient parking on campus. About 15 percent stated that the question does not apply to them (presumably because they do not drive to campus). 3.3.3 LBCC Unlike LACC and LATTC, LBCC does not collect information on income level nor do they conduct annual surveys of their students. In order to gauge low income levels, an analysis of the percentage of students who receive the California Board of Governors fee waiver (BOGFW) or Pell Grants was conducted. The California Board of Governors has adopted the BOGFW for eligible students to assist with enrollment fees ($46/unit). To qualify, the student must be a California resident and either receive financial assistance from a government agency, or have had a total income in the previous year that was 150 percent or less of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines based on family size. A Pell Grant is provided by the federal government to eligible students from low income households, based on federal standards. According to the LBCC Office of Institutional Effectiveness, during the 2011-2012 school year, 41 percent of LBCC students received a Pell Grant and 64 percent received a BOGFW (not all students who are Pell-eligible apply). In total, approximately 65 percent of all LBCC students receive either a Pell Grant or a BOGFW based on discussions with LBCC. It is assumed that approximately 65 percent of LBCC students are below 150 percent of the poverty line. Transportation: Figures 3-4 and 3-5 display the transit services within the vicinity of LBCC’s two campuses: LAC and PCC. The closest Metro Blue Line station to LBCC’s LAC campus, the Wardlow Station, is located about 4.6 miles from campus. The closest Blue Line station to LBCC’s PCC campus, the Pacific Coast Highway Station, is about 1 mile from campus. As previously stated, the Metro Blue Line runs 7 days a week from about 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with extra late night trips on Fridays and Saturdays. Service frequencies are about every 6 to 12 minutes. Long Beach Transit (LBT) routes that serve LBCC’s LAC campus include 93 (running on Clark Ave. and Carson St.), 101 (on Carson St.), 103 (on Carson St.), 112 (on Clark Ave.), and 176 (on Clark Ave. and Carson St.). LBT routes that serve LBCC’s PCC campus include 71/72 (on Orange Ave.) and 171, 172, 173, and 174 (on Pacific Coast Highway). Span of service and service frequencies vary by route. Also, LBT’s Route 176 ZAP (limited stop service) links the two campuses with each other and with the Metro Blue Line Pacific Coast Highway Station. The ZAP service runs on weekdays from about 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with service frequencies of about every 30 minutes. ZAP’s running time from the Blue Line PCH Station to the PCC campus is about 4 minutes; the running time from the PCH Station to the LAC campus is about 33 minutes. LBCC students are eligible for a discounted 30-day “Super Stamp” transit pass. These passes are issued to schools that belong to the Long Beach Transit Student Discount Program. A discounted 30-day pass for students is $40, compared to the full adult price of $65. In addition, LBCC operates a free shuttle service that runs between the two campuses. The inter-campus PCC-LAC shuttle, Viking Voyager, operates between campuses Monday through Thursday from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., originating and ending at PCC. The Viking Voyager does not operate on Friday. There is a Class 1 Bike Path that runs along Bellflower Boulevard and Carson Street south near the main campus. This bike path runs most of the way to the campus of California State University (CSU), Long Beach and provides a north-south route between CSU Long Beach and LBCC.

TBG032514113638LAC 3-7 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

FIGURE 3-3 LATTC Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius

TBG032514113638LAC 3-8 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

FIGURE 3-4 LBCC – Liberal Arts Campus (LAC) Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius

TBG032514113638LAC 3-9 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

FIGURE 3-5 LBCC – Pacific Coast Campus (PCC) Area Transit Services Within 1.0 Mile Radius

TBG032514113638LAC 3-10 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

3.4 Spring 2013 Job Training Outreach Survey To better understand the transportation needs of students in Los Angeles and Long Beach, the study team conducted student surveys at LACC, LATTC, and LBCC to collect input regarding travel patterns, access to public transportation, and preferences for improvements. These data identified the transportation needs and challenges within the student population. The following sections summarize the results from each survey. 3.4.1 2013 LACC CalWORKs Student Travel Needs Survey Forty LACC CalWORKs students completed a survey on April 26, 2013. CalWORKS is a State of California welfare program. The survey asked students about how they travel to school, challenges they encounter in using transit and other alternative forms of transportation, and priorities with respect to desired improvements to encourage greater transit usage. Travel Patterns: CalWORKS students typically travel to the LACC campus Monday through Thursday between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., with an average travel time of 30 minutes. There is a decline in student travel on Fridays (about one-third fewer commuters). The two highest modes of transportation consist of public transportation (35 percent) and driving (30 percent). Other commute modes include: walking (14 percent), dropped off (11 percent), bicycling (8 percent), and carpooling (2 percent). About 75 percent of students indicated that they travel alone to school and 25 percent said that they travel with someone else. Of the students who travel with others, 45 percent reported that they travel with their children, 27 percent travel with a spouse, 18 percent travel with a friend, and about 10 percent travel with a parent. Students who are parents indicated that their children influence their travel methods. For example, students who travel with children are more willing to carpool. Transportation Needs: CalWORKs students indicated several challenges and needs. About 30 percent of the students reported that their existing travel arrangements are not working well. The biggest challenge they encounter is the time it takes to reach campus or their job. Several students noted that travel times can be unreliable and there are long waits for public transportation. Several students also noted that traffic makes their commute challenging. Another notable challenge is the cost of travel, noting that bus fares and gas prices affect their travel mode. Over half (55 percent) of the students surveyed stated they do not have access to a reliable automobile and 23 percent stated that they do not drive. Approximately three-quarters of the students surveyed do not use or have access to a bicycle. Students with children are among the respondents who indicated the lowest level of bicycle use. Transportation Solutions: About two-thirds of the respondents stated they are unfamiliar with bike sharing, car sharing, and casual carpooling. Despite their unfamiliarity, about two-thirds of students noted they are willing to try car sharing and 50 percent are willing to try bike sharing, even though they do not currently use a bicycle as a form of transportation. Some of the challenges noted with bicycling are the travel distances between the college and their homes, taking their class materials with them, or having their child with them. There was little support for bike sharing among students who currently have an automobile or other motor vehicle. About 75 percent of the respondents (30 students) were willing to carpool with someone they already know, although they indicated that schedule conflicts or arrangements would be a challenge. Most students were unfamiliar with dynamic ride sharing and would need more information before they could answer questions about this travel option. About 85 percent of the students liked the idea of a shuttle service from campus to the nearest Metro station because it would provide a fast and cost-effective option. Social Media: The majority of students have a smart phone. About 70 percent of the students use their phone to arrange their travel needs such as reviewing public transportation schedules, Metro routes, or Google Maps. A majority of the students use social media.

TBG032514113638LAC 3-11 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

3.4.2 2013 LATTC Student Travel Needs Survey A random qualitative survey was conducted in 2013 at the LATTC campus. The survey focused on students’ travel patterns, access to public transportation, and preferences for transportation improvements. A total of 94 students agreed to participate in the study. Travel Patterns: Students typically travel Monday through Thursday between 7:00 and 11:00 a.m., with an average commute of 30 minutes to an hour. There was a 50 percent decrease in students attending school on Fridays. There was a relatively high percentage of students (14 percent) attending Saturday classes. A large number of students surveyed (73 percent) use public transportation as their main method of travel. The Metro Blue Line, Metro Express Lanes, and local buses are located within a few hundred feet of the campus, which yields the high use of public transportation. Of the students surveyed, 32 percent reported driving to campus, and 27 percent reported walking to campus. Other responses included: 7 percent biking, 5 percent carpooling, and 5 percent dropped off. Respondents who vary their method of transportation during the week were allowed to select multiple options. Transportation Needs: A majority of the students (81 percent) confirmed that the cost of travel determines their method of transportation. Sixty-four percent of the students indicated that bus fare is a determining cost, 32 percent indicated that gas prices play a role in their decision, and 21 percent indicated that parking is a determining factor. On average, students pay $23 for a parking permit per semester. Some of the concerns from public transit users are that local buses are crowded and bus fares are expensive. Other students mentioned wanting more public transportation routes and greater service frequency to help with over-crowding. Some students were hoping for a discount on their bus fare or another form of compensation for taking the survey. One student mentioned that it would be convenient if bus passes were available for purchase on campus. Despite the challenges expressed, 70 percent of the students said their current travel arrangements work well for them. Transportation Solutions: Just under half of the students (46 percent) indicated they are familiar with bike- sharing, car-sharing, or casual carpooling. About half the students (48 percent) indicated they are interested in trying one of these alternative forms of transportation: 28 percent are willing to try casual carpooling, 21 percent are willing to try car-sharing, and 15 percent are willing to try bike sharing. Some students provided verbal feedback indicating their lack of interest in a bike sharing system. Others indicated that using train and bus lines is better, considering that the Metro Express, Blue Line and local buses are within close proximity to the campus. Students were responsive to implementing a free shuttle service between LATTC and the Metro Rail system. About 76 percent of the surveyed students confirmed they would use the shuttle if it were available. Social Media: Of the students surveyed, 70 percent use their phone to arrange for their travel needs such as looking at public transportation schedules, following Metro routes, or using Google Maps. 3.4.3 2013 LBCC Student Travel Needs Survey The study team coordinated with LBCC and conducted a random, qualitative student survey at the LAC and PCC campuses. The survey focused on students’ travel patterns, access to public transportation, and preferences for transportation improvements. A total of 94 students from LAC (69 students) and PCC (25 students) agreed to participate in the study. Surveys were conducted at the end of the school year at PCC, so there were fewer opportunities to survey a larger PCC student population. Therefore, results were combined for both campuses. Travel Patterns: Students typically travel Monday through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., with an average commute of 30 minutes. About half (49 percent) of the students use public transportation as their main travel mode. Over a third of students (39 percent) drive to campus and 22 percent are dropped off. About 15 percent reported walking, 14 percent carpooling, and 6 percent riding their bicycle. Respondents who vary their method of transportation during the week were allowed to select multiple options. Transportation Needs: Most students (72 percent) confirmed that the cost of travel determines their method of transportation. About 46 percent of the students indicated that bus fare determines their travel method, 35

TBG032514113638LAC 3-12 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION percent indicated that gas prices play a role in their decision, and 16 percent indicated that parking is a determining factor. Many of the concerns with traveling to campus came from public transit riders. They felt that the local buses are crowded, should be more punctual, and should stop more frequently. Despite the challenges expressed, 78 percent of the students said that their current travel arrangements work well for them. Transportation Solutions: Fifty-two percent of the students indicated they are familiar with car-sharing, bike sharing, or casual carpooling. Just under half of the students (45 percent) are willing to try casual carpooling, 29 percent are willing to try car sharing, and 22 percent are willing to try bike sharing. About 68 percent of the students indicated they are willing to try dynamic (real-time) ridesharing. However, some of the students indicated an issue with dynamic (real-time) ridesharing: difficulty commuting with someone they do not know. Some students indicated that a bike share system would provide better transportation alternatives and facilitate their commute. However, only 22 percent of the students reported they would use a bike share system if it became available to them. Students also suggested that a bike share system should be incorporated in areas with major destinations or attractions. One student used Downtown Long Beach as an example of a great destination point for visitors but lacking in connectivity for those who use a bike as their main method of transportation. Students were responsive to implementing a free shuttle service between LBCC and the Metro Rail system. Around 79 percent of the surveyed students confirmed they would use it if available. Social Media: Of the students surveyed, about three-quarters (76 percent) use their phone to arrange for their travel needs such as looking for public transportation schedules, Metro routes, or using Google Maps. 3.5 2011-2012 Commute Distance Data The study team reviewed zip code and GIS data unduplicated by student for all students enrolled in LACC, LATTC, and LBCC. These data were used to calculate commute distance from place of residence to school. 3.5.1 LACC As shown in Table 3-6, based on data from an LACC student headcount by zip code (fall 2011) provided by the LACCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness, high concentrations of students live near the campus. Over two-thirds of the students live 5 miles or less from the LACC campus and over half live less than 3 miles from campus.

TABLE 3-6 Student Commute Distance from Place of Residence to LACC Campus Distance % 1 Mile 12 3 Miles 40 5 Miles 16 10 Miles 20 15 Miles 7 20 Miles 3 25 Miles 1 30 Miles or More 1 Source: LACC student headcount by zip code (fall 2011) – provided by LACCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Figure 3-6 shows the number of students living in each zip code. High densities of LACC students can be found in East and Central Los Angeles, Hollywood, Koreatown, and Echo Park. FIGURE 3-6 LACC Student Residential Locations by Zip Code

TBG032514113638LAC 3-13 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

Source: LACC student headcount by zip code (fall 2011) – provided by LACCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness

TBG032514113638LAC 3-14 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

3.5.2 LATTC Students attending LATTC tend to commute longer distances compared to students who attend LACC. Half of the students live between 5 and 10 miles from campus and 20 percent live 15 miles or more from campus. Table 3-7 shows the number of students living in each zip code.

TABLE 3-7 Student Commute Distance from Place of Residence to LATTC Campus Distance from LATTC %

1 Mile 3 3 Miles 28 5 Miles 22 10 Miles 28 15 Miles 10 20 Miles 5 25 Miles 2 30 Miles or More 2 Source: LATTC student headcount by zip code (fall 2011) – provided by LACCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness

As shown in Figure 3-7, large concentrations of students live in Downtown and South Los Angeles. 3.5.3 LBCC Students who attend LBCC LAC Campus tend to commute longer distances compared to students who attend the PCC Campus. Over 75 percent of students who attend the LAC Campus have commutes that are 5 miles or longer, whereas most students who attend the PCC Campus commute 3 miles or less to school (64 percent). Table 3-8 shows the number of students living in each zip code by the campus they attend.

TABLE 3-8 Commute Distance by Students from Residence to LBCC Miles LAC (%) PCC (%) LAC and PCC (%)

1 3.3 26.0 18.8 3 21.7 37.9 42.2 5 38.4 11.4 15.2 10 26.3 16.1 15.4 15 6.6 5.3 4.3 20 1.6 1.6 1.0 25 0.6 0.7 0.4 30 Miles or More 1.6 1.0 2.7 Source: LBCC student headcount by zip code (fall 2012) – provided by LBCCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness

As shown in Figure 3-8, large concentrations of students live near one of the LBCC campuses. The majority of students live in Downtown Long Beach and near Signal Hill, Lakewood, and Bellflower.

TBG032514113638LAC 3-15 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

FIGURE 3-7 LATTC Student Residential Locations by Zip Code

Source: LATTC student headcount by zip code (fall 2011) – provided by LACCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness

TBG032514113638LAC 3-16 SECTION 3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EVALUATION

FIGURE 3-8 LBCC Student Residential Locations by Zip Code

Source: LBCC student headcount by zip code (fall 2012) – provided by LBCCD Office of Institutional Effectiveness

TBG032514113638LAC 3-17

SECTION 4 Summary of Findings

The NAS confirmed that the three locations for mobility hubs identified by the Project Sponsors in the original proposal and that the transportation services to be provided will benefit the target population of the JARC Program. The NAS identified Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and the City of Long Beach as three primary focus areas for the Project. These areas were identified based on a combination of factors including income and demographic characteristics, transit service levels and availability, existing transportation facilities, and presence of employment and job training locations. Mobility hub services in these areas will address first/last mile transportation needs, in particular by expanding access to employment and job training facilities for persons of low income. The following paragraphs summarize the findings of the technical evaluation conducted in the NAS for each focus area.

4.1 Downtown Los Angeles Downtown Los Angeles stands out as an appropriate area for the Project due to the transit dependency characteristics of its residents. It has the third highest average transit dependency among the 18 regional areas analyzed in the NAS. Downtown Los Angeles and adjacent areas also have high densities of low income people. According to the U.S. Census, about 40 percent of the population in the area is low income. In addition, Downtown Los Angeles has a high concentration of low earning jobs (about 5,600 per square mile), particularly in its southeast region. The majority of these low earning jobs are in the service and industry sectors in which employees earn less than $1,250/month. Improving transit connectivity in Downtown Los Angeles will benefit the low income population living in the area, as well as low income individuals who travel to/from Downtown Los Angeles for employment or job training. College students and DPSS clients are among those who will benefit from the implementation of the Project. LATTC, located in Downtown Los Angeles, has the highest percentage of low income students among all the campuses in the LACCD. About 63 percent of LATTC’s 13,000 students are at or below the federal poverty level. The cost of travel impacts their mode and time of travel. A survey of LATTC students conducted to gauge their attitudes toward using mobility hub and satellite kiosks services revealed that 28 percent are willing to carpool, 21 percent are willing to use vehicle sharing, and 15 percent are willing to use bike sharing services. About 76 percent stated that they would use a shuttle service between LATTC and Metro’s rail system. Similarly, the analysis of data of DPSS clients demonstrated a strong market for mobility hub services in Downtown Los Angeles. One of the main reasons supporting this finding is that the trip destinations of DPSS clients are highly concentrated in areas of Downtown Los Angeles that often require transit riders to make long walks or transfers to other modes of travel. Mobility hubs will reduce travel times and improve accessibility to employment and job training destinations for DPSS clients. For example, the addition of a mobility hub at the Pico Station that is shared by the Metro Blue Line and the Expo Line would reduce travel times to employment locations in the vicinity of this station by 8-18 minutes. Also, the addition of a mobility hub at the Washington Station of the Metro Blue Line would reduce travel times to employment locations in the vicinity of the station by 20 minutes. Mobility hubs will also create a more reliable connection to transit for non-peak trips, including nights and weekends.

4.2 Hollywood Hollywood has a high population density and concentration of senior citizens and low income families. Hollywood also has a high density of low income jobs (about 4,200 per square mile). After Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood

TBG032514113638LAC 4-1 SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS has the highest level of usage of Metro’s rail system. It also has the second highest transit dependency index of the areas evaluated in the NAS. Although there is a good level of transit connectivity along the main arterials in Hollywood, transit service gaps exist in areas where there are no main arterials. This transit service gap will be filled by transportation services provided at mobility hubs and satellite kiosks. For example, Paramount Pictures has over 7,500 low income jobs, but is located about 1.5 miles from the Metro Red Line (about a 30-minute walk). LACC, located in the eastern area of Hollywood, has a large percentage of low income students (about 73 percent of its 17,000 students). A mobility hub and satellite kiosks in Hollywood will provide these students with better access to employment centers and job training locations. A survey of LACC students conducted to gauge their attitudes toward using mobility hub and satellite kiosks services revealed that about two-thirds of those surveyed are willing to use vehicle sharing and 50 percent are willing to use bike sharing services. About 75 percent of the respondents are willing to carpool with someone they already know and about 85 percent of them would use a shuttle service from campus to the nearest Metro rail station.

4.3 City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach has a higher concentration of unemployment and a higher percentage of CalFresh recipients compared to the other areas analyzed in the NAS. Downtown Long Beach has a high concentration of low earning jobs (4,500 per square mile). It also has the sixth highest transit dependency index of the 18 areas evaluated in the NAS. Transit service in the downtown area is primarily located along major arterials (such as Long Beach Blvd., Pacific Ave., Ocean Blvd., and the Broadway corridor). Other locations in and adjacent to Downtown Long Beach are more challenging to access via transit (such as south of Ocean Blvd. and east of Alamitos Ave). Mobility hubs and satellite kiosks in this area will improve the accessibility of persons of low income seeking access to jobs and job related activities, particularly those located outside of walking distances from transit stops. LBCC, located within the City of Long Beach, has a large percentage of low income students (about 65 percent of its 25,000 students). A survey of LBCC students conducted to gauge their attitudes toward using mobility hub and satellite kiosks services revealed that about 45 percent of those surveyed are willing to carpool, 29 percent are willing to use vehicle sharing, and 22 percent are willing to bike sharing services. About 68 percent of the respondents are willing to use real-time (“dynamic”) ridesharing and 79 percent will use a shuttle service between LBCC and Metro’s rail system.

4.4 Next Steps- Operating Plan The Operating Plan, building on the work completed in the NAS, will identify specific locations for mobility hubs and satellite kiosks within each of the three focus areas: Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and the City of Long Beach. The Operating Plan will also identify the types of transportation services to be provided, price structures, and revenue sources to assist the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach in implementing the Project. The Operating Plan will include a detailed budget (for both capital and operating costs) and a business plan for the Project for a three-year performance period. It will also result in the development of a detailed scope of work to be included in the Request for Proposals (RFP) to implement the Project.

TBG032514113638LAC 4-2