FINAL REPORT - storage.googleapis.com€¦ · FINAL REPORT . Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) ... Figure 2-1 Comparison on FTA Circular 4702.1A (2007)

Warm Springs Title VI Equity Analysis

Bay Area Rapid Transit District Warm Springs Extension

June 22, 2011

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) by

W a rm Sp r i ng s Ex t en s i on • T i t l e V I E q u i t y A n a l y s i s f o r W a r m S p r i n g s B A R T S t a t i o n

P r e p a r e d f o r B A Y A R E A R A P I D T R A N S I T D I S T R I C T ( B A R T )

Table of Contents Page

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page i

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ ES-1 Study Area Demographics ................................................................................................ ES-1 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... ES-1 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................ ES-2 Evaluations ....................................................................................................................... ES-2

Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1

Chapter 2. Warm Springs Environmental Justice Considerations for Project Corridor and Study Area Description for Title VI Service Change Analysis .................. 2-1

Environmental Justice Considerations ................................................................................. 2-1 Study Area Description for Title VI Service Change Analysis ............................................ 2-10

Chapter 3. BART Warm Springs Title VI Equity Analysis Public Involvement .................. 3-1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ....................................................................... 3-1 Community Meetings ........................................................................................................... 3-1 Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 3-2

Chapter 4. Access: Existing Versus Future Conditions ..................................................... 4-1 Project Overview: Warm Springs Extension ......................................................................... 4-1 Access Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-1 Findings ............................................................................................................................... 4-6

Chapter 5. Span of Service, Service Levels and Fares/Costs: Existing Versus Future Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5-1

Impacts on Service Levels: Travel Times and Costs for Travel Mode Alternatives between Warm Springs and Fremont ................................................................................................. 5-1 Impacts on Travel Times and Costs between Home Origins and Top BART Destinations ... 5-3 Findings ............................................................................................................................... 5-6

Appendix A Evaluation Methodology

Appendix B Summary of Public Involvement: Input and Findings from Community Meetings and Surveys

Appendix C Community Public Meeting Announcement Survey Instruments (in English)


P r e p a r e d f o r B A Y A R E A R A P I D T R A N S I T D I S T R I C T ( B A R T )

Table of Figures Page

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page ii

Figure ES-1 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Minority Tracts ............................. ES-4 Figure ES-2 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Low-Income Tracts ...................... ES-5 Figure ES-3 Impacts on Travel Time Evaluation ................................................................ ES-6 Figure ES-4 Travel Cost Evaluation................................................................................... ES-7 Figure 2-1 Comparison on FTA Circular 4702.1A (2007) Guidance and 2006

EIS Approach ................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Warm Springs Extension Project Corridor for Environmental Justice Analysis .. 2-5 Figure 2-3 Summary of Mitigations in Warm Springs Corridor Low-Income Communities .. 2-8 Figure 2-4 Summary of Census Tracts and Population Characteristics ........................... 2-12 Figure 2-5 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Minority Income Tracts ................. 2-15 Figure 2-6 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Low Income Tracts ....................... 2-16 Figure 4-1 Warm Springs Extension Alignment.................................................................. 4-1 Figure 4-2 Existing Bus Routes that Operate to, or in the Vicinity of,

Warm Springs BART ........................................................................................ 4-3 Figure 4-3 Future Bus Routes that will Operate to, or in the Vicinity of,

Warm Springs BART (Conceptual) ................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-4 Summary of Potential Transit Service Changes in Warm Springs Vicinity......... 4-5 Figure 4-5 Warm Springs Study Area Population Groups .................................................. 4-5 Figure 4-6 Access to Nearest BART Station (Current Fremont or Future Warm Springs):

Population by Group and by Distance within the Warm Springs Study Area ..... 4-6 Figure 5-1 AC Transit and BART Service Comparison ...................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2 Warm Springs to Fremont ................................................................................. 5-3


P r e p a r e d f o r S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y A R E A R A P I D T R A N S I T D I S T R I C T ( B A R T )

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page ES- 1

Executive Summary Introduction The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) operates and maintains 104 miles of track and 44 stations, serving an average of 360,000 passenger trips every weekday in the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. In connection with implementation of BART’s Warm Springs Extension, a 5.4-mile line south of the Fremont BART station into the Warm Springs District of Fremont, BART commissioned Nelson\Nygaard to evaluate whether the Warm Springs Extension’s proposed service changes would adversely impact minority and low-income riders to a higher degree than non-minority and non-low-income riders, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI guidance.

Summary of Findings This Equity Analysis found that the Warm Springs Extension will not adversely impact transit service for minority and low-income riders. In fact, travel time and cost savings are equivalent for all populations — minority, non-minority, low-income, and non-low-income. This Analysis also found that the Warm Springs Extension will bring BART closer to a greater number of minority and low-income populations than the current Fremont Station. The number of low-income residents in the study area within 10 miles of a BART station will almost double, and the number of minority residents within 10 miles will increase by more than 60,000 residents. Accordingly, minority and low-income populations will enjoy equal, if not slightly greater, benefits from the Warm Springs Extension than non-minority and non-low-income populations, and no disproportionately high and adverse impacts have been identified for any population.

Study Area Demographics The Analysis focused on a study area comprised of 52 census tracts in southern Alameda County and northern Santa Clara County, primarily to the south of the proposed Warm Springs BART Station. Within this study area, 75% of residents are classified as minority and 20% are classified as low income. As shown in Figure 1, all but five of the 52 census tracts are identified as minority tracts (at least 52.7% or the population identified as non-white, non-Hispanic); Figure 2 shows 21 of the 52 tracts are identified as low income for purposes of this analysis (21.6% of population incomes are at or below 200% of the poverty level). The methodology for conducting this evaluation was consistent with that of previous BART equity analyses and with FTA guidance.

Environmental Justice In the process of analyzing data and preparing this Equity Analysis, BART evaluated the Warm Springs Extension Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (2006) in light of new federal guidance on Environmental Justice and Title VI. FTA’s October 4, 2006 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Warm Springs Extension found that the project “would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income population groups,” based upon the analysis contained in the EIS, prepared prior to FTA’s 2007 Title VI Guidelines. This review found that each of the key elements from the 2007 FTA Guidelines had essentially been addressed in the 2006 EIS. The present review additionally evaluated the impacts of project construction and operation within the project corridor (1/2 mile of




the alignment between the Fremont Station and the Warm Springs Station). The EIS documented seven (7) adverse environmental effects in the corridor that would remain after implementation of identified mitigation measures. In each case, further mitigation is infeasible. Because the extension is located in and predominantly benefits minority communities, minority communities necessarily experience all seven impacts. With respect to low-income communities, the unavoidable impacts types are either experienced throughout the corridor or are experienced in localized areas affecting both predominantly low-income and non-low-income communities. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS to be utilized in the low-income areas are the same as those to be utilized in the non-low-income areas traversed by the project. For example, thirty-eight (38) mitigation measures were identified to address impacts along the corridor that impact both low-income and non-low-income communities. Mitigation measures identified to be utilized in the minority areas affected by the project are comparable to those offered to non-minority populations affected by other BART projects.

Public Outreach BART held two community meetings — at the Warm Springs Community Center in Fremont and at the Milpitas Community Center — in April 2011 to solicit input from low-income, minority and limited-English proficient (LEP) populations in the Warm Springs Equity Analysis study area. A total of 94 participants attended the two meetings.

In advance of the meetings, BART contacted community-based organizations, mailed flyers, and placed multilingual meeting notices in community newspapers, including the Milpitas Post, Fremont Bulletin, Tri-City Voice, India West, Vision Hispana, SF Kyocharo News, Chinese World Journal, and Vietnam Daily News. BART also posted multilingual notices on the agency website. All meeting flyers, agendas, and surveys were translated into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean and, upon request were also available in Tagalog, Farsi and Hindi.

BART distributed a printed survey, available in translation, to participants at both meetings, on VTA buses serving the Fremont BART Station, and on BART trains departing the Fremont BART Station. A total of 1,346 surveys were completed and analyzed.

Public input was summarized and provided direction for BART in preparing this Title VI Equity Analysis.

Evaluations Several different evaluation efforts were completed as part of the Equity Analysis.

Impacts on Travel Time and Cost For purposes of this evaluation, three BART destinations were selected — Lake Merritt, Embarcadero, and Berkeley — based on findings from survey respondents who listed these stations as their top destinations. The analysis found that with the Warm Springs BART Station in service, all populations would experience savings in travel time and cost.

As shown in Figures ES-3 and ES-4, for home-based trips made via the Warm Springs BART Station, minority and low-income populations will experience a decrease in travel time and travel cost to destinations throughout the BART system. Low-income and minority residents traveling to BART destinations via the proposed Warm Springs BART Station terminus instead of the existing Fremont Station will experience a range of travel time savings between 2.52 and 2.98 minutes and cost savings between $1.61 and $1.66. Minority populations may experience a slightly




greater benefit in travel time and cost savings (by 1%) than non-minority populations. And, low-income populations may experience slightly fewer benefits in travel time savings (by 1%) but an equal share of benefits for travel costs when compared to non-low-income populations.

Impacts on Access The access evaluation found that the extension of BART service south of its current terminus at Fremont will reduce the distance from home to the BART system for all populations in the study area, including low-income and minority populations: a greater proportion of residents in the southern Alameda County and Santa Clara County study area will have a BART station within a shorter distance of their home than they do now. Currently about 17,500 low-income residents in the study area are within 10 miles of the nearest BART station (Fremont); with Warm Springs, that number would increase to 30,800 low-income residents. The population of minority residents in the study area within 10 miles of a BART station would increase from 91,400 to 159,100.

Impacts on Service Levels The evaluation considered existing and future bus service in the Warm Springs Extension corridor. BART service between Fremont and Warm Springs will be faster, and will operate later and more often than AC Transit bus service, providing an advantage for all residents of the study area, including minority and low-income residents looking for improved travel speeds and schedule adherence between the two points. Parallel bus services would continue to operate in the corridor, providing access in predominantly minority census tracts to locations between the Warm Springs and Fremont BART Stations.




Figure ES-1 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Minority Tracts Predominantly Minority Tracts are Shaded Dark Gray




Figure ES-2 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Low-Income Tracts Predominantly Low-Income Tracts are Shaded Dark Gray




Figure ES-3 Impacts on Travel Time Evaluation Times shown in minutes

Existing via Fremont

Future via Warm Springs Raw Difference Percent

Difference

Difference in % Change Between

Protected and Non-Protected

Group

Travel Time to Lake Merritt (all modes)

Study Area 60.08 57.25 (2.83) -5%

Low Income 62.37 59.85 (2.52) -4% 1% Non Low Income 59.49 56.58 (2.91) -5%

Minority 60.24 57.26 (2.98) -5% -1% Non Minority 59.59 57.22 (2.37) -4%

Travel Time to Embarcadero (all modes)

Study Area 73.08 70.25 (2.83) -4%

Low Income 75.37 72.85 (2.52) -3% 1% Non Low Income 72.49 69.58 (2.91) -4%


Travel Time to Berkeley (all modes)

Study Area 74.08 71.25 (2.83) -4% Low Income 76.37 73.85 (2.52) -3% 1%

Non Low Income 73.49 70.58 (2.91) -4%





Figure ES-4 Travel Cost Evaluation


Future via Warm Springs Difference Percent

Difference



Group

Travel Cost to Lake Merritt (all modes)

Study Area $10.98 $9.40 ($1.58) -14%

Low Income $11.86 $10.20 ($1.66) -14% 0% Non Low Income $10.75 $9.20 ($1.55) -14%

Minority $10.97 $9.36 ($1.61) -15% -1% Non Minority $11.00 $9.53 ($1.47) -13%

Travel Cost to Embarcadero (all modes)

Study Area $12.63 $11.05 ($1.58) -12%

Low Income $13.51 $11.85 ($1.66) -12% 0% Non Low Income $12.40 $10.85 ($1.55) -13%


Travel Cost to Berkeley (all modes)

Study Area $11.28 $9.70 ($1.58) -14% Low Income $12.16 $10.50 ($1.66) -14% 0%

Non Low Income $11.05 $9.50 ($1.55) -14%




Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 1-1

Chapter 1. Introduction Overview The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) operates and maintains 104 miles of track and 44 stations, serving an average of 360,000 passenger trips every weekday in the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. In connection with implementation of BART’s Warm Springs Extension, a 5.4-mile line south of the Fremont BART station into the Warm Springs District of Fremont, BART commissioned Nelson\Nygaard to evaluate whether the Warm Springs Extension’s proposed service changes would adversely impact minority and low-income riders to a higher degree than non-minority and non-low-income riders, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI guidance. This Analysis evaluates the impacts of the proposed service change.

The Warm Springs Extension includes one new station – the Warm Springs Station – to be built at the Warm Springs line’s terminus.1

This report provides a Title VI Analysis of the proposed Warm Springs Station’s impacts on minority and low-income populations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifies that “no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Executive Order 12898 and the subsequent guidelines issued by the Department of Transportation and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency require consideration of the impacts on minority and low-income populations. Circular 4702.1A promulgated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides guidance under Title VI for transit agencies and other federal funding recipients to analyze impacts on minority and low-income populations when planning for implementation of service changes and fare changes. The guidance provided by the FTA directs recipients of federal funds to evaluate “systemwide service and fare changes” and “proposed improvements” to determine if the changes will have a disproportionately high and adverse impact

BART service would eventually be extended south to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. With the extension of BART to Warm Springs, BART service will be available within a short distance of the Santa Clara County line – about 3.5 miles to the south – further extending the new station’s proximity to populations across county lines.

Title VI

2

The purpose of this report is two-fold. In the first instance, this report assesses physical impacts on, and environmental justice concerns related to, minority and low-income populations within the area affected by the Warm Springs Extension Project. Secondly, the report assesses whether the extension of BART service will have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority

on persons with low incomes or who are classified as a minority population.

The present Equity Analysis reflects the standards in Circular 4702.1A and conforms with practices that BART has used in prior Title VI reports that have been approved by the FTA. The methodology was consistent with that of previous BART equity analyses and with FTA guidance.

1An optional second station could be constructed in Irvington, between Fremont and Warm Springs, pending funding from the City of Fremont. 2 A disproportionately high and adverse effect is defined as an adverse effect that either is “predominantly borne” by minority or low-income populations or “is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude” than the adverse effect suffered by non-minority and/or non-low-income populations.




and low-income populations. In the latter regard, more specifically, this analysis evaluates the following:

1. Whether travel times and costs for minority and low-income riders would be adversely impacted by the construction of the Warm Springs BART Station.

2. Whether adverse impacts borne by minority and low-income riders would be disproportionately high when compared to impacts borne by non-minority and non-low-income riders.

This report documents findings from the Analysis and public involvement effort to address these considerations and concludes that the Warm Springs Extension will not adversely impact transit service for minority or low-income riders. Travel time and cost savings are equivalent for all populations – minority, non-minority, low-income, and non-low-income. Accordingly, the proposed service change will not have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on low-income or minority populations.

A comprehensive discussion of the methodology used for this Equity Analysis is presented in Appendix A.




Chapter 2. Warm Springs Environmental Justice Considerations for Project Corridor and Study Area Description for Title VI Service Change Analysis

This chapter treats two subjects. The first section entitled “Environmental Justice Considerations” evaluates the Warm Springs Extension in light of new federal guidance on construction/operation impacts experienced by minority and low-income communities within a half-mile of the Warm Springs alignment. The second section entitled “Study Area Description for Title VI Service Change Analysis “describes the study area analyzed in the remaining chapters of this Analysis for travel time and cost impacts. This study area extends as far as a ten-mile distance from the Warm Springs station and represents the area from which the majority of Warm Springs ridership are likely to reside.

Environmental Justice Considerations In the process of analyzing data and preparing this Equity Analysis, BART evaluated the Warm Springs Extension Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (2006) in light of new Federal guidance on Environmental Justice and Title VI. The primary focus was on the Environmental Justice section (4.18), but the full EIS was also reviewed for other relevant environmental justice content.

Section 4.18 of the EIS was prepared in accordance with Executive Order 12898 (1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations). Since the issuance of the Executive Order, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) updated Title VI Guidelines in May 2007, with the issuance of Circular 4702.1A (2007, Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients).

The FTA’s October 4, 2006 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Warm Springs Extension found that the “WSX Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income population groups.” This finding was based upon the analysis contained in the EIS, section 4.18, in compliance with Circular 4702.1, the guidelines applicable at that time. The FTA’s ROD remains in effect, and there have been no project changes that would require supplementation of the environmental review or environmental justice findings. Nevertheless, BART has conducted the following analysis to update information on environmental justice considerations consistent with the guidance of Circular 4702.1A that became effective subsequent to the 2006 EIS and ROD.

Together the evaluation in the EIS and this updated analysis provide a discussion of the adverse impacts in the project corridor, the off-setting benefits, and a comparison of mitigation measures. The EIS documented seven (7) adverse environmental effects in the corridor that would remain after implementation of identified mitigation measures. In each case, further mitigation is infeasible and, because the extension is located in minority communities, minority communities necessarily experience all seven impacts. With respect to low-income communities, the unavoidable impacts types are either experienced throughout the corridor or are experienced in localized areas affecting both predominantly low-income and non-low-income communities. While minority and low-income communities experience certain unavoidable adverse impacts, these




same communities will experience all of the benefits associated with proximity to a new station. These benefits include increased mobility and increased transportation and transit services, which collectively could be considered to offset the unavoidable adverse impacts. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS to be utilized in the low-income areas are the same as those to be utilized in the non-low-income areas traversed by the project. Mitigation measures identified to be utilized in the minority areas affected by the project are comparable to those offered to non-minority populations affected by other BART projects.

The Environmental Justice Considerations discussion in this Analysis supplements the discussion in the Environmental Justice section in the 2006 EIS in order to address Title VI guidance offered in the 2007 Circular 4702.1A. This environmental justice discussion includes the following information and analysis:

• A review of relevant environmental justice regulatory guidance

• A discussion of any remaining adverse environmental effects in the project corridor following implementation of mitigation actions, and why further mitigation is not proposed; and

• A comparison of mitigation actions in the project corridor that affect predominantly environmental justice communities as opposed to non-environmental justice communities.

Review of Updated 2007 Title VI Guidance and Approach in 2006 EIS By comparing the 1988 and 2007 Title VI Guidelines, it was noted that the most relevant update, for purposes of this Equity Analysis review, was the Fixed Facility Impact Analysis. In the 1988 guidelines, grantees were required to provide a fixed facility impact analysis of a construction project's effects on minority communities, or could reference the relevant NEPA document that contained the required information (Chapter III part 2f). In the 2007 Guidelines, guidance is provided on how grantees should incorporate environmental justice principles into NEPA documentation (including documentation needed to support a categorical exclusion) (Chapter IV part 8). Specifically, the guidance is as follows:

In order to integrate, into environmental analyses, considerations expressed in the DOT Order on Environmental Justice, recipients and subrecipients should integrate an environmental justice analysis into their NEPA documentation of construction projects. (Recipients are not required to conduct environmental justice analyses of projects where NEPA documentation is not required). Recipients preparing documentation for a categorical exclusion (CE) can meet this requirement by completing and submitting FTA’s standard CE checklist… (Page IV-4, Section 8).

The FTA recommends that an EIS should include a number of elements, listed in Figure 2-1 below. These elements were reviewed, and notation is provided regarding the extent to which the 2006 EIS addresses each of the following based on the later 2007 guidance.




Figure 2-1 Comparison on FTA Circular 4702.1A (2007) Guidance and 2006 EIS Approach

Guidance from 2007 Circular Included in 2006 EIS?

A description of the low-income and minority population within the study area affected by the project, and a discussion of the method used to identify this population (e.g., analysis of US Census data, minority business directories, direct observation, or a public involvement process).

Included (Page 4.18-1, Section 4.18.2.1). Tables in the EIS show population characteristics for the adjacent census tract area, based on 2000 data. All of the census tracts in the study area would qualify as minority census tracts for purposes of Title VI, but the EIS used different criteria for the review. Year 2000 per capita income and households below the 1999 poverty level were also shown in the EIS.

A discussion of all adverse effects of the project both during and after construction that would affect the identified minority and low-income population.

Included. Adverse effects were identified (Page 4.18-6, and 4.18-8). The EIS notes that the impacts of the extension “would tend to be limited to the immediate project area and its population,” a population which includes a “majority of minority residents.” It also finds the adverse effects “would not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on minority or low-income populations than they would be on the population as a whole.”

A discussion of all positive effects that would affect the identified minority and low-income population, such as an improvement in transit service, mobility, or accessibility.

Included. “Off-setting environmental benefits” were discussed for the general population (Page 4.18-7), and the EIS includes a list of these benefits for minority and low-income populations, including increased mobility, improved environmental quality (“energy savings and displacement of air polluting auto trips”), “increased and inter-modal transportation services,” etc. (Page 4.18-9).

A description of all mitigation and environmental enhancement actions incorporated into the project to address the adverse effects, including, but not limited to, any special features of the relocation program that go beyond the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act and address adverse community effects such as separation or cohesion issues; and the replacement of the community resources destroyed by the project.

Included, but limited with regard to environmental justice. Mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects are identified in the document, and include cultural resources documentation (mostly archeological and historical issues), but the EIS does not focus specifically on impacts to minority and low-income communities. The EIS includes standard mitigation measures including intersection improvements, habitat restoration, noise mitigation, and vibration-reducing trackway treatments. Each section of the EIS includes a subsection on mitigation actions. See following sections for supplemental text.

A discussion of the remaining effects, if any, and why further mitigation is not proposed.

Included, but limited with regard to environmental justice. As noted above, each section of the EIS includes a subsection on mitigation actions, but these actions do not focus on remaining effects to the minority or low-income populations. See following sections for supplemental text.

For projects that traverse predominantly minority and low-income and predominantly non-minority and non-low-income areas, a comparison of mitigation and environmental enhancement actions that affect predominantly low-income and minority areas with mitigation implemented in predominantly non-minority or non-low-income areas. Recipients and subrecipients that determine there is no basis for such a comparison should describe why that is so.

Included. Although there is not a comparison of mitigation and environmental enhancement for low-income and minority areas versus non-low-income and non-minority areas, the EIS includes a discussion of why there is not a basis for such a comparison noting “the ‘majority minority’ character of the study area bears some similarities with the surrounding county and the Bay Area generally” (Discussion on pages 4.18-8 and 4.18-9). See following sections for supplemental text.

This review found that each of the key elements from the 2007 Circular was essentially addressed in the 2006 EIS.

The 2007 Title VI Circular also provides guidance on community outreach and public involvement. According to the EIS, the outreach efforts included a “public scoping meeting for the Warm Springs Extension” on April 28, 2004, at the Fremont Main Library. No other meetings were held, although the public outreach effort included “mailings to residents and agencies, newspaper advertisements, press releases, web site updates, project updates, and general information materials.” Based on the 2007 Circular, a more robust outreach effort would have been recommended if the EIS were being completed today. The Circular provides guidance for effective practices, including the following:




• Coordinating with individuals, institutions, or organizations and implementing community-based public involvement strategies to reach out to members in the affected minority and/or low-income communities.

• Providing opportunities for public participation through means other than written communication, such as personal interviews or use of audio or video recording devices to capture oral comments.

• Using locations, facilities, and meeting times that are convenient and accessible to low-income and minority communities.

• Using different meeting sizes or formats, or varying the type and number of news media used to announce public participation opportunities, so that communications are tailored to the particular community or population.

• Implementing DOT’s policy guidance concerning recipients’ responsibilities to LEP persons to overcome barriers to public participation.

This guidance was considered by BART as the public involvement effort associated with this Equity Analysis and was executed in the study area (BART conducted two additional meetings and surveys throughout the study area). Key elements of that outreach effort are included in Chapter 3 which includes a review of survey findings and meeting summaries.

Remaining Adverse Environmental Effects in the Project Corridor Following Mitigation The discussion of environmental justice under Circular 4702.1A, Chapter IV.8 focuses on the impacts of project construction and operation within a project corridor. The 2006 EIS reviewed 2000 US Census data for corridor demographics. Here, updated demographic data was examined for populations residing within the Warm Springs Extension project corridor (½ mile of the alignment between the Fremont Station and the Warm Springs Station)1 Figure 2-2

displayed in . This Figure shows that all census tracts within a ½ mile of the alignment are predominately

minority, while only some census tracts within a ½ mile of the alignment are predominately low-income.

1 Because the nature of the environmental justice analysis under Circular 4702.1A requires analysis of impacts within a project corridor, the geographic area studied is necessarily different than the project study area that is evaluated elsewhere in this report.




Figure 2-2 Warm Springs Extension Project Corridor for Environmental Justice Analysis




The EIS documented seven (7) adverse environmental effects in the corridor that would remain after implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The population in the project corridor is predominately minority. Because the corridor is a predominately minority, all seven (7) significant and unavoidable impact types are necessarily experienced by minority communities.

Regarding low-income communities, the seven (7) significant and unavoidable impact types are either experienced throughout the project corridor or are experienced in localized areas affecting both predominantly low-income and predominantly non-low-income communities. Specifically, (i) effects on peak and base period electricity demand, (ii) cumulative biological impacts on the Western Burrowing Owl, and (iii) cumulative biological impacts from the loss of ruderal forb-grassland habitat are corridor-wide. Three (3) localized traffic congestion impacts at (i) intersection of Osgood Road/Durham Road/Auto Mall Parkway, (ii) intersection of Mission Boulevard/Warm Springs Boulevard, and (iii) northbound I-880 south of Mission Boulevard, affect both low-income and non-low-income communities. Finally, the visual impacts of sound walls, to be constructed for the purpose of mitigating noise impacts, will constitute a significant and unavoidable secondary impact. As documented in the EIS (p. 4.13-21), the potential locations of sound walls are distributed in locations containing both low-income and non-low-income communities according to Fig. 2-4; hence the significant and unavoidable secondary impacts will be similarly experienced by both low-income and non-low-income communities.

BART examined opportunities for further mitigation of the seven (7) impacts remaining after implementation of identified mitigation measures in the EIS. In each case, further mitigation proved to be infeasible. Effects on peak and base period electricity demand are the result of limited capacity of the state’s electrical power delivery system, which is beyond BART's ability to mitigate. Improvements to existing bottlenecks in the transmission system are underway or being planned by agencies with jurisdiction, but meanwhile no feasible mitigation measures are available. Regarding biological impacts, the WSX Project includes measures which will effectively mitigate the project-specific contribution to biological impacts on the Western Burrowing Owl and ruderal forb grassland habitat. The remaining unavoidable cumulative biological impacts are due to the contributions of other projects in the region, not the Warm Springs Extension. For each of the three localized traffic congestion impacts, BART identified and evaluated specific traffic improvements that could create additional capacity. However, at the intersection of Osgood Road/Durham Road/Auto Mall Parkway and intersection of Mission Boulevard/Warm Springs Boulevard, the necessary road improvements would be hindered by grade changes and would reduce or eliminate access to adjacent commercial properties, rendering them unusable as currently developed and requiring displacement of significant community-serving businesses. Accordingly, these improvements are considered infeasible. At the northbound I-880 segment south of Mission Boulevard, improvements have been implemented by the Alameda County Transportation Authority (now the Alameda County Transportation Commission), the California Department of Transportation and the City of Fremont. Additional freeway widening beyond the design implemented by the agencies with jurisdiction is beyond BART's authority. Finally, the secondary visual impacts of sound walls would be mitigated to the extent feasible by sound wall design and visual treatments, and by landscaping to screen the sound walls where the right of way width allows. However, in some locations such mitigation may not be fully effective, where the right of way is insufficient or sound walls taller than eight feet are necessary to mitigate noise. In such cases, reducing or avoiding the secondary visual impact would require shortening or eliminating sound walls, which is considered infeasible as doing so would leave unmitigated noise impacts.




Comparison of Mitigations in the Project Corridor Minority and Non-Minority Communities Because the corridor is located in a predominately minority area, all identified mitigation measures will necessarily affect minority communities. Moreover, because the entire project is located in a predominantly minority area, all parcels traversed are necessarily minority communities. Therefore in accordance with the provisions of Circular 4702.1A, a comparison need not be made of the mitigation measures employed in minority as opposed to non-minority communities because it is not a project that traverses both predominantly minority and predominantly non-minority areas. BART instead offers an illustration of the mitigation measures applicable to the project in comparison to mitigation measures utilized for other projects system-wide for the impact considered most significant by surrounding communities, to wit, noise and vibration.

The noise and vibration impacts associated with the WSX Project are common throughout the BART system and have been identified for a number of recent BART projects, including the Central Contra Costa County Crossover project, the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station project, and the proposed extension to Livermore. In these other instances, the affected sensitive receptors were non-Environmental Justice communities2

The project does traverse both low-income and non-low-income communities, and hence the analysis called for in Circular 4702.1A is applicable. For purposes of this analysis, 18 mitigation measures are applicable throughout the project corridor. For this group of mitigation measures, the effects for predominantly low-income and predominantly non-low-income are the same. An additional 20 mitigation measures are applicable in localized areas affecting both predominantly low-income and predominantly non-low-income communities. Again, for this group of mitigation measures, the effects for predominantly low-income and predominantly non-low-income communities are the same. Finally, 29 mitigation measures are applicable only in localized areas that are predominantly non-low-income communities. With respect to this final group of mitigations, the corresponding impacts are limited to areas containing non-low-income communities. Accordingly, no mitigation is needed in low-income communities where these impacts will not occur. In particular, since all potential displacements of residences and businesses identified for the Warm Springs Extension (including for the optional Irvington Station)

. An additional example is the Hayward Yard Maintenance Complex project, where the affected sensitive receptors were an Environmental Justice community. The types of mitigation recommended for all those projects are comparable to what is proposed for the predominantly minority communities within the Warm Springs Extension project corridor. (The notable difference is that for the BART Hayward Maintenance Complex project, BART offered affected residents more protection with temporary lodging during the construction period.) Accordingly, the mitigation strategy followed by BART in the WSX project does not disadvantage or result in disproportionate impacts on minority communities; rather, it seeks to reduce the noise and vibration effects to any and all sensitive receptors to those levels considered acceptable by FTA and BART. Therefore, for this project that traverses a predominantly minority area, the proposed mitigation measures are comparable to those offered to non-Environmental Justice populations near other BART projects.

Low-Income and Non-Low-Income Communities

2 An Environmental Justice community is defined as a community that is both predominately minority and predominately low-income.




are limited to areas containing non-low-income communities, mitigation for displacement impacts pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act is unnecessary in low-income communities. Figure 2-3 illustrates the mitigations and applicability for low-income communities.

Figure 2-3 Summary of Mitigations in Warm Springs Corridor Low-Income Communities

Mitigation by Impact Type Mitigation Applicability In Low-Income Communities Transportation TRN5 Non Low Income Only TRN6 Non Low Income Only TRN15 Both Low Income & Non Low Income TRN23 Non Low Income Only TRN24 Both Low Income & Non Low Income TRN25 Both Low Income & Non Low Income Geology G1 Corridorwide G2 Corridorwide G3 Corridorwide G4 Corridorwide G5 Corridorwide G6 Corridorwide G7 Corridorwide G8 Corridorwide G9 Corridorwide G10 Corridorwide G11 Corridorwide G12 Corridorwide G13 Corridorwide G14 Corridorwide G15 Corridorwide Hazardous Materials HZ1 Corridorwide HZ3 Corridorwide HZ5 Corridorwide HZ6 Corridorwide Hydrology H3 Non Low Income Only H4 Corridorwide H8 Non Low Income Only H9 Corridorwide H10A Non Low Income Only H10B Non Low Income Only H10C Non Low Income Only H11 Corridorwide H12 Corridorwide H13 Non Low Income Only H14 Both Low Income & Non Low Income




Mitigation by Impact Type Mitigation Applicability In Low-Income Communities Wetlands WL1 Non Low Income Only WL2 Non Low Income Only WL4 Non Low Income Only WL5 Corridorwide WL6 Corridorwide Biology B3 Non Low Income Only B4 Corridorwide B6 Both Low Income & Non Low Income B8 Non Low Income Only B9 Both Low Income & Non Low Income B10 Non Low Income Only B11 Non Low Income Only B12 Non Low Income Only B13 Non Low Income Only B16 Non Low Income Only B18 Both Low Income & Non Low Income B19 Both Low Income & Non Low Income Land Use LU3 Non Low Income Only Parks PR3 Non Low Income Only Population/Housing POP3 Non Low Income Only POP7 Corridorwide POP10 Non Low Income Only POP12 Both Low Income & Non Low Income/construction period only POP13 Both Low Income & Non Low Income/construction period only Aesthetics A1 Non Low Income Only A3 Non Low Income Only A4 Non Low Income Only A5 Both Low Income & Non Low Income A6 Both Low Income & Non Low Income A7 Both Low Income & Non Low Income Cultural Resources CR1 Non Low Income Only CR2 Non Low Income Only CR5 Non Low Income Only CR6 Non Low Income Only Noise & Vibration N1 Corridorwide N2 Corridorwide N3 Non Low Income Only N4 Corridorwide/construction period only




Mitigation by Impact Type Mitigation Applicability In Low-Income Communities N5 Corridorwide/construction period only Air Quality AQ1 Corridorwide/construction period only AQ2 Corridorwide/construction period only Energy E4 Corridorwide/construction period only E8 Both Low Income & Non Low Income Utilities U1 Both Low Income & Non Low Income U2 Both Low Income & Non Low Income U3 Both Low Income & Non Low Income U4 Both Low Income & Non Low Income Safety S1 Corridorwide S2 Both Low Income & Non Low Income S3 Corridorwide

Summary of Mitigations (Excluding Displacements) on Communities by Income Status Corridorwide 36 Both Low Income & Non Low Income 18 Non Low Income Only 31 Low Income Only 0 Displacements* Residential (12) All in Non Low Income Communities Business (25) All in Non Low Income Communities * All displacements are associated with optional Irvington Station

Study Area Description for Title VI Service Change Analysis3

As distinguished from the “project corridor” analyzed in the Environmental Justice Considerations discussion of this Analysis, the “study area” for remaining chapters of this Analysis includes 52 census tracts in southern Alameda County and northern Santa Clara County. The area includes many of Fremont’s southern residential neighborhoods, including part of the area known as Irvington, and also includes some major destinations such as Ohlone College, a Wal-Mart store,

For demographic information in the present Title VI Analysis, information was collected from the 2009 American Community Survey. This data was used to analyze the demographic characteristics of the populations located in the station’s study area. For purposes of this analysis, census tracts are identified in the study area and a determination is made regarding whether they are minority or non-minority tracts, and whether they are classified as low-income tracts.

3 The term Study Area is used for Title VI analysis found in Chapters 4 and 5, not Chapter 2. Chapter 2 analyzes a more limited geographic area that only extends as far as a half-mile beyond the Warm Springs alignment. The Chapter 2 geographic area is entitled the Project Corridor.




and Warm Springs Plaza. All of the neighborhoods between I-880 and I-680 are within this study area, as well as other communities to the east and west of this freeway spine. Further to the south, most of Milpitas falls within the study area, including the Great Mall area and most of downtown San Jose.

Although a study area could potentially include every home-based trip origin to the station – making it very large, BART’s goal in establishing a study area was to define a location where a majority of riders will reside. The study area includes some communities that will eventually be within the primary study areas for other BART stations once VTA extends BART service to the south, for example, census tracts in the vicinity of the future Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations. The current study area is assumed to generate the majority of ridership for the Warm Springs Station. The EIS estimates approximately 5,500 average weekday riders for Warm Springs. Data that was projected to 2015 from the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package, based on MTC TAZ population data, suggests more than 4,700 existing transit users may reside within the study area (more than 85% of BART’s average weekday ridership projections for the Warm Springs station).

Methodology for Determining Predominately Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts To be designated as a “low-income” tract, 21.6% or more of the population must earn at or below 200% of the poverty level, based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) definition (an income level of below $44,000 per year for a family of four). To be designated as a “minority” tract, at least 52.7 % of the population must identify as a race other than non-Hispanic white, based on the overall percentage of minority residents in BART’s service area. Of the tracts in the study area, all of them meet the criteria for being a minority tract, a low-income tract or both a minority and low-income tract. Figure 2-4 provides a summary of the census tracts in the study area, showing the percentage of the population that meets the low-income criterion, the breakdown of population by minority group, and the percentage of the population in each tract that speaks English “less than very well,” based on US Census category. Shading illustrates tracts that meet the criteria for low income or minority, based on the percentage threshold.

Minority Tracts As illustrated in Figure 2-4, the vast majority of the census tracts located within the Warm Springs BART study area have been identified as “minority” tracts: they have more than 52.7% of their population identified as non-white. Only five census tracts out of 52, all located within the southernmost portion of the defined study area, do not qualify as minority tracts. Of minority populations, Asian and Hispanic/Latino are the predominant groups.

Low-Income Tracts In terms of income, the study area is more diverse (see Figure 2-6). Low-income tracts were identified by having a population where at least 21.6% of the population earned incomes at or below 200% of the poverty level. Roughly 40% of tracts (21 out of 52 total tracts) in the study area qualify as low-income. Two-thirds of low-income tracts are located in the southernmost portion of the study area, overlapping with a number of the non-minority tracts. The remainder of the low-income tracts are clustered at the northern end of the study area, with a few tracts located near the center.




Figure 2-4 Summary of Census Tracts and Population Characteristics

Minority

Tract Number

Total Pop.

Low Income (per MTC definition)

White (Non-

Hispanic)

All (Non-White

and/or Hispanic /Latino)

Hispanic or Latino (any race)

Black or African

American Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander

Other or Mixed Race

Speaks English Less

Than Very Well

Alameda County Tracts

441503 11,749 7.0% 12.9% 87.1% 4.0% 1.4% 78.7% 0.4% 1.6% 4.4% 25.9%

442200 6,562 7.4% 30.2% 69.8% 6.1% 0.0% 60.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 19.0%

442300 8,029 32.0% 31.9% 68.1% 23.2% 6.7% 33.2% 4.2% 0.0% 13.4% 23.8%

442400 5,661 13.3% 31.5% 68.5% 37.5% 2.5% 24.8% 5.8% 0.0% 24.8% 23.7%

442900 6,450 23.3% 38.0% 62.0% 16.6% 3.9% 36.0% 0.8% 0.0% 11.5% 24.1%

443001 3,306 23.4% 25.5% 74.5% 36.0% 9.4% 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 15.5%

443002 5,306 14.1% 38.9% 61.1% 23.8% 2.1% 28.6% 0.9% 0.0% 20.8% 17.8%

443101 9,522 3.8% 23.1% 76.9% 3.7% 1.0% 69.7% 0.0% 0.2% 3.4% 23.3%

443102 4,881 8.0% 27.4% 72.6% 6.1% 2.3% 62.9% 1.7% 0.0% 4.8% 17.5%

443103 4,589 19.3% 30.7% 69.3% 0.0% 1.0% 65.6% 0.0% 0.2% 2.4% 14.2%

443200 3,456 3.5% 27.3% 72.7% 0.8% 1.0% 65.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 19.4%

443301 3,784 5.5% 33.9% 66.1% 9.3% 2.0% 49.3% 0.0% 2.2% 7.1% 15.2%

443302 5,608 16.4% 27.2% 72.8% 4.9% 5.6% 58.9% 0.2% 0.2% 6.6% 24.2%

Santa Clara County Tracts

500100 5,571 32.4% 14.1% 85.9% 57.2% 4.5% 23.6% 3.6% 0.0% 32.3% 34.1%

500200 5,799 24.7% 35.3% 64.7% 38.3% 6.8% 14.1% 4.8% 0.0% 28.8% 16.1%

500300 3,359 39.3% 51.1% 48.9% 33.1% 1.1% 14.4% 3.7% 0.0% 22.3% 11.4%

500400 2,554 24.9% 51.7% 48.3% 36.7% 4.3% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.6% 21.7%




Minority

Tract Number

Total Pop.


White (Non-

Hispanic)

All (Non-White



Black or African

American Asian


Native Hawaiian or


Other or Mixed Race

Speaks English Less

Than Very Well

500600 4,456 27.0% 54.0% 46.0% 26.5% 2.2% 12.4% 0.5% 0.0% 14.9% 14.1%

500800 2,034 44.7% 24.3% 75.7% 46.5% 4.9% 19.7% 0.0% 0.4% 35.0% 30.1%

500901 3,083 54.4% 40.1% 59.9% 29.8% 4.8% 19.9% 0.6% 2.3% 22.2% 19.2%

500902 2,263 50.3% 14.2% 85.8% 24.9% 3.9% 55.2% 1.0% 0.0% 19.2% 24.7%

501000 4,569 55.1% 22.6% 77.4% 50.4% 6.4% 14.6% 1.0% 0.0% 42.7% 37.4%

501100 7,976 29.6% 24.2% 75.8% 52.6% 3.0% 16.6% 0.1% 0.6% 27.3% 28.9%

501200 3,614 38.6% 23.1% 76.9% 60.0% 2.0% 11.1% 1.4% 0.0% 29.9% 32.7%

501300 3,945 39.2% 50.9% 49.1% 30.0% 3.1% 13.1% 1.4% 0.4% 23.0% 16.8%

501600 5,844 47.9% 28.7% 71.3% 50.0% 3.5% 16.1% 1.0% 0.0% 22.5% 34.8%

504310 10,975 17.3% 11.1% 88.9% 12.2% 4.9% 68.4% 0.3% 0.7% 7.7% 25.0%

504311 7,724 12.2% 8.6% 91.4% 2.9% 2.5% 81.9% 0.0% 1.7% 2.7% 34.9%

504316 4,810 16.4% 13.4% 86.6% 22.1% 1.7% 61.8% 0.1% 0.0% 9.7% 41.4%

504317 4,630 7.8% 15.1% 84.9% 13.3% 0.6% 68.8% 0.0% 0.6% 12.3% 39.4%

504318 4,122 36.5% 22.4% 77.6% 20.0% 2.4% 49.8% 0.9% 0.0% 20.7% 38.7%

504319 7,257 17.6% 13.2% 86.8% 16.2% 2.4% 65.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 34.8%

504410 4,514 13.4% 18.9% 81.1% 17.8% 1.9% 59.2% 3.3% 1.0% 8.8% 38.4%

504412 4,250 17.3% 15.2% 84.8% 18.4% 1.8% 58.2% 1.4% 0.7% 19.4% 35.1%

504413 1,950 34.1% 20.7% 79.3% 0.0% 4.3% 72.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 30.1%

504414 5,026 12.5% 18.4% 81.6% 4.6% 0.0% 75.3% 0.0% 0.3% 3.7% 32.0%

504415 5,154 17.7% 25.6% 74.4% 7.6% 2.6% 61.8% 0.2% 0.0% 7.8% 25.4%




Minority

Tract Number

Total Pop.


White (Non-

Hispanic)

All (Non-White



Black or African

American Asian


Native Hawaiian or


Other or Mixed Race

Speaks English Less

Than Very Well

504416 3,560 11.8% 20.8% 79.2% 7.3% 3.7% 61.1% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 17.4%

504417 2,954 10.8% 26.5% 73.5% 17.2% 1.0% 55.4% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 31.3%

504418 4,461 29.8% 12.5% 87.5% 33.3% 1.1% 50.1% 0.7% 0.0% 29.5% 35.0%

504420 4,543 8.5% 18.0% 82.0% 6.0% 2.6% 69.4% 0.0% 0.2% 8.0% 28.6%

504421 4,518 7.9% 19.0% 81.0% 15.3% 4.8% 56.9% 0.7% 0.2% 14.1% 22.3%

504422 4,429 18.3% 13.6% 86.4% 12.3% 7.1% 64.0% 0.0% 1.2% 9.1% 31.8%

504504 9,327 16.9% 16.2% 83.8% 27.3% 7.8% 44.8% 2.3% 0.0% 15.6% 22.5%

504505 4,004 17.3% 13.6% 86.4% 12.6% 4.5% 60.7% 1.8% 0.0% 17.4% 30.3%

504506 5,448 12.5% 18.9% 81.1% 5.6% 1.1% 70.4% 0.1% 0.0% 5.9% 28.5%

504507 6,063 20.7% 27.1% 72.9% 23.3% 1.6% 48.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.3% 23.0%

504602 2,295 36.3% 16.9% 83.1% 66.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.5% 35.7%

505005 9,852 16.8% 37.1% 62.9% 14.9% 4.5% 40.4% 0.2% 0.4% 12.5% 14.9%

505006 3,831 8.2% 33.0% 67.0% 7.6% 2.2% 55.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 18.8%

505100 2,672 21.2% 23.2% 76.8% 32.4% 1.5% 40.1% 0.0% 0.0% 15.7% 25.8%

505203 3,808 39.0% 71.6% 28.4% 9.5% 1.1% 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 6.7%

Shading illustrates primarily low-income or minority census tracts.

Source: US Census 2009 American Community Survey, MTC, ABAG




Figure 2-5 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Minority Income Tracts Predominantly Minority Income Tracts are Shaded Dark Gray




Figure 2-6 Warm Springs Study Area: Predominantly Low Income Tracts Predominantly Low Income Tracts are Shaded Dark Gray




Chapter 3. BART Warm Springs Title VI Equity Analysis Public Involvement

Overview of the Public Involvement Process As part of its most recent Title VI compliance effort, BART conducted outreach and involvement opportunities during the project development processes. Public involvement activities included two community meetings, as well as distribution of surveys to riders accessing BART’s Fremont Station via all modes and individuals accessing the station specifically via VTA express buses.

Community Meetings Overview As a part of the Warm Springs Extension project, BART held a total of two community meetings targeting low-income, minority, and Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations in the Warm Springs study area. A total of 94 participants attended the meetings in Fremont on April 27, 2011 at the Warm Springs Community Center and in Milpitas on April 28, 2011 at the Milpitas Community Center. BART researched and identified specific community-based organizations to notify of the meetings. Those organizations included: Fremont Family Resource Center, Bay Area Immigration and Refugee Services (BAIRS), South Bay Chinese Club, India Community Center, Milpitas Food Pantry, The Family Giving Tree, Jain Center of Northern California, LIFE Eldercare, Barbara Lee Senior Center, Fremont/Newark YMCA, California School for the Deaf, Irvington Community Center, Bay Area Community Services Center and Warm Springs Community Center.

Several faith-based organizations were also contacted, including South Bay Community Church, First Baptist Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Warm Springs Church, Cross Point Church of Silicon Valley, Saint John the Baptist and Milpitas Community Church. Local elected officials and Chambers of Commerce were also notified of the meetings.

BART prepared a flyer and advertisement in advance of the meetings. The advertisement was placed in a variety of multilingual community newspapers including: Milpitas Post, Fremont Bulletin, Tri-City Voice, India West, Vision Hispana, Kyocharo News, World Journal and Vietnam Daily News. Flyers included information in eight different languages consistent with the District’s Language Assistance Plan (LAP). A copy of the flyer is included in Appendix C.

BART mailed a multilingual meeting notice to addresses within a one-half-mile radius around each meeting location. A total of 2,645 notices were mailed. BART utilized its website to post the meeting notices. Finally, BART distributed a printed survey, available in multiple languages, to participants at both meetings. Complete survey results are provided in Appendix B.

Comments from the Public While participants made similar comments at both meetings, the meeting in Fremont, near the future Warm Springs BART Station, saw the largest attendance and widest array of comments




and questions. Fremont is the community that is to be most impacted by the new station and new trackway, and comments focused on specific safety and amenity concerns and issues about access to the station. Comments received at the meeting in Milpitas tended to focus on more long-term issues concerning the potential BART extension into Santa Clara County.

There were, however, some questions and comments that arose at both meetings. These included inquiries regarding the alignment and logistical issues surrounding the Warm Springs Extension. The most frequent comments and questions pertained to the following themes:

• Sources of funding for the project(s)

• Timeline for construction

• Parking infrastructure to be built at the Warm Springs BART Station

• The precise alignment of the extension and the locations of aerial, at-grade, and subterranean track sections.

At both meetings, BART staff made a presentation, and responded to comments and questions. Staff also explained that all local and state funding has been delivered, and approximately 80% of anticipated state funding is in-hand. The tunnel portion of the extension is already under construction, and a contract will be awarded sometime in 2011 for the remainder of the extension.

Staff discussed the alignment, and explained the new trackway will be aerial at the existing Fremont BART Station, on an embankment after Walnut Avenue, and will then travel underground at Stevenson Boulevard through Fremont Central Park. At Paseo Padre Parkway, the BART track will again be aerial, but will then return to grade for the remainder of the corridor. Tracks will be at-grade at the Warm Springs BART Station, where a 2,000-space surface parking lot will be built. A bridge will be built over Grimmer Boulevard, and structures will be constructed at Walnut, Paseo Padre, and Grimmer. Two ventilation structures will also be built in Central Park as a part of the tunnel project.

A more detailed summary of the individual meetings is provided in Appendix B.

Surveys Methodology and Brief Overview As part of BART’s public outreach efforts for Warm Springs Extension Project, BART used a survey to solicit input from the public meeting attendees and BART riders currently accessing the Fremont BART Station. The survey instrument was designed to generate a profile of BART riders (primarily those who utilize the Fremont BART Station) and their existing travel behaviors, solicit input on future travel choices in the context of a new station at Warm Springs, and solicit feedback on potential station characteristics and amenities. English versions of the survey form are included in Appendix C.

The survey was distributed and collected at the two BART community meetings discussed above, in Fremont on April 27, 2011 and in Milpitas on April 28, 2011. Surveys were also distributed on trains at the Fremont BART Station and on VTA buses bound for Fremont. For surveys on BART trains, surveyors made several runs throughout the day originating from the Fremont BART Station to points throughout the BART system. For surveys on VTA buses, surveys were primarily collected on Route 181, which begins at the San Jose-Diridon Caltrain Station and ends at the




Fremont BART Station. Surveyors began each shift by taking Caltrain to San Jose-Diridon and then distributed surveys on Route 181 in the northbound direction.

The survey periods were designed to capture a variety of travel conditions, including weekdays and weekends, as well as the AM and PM peak commute periods. BART surveys were collected on April 29 and 30 and May 2 and 3, 2011, while VTA surveys were collected from May 3 to May 5, 2011. In all, a total of 1,346 surveys were collected (1,281 surveys from distribution on BART and VTA service, and 65 from the two BART community meetings).

Some of the survey findings include the following:

• Because the community meetings were designed to solicit input from low-income, minority and LEP populations within the study area, more than 70% of those who filled out a survey would be classified as “minority” for purposes of this Title VI Equity Analysis. Approximately 27% of survey respondents could potentially be classified as “low-income” according to the MTC definition ($44,000 or less for a family of four).1

• Low-income individuals take public transit to access BART at a far higher rate than those with higher incomes, and the mode share of persons who drive alone increases with income. Similarly, the drive alone mode share is higher for non-minority respondents, while minority respondents use public transit more often to get to Fremont BART.

• Higher income respondents have shorter travel times to BART than low-income respondents. The survey found that 61% of those with an income above $75,000 had a travel time of less than 20 minutes, while 54% of those with an income between $45,000 and $75,000 had a travel time of less than 20 minutes. By contrast, the longest travel times were predominantly made by low-income households: 61% of those with a travel time of more than 60 minutes had an income of $44,000 or less.

• With the Warm Springs BART Station, roughly one-third of respondents believe their travel time will be shorter; almost an equal percentage believes the travel time will be longer.

• Close to 70% of respondents feel that the proposed fare is reasonable/appropriate for trips beginning in Warm Springs, while 30% believe it to be too high. A larger proportion of low-income respondents than non-low-income respondents said the fare would be too high; a larger proportion of minority respondents than non-minority respondents said the fare would be too high. Many people indicated concerns about BART costs on survey forms, not only in relation to the Warm Springs Extension, but also for BART service in general.

Appendix B provides a complete and detailed summary of the findings from both the community meetings and survey. Appendix C includes copies of the survey instruments (in English) and the community meetings announcement flyer (multilingual).

1 Because the surveys did not ask respondents to identify their household size, it is not possible to conform to the MTC definition of low income using the survey data.




Chapter 4. Access: Existing Versus Future Conditions

Project Overview: Warm Springs Extension The new Warm Springs Extension alignment will parallel portions of the Union Pacific railroad corridor, which contains the former Western Pacific and Southern Pacific railroad tracks, and Interstates 680 and 880 in southern Alameda County. The route alignment begins at the southern end of the existing elevated Fremont BART Station. From there it continues south via an overpass (over Walnut Avenue) and then underground through Fremont Central Park. The line resurfaces south of the park and then continues at-grade. The Warm Springs Extension alignment will pass over Paseo Padre Parkway and under Washington Boulevard, continuing at-grade along the former Western Pacific alignment south to the new Warm Springs BART Station at the corner of Warm Springs and South Grimmer Boulevard in Fremont. Ultimately the new line extends the service, introducing a new BART station in southern Alameda County.

Access Analysis The following sections explore the extent to which the BART extension impacts low-income and minority populations within the study area, finding that there is no disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. The analysis includes a discussion of how future transit service changes may affect low-income and minority census tracts’ proximity to bus and rail transit, and an overview of how the extension to Warm Springs impacts accessibility to BART service for low-income and minority populations in the study area.

Figure 4-1 Warm Springs Extension Alignment




Access to Future Transit Service To conduct this analysis, maps were produced showing both existing (Figure 4-2) and future (Figure 4-3) transit service within the study area. To more accurately predict future travel patterns, some future bus routes were revised to reflect expected service changes that result directly from the opening of the new Warm Springs BART Station. VTA Express bus routes connecting San Jose to the Fremont BART Station are planned by VTA to be re-routed to the Warm Springs BART Station to avoid duplicate service. AC Transit has not yet developed plans for serving the Warm Springs BART Station. This analysis used assumptions about AC Transit bus routes, with existing routes that operate near the future Warm Springs BART Station. This included bus routes shifted to serve the station, with no bus routes eliminated that serve the neighborhoods between Fremont and Warm Springs Stations. Future AC Transit routes are conceptual for the purposes of this analysis only, are subject to significant modification by AC Transit, and may not reflect the final route network serving the Warm Springs BART Station.

For purposes of this analysis, current VTA bus routes were considered for existing conditions. For future conditions, proposed changes to VTA bus routes were considered when related to the Warm Springs Extension. Thus, the routes used for this analysis show conceptual changes to the existing network, but may not reflect VTA’s final route network for service to the Warm Springs BART Station.

Figure 4-4 provides a summary of potential transit service changes used for this analysis only, in the Warm Springs BART Station vicinity.




Figure 4-2 Existing Bus Routes that Operate to, or in the Vicinity of, Warm Springs BART




Figure 4-3 Future Bus Routes that will Operate to, or in the Vicinity of, Warm Springs BART (Conceptual)

Note: Future AC Transit routes are conceptual and for Title VI Equity Analysis purposes only. These are subject to significant modification by AC Transit and may not reflect the final route network serving the Warm Springs BART Station. These were developed by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and reviewed by AC Transit staff. Proposed changes to VTA bus routes were considered when related to the Warm Springs Extension: routes used for this analysis show conceptual changes to the existing network, but may not reflect VTA’s final route network for service to the Warm Springs BART Station. Abandoned routes shown in the figure above are VTA express routes that previously terminated at the Fremont BART Station.

CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR TITLE VI EQUITY ANALYSIS PURPOSES

ONLY ALL ROUTES SUBJECT

TO CHANGE




Figure 4-4 Summary of Potential Transit Service Changes in Warm Springs Vicinity Route Potential Changes

AC Transit 210 No changes

212 Slight rerouting to provide service to Warm Springs BART Station; small portion of routing on Fremont Blvd. was eliminated

215 Slight rerouting to provide service to Warm Springs BART Station



350 No changes

VTA 120 New terminus at Warm Springs BART

140 New terminus at Warm Springs BART



Proximity to BART The proximity of the study area population, including low-income and minority residents, to the existing Fremont and future Warm Springs BART terminal stations was analyzed. The extension of BART service into this area is expected to particularly benefit the study populations as more low-income and minority residents will be closer to BART.

Proximity was measured at three levels: within one mile, five miles, and 10 miles of the Warm Springs BART Station, and then within the entire study area. Overall population counts were limited to the Warm Springs BART Station study area, with population groups shown in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5 Warm Springs Study Area Population Groups

Groups Study Area Population

Population % of Total Low-Income Population 51,981 20%

Non-Low-Income Population 205,440 80%

Minority Population 199,433 75%

Non-Minority Population 66,714 25%

Total Population* 266,147 100%

* Total population of (1) Low-Income + Non-Low-Income and (2) Minority + Non-Minority are similar, but not equal due to sampling techniques of the United States Census. Total population shown is Minority + Non-Minority.

The results of the evaluation, applied to these population groups, are shown in Figure 4-6.




Figure 4-6 Access to Nearest BART Station (Current Fremont or Future Warm Springs): Population by Group and by Distance within the Warm Springs Study Area

The analysis shows improvements in access to BART for all population groups, with significant improvements in proximity to BART for minority populations in particular. Of the study area population, the proportion of minority residents within 5 miles of a BART station will increase from 21% to 39%, and within 10 miles, from 46% to 80%. The proportion of low-income residents within 5 miles of a BART station will increase from 17% to 28%, and within 10 miles, from 34% to 59%. These findings show no disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations.

Findings This analysis generally finds benefits for minority and low-income populations of the study area, with no significant adverse impacts:

• By virtue of extending the BART line south of its current terminus at Fremont Station, the system will provide better access in terms of distance from home to BART for all populations in the study area, including low-income and minority groups.

• A greater proportion of the populations in the southern Alameda County and Santa Clara County study area will have a BART station within a shorter distance of their home than they currently do now.

• Currently approximately 17,490 low-income residents in the study area are within 10 miles of the nearest BART station (Fremont); with the Warm Springs Station that number would increase to 30,800 low-income residents, a net increase of approximately 13,300 residents.

Distance from Nearest BART Station

Groups Scenario - BART Station

Within 1 Mile Within 5 Miles Within 10 Miles Beyond 10 miles

Population % of Group Total Population % of Group

Total Population % of Group Total Population

% of Group Total

Low income

Current – Fremont 0 0% 8,592 17% 17,490 34% 34,491 66%

Future - Warm Springs 719 1% 14,315 28% 30,806 59% 21,175 41%

Non-Low Income

Current – Fremont 0 0% 50,247 24% 103,398 50% 102,042 50%

Future - Warm Springs 7,003 3% 89,394 44% 169,616 83% 35,824 17%

Minority

Current – Fremont 0 0% 42,041 21% 91,437 46% 107,996 54%


Non Minority

Current – Fremont 0 0% 16,908 25% 30,581 46% 36,133 54%





• The population of minority residents in the study area within 10 miles of a BART station would increase from 91,440 to 159,110, a net increase of approximately 67,700 residents.

• The extension of the BART line results in some shifts in local and express bus services that feed the BART system. Both planned bus routes and routes assumed for the purposes of this analysis will continue to provide similar coverage to what is currently available, with the potential for some minor changes in coverage that would have no large-scale impacts on access to transit.

• AC Transit anticipates that the Fremont BART Station will remain a primary intermodal hub. As a result, parallel AC Transit bus services would continue to operate in the corridor, providing access in predominantly minority census tracts to locations between the Warm Springs and Fremont BART Stations.




Chapter 5. Span of Service, Service Levels and Fares/Costs: Existing Versus Future Conditions

A critical element of this Title VI Analysis is an assessment of changes to span of service, impacts on travel costs, and impacts on service availability (headways) for riders over the course of the day. The purpose of this assessment is to describe the expected changes in trip time and costs for travel via BART from Warm Springs, versus existing service that originates in Fremont, for populations within the defined study area. The analyses presented here are as follows:

• A comparison of transit service quality, looking at BART service and parallel AC Transit lines between the Warm Springs Station and the Fremont BART Station.1

• A cost-sensitive analysis and time-sensitive analysis for travel from home origins in the study area to Lake Merritt, Embarcadero, and Downtown Berkeley BART Stations for minority and non-minority, and low-income and non-low-income populations

Such a comparison includes existing and future travel times/costs for travel modes – bus, car and BART – that would be available to riders between the two stations.

The findings show no disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations.

Impacts on Service Levels: Travel Times and Costs for Travel Mode Alternatives between Warm Springs and Fremont An evaluation of service options and the quality of services between Warm Springs and Fremont was conducted, looking at a comparison of (1) transit services in the corridor and (2) costs and travel times among different modes within the corridor. The evaluations found that BART offers better service reliability and a longer service span than bus service between Warm Springs and Fremont. BART is also less expensive than driving or taking the bus, and offers a shorter travel time.

Transit Service Alternatives Comparison Per the FTA Title VI Circular, this section assesses transit alternatives for people affected by the service change, comparing characteristics of existing and future BART service with existing and future bus service provided by AC Transit.2

1 VTA bus service also operates in the corridor, but does not provide local service between Warm Springs and Fremont BART Stations. 2 VTA bus service also operates in the corridor, but does not provide local service between Warm Springs and Fremont BART Stations.

Figure 5-1 compares levels of service for the two transit modes.




Figure 5-1 AC Transit and BART Service Comparison

AC Transit BART

Service Hours 6:30 AM - 10 PM 4 AM - 12 AM

Headways/Frequencies

Route 212 – 30 minutes Route 215 – 45 minutes Route 239 – 45 minutes

Average approx. 17 minutes, with variation

6-9 minutes

Vehicle Capacity 70 1070* On-time performance (systemwide) 66% 93%

Accessibility Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Number of Stops 5+ 0

Number of Transfers 0 0 Travel Time 25 minutes 9.4 minutes

Methods of Payment Cash, Clipper Card, RTC Discount Card Cash, Clipper Card, RTC Discount Card

* Based on average 2010 BART Fleet Management Plan passenger car loading standard

At present, passengers traveling from Warm Springs to Fremont may take AC Transit bus routes 212, 215, or 239. These routes operate between 6:30 AM and 10:00 PM, at the latest, at 30- to 45-minute headways. Between the two BART stations, buses may make five or more additional stops, which provide access to/from neighborhoods along the corridor — something BART does not offer — but which requires a point-to-point travel time of roughly 25 minutes. AC Transit anticipates that it will continue to operate service within the Warm Spring Extension corridor, providing a continued option for transit users who are seeking local connections rather than a higher speed point-to-point trip.

In the future, transit users will also have the choice of BART to travel between Warm Springs and Fremont. BART trains will operate from 4:00 AM to 12:00 AM at intervals of 6 to 9 minutes. Travel time will be substantially less than local bus service because BART will make no stops between the stations; the anticipated travel time is 9.4 minutes, allowing for station access time. Additionally, riders will be able to pay for travel on BART with the same forms of payment that they currently use on AC Transit.

Overall, BART service will be faster, operate later and more often than AC Transit bus routes between the two stations. This provides a 15-minute advantage for all population groups of the study area, including minority and low-income residents looking for faster travel speeds and schedule adherence between the two points

Travel Modes, Travel Times and Cost Analyses The review finds that the fare on BART between the two stations will be lower than either the cost to travel by AC Transit ($1.85 on BART compared with $2.11 for a bus rider with a non-discounted fare) or the cost to drive and park ($1.85 on BART compared with more than $3.50). Figure 5-2 illustrates the estimated differences in cost and travel time between the future Warm Springs BART Station and the existing Fremont BART Station. This table illustrates a cost advantage with the existence of rail service from the Warm Springs BART Station for all population groups beginning their trip at the Warm Springs BART Station.

The fare or cost is not the only advantage for BART: rail service offers an improved travel time of approximately 10 minutes, including the time it takes to access the platform from the parking lot




or bus stop area (3-minute station access time included), compared with up to 25 minutes on the bus and 15 minutes by car.

Figure 5-2 Warm Springs to Fremont

AC Transit BART Driving Cost or Fare $2.11 $1.85 $3.54

Point-to-Point time 25 minutes 9.4 minutes 15 minutes Note: Fares and costs assume increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 1.4% and then 3.9% between 2011 and 2015. BART fares will be increased to match these CPI increases; for comparative purposes, AC Transit and driving costs have also been increased by these amounts.

Impacts on Travel Times and Costs between Home Origins and Top BART Destinations The travel time fare/cost analysis also looked beyond those trips that begin or end at the Warm Springs BART Station, and evaluated travel times and fares/costs from home origins throughout the study area to provide a more realistic comparison of actual travel time impacts experienced by study area residents between existing and future conditions.

Nelson\Nygaard developed information about trip-making for residents of each of the 52 census tracts within the study area. Travel times and travel costs were estimated from each census tract to potential destinations on the BART system (including the proposed Warm Springs BART Station and current Fremont BART Station) for different modes of travel, including automobile, transit, bicycling, and walking. A mode split was assigned to each census tract, which accounts for differences in bicycling and walking use depending on station location. Once mode share, travel costs, and travel times were determined for each census tract, this information was aggregated and averaged to formulate an average travel cost (in dollars) and travel time (in minutes) for each census tract in the study area. The census tract average for travel times and costs was then allocated to each rider demographic population group (low income, non-low- income, minority, non-minority) based on the proportion of that population group in each census tract. Travel times and travel costs were separated into two components: (1) time and cost to access the BART system and (2) time and cost to ride BART. Totals were calculated for each population group.

Analysis This analysis compared existing travel time and trip cost for home-based trips to three BART stations via all modes (automobile, bus, bicycle and walking) for both existing and future conditions (today, without Warm Springs Station and in the future, once the Warm Springs BART Station is operational). For purposes of this analysis, current VTA bus routes were considered for existing conditions. For future conditions, proposed changes to VTA bus routes were considered when related to the Warm Springs Extension.

The analysis compared the change in travel time and cost for low-income versus non-low-income populations within the study area, minority versus non-minority populations within the study area, and the study area as a whole.3

3 The full methodology used as part of this analysis is described in Appendix A




This analysis considered travel to Lake Merritt, Embarcadero, and Downtown Berkeley BART Stations. These three stations help to model future travel times and costs for home-based trips from the study area to three major Bay Area cities which are significant trip generators: Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley.

Overall, the analysis found that with the Warm Springs BART Station in service, all populations would experience savings in travel time and cost. The analysis also found that minority populations may experience a slightly greater benefit in travel time and cost savings than non-minority populations. Low-income populations may experience less of a benefit than non-low-income populations, but an equal share of benefits for travel costs when compared to non-low-income populations. The findings show no disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations.

Travel Time Overall Findings As shown in Figure 5-3, the evaluation found that all populations will experience savings in travel time as a result of traveling via the Warm Springs BART Station instead of via the Fremont BART Station for onward trips on BART.

Figure 5-3 Travel Time Evaluation


Future via Warm Springs Raw Difference Percent

Difference



Group

Travel Time to Lake Merritt (all modes)

Study Area 60.08 57.25 (2.83) -5%

Low Income 62.37 59.85 (2.52) -4% 1% Non-Low Income 59.49 56.58 (2.91) -5%

Minority 60.24 57.26 (2.98) -5% -1% Non-Minority 59.59 57.22 (2.37) -4%

Travel Time to Embarcadero (all modes)

Study Area 73.08 70.25 (2.83) -4%

Low Income 75.37 72.85 (2.52) -3% 1% Non-Low Income 72.49 69.58 (2.91) -4%


Travel Time to Berkeley (all modes)

Study Area 74.08 71.25 (2.83) -4% Low Income 76.37 73.85 (2.52) -3% 1%

Non-Low Income 73.49 70.58 (2.91) -4%





Analysis For all home-based trips studied, low-income and minority groups will experience a range of travel time savings between 2.52 and 2.98 minutes. Specifically, the analysis determined that with the Warm Springs BART Station operational, low-income populations traveling to Lake Merritt Station would expect their journey to take just under an hour, while minority populations would see an average travel time of roughly 57 minutes. Compared with existing travel times via Fremont BART Station, these amount to a 4% reduction in travel time for low-income populations and a 5% reduction in travel time for minority populations.

Low-income and minority group populations traveling to Embarcadero Station via the Warm Springs BART Station will experience travel times of 72.85 and 70.26 minutes, respectively. These trip times represent respective reductions in travel time from current conditions of 3% and 4%. Similarly, low-income and minority travelers to Downtown Berkeley will also experience trip time savings of 3% and 4%, respectively; these travelers will experience respective journey times of 73.85 and 71.26 minutes via Warm Springs Station.

Finally, the analysis found that minority populations will experience a slight benefit (by 1%) in travel time savings compared to non-minority populations. However, low-income populations will experience slightly fewer benefits (by 1%) in terms of travel time when compared to non-low-income populations.

Travel Cost

Overall Findings As shown below in Figure 5-4, the analysis found that all populations will experience savings in travel cost as a result of traveling via the Warm Springs BART Station.

Most of the cost savings is attributed to people who use an automobile or who walk or bike to access BART. Automobile users will see a shorter drive, and thus a lower cost. *

A greater proportion of BART riders will be able to walk or bike the shorter distance to Warm Springs, thus having no driving or transit costs associated with the portion of their trip to access BART.

Figure 5-4 Travel Cost Evaluation



Difference



Group Travel Cost to Lake Merritt (all modes)

Study Area $10.98 $9.40 ($1.58) -14%

Low Income $11.86 $10.20 ($1.66) -14% 0% Non-Low Income $10.75 $9.20 ($1.55) -14%

Minority $10.97 $9.36 ($1.61) -15% -1% Non-Minority $11.00 $9.53 ($1.47) -13%






Difference



Group Travel Cost to Embarcadero (all modes)

Study Area $12.63 $11.05 ($1.58) -12%

Low Income $13.51 $11.85 ($1.66) -12% 0% Non-Low Income $12.40 $10.85 ($1.55) -13%


Travel Cost to Berkeley (all modes)

Study Area $11.28 $9.70 ($1.58) -14% Low Income $12.16 $10.50 ($1.66) -14% 0%

Non-Low Income $11.05 $9.50 ($1.55) -14%


Analysis The analysis found that with the Warm Springs BART Station in operation, low-income and minority populations will experience a range of travel cost savings between $1.61 and $1.66. In particular, low-income and minority populations traveling to the Lake Merritt BART Station via Warm Springs will pay $10.20 and $9.36 in travel costs, respectively. This represents a respective 14% and 15% decrease in travel costs from existing trips made via the Fremont BART Station. Likewise, low-income and minority riders traveling to San Francisco (Embarcadero Station) would expect to pay $11.85 and $11.01 in respective trip costs via Warm Springs Station — a savings of 12% and 13% from today. Low-income and minority populations traveling to Downtown Berkeley will pay $10.50 and $9.66, respectively, in travel costs via Warm Springs Station, a savings of 14% from current travel costs via the Fremont BART Station.

According to the analysis, low-income populations will experience an equal share of benefits for travel costs when compared to non-low-income populations; minority populations may experience a slightly greater benefit in travel cost savings (by 1%) than non-minority populations.

Findings The findings from the analysis of the span of service, service levels, travel times and fares/costs show no disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations:

• Impacts on Service Levels: Travel Times and Costs for Travel Mode Alternatives between Warm Springs and Fremont. BART service to the Warm Springs Station offers the most cost-effective option and the shortest travel time between the existing terminus at Fremont and the new terminus at Warm Springs. BART service will operate later and more frequently, with vehicles with greater capacity and service with better schedule adherence than the AC Transit bus link between the existing terminus at Fremont and the new terminus at Warm Springs. The Warm Springs Extension will not impact access to the interim bus stops between the existing terminus at Fremont and the new terminus at




Warm Springs. AC Transit anticipates that it will continue to operate service within the Warm Springs Extension corridor, providing a continued option for transit users in predominantly minority census tracts who are seeking local connections rather than a higher speed point-to-point trip.

• Impacts on Travel Times and Costs between Home Origins and Top BART Destinations. An analysis of home-based trips for low-income and minority (as well as non-low-income and non-minority) population groups traveling to three BART destinations via the Warm Springs BART Station determined that once the station is in service, all populations will experience savings in travel time and trip cost. Minority populations may experience a slightly greater benefit in travel time and cost savings than non-minority populations, and low-income populations may experience slightly fewer benefits (less than 1% fewer) in travel time savings but enjoy an equal share of travel cost savings when compared to non-low-income populations.

APPENDIX A EVALUATION METHODOLOGY



Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page A-1

Appendix A. Evaluation Methodology Warm Springs Study Area BART’s methodology for carrying out Title VI analyses has included the definition of a station study area.

As a new end-of-the-line station, Warm Springs will likely attract many riders currently traveling to the Fremont Station from areas south, as well as those within close proximity of the proposed station. The goal was to define an area where a majority of riders will reside.

Data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) (modeled by Fehr and Peers for BART) was initially used to identify the core study area. The study area was then expanded slightly to the north based on that model’s assignment of some MTC Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) included in an Irvington study area, assuming those TAZs would represent at least a portion of Warm Springs ridership. This set of TAZs was correlated to census tracts as the preferred geography to provide demographic data for the Title VI Equity Analysis.

Additionally, BART’s 2008 Fremont Station Profile Survey (SPS) provided data on home-origin locations for those riders accessing BART in Fremont, further informing the potential Warm Springs study area. Due to the presence of a significant cluster of current BART patrons living in downtown San Jose (an area beyond what the model indicated as a primary ridership area), the study area was extended south to encompass this predominantly low-income, non-minority population.

The linking of the modeled study area and ridership concentrations in downtown San Jose resulted in appending contiguous tracts along key corridors. Primary access between Warm Springs and downtown San Jose is via I-880, so all census tracts within ½ mile of the freeway were added to the study area.

The Warm Springs study boundary follows tract boundaries, inclusive of 50 whole tracts. Large portions of two additional tracts were also included in the study area. Portions left out were comprised mainly of uninhabited wetland areas. In total, the Warm Springs study area (the Title VI study area) covers 52 census tracts in southern Alameda County and northern Santa Clara County.

Travel Time and Travel Cost Analysis Overview To evaluate the impacts of both travel time and travel cost on populations given the future Warm Springs Extension, the consultant developed information about trip-making for residents of each of the 52 study area census tracts. This information is separate from the demographic data for each census tract: it provides information about estimated mode share for home-based work trips and travel times and costs for home-based work trips.

Nelson\Nygaard developed information about trip-making for residents of each of the 52 census tracts within the study area. Travel times and travel costs were estimated from each census tract to potential destinations on the BART system (including the proposed Warm Springs BART Station and current Fremont BART Station) for different modes of travel, including automobile, transit, bicycling, and walking. A mode split was assigned to each census tract, which accounts




for differences in bicycling and walking use depending on station location. Once mode share, travel costs, and travel times were determined for each census tract, this information was aggregated and averaged to formulate an average travel cost (in dollars) and travel time (in minutes) for each census tract in the study area. The census tract average for travel times and costs was then allocated to each rider demographic population group (low income, non-low-income, minority, non-minority) based on the proportion of that population group in each census tract. Travel times and travel costs were separated into two components: (1) time and cost to access the BART system and (2) time and cost to ride BART. Totals were calculated for each population group.

Census tract scores were calculated using a weighted average composed of the tract’s mode split in combination with each mode’s respective travel time or travel cost. Travel times and costs were determined for both existing conditions (travel time and cost to the existing Fremont BART Station) and for future conditions where passengers will reach the Fremont BART Station by way of the Warm Springs BART Station.

Figure A-1 illustrates how information from census tracts was combined to determine a score for both travel time and travel cost.

Figure A-1 Travel Costs and Travel Times Calculation Methodology: Census Tract Example

Note: This figure is an example only. It does not present actual data from the analysis.




Once travel costs and travel times were determined for each census tract, the next step involved calculating the percentage of each population demographic group (low income, non-low-income, minority, non-minority) from each census tract. Across the study area population (approximately 266,000), each census tract was analyzed to determine its proportional share of each of these four population demographic groups. Based on this percentage, a weighted average was applied across the study area to calculate travel times and travel costs by population group.

Using this weighted average process, travel times and travel costs were determined for each group and then determined based on several potential BART destinations.

The following sections describe the assumptions and approach for the various evaluations.

Mode Share Each census tract was assigned a mode share based on existing Fremont BART Station access data and, for those tracts within ¼ mile of the future Warm Springs BART Station, future predictors of mode share, described below. For the 52 census tracts in the study area, mode share was assigned in three ways:

• Data was generated based on survey responses from the 2008 Fremont SPS for each census tract. Thirty (30) of the census tracts in the study area had residents who used the Fremont BART Station and completed a survey that provided information about how they accessed BART. It was assumed that these individuals would likely be future users of the Warm Springs BART Station and that they would likely access the station using a similar mode as they indicated in the SPS. Thus, respondent home locations were plotted and matched with their respective census tract. A mode split for each census tract was defined based on respondents’ indicated mode choice for those census tracts with at approximately 10 or greater home based survey responses.

• For the 22 census tracts without data or with fewer than 10 responses from the 2008 Fremont SPS, the average mode share from all other census tracts in the study area was applied to reflect the greater number of data points. In these situations, the average mode share used for the analysis was 83% auto and 17% transit. Because these tracts were more than five miles from the Warm Springs BART station, tracts with persons walking and bicycling were excluded from the mode share average.

• For census tracts within ¼ mile of the proposed Warm Springs BART Station, the walking and bicycling mode share was increased. Persons in these census tracts were assumed to change their mode of accessing BART due to proximity to the new station. It was assumed that individuals within these tracts were more likely to bicycle or walk to access the station when compared to their previous means of accessing BART. For these census tracts, the walking and bicycling mode share was increased by 5% each and the automobile mode share was reduced by the corresponding 10%, based on the existing mode share for census tracts within ¼ mile of the Fremont BART Station (from 2008 Fremont BART SPS data). This modification impacts two census tracts near the proposed Warm Springs BART Station.

Census Tract Analysis Points of Origin Travel times and travel costs were determined from each census tract in the study area for both existing conditions and future conditions (with and without the Warm Springs BART Station). These times and costs were used to aggregate the average travel costs and travel times across the study area for specific types of census tracts: minority, non-minority, low income and non-low-




income. Times and costs were calculated from an analysis point in each census tract. This point was designated by looking at the centroid, or geographic center, of each census tract and then shifting it based on population densities. Thus, for a tract with population densities that were relatively consistent within the tract boundaries, the analysis point was the geographic center of that tract. Many of the tracts on the east side of the study area include significant open space and parkland with populations concentrated on their western edge. In these cases, and in other locations throughout the study area, the analysis points were shifted to reflect population concentrations. The location of these analysis points was important as their specific position had an impact on each census tract’s travel time and travel cost score.

Figure A-2 shows the census tract analysis points used as the “point of origin” for trips, for purposes of calculating travel times and travel costs. Travel times and travel costs were determined from these points to both the Fremont BART Station and the proposed Warm Springs BART Station for all modes of access.

Travel Time from Census Tracts Travel times were calculated for each mode within each census tract based on existing roadway and transit networks, and existing transit schedules. Changes in proposed VTA routes related to Warm Springs were also considered for “future” travel times. For each mode, “existing” travel time refers to the travel time from the analysis point to the current Fremont BART Station platform. “Future” travel time refers to the time from the analysis point to the proposed Warm Springs BART Station or to the other destination stations (Berkeley, Lake Merritt, or Embarcadero) specified. Consistent with Title VI Equity Analyses that BART has conducted, it was assumed that trips which begin in census tracts in the Warm Springs study area which were north of the Warm Springs Station (and do not include and/or are contiguous with the Warm Springs Station) will continue to use the Fremont Station in order to avoid the time loss and additional travel cost of “backtracking.” It was also assumed that once individuals from the remaining census tracts within the Warm Springs study area reach the Warm Springs Station platform, they would ride BART to reach the Fremont BART Station and points beyond.

For all modes of access, three minutes was assumed for travel through the BART fare gates and to the station platform from an average access point in the Warm Springs BART Station parking lot. An average walking speed of 3 mph was assumed, which is consistent with average walking speed used by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A mode-by-mode discussion for travel time calculations is as follows:

• Automobile. Trips by automobile have among the shortest travel times from the census tract analysis points to the destinations (Fremont or Warm Springs BART). Trip times were considered based on the existing roadway network and speed limits, following the shortest path between origin and destination. To provide a consistent platform for conducting this analysis, Google Maps was used to determine travel times between origin points and the final destinations. By using this online tool, roadway speed limits and the shortest path over the roadway network were addressed while also providing the overall travel distance and time. This method was used for both existing and future travel scenarios.

• Transit. Transit travel times were among the longest. For the purposes of this study, existing transit travel times were based on the existing route networks for both AC Transit and VTA. Future transit travel times were based on a proposed AC Transit route network (developed by the consulting team and reviewed by AC Transit). And, for future




conditions, proposed changes to VTA bus routes are also considered when such changes are related to the Warm Springs Extension.1,2

Figure A-2 Warm Springs Study Area and Census Tract Analysis Points

Similar to the method to calculate automobile travel times, existing transit times to access BART were determined using Google Maps’ transit function. Google Maps afforded a

1 Bicycle and walking travel times, which could be longer, were often capped, since most individuals will only bicycle or walk a certain distance to their station destination. 2 The future AC Transit Route network was developed by the project team and approved by AC Transit for planning purposes for this Title VI Analysis. The proposed route network has not yet been adopted by the AC Transit Board and is subject to change prior to final adoption.




consistent platform to find the most logical transit route for each of the 52 census tract analysis points because it integrates schedule data from AC Transit and VTA. Since Google Maps does not have the capability to plan for future transit routes, future transit times were developed by calculating the shortest travel time on the proposed transit route network. Transit travel speeds of 28.45 miles per hour and 16.55 miles per hour were defined for VTA and AC Transit, respectively. These travel speeds were calculated based on existing travel speeds and schedules obtained from both services.

Since all analysis points do not always have direct transit access to either Fremont or Warm Springs BART, the analysis required additional assumptions for walk time to the nearest bus stop and potential transfers. So, transit travel time estimates may be greater than actual transit travel times experienced by riders, as the likelihood that riders will take transit may diminish as the number of transfers needed or the length of a walk for a trip increase. For transit trips that required transfers, an average transfer time was used, based on AC Transit and VTA average transfer times. For AC Transit, the average transfer time used was 20 minutes (roughly half of the headway time for routes in the area); 11-minute transfers were assigned for VTA based on an analysis of headways for existing local and express bus services operated by the agency. A walking speed of 3 mph was used from the analysis point to the nearest bus stop, based on average walking speed used by AASHTO. It was assumed that there was no wait time once someone arrived at the closest bus stop to allow for consistent comparisons with trips by automobile, bicycling and walking.

• Bicycling. Calculating the travel time for bicycling from the census tract analysis points to the BART stations was straightforward: the most direct bicycle route (using the existing street network) was determined and then an average bicycle speed of 11 mph was applied to the distance of that route. This calculation yielded very different times from census tracts throughout the study area. As noted, the bicycle share of the mode split was increased 5% (and reduced 5% from the automobile share) for census tracts within ¼-mile of the proposed Warm Springs BART Station.

• Walking. Calculating the travel time for walking from the various census tract analysis points was a straightforward calculation of distance from the tract analysis point to the destination (Fremont or Warm Springs BART Station) using the existing street network. Pedestrians were assumed to have a walking speed of 3 mph. Census tracts within ¼- mile of the proposed Warm Springs BART Station were given an increase of 5% in their walking mode share, and automobile mode share was reduced 5%.




Figure A-3 Transit Travel Time Assumptions

General Assumptions Walking Speed 3 mph Wait time at Stop 0 minutes AC Transit Travel Speed 16.55 mph Transfer Time 20 minutes Future Route Changes? Yes VTA Travel Speed 28.45 mph Transfer Time 11 minutes Future Route Changes? Yes3

Sources: AC Transit, VTA, AASHTO Green Book, FHWA

Figure A-4 Bicycling and Walking Travel Time Assumptions

General Assumptions Bicycling Average Speed 11 mph Walking Average Speed 3 mph

Source: AASHTO Green Book, FHWA

Census Tract Travel Fare/Cost Travel costs for each census tract were calculated by mode. It was assumed that bicycling and walking carry no direct costs.4

For each of these modes, existing travel cost refers to the travel cost from the analysis point to outside the fare gates of the current Fremont BART Station. Future travel cost refers to the time from the census tract analysis point to the proposed Warm Springs BART Station, excepting those census tracts where populations will continue to travel to Fremont to avoid “backtracking.” It was assumed that once individuals reach the Warm Springs Station, they will ride BART to reach the Fremont Station and points beyond. Thus, future travel costs include the additional fare

For purposes of this analysis, only traveling by automobile and transit carry direct costs. All travel costs in this analysis were projected to 2015 levels, which includes projected fare increases for BART, AC Transit, VTA, and for the cost per mile of operating an automobile. 2015 costs were projected assuming a 1.4% increase in price followed by a 3.9% increase in price, based on BART-provided assumptions for increases in the consumer price index (CPI).

3 For future conditions, proposed changes to VTA bus routes are also considered when such changes are related to the Warm Springs Extension. 4 Although bicycling and walking do carry some forms of indirect costs (e.g., bicycle maintenance, shoe wear, etc.) these costs were not considered for the purposes of this analysis.




required to ride BART to the Fremont Station, whereas in the existing scenario, users access the Fremont BART Station via a single mode from each census tract. A mode-by-mode discussion for travel fare/cost calculations is as follows:

• Automobile. To determine travel costs for automobiles, the distance (via the existing road network) was calculated between the census tract analysis point and both the Fremont and proposed Warm Springs BART Stations. Travel costs were calculated by taking this distance (in miles) and multiplying it by the standard IRS mileage reimbursement rate.5

BART terminus stations will have a greater proportion of patrons parking as compared to other stations along the line. This assumption was confirmed based on the data that was reviewed in the 2008 Fremont SPS. The 2008 survey provides direction regarding the percentage of people using an automobile who drove alone, carpooled, or were dropped off. Based on the survey data, it was assumed that 75% of those who travel to the station by automobile will park and pay a projected parking cost of $1.00 (based on current BART parking fees), resulting in an average parking cost of $0.75 added to all individual automobile trips.

• Transit. Travel costs for transit trips were determined based on the trip one would make from each census tract analysis point to either the Fremont or proposed Warm Springs BART Station. Using fares for AC Transit, BART, and VTA, transit costs were calculated based on the most direct trip from the origin to the destination. Transit trips may incur one or more transfers; in these cases, the fare for trips from census tracts where transfers would occur was modified accordingly. For the existing scenario, transit costs were calculated from the census tract analysis point to the Fremont BART Station. For the future scenario, transit costs were calculated from the census tract analysis point to the Fremont BART Station by way of BART from the Warm Springs BART Station. The travel cost for the future scenario includes the cost to the Warm Springs BART Station by bus and then an additional cost of $1.85 to ride BART from Warm Springs to Fremont or the incremental cost for a trip from Warm Springs to other destinations in the BART system.

All transit fares include price increases to account for CPI increases for 2015. Costs for AC Transit, BART and VTA are noted in Figure A-5.

5 The 2011 IRS mileage reimbursement rate was $0.51 per mile. For the purposes of this analysis, this was increased to $0.54 per mile to account for consumer price index increases assumed for 2015.




Figure A-5 2015 Transit Fare Assumptions

Service 2015 Fare AC Transit Local $2.11 Local with Transfer $2.37 BART Warm Springs to Fremont $1.85 VTA Express $4.21 Local to Express $6.32 BART costs were provided by BART staff. Other costs were based on existing fares with a CPI-based 1.4% and 3.9% increase to account for potential 2015 costs. These fares were used for planning purposes only and do not reflect fare increases that will ultimately be adopted by AC Transit or VTA, as such increases are subject to change.

Travel Time and Costs to Various BART Destinations Travel times and travel costs in this analysis can be evaluated in two trip components:

• Time and cost to access the BART system

• Time and cost to ride BART

Access times and costs were determined from the census tract analysis points to either the Fremont BART Station or Warm Springs BART Station, depending on existing or future scenarios. In order to determine travel times and costs to other points on the BART system, those access times and costs were added to the assumed fixed travel times and travel costs between BART stations.6

The analysis assumed that all existing trips from within the study area access the BART system using the Fremont BART Station and assumed that all future trips would access the BART system using the Warm Springs BART Station, with the exception of future trips made from census tracts north of the Warm Springs BART Station where populations would continue to use the Fremont BART Station and not “backtrack” to Warm Springs. Once reaching either BART station, travel times and travel costs were added to consider the transfer time (3 minutes, based

As an example, the travel time and fare between the Fremont BART Station and the Embarcadero BART Station in San Francisco is 46 minutes and $5.85, respectively. For a trip that begins at the Warm Springs BART Station and ends at a location other than Fremont, the fare increment over the existing BART fare from Fremont is $0.40, based on information provided by BART. This time and fare difference was added to the times and costs to access the Fremont or Warm Springs BART Station for all groups including minority or low-income populations.

To BART Destinations, Existing and Future: Time and Cost to Access the BART system

6 These costs and times were assumed to be fixed since BART maintains a fixed fare structure between two points and a fixed schedule.




on walking speeds) to the station platform and appropriate travel times and costs depending on the final destination.

Three destination BART stations were selected to be part of this Equity Analysis: Downtown Berkeley, Embarcadero (San Francisco) and Lake Merritt (Downtown Oakland), based on the findings from the survey conducted as part of this effort, listing these locations among the top destinations for users of the Fremont BART Station. These destinations were assigned a travel time and travel cost from both the Fremont and Warm Springs BART Stations, to reflect the existing and future scenarios.

Travel times and fares (costs) from Fremont BART or Warm Springs BART to these destinations are fixed and do not change. The potential changes in travel time and travel cost only occur in accessing the BART system itself. When looking at the difference in travel times and travel costs to various stations, holding the population demographic group constant (e.g., low income), the difference in travel time and travel cost will be the same. However, this difference in travel time will have different proportional impacts depending on trip length. As an example, an increased travel time of two minutes to the BART system will have a greater proportional impact on a 10-minute trip than on a 45-minute trip. Figure A-6 shows the assumed 2015 travel times and costs between BART stations, as provided by BART.

Figure A-6 Assumed 2015 Travel Times and Costs between BART Stations

Origin/Destination Station Travel Cost Travel Time (minutes) Fremont to: Lake Merritt $4.20 33 Oakland Coliseum $4.00 26 Embarcadero (SF) $5.85 46 Downtown Berkeley $4.50 47 Warm Springs to: Fremont $1.85 6.4 Lake Merritt $4.60 39.4 Oakland Coliseum $4.40 32.4 Embarcadero (SF) $6.25 52.4 Downtown Berkeley $4.90 53.4

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

INPUT AND FINDINGS FROM COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND SURVEYS



Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page B-1

Appendix B. Summary of Public Involvement: Input and Findings from Community Meetings and Surveys

Overview Appendix B includes information from the community outreach process and a summary of community input. The first portion of this Appendix offers a narrative for both of the community meetings. The second portion provides a comprehensive overview of the survey results by question. Summary information on the planning process and findings are included in Chapter 3.

Community Meetings As a part of the Warm Springs Extension project, BART held a total of two community meetings targeting minority and low-income communities in the Warm Springs study area. A total of 94 participants attended the meetings in Fremont on April 27, 2011 at the Warm Springs Community Center and in Milpitas on April 28, 2011 at the Milpitas Community Center. BART researched and identified specific community based organizations to contact regarding the meetings. Those organizations included: Fremont Family Resource Center, Bay Area Immigration and Refugee Services (BAIRS), South Bay Chinese Club, India Community Center, Milpitas Food Pantry, The Family Giving Tree, Jain Center of Northern California, LIFE Eldercare, Barbara Lee Senior Center, Fremont/Newark YMCA, California School for the Deaf, Irvington Community Center, Bay Area Community Services Center and Warm Springs Community Center.

Several faith-based organizations were also contacted, including South Bay Community Church, First Baptist Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Warm Springs Church, Cross Point Church of Silicon Valley, Saint John the Baptist and Milpitas Community Church. Local elected officials and Chambers of Commerce were also notified of the meetings.

BART prepared a flyer and display advertisements in advance of the meetings. The advertisement was placed in a variety of multilingual community newspapers including: Milpitas Post, Fremont Bulletin, Tri-City Voice, India West, Vision Hispana, Kyocharo News, World Journal and Vietnam daily News. Flyers included information in eight different languages to address the language requirements of the agency’s Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. A copy of the flyer is included in Appendix C.

BART mailed a multilingual meeting notice to addresses within a one-half-mile radius around each meeting location. A total of 2,645 notices were mailed. BART utilized its website to post the meeting notices. BART also distributed a printed survey, available in multiple languages, to participants at both meetings.

Fremont/Warm Springs Meeting At the April 27th meeting in Fremont participants focused on issues surrounding the new station at Warm Springs and the neighboring station area. In summary, the most frequent comments made at this meeting included the following:




• The need for adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure at and around the new Warm Springs BART Station

• The need for adequate parking facilities for the new station • The need to ensure the safety of the station area • The need for adequate bathroom facilities at the new Warm Springs BART Station and

systemwide

Numerous participants also expressed their admiration of the architecture of the new station.

Station Access Several participants noted that the station site currently lacks sidewalks, and is generally not well connected to other parts of the community for those travelling on foot. Others added that bike access to the new station is also inadequate, as there are few safe routes to reach the new station via bicycle from many points in Fremont. BART staff mentioned that Warm Springs Boulevard is currently the best way to access the future station for both bicyclists and pedestrians, and portions of Warm Springs Boulevard that are in the immediate station vicinity will be improved by BART. Most access improvements require action from the City of Fremont, however, because they are not on BART property or under BART’s jurisdiction. BART staff cited the new West Dublin/Pleasanton Station as an example of a facility that was built in an area with no sidewalks; the city has now installed them.

Other participants asked questions about vehicle access to the station, and expressed concerns that Warm Springs Boulevard is not wide enough to accommodate new vehicle trips to and from the station. Some asked if Warm Springs Boulevard will be widened, and if a signalized intersection will be installed at the entrance to the station.

Currently, no plans exist to widen Warm Springs Boulevard. BART staff cited West Dublin, Orinda, and Lafayette as examples of current stations that front a two-lane roadway similar to Warm Springs Boulevard. Buses will be using one station access point and bicyclists another.

More than 65 individuals attended the public meeting at the Warm Springs Community Center on April 27, 2011.




Another participant suggested that more than one elevator was needed to ensure smooth platform access, and asked why patrons will need to go up and over the tracks, and then back down to the station platforms. BART staff replied that since the tracks will be at grade and electrified, patrons will have to cross either over or below them; in this case they will travel over them.

Parking Meeting participants were curious about the exact number of parking spaces that will be constructed at the new station and the amount that currently exists at the Fremont BART Station. BART will build a 2,000-space surface parking lot that will be designed in a way to support future transit-oriented development (TOD). The Fremont BART Station has parking for 1,800 vehicles.

Others asked if BART has considered a parking structure at the new station. BART staff replied that a garage would be a possibility if TOD were built on part of BART’s future surface parking lot. Responding to an inquiry from a participant, BART staff mentioned that no developer has yet approached the agency to construct TOD at the Warm Springs BART Station.

Another participant expressed concern over parking availability and asked how BART decided on the number of parking spaces it would provide. Environmental studies included ridership models that were used to determine an adequate number of parking spaces. The Warm Springs BART Station was noted as being only a temporary end-of-the-line station.

Retail Meeting participants expressed the desire to see many different types of retail at the future Warm Springs BART Station. These included:

• Dinner to-go • Newspaper stands for gum, juice, etc. (“like in Tokyo”) • Drycleaner • More bathrooms • Flower shop

Individuals were asked to share their comments and ask questions at both public meetings. Comments were recorded on large pieces of paper.




Fare and Fare Gates Several meeting participants expressed concern that the wait at ticket machines is usually too long at some BART stations. BART staff replied that patrons should have to wait no more than 60 seconds to use a ticket machine, and that the introduction of the Clipper Card has helped to cut down on wait times. A participant asked if senior fares were compatible with the Clipper system, and BART staff replied in the affirmative.

Other Comments Other comments made at the meeting in Fremont included concern about noise and traffic in the neighborhood with the new Warm Springs BART Station. BART staff answered that the agency is currently looking at noise mitigation strategies systemwide. Participants also asked what the official name of the new station would be. While no decision has yet been made by the BART board, BART has solicited input from the City of Fremont. Currently “South Fremont/Warm Springs” is a potential option.

Another participant stressed the need for station maintenance after completion of the extension. BART staff indicated maintainability was a concern throughout the station design process. There is also a $1.4 million plan for art at the Warm Springs BART Station, an example of which is the newly completed art at the 16thStreet/Mission BART Station.

Participants asked many questions and made many comments about the restrooms at both the future station and throughout the BART system. Many complained about the cleanliness of existing restrooms, the wait time usually needed to use the restrooms, and the general sense that there are not an adequate number of restroom facilities programmed for the station. Some participants stressed that restrooms should be retrofitted to allow more than one person to use them at a time. Staff responded that when the initial BART system was designed, ridership was not at current levels. The quantity and design of bathroom facilities are a direct reflection of BART’s initial ridership levels. BART staff indicated they would take these comments to the Board.

Another common concern of meeting participants was safety. Questions were asked about lighting, security cameras, and policing. Staff responded that BART has strict lighting criteria for all stations. Cameras will also be installed in the new station, as with all new BART stations. For reference, BART staff cited the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station as an example, which has 50 security cameras. They also noted that after the completion of every new station, new officers are added to the BART police force.

Display boards were used at the meetings to illustrate proposed station design elements.




Milpitas Meeting Comments at the April 28th meeting in Milpitas focused on longer-term concerns, including the status of the optional Irvington station, and how the Warm Springs Extension will interface with the planned extension to Santa Clara County. The most frequent questions and comments made at this meeting pertained to the following:

• How the extension will integrate into the current BART system and future extensions

• The status of the optional Irvington station

• Parking facilities at the Warm Springs BART Station and the potential for transit-oriented development

• Retail amenities at the Warm Springs BART Station

Many participants asked questions regarding how the future Warm Springs BART Station would integrate into the larger BART system, including which lines would serve the station, travel times to other stations on the BART system, and how the Warm Springs Extension will interconnect with the planned extension into Santa Clara County. BART staff noted that the current plan is to extend both lines that serve the Fremont BART Station to the Warm Springs BART Station. They noted that the estimated travel time between Fremont and Warm Springs is about six minutes.

In response to questions regarding the Santa Clara County extension, BART staff referred participants to the VTA project website, which has detailed information on the possible alignment and construction date of the potential extension. Currently, work is underway in Milpitas to move freight tracks off of VTA property for a potential future extension. From a passenger’s perspective, travel along the Santa Clara County extension would be seamless; the agencies involved signed a previous agreement to ensure seamless integration. There will be no transfer needed to access San Jose; a direct BART train would serve the entire corridor. Staff from VTA was available at the meeting to answer specific questions about the extension to Santa Clara County.

BART’s Planning staff provided an overview of the Warm Springs BART Station plan at the community meeting in Milpitas on April 28, 2011.

More than 25 people attended the community meeting in Milpitas on April 28, 2011.




As at the Fremont meeting, questions and comments arose concerning parking facilities at the Warm Springs BART Station, and the potential for TOD. BART staff noted that a 2,000-space surface parking lot will be constructed in a way to allow for future TOD. If any surface parking is removed to make way for development, BART will replace each space in a new multi-storey parking garage.

Participants also expressed a desire to see a coffee shop or similar retail amenities at the future Warm Springs BART Station. One community member commented that the current coffee shops at the Powell and Fremont stations work quite well. Others mentioned that a deli or store that sold quick snacks would also be desirable. One local community member inquired about how to potentially lease a space at the station to open a retail establishment.

Surveys Overview and Methodology As part of BART’s public outreach efforts for the BART to Warm Springs Extension Project, BART used a survey to solicit input from the public meeting attendees and BART riders currently accessing the Fremont BART Station. The survey instrument was designed to generate a profile of BART riders (primarily those that utilize the Fremont BART Station) and their existing travel behaviors, solicit input on future travel choices in the context of a new station at Warm Springs, and solicit feedback on potential station characteristics and amenities. English versions of the survey form are included in Appendix C.

The survey was distributed and collected at the two BART community meetings discussed above, in Fremont on April 27, 2011 and in Milpitas on April 28, 2011. Surveys were also distributed on trains at the Fremont BART Station and on VTA buses. For surveys on BART trains, surveyors made several runs throughout the day originating from the Fremont BART Station to points throughout the BART system. For surveys on VTA buses, surveys were primarily collected on Route 181, which begins at the San Jose-Diridon Caltrain Station and ends at the Fremont BART Station. Surveyors began each shift by taking Caltrain to San Jose-Diridon and then distributed surveys on Route 181 in the northbound direction.

The survey periods were designed to capture a variety of travel conditions, including weekdays and weekends, as well as the AM and PM peak commute periods. BART surveys were collected on April 29 and 30 and May 2 and 3, 2011, while VTA surveys were collected from May 3 to May 5, 2011. In all, a total of 1,346 surveys were collected (1,281 surveys from distribution on BART trains and VTA buses, and 65 from the two BART community meetings).

A summary of key findings from the survey is provided in the following sections. It is important to note, however, a few key considerations regarding the data:

• The surveys that were distributed at the community meetings and the surveys distributed on BART/VTA were different from one another: questions are phrased differently and some questions are different altogether. For example, Question 1 on the community meeting survey asks “Do you currently ride BART?” while Question 1 on the BART/VTA survey asks “How often do you use the Fremont BART station?” Therefore, while an effort was made to combine the responses from the two surveys, it was not possible with all questions.

• In most cases blank or unanswered questions were omitted from the data analysis for a given question.




• Several of the survey questions were analyzed by the racial or ethnic identification of the survey respondents. In those instances, a “non-minority” classification refers to those who identified themselves as “white.” A “minority” classification includes the combined responses from all other races or ethnic identities. For purposes of this Title VI analysis, “low income” refers to those with household incomes of $44,000 or less annually (according to the MTC definition for a family of four). Survey data is presented for two income categories within this low-income grouping, and is also presented for non-low- income survey respondents.

Summary of Findings Demographic Profile of Respondents

Race In general, 70% of those who filled out a survey would be classified as “minority” for purposes of this Title VI Equity Analysis, compared to an average of 52.7% in BART’s service area (Figure B-1). Over 40% of those responding to the survey identified themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander, while almost 30% of individuals identified themselves as White. Hispanic/Latino and African American were the third- and fourth-most common choices, respectively (Figure B-2). All other identified races were aggregated into an “Other” category.

Figure B-1 Survey Respondents, by Minority Status

n=1,345

29.7%

70.3%

Non-minority Minority




Figure B-2 Race and Ethnicity of Survey Respondents

n=1,345

Income Of the respondents that provided their household income1

1 254 respondents either did not know their household income or did not respond.

, approximately 34% had household incomes of $75,000 or more. By contrast, Figure B-3 shows that approximately 27% of survey respondents could potentially be classified as “low-income” according to the MTC definition ($44,000 or less for a household of four). Because the surveys did not ask respondents to identify their household size, it is unclear whether any survey respondent can be definitively classified as “low-income” but the survey was analyzed using this threshold as an assumptive definition.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Asian / Pacific Islander

White Hispanic/Latino Black Other

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents




Figure B-3 Household Income of Survey Respondents

n=1,082

English Proficiency and Languages Spoken One of the survey questions asked respondents to indicate whether they, or someone in their household, were less than proficient in English. Approximately 18% of respondents indicated “Yes” (Figure B-4). It should be noted that although more than 70% of survey respondents were classified as “minority,” the vast majority stated that they were proficient in English.

Figure B-4 Households with Limited English Proficiency

n=1,245

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

18.3%

81.7%

Yes No




At the same time, approximately 58% of respondents indicated that they or someone from their household speaks a language other than English (Figure B-5). Several dozen languages were listed, but Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi were the top three languages spoken by a substantial margin of the survey respondents.

Figure B-5 Households that Speak a Language Other than English

n=1,246

Riding BART Today

Use of BART As mentioned above, Question 1 on each survey was slightly different. Question 1 on the community survey asks “Do you currently ride BART?” while Question 1 on the BART/VTA survey asks “How often do you use the Fremont BART station?” Therefore, results from the two surveys are generally provided separately. Figure B-6 summarizes the responses from the BART/VTA survey effort. Given that the survey was taken on BART or on a VTA route on the way to the Fremont BART station, it is not surprising that the vast majority of survey respondents use the Fremont BART station at least once a week. By contrast, those that attended one of the two community meetings were far less likely to use BART on a frequent basis. The majority of these individuals use BART less than once a month (Figure B-7).

In addition, an analysis of the frequency of use of the Fremont BART Station by income and minority status was performed.2

As shown in Figure B-8, for the most frequent users (3 or more days per week) of the Fremont BART Station, they were more likely to have a household income above $44,000 (non-low-income, for purposes of this analysis). By contrast, minority respondents were slightly more likely to indicate that they use Fremont BART more than three days per week (Figure B-9).

2 Given the small sample size of the BART community meeting survey, a similar analysis was not performed for those responses.

57.8%42.2%

Yes No




Figure B-6 How Often Do You Use Fremont BART Station?3

n=1,276

Figure B-7 Do You Currently Ride BART?4

n=65

3 BART/VTA survey 4 BART community meeting survey

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Never < 1 per month 1-3 days per month 1-2 days per week 3+ days per week

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents




Figure B-8 Use of Fremont BART, by Income

n=1,025

Figure B-9 Use of Fremont BART, by Minority Status

n=907

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Never < 1 per month 1-3 days per month

1-2 days per week

3+ days per week

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k 22-44k $45-75k $75k +

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





Final Destinations Figure B-10 provides the top 20 most common final destinations on BART for survey respondents. Because some survey respondents did not specifically indicate which BART station was their final destination, “unspecified” San Francisco and Oakland destinations are included as their own category. Nevertheless, one can see that Downtown San Francisco and Downtown Berkeley are the most common destination for survey respondents. Consequently the Embarcadero and Downtown Berkeley stations are used for the analysis in Chapter 5.

Figure B-10 Top 20 Most Common BART Final Destinations

n=1,347

Access Mode to Fremont BART Both surveys asked respondents their access mode to BART, yet in a slightly different manner. Question 3 on the BART/VTA survey asks: “How do you usually get TO [sic] the Fremont BART Station (select one)?” Question 4 on the BART community meeting survey asks: “How do you currently get to BART?” As a result, the data could not be aggregated and analysis for these two questions is provided separately.

It is also important to note that several survey respondents indicated multiple modes of access to BART, such as “drive alone, carpool, and walk.” It is likely that some respondents misinterpreted the questions and indicated all modes they have used in the past, but not their one primary access mode to BART for a single given trip. For the purposes of this analysis, each separate mode was included, and consequently, there were more responses than actual respondents.

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

Dublin/PleasantonSFO

Lake MerrittDaly City

Oakland (Unspecified)San Leandro

RichmondFremont19th St.

FruitvaleUnion City

Civic CenterBay FairHayward

PowellColiseum / OAK

12th St.Downtown Berkeley

MontgomeryEmbarcadero

SF (Unspecified)

Number of Responses




Access mode data for the Fremont BART Station was provided as part of the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey. Because some of the information provided from the surveys on VTA buses and BART shows a mode split with a high number of transit users, the 2008 data has also been included to provide a comparative view of how people get to Fremont BART.

Figure B-11 shows the station mode of access for each of these three data sets. Clearly, there are some differences between the various surveys and data sets. For example, drive alone mode share represented about one-half of respondents for both the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey (50%) and the community meeting survey (54%); access by transit was a much less prominent mode in each survey, at 8% and roughly 10%, respectively. By contrast, the surveys distributed on BART and VTA buses indicated that the transit mode share to Fremont BART was substantially higher at 23%. The differences in access mode share can be attributed to the fact that many of the 2011 surveys were distributed to individuals specifically utilizing VTA transit to access BART. This factor skewed the results of this more recent survey towards a higher transit mode share.

In general, it is likely that the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey provides the most accurate picture of how people are accessing the Fremont BART station. Nonetheless, the surveys distributed for the Warm Springs study do offer some interesting insights that will be considered in the ongoing planning efforts for the BART extension.

Figure B-11 Access Mode to Fremont BART5,6,7

Note: Total Auto Access includes the categories Drive Alone, Dropped Off, and Carpool

5 BART Station Profile Study (2008) is for home-origin trips. 6 Community Meeting survey asked: “How do you currently get to BART?” Therefore, responses may not explicitly apply to Fremont BART. In addition, this data set includes all responses, including surveys that indicated multiple modes of access to BART. 7 “Other” category includes shuttles or taxis.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Total Auto Access

Drive Alone Dropped off Carpool Walk Public Transit Bike Other

BART Station Profile Study (2008) Surveys at Community Meetings (2011)Surveys on BART/VTA (2011)




For the surveys distributed on BART/VTA an additional analysis was performed, showing access mode by both income and race, as shown in Figures B-12 and B-13. The key findings from this analysis are that low-income respondents take public transit at a far higher rate than those with higher incomes and that the drive alone mode share increases with income. Similarly, drive alone mode share is higher for non-minority respondents, while minority respondents use public transit more often to get to Fremont BART.

Figure B-12 Access Mode to Fremont BART Station, by Income

n=1,151, Total Auto Access includes the categories Drive Alone, Dropped Off, and Carpool

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Total Auto Access

Drive Alone Dropped Off Carpool Public Transit

Walk Bike Other

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +




Figure B-13 Access Mode to Fremont BART Station, by Minority Status

n=1,019, Total Auto Access includes the categories Drive Alone, Dropped Off, and Carpool

Travel Time to Fremont BART Both surveys asked respondents to estimate their travel time to the Fremont BART Station. Figure B-14 reveals that just over 30% of survey respondents have a travel time between 10 and 19 minutes. The next most common travel time was 1-9 minutes, but a substantial number of respondents take 20-50 minutes to get to Fremont BART (approximately 38%). Approximately 8% of respondents indicate that their travel time is 60 minutes or more.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Total Auto Access

Drive Alone Dropped Off Carpool Public Transit

Walk Bike Other

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





Figure B-14 Travel Time to Fremont BART

n=1,217

When looking at travel time by income and minority status, a few trends emerge. First, it appears that respondents with travel times less than 20 minutes were predominantly higher income. In fact, 61% of those with an income above $75,000 had a travel time less than 20 minutes, while 54% of those with an income between $45,000 and $75,000 had a commute time of less than 20 minutes (see Figure B-15). By contrast, the longest commutes (60 minutes or more) were predominantly made by low-income households. More specifically, 61% of those with a commute of more than 60 minutes had an income of $44,000 or less.

As shown in Figure B-16, the largest share of minority respondents had a travel time to Fremont BART of 10-19 minutes, at nearly 35%, exceeding that of non-minorities by about 8%. For those with travel times of more than 60 minutes, the split between minorities and non-minorities was essentially equal.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Don't Know

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Number of Minutes




Figure B-15 Travel Time to Fremont BART, by Income

n=991

Figure B-16 Travel Time to Fremont BART, by Minority Status

n=849

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Don't Know

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Number of Minutes

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Don't Know

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Number of Minutes





Warm Springs BART Station

Likeliness of Use The BART/VTA survey asked how likely survey respondents were to use a new station at Warm Springs.8

n=1,271

Likeliness of use was also analyzed by income and minority status. There were minor differences between minority and non-minority respondents in their likeliness of use. In general, the majority of all income ranges would be “Very Likely” or “Somewhat Likely” to use the new station. It appears that the higher the income, the less likely respondents are to use the Warm Springs Station, as shown in Figure B-18. This could be due to a number of factors, including the fact that survey respondents are not exclusively from the Warm Springs BART Station study area, and could include non-low-income residents who are in closer proximity to the Fremont BART Station. Low-income households are more uncertain about whether they will use the station or not. This finding can likely be attributed to uncertainty about how the new BART station will affect the provision of VTA and other transit routes in the study area.

The responses based on minority status reveal no significant differences (Figure B-19).

The majority of respondents indicated they were either “Very Likely” or “Somewhat Likely” to use the new station (Figure B-17). A substantial number of respondents, however, were uncertain about whether they would use the station or not.

Figure B-17 Likeliness of Use of Warm Springs BART Station

8 This question was not included on the survey distributed at the two BART community meetings.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not too Likely Not at all Likely Don't Know

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents




Figure B-18 Likeliness of Use of Warm Springs BART Station, by Income

n=1,024

Figure B-19 Likeliness of Use of Warm Springs BART Station, by Minority Status

n=1,276

Access to Warm Springs On both surveys, respondents were asked to indicate which mode they would use to access the new Warm Springs BART Station. Results for each survey are presented separately because the data was tabulated in different manners. In general, drive alone would be the most common access mode, although the respondents at the community meetings did indicate they would also

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





likely use a combination of modes to get to the new station (see “Other” category in Figure B-20). BART/VTA respondents also indicated that public transit would be a primary access mode.

Figure B-20 Access Mode to Warm Springs BART Station

n=1,447

When looking at access to the Warm Springs BART Station, it appears that income, and to a lesser degree minority status, significantly affects mode choice. As shown in Figure B-21, drive alone mode share increases as household income rises, while public transit mode share decreases as household income rises. In fact, approximately, 90% of low-income respondents ($44,000 household income or less) stated that they would access the new station by public transit. Similar patterns emerge when access mode is based on minority status (Figure B-22).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Drive Alone Public Transit Dropped Off Carpool Walk Bike Other

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

BART/VTA Survey BART Communtiy Meeting Survey




Figure B-21 Access Mode to Warm Springs BART Station, by Income9

n=1,135, Note: Total Auto Access includes the categories Drive Alone, Dropped Off, and Carpool

Figure B-22 Access Mode to Warm Springs BART Station, by Minority Status10

n=989, Note: Total Auto Access includes the categories Drive Alone, Dropped Off, and Carpool

9 Only calculated for BART/VTA survey. 10 Only calculated for BART/VTA survey.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Total Auto

Access

Drive Alone

Dropped Off

Carpool Public Transit

Walk Bike Other

Perc

ent o

f res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Total Auto

Access

Drive Alone

Dropped Off

Carpool Public Transit

Walk Bike Other

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





Direct Service from Warm Springs As shown in Figure B-23, almost two-thirds of respondents indicated that they would like direct service to Downtown SF/Daly City. When looking at this question in terms of low-income and minority respondents, both groups prefer direct service to San Francisco. Low-income survey respondents are slightly more likely to want direct service to stations in the East Bay than non-low-income respondents, while minority respondents are slightly more likely to seek direct service to stations in San Francisco than non-minority respondents. (Figure B-24 and B-25).

Figure B-23 Where would you like direct service to?

n=1,286

Figure B-24 Direct Service, by Income

n=1,045

37.4%

62.6%

Downtown Oakland/Berkeley/Richmond Downtown SF/Daly City

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +




Figure B-25 Direct Service, by Minority Status

n=901

Station Amenities Each survey asked respondents to select from a number of potential station amenities to be provided at the future Warm Springs BART Station. Respondents were offered four options, but could also write-in other ideas. Figure B-26 provides a summary of the overall responses. In general, a coffee shop/snack bar was the most commonly selected amenity at 48%. A bookstore/ newsstand was preferred second-most often, with approximately 25% of responses. The most common write-in “amenities” were bank/ATM and grocery store. In addition, bathrooms were consistently mentioned as a needed station amenity. As shown in Figures B-27 and B-28, there was very little difference in preferred station amenities by income or minority status.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





Figure B-26 Preferred Station Amenities

n=2,132

Figure B-27 Preferred Station Amenities, by Income

n=1,806

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Coffee Shop / Snack Bar

Bookstore / Newstand

Post Office Dry Cleaners Other

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%




Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +




Figure B-28 Preferred Station Amenities, by Minority Status

n=1,533

Travel Time to Warm Springs The BART/VTA survey asked respondents to compare the proposed travel time to the Warm Springs BART Station with their existing travel time to the Fremont BART Station. Roughly one-third indicated that their travel time would be shorter, while another third thought their travel time would be longer, as shown in Figure B-29. Just over 22% did not know how their travel time would be affected, while about 11% thought their travel time would be about the same.

Figure B-29 Travel Time to Warm Springs BART vs. Fremont BART

n=1,234

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%




Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Shorter Longer Don't Know About the Same

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents




When this question was analyzed by income and minority status, a few findings emerge. First, as shown in Figure B-30, non-low-income individuals believe that their travel time will be longer than low-income individuals. Similarly, slightly more non-minority respondents believe their commute time to Warm Springs would be longer than to Fremont (Figure B-31).

It is also interesting to note that the majority of low-income individuals (income less than $44,000) did not know how the new station would affect their travel time to BART. Once again, this is likely indicative of uncertainty regarding future transit options to BART.

Figure B-30 Travel Time to Warm Springs BART vs. Fremont BART, by Income

n=1,010

Figure B-31 Travel Time to Warm Springs BART vs. Fremont BART, by Minority Status

n=892

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Shorter Longer About the Same Don't Know

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Shorter Longer About the Same Don't Know

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





Warm Springs BART Fares Both surveys noted that a trip from the future Warm Springs BART Station would add about $.40 more to the fare than the existing cost from the Fremont BART Station. The surveys asked respondents to indicate whether they thought the fare was reasonable/appropriate, too high, or too low. Figure B-32 offers a general summary of the findings. Close to 70% of respondents feel that the proposed fare is reasonable/appropriate, while 30% believe it to be too high. A very small percentage believe the fare to be too low.

Figure B-32 Proposed Warm Springs BART Fare

n=1,269

This question was also analyzed according to income and minority status. While most people said they believe the fare was reasonable/acceptable, the share of respondents who believe it is too high rose as income decreased (Figure B-33). Of those who said the fare was too high, approximately 73% were from households that make $44,000 or less annually. A similar finding emerged based on minority status, as minority respondents were more likely to indicate that the fare was too high (Figure B-34).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Reasonable/Appropriate Too High Too Low

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents




Figure B-33 Proposed Warm Springs BART Fare, by Income

n=1,043

Figure B-34 Proposed Warm Springs BART Fare, by Minority Status

n=891

Finally, the survey that was distributed at the two BART community meetings asked the following: “Based on what you know about the estimated travel time and fare, would new Warm Springs BART service affect how often you use BART?” Figure B-35 provides a summary of those responses. Approximately 60% of respondents said they believe that they would “probably” or “definitely” ride BART more often, while just more than 35% said it would not affect their BART

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Reasonable/Acceptable Too High Too Low

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Less than $22k $22-44k $45-75k $75k +

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Reasonable/Acceptable Too High Too Low

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents





use. A very small percentage said they believe it would cause them to “probably” ride BART less often.

Figure B-35 Effect of Warm Springs BART on Ridership

n=58

Additional Comments or Concerns For both surveys, respondents were also asked to provide any additional comments or concerns. A total of 349 “write-in” responses were provided. These comments and concerns cover a variety of issues related to BART. A sample of the most relevant and frequent comments organized by topic are provided below.

BART to San Jose • A BART station in San Jose would be more preferred for me. I would use that station a lot

more.

• BART to San Jose would be ideal.

• Come to San Jose!

• Hopefully, you can get BART to San Jose.

• I like to see a San Jose station.

BART Service and Warm Springs Extension • Have been waiting, love to see BART coming to Warm Springs

• Look forward to opening, as well as Irvington Station

• Terrific! Let's get to Santa Clara too

• Get it built. "If you build it they will come."

• I can't wait until the Warm Springs station is a reality.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Ride BART same amount

Definitely ride BART more

often

Probably ride BART more

often

Probably ride BART less often

Don't know Definitely ride BART less often

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents




Cost of BART • BART is way too expensive. Stop expanding BART to make money, that money could be

better spent subsidizing the current cost of BART and strengthening existing Caltrain operations. You could also save money by reducing BART police.

• BART has gotten too expensive!

• Overall, the cost of BART is too high. Please help reduce the cost.

• BART is amazing, thank you for expanding! However, I'm a poor college student and I wish the costs were lower.

• Thanks to BART and public transportation! It is the key to help our planet protect our environment. Also, it helps citizens save money on gas and it's less stress than to drive everywhere. Bravo! I hope Warm Springs BART is built, but make it cheap and affordable, so more people will be encouraged to take BART and the bus. Thanks!

• The fare is too high for the people who have a round trip between San Francisco to Fremont every working day. $246.00 is too high.

• I'm afraid of fare prices!

• Keep BART fares lower than gas prices or make it affordable so that public transport is a better option than driving.

• Lower BART fares.

• The disabled price should come down.

Cleanliness of BART • BART is doing a great job. Improvement is needed in the cleanliness of some stations and

car seats.

• BART seats could be cleaner. I can't wait to see new, clean, and shiny new plastic seats. BART in Taiwan is the best example to look at for a change.

• Clean seats. Very deep clean the current seats.

• How about cleaning up the inside of the trains and BART stations with the money instead of building another BART station?

• I would like to see cleaner trains and more police presence onboard and in the stations.

Access to BART • I'm trying to figure out which bus might be en-route to the Warm Springs Station.

• It'd be good to have a direct access to BART.

• It'd be preferred if the new warm springs [sic] has VTA departing services, i.e. express lines to San Jose downtown, like the 181.

• More bike lockers please.

• More public transport readily accessible to BART.

• This questionnaire does not give what connections (VTA) it will have. So, it's very difficult to answer.




• What will be the bus connection to Santa Clara?

• Will there be a shuttle bus between the stations?

Findings Input from the surveys and public meetings offers information about community concerns. Some of the key issues for consideration are as follows:

• At the public meetings, interest in the construction timeline, rail alignment, parking availability at the Warm Springs BART Station, and amenities were primary topics of discussion. Key areas of input for BART include the need for adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure at and around the new Warm Springs BART Station, because several people expressed concerns about bicycle safety; the need for an adequate parking supply at the Warm Springs BART Station; the importance of safety and security at the station; and the need for public restrooms.

• Because the community meetings were designed to solicit input from minority and low-income populations within the study area, it is not surprising that more than 70% of those who filled out a survey would be classified as “minority” for purposes of this Title VI Equity Analysis. Approximately 27% of survey respondents could potentially be classified as “low-income” according to the MTC definition ($44,000 or less for a family of four).11

• Low-income individuals take public transit to access BART at a far higher rate than those with higher incomes, and the mode share of persons who drive alone increases with income. Similarly, the drive alone mode share is higher for non-minority respondents, while minority respondents use public transit more often to get to Fremont BART.

• Higher income respondents have shorter travel times to BART than low-income respondents. The survey found that 61% of those with an income above $75,000 had a travel time of less than 20 minutes, while 54% of those with an income between $45,000 and $75,000 had a commute time of less than 20 minutes. By contrast, the longest commutes were predominantly made by low-income households: 61% of those with a commute of more than 60 minutes had an income of $44,000 or less.

• With the Warm Springs BART Station, roughly one-third of respondents believe their travel time will be shorter; almost an equal percentage believe the travel time will be longer.

• Close to 70% of respondents feel that the proposed fare is reasonable/appropriate for trips beginning in Warm Springs, while 30% believe it to be too high. A larger proportion of low-income respondents than non-low-income respondents said the fare would be too high; a larger proportion of minority respondents than non-minority respondents said the fare would be too high. Many people indicated concerns about BART costs on survey forms, not only in relation to the Warm Springs Extension, but also for BART service in general.

11 Because the surveys did not ask respondents to identify their household size, it is unclear whether any survey respondent can be definitely classified as “low-income.”

APPENDIX C COMMUNITY PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS (IN ENGLISH)

BART is extending further Southward in Alameda County, moving the end of the line 5.4 miles from Fremont to a new station in Warm Springs. Construction is already underway and is anticipated to be complete in late 2014.

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) invites you to attend a community meeting to discuss the Warm Springs project and provide input on key station elements including access, parking, fares and amenities.

Meetings are open to the public. Translation services and child care are available if requested 3 days (72 hours) before the meeting by calling Walter Gonzales at 510-464-6428. Refreshments will be served.

Ang mga pulong ay bukas para sa publiko. Ang mga serbisyong pagsasalin at pangangalagang pambata ay makukuha kung hini-hini-ling 3 araw (72 oras) bago ang pulong sa pamamagitan ng pagtawag kay Walter Gonzales sa 510-464-6428. May pampalamig/miryendang ihahanda.

BART se extenderá aún más hacia el sur en el Condado de Alameda, cambiando de lugar el destino final de la línea a una nueva estación en Warm Springs, a 5.4 millas de distancia de Fremont. Las obras de construcción ya han dado inicio y se espera que terminen a finales de 2014.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) lo invita a asistir a una reunión comunitaria con el fin de hablar acerca del proyecto de Warm Springs y proveer sus opiniones acerca de los elementos más importantes de la estación, tales como el acceso a ella, estacionamiento, tarifas y servicios a ofrecerse.

Las reuniones están abiertas al público en general. Se contará con servicios de interpretación y cuidado infantil si se solicitan 3 días (72 horas) antes de la reunión llamando a Walter Gonzales al 510-464-6428. Se ofrecerán refrigerios.

BART is coming to Warm Springs!BART wants to hear from you.

April 27th6:30 pm — 8:00 pmWarm Springs Community Center Multi-Purpose Room47300 Fernald St.Fremont, CA 94539

April 28th6:30 pm — 8:00 pmMilpitas Community Center457 East Calaveras Blvd.Milpitas, CA 95035

Walter Gonzales • BART Government and Community Relations • (510) 464-6428 or [email protected]

What types of parking are most useful for you as a BART rider? (Select one or more)

Monthly Reserved Parking

Daily Fee Parking

Single Day Reserved Parking

ACCESS TO WARM SPRINGS BART STATIONBART is looking for your thoughts regarding how you will access the Warm Springs BART Station. The station will be located in the Warm Springs District in the City of Fremont.

6. If you were to use the Warm Springs Station, how would you likely get to the station? Drive alone

Carpool

Dropped off

Public Transportation (AC Transit, VTA)

Bike

Walk

Combination ______________________________

Other: ___________________________________

BART needs your input on several aspects of the Warm Springs project. Please answer the questions below for each topic and turn in your survey at the end of this meeting. Thank you!

RIdING BART1. do you currently ride BART?

Never

Less than once a month

1 – 3 days a month

1 – 2 days a week

3 days a week or more

2. do you get on BART at the Fremont Station? Yes No, I get on at ____________________________________________________________________________

3. What is your usual BART destination station? _______________________________________________________________

do you use other stations? If so which ones? ________________________________________________________________

5. How long does it take you to get from your house to the Fremont BART Station? ___________________________

over >

Warm SpringsSurvey

4. How do you currently get to BART? Drive alone

Carpool

Dropped off


Bike

Walk

Combination ______________________________

Other: ___________________________________

If you were to use the BART Warm Springs Station, rather than transfer, where would you like direct service?

Downtown Oakland/Berkeley/Richmond Downtown San Francisco/Daly City

7.

BART SERVICE PLAN FOR THE WARM SPRINGS STATION

Airport/Long Term Parking

Carpool Parking

8.

PARKING OPTIONS AT THE WARM SPRINGS STATION

Coffee Shop/Snack Bar

Other:_____________________________________________________________

What types of station retail vendors would you like to see at the Warm Springs BART Station? (Select one or more)

Post Office

Dry Cleaners

Book Store/Newsstand

9.

STATION AMENITIES

Thank you for your time www.bart.gov

Compared to travel from the Fremont Station, what do you think of the proposed additional fare from Warm Springs?

It is reasonable/appropriate It is too high

What is the total annual income of your household before taxes? (Select only one)

Under $22,000

$22,000 - $44,000

14.

15. What is your race or ethnic identification? (Select one or more)

American Indian or Native

Asian or Pacific Islander

Black/African American

Spanish, Hispanic or Latino

White

Other: ___________________________________________

do you have any additional comments or concerns?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19.

Your Contact Information (Optional)

Name: _______________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________

City: ________________________________________________ Zip Code: __________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________

20.

A FEW quESTIONS ABOuT YOuRSELF

10. Compare the estimated travel times between the Warm Springs and Fremont BART Stations:

12.

It is too low

What type(s), if any, of community-based organizations do you participate in?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

16.

Don’t know

FARESAn estimated fare from Warm Springs to Berkeley, San Francisco or other BART stations might be about 40 cents more than the fare from the Fremont Station. For example, in 2015, a trip from the Fremont Station to Downtown Berkeley is estimated at $4.50, while a trip from the Warm Springs Station to Downtown Berkeley would be $4.90 (40¢ more).

BART respects your privacy. Information on this survey will be treated confidentially and will be used only for BART transit planning.

WARM SPRINGS TRAVEL TIME

BART dRIVING + PARKING BuS

6 MINuTESBART Service between Warm Springs

and Fremont Station.

Travel time on BART to Fremont BART platform.

18-19 MINuTESDriving between Warm Springs

and Fremont Station

Travel time includes parking and walking to Fremont BART platform.

29-30 MINuTESAC Transit Route 215 between

Warm Springs and Fremont Station.

Travel time includes walking to Fremont BART platform.

13. Based on what you know about the estimated travel time and fare, would new Warm Springs BART service affect how often you use BART?

Definitely ride BART more often

Probably ride BART more often

I will ride BART about the same amount

Probably ride BART less often

Definitely ride BART less often

Don’t know

Why? _______________________________

____________________________________

11. Will the shorter travel time using BART between Warm Springs and Fremont impact the way you travel? If so, how?________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17. do you or anyone from your household speak a language other than English at home? If so, what language?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18. do you or anyone in your household consider themselves limited English proficient(speaks English less than very well)?

Yes No

FREMONT WARM SPRINGS

Approximate travel times between Warm Springs (South Grimmer Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard) and Fremont BART.

$45,000 - $75,000

Over $75,000

ACCESS TO WARM SPRINGS BART STATIONBART is looking for your thoughts regarding the Warm Springs BART Station. The station will be located in the Warm Springs District (South Grimmer Blvd. & Warm Springs Blvd.) in the City of Fremont.

5. How likely will you be to use the Warm Springs BART station? Very likely

Somewhat likely

Don’t know Not too likely

Not at all

BART needs your input on several aspects of the Warm Springs project. Please answer the questions below for each topic and return it to the surveyor onboard. Thank you!

RIDING BART1. How often do you use the Fremont BART Station?

Never

Less than once a month 1 – 3 days a month

1 – 2 days a week

3 days a week or more

2. When you board BART at Fremont, what is your usual BART destination station? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How long does it take you to get from this location (above) to the Fremont BART Station? ________________

over >

Warm SpringsSurvey

4. When boarding at the Fremont BART Station, where are you usually coming from? Home Work Other:____________________________________

3. How do you usually get TO the Fremont BART Station? (Select one)

Drive alone

Carpool

Dropped off


Bike

Walk

Combination ______________________________

Other: ___________________________________

When using the BART Warm Springs Station, where would you like direct service to? (Select only one)

Downtown Oakland/Berkeley/Richmond Downtown San Francisco/Daly City

7.

BART SERVICE PLAN FOR THE WARM SPRINGS STATION

What type of parking would you use at the Warm Springs Station? (Select one or more)

None

Monthly Reserved Parking

Daily Fee Parking

Single Day Reserved Parking

Airport/Long Term Parking

Carpool Parking

8.

PARKING OPTIONS AT THE WARM SPRINGS STATION

Thank you for your time www.bart.gov

6. How would you likely get to the Warm Springs Station? (Select one)

Drive alone

Carpool

Dropped off


Bike

Walk

Combination ______________________________

Other: ___________________________________

Please answer the following questions – regardless of how likely you are to use the Warm Springs Station.

Compared to travel from the Fremont Station, what do you think of the proposed additional fare from Warm Springs?

It is reasonable/appropriate It is too high

What is the total annual income of your household before taxes? (Select only one)

Under $22,000

$22,000 - $44,000

12.

13. What is your race or ethnic identification? (Select one or more)

American Indian or Native

Asian or Pacific Islander

Black/African American

Spanish, Hispanic or Latino White

Other: ___________________________________________

Do you have any additional comments or concerns?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

17.

Your Contact Information (Optional)

Name: _______________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________

City: ________________________________________________ Zip Code: __________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________

18.

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF

11.

It is too low

What type(s), if any, of community-based organizations do you participate in?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

14.

Don’t know

FARESAn estimated fare from Warm Springs to Berkeley, San Francisco or other BART stations might be about 40 cents more than the fare from the Fremont Station. For example, in 2015, a trip from the Fremont Station to Downtown Berkeley is estimated at $4.50, while a trip from the Warm Springs Station to Downtown Berkeley would be $4.90 (40¢ more).

BART respects your privacy. Information on this survey will be treated confidentially and will be used only for BART transit planning.

15. Do you or anyone from your household speak a language other than English? Yes If yes, what language? ______________________________________________________________________________

No

16. Do you or anyone in your household consider themselves limited English proficient(speaks English less than very well)?

Yes No

$45,000 - $75,000

Over $75,000

10. Would the travel time to Warm Springs BART be shorter or longer than your current travel time to Fremont BART?

WARM SPRINGS TRAVEL TIME

Shorter

Longer About the same

Don’t know

Coffee Shop/Snack Bar

Other:_____________________________________________________________

What types of station retail vendors would you like to see at the Warm Springs BART Station? (Select one or more)

Post Office

Dry Cleaners

Book Store/Newsstand

9.

STATION AMENITIES

Documents

FINAL REPORT - storage.googleapis.com€¦ · FINAL REPORT . Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) ... Figure 2-1 Comparison on FTA Circular 4702.1A (2007)