transit times volume 2, number 2

8/14/2019 Transit Times Volume 2, Number 2

1/5

Special Transit Bond Election VotedBoard Approves November 3 Election Date; New StudiesTo Consider Future High-Speed Local Rail Transit

The intention to hold a specia l transitbond election in November ha s beenvoted by directors of the Alameda-Contr aCos ta Transit District in a move to speedup development of a publicly owned tran sit system in the East Bay.

The bonrd of directors, at its meetingthis month , also decided to ask consulting engineers to study possible ne ed forfuture rapid Tail transit in the Ea st Bayto be op era ted by the District.

The rail study was part of a new

$25,000 contract agreement approvedwith De Leuw. Cather & Company , consulting engineers. Main part of th e DeLeu w study will be a major revision ofthe district's motor coach plan to serve asthe ba sis for the November bond issue.New Equipment Bonds

The engineers were instructed to consider an alternate bond proposal that

would be used to buy entirely new operating equipment. In the preliminary plan ,engineers recommended both the purchase of new "'Transit Liner" motorcoac hes as well as some used buses fromKey System Transit Line s,

Robert K. Barber, district president,said follOWing approval of the contract:

"Our engineering studies, in additionto developing a final plan for motor coach

operation, will also determine the futureneeds of highspeed local rapid transitthat would be operated in the East Bayarea by this District in addition to the

regional lines operated by the nve-countyBay Area Rapid Transit District.

"Rapid rail transit for local East Bayservice is a phase of our long-range program that we ar e not directly confrontedwit h today. But it should be given thorough consideration now so that we willbe ready to proceed when local, highspeed rail transit can be economicallyjustified in the n ear future,"

Rail Transit Needed

John R. Worthington, general manager, said that unless the fivl7county rapidtransit district makes "major changes insome of its routing, there are severa l areasof the East Bay wh ere population densitywill both demand and justify additionalhigh-speed local rail transit in the nextfive to 15 years ...

The special bond election, tentativelyscheduled for November 3, will be held

in th e District's new special operationszone, This zone includes most of AlamedaCounty in the District, and EI Cerrito andKensington in Contra Costa County,

Several East Bay cities are consideringspecial bond elections this fall, Worth.ingkm reported,including Oakland, Berkeley, Albany and EI Cerrito.

"One or more of these issues could beconsolida ted with ours, representing notonly a considerable saving to the taxpayerbut at the same time helping to assurea larger voter turnout at the single elec.tion," he said.


2/5

District RequestsSuperVisors of Alameda an d Contra

Costa couinties have been asked by theTransit District to return nearly $34,000th e District paid the counties as a shareof last November's election costs.

Although bills from th e counties werepaid without protest earlier this year, itha s since developed that two other specialdistricts have not been paying for thesame service.

John R. Worthington, district generalmanager, asked for cancellation of thecharges an d for refunds in letters to supervisors of both counties. Involved is

$26,970 paid to Alameda County an d$6,870 paid to Contra Costa County.

Th e District was billed and paid for ashare of th e costs of the November consolidated election at which transit directors were elected an d a transit bond issuevoted upon at the same time as state offices were filled.

2

Tr a n s i t Ti m e s

Published monthly by theAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

700 Plaza Building506 Fifteenth Street

Oakland 12, CaliforniaTelephone TEmplebar 61808

Alan L. Bingham, Editor

OfficersRobert K. Barber PresidentWm. J. Bettencourt . . Vice PresidentJohn R. Worthington General ManagerRobert E. Nisbet . Attorney-SecretaryGeorge M. Taylor . Administr ative Officer

DirectorsRobert K. BarberRobert M. Copeland .William H. Coburn, Jr.J. Howard ArnoldJohn l. McDonnellWm. J. Bettencourt .Pau I E. Deadrich .

~ 1 0

Director at largeDirector at large

Ward IWard IIWard IIIWard IVWard V

Election RefundIn letters to th e supervisors, Worthing

ton noted that both th e East Bay Municipal Utility District an d the Ea st Bay Regional Park District have on numerousoccasions consolidated their electionswith th e county and never paid for it.

Election provisions of the state lawsunder which the districts operate are essentially th e same, according to RobertE. Nisbet, transit attorney.

Therefore, Worthington wrote, although the transit district board "sees noobjection to the payment of a reasonablecharge to the county for the handling ofa consolidated election, it neverthelessmust, in light of the circumstances" askfor a refund.

Th e request is presently pending before both boards of supervisors.

Riders, Revenues IncreaseOn Santa Monica Buses

SANTA MONICA-An increase in bothpassengers an d gross revenue has beenreported for the month of March by theSanta Monica Municipal Bus Lines.

Ne t profit for the month was $20,803,after all expenses including depreciation,as compared t o a profit of only $3,054 forMarch last year.

Number of passengers carried was

1,071,634 as compared t o 989,345 for thesame month last year, despite an increasein fares granted last July.

More InJormationTh e District can make available speak

ers and a 20-minute color film on transitto interested organizations. A note orphone call to the District also will placeyour name on th e mailing list for TransitTimes if you are no t already regularlyreceiving the monthly newsletter.

Engineers Complete Study On ElectricTrolley Coaches, Find Costs Excessive

A special engineering study has foundthat electric trolley coach operation ismore expensive than a similar service provided by diesel motor coach.

Consultants De Leuw, Cather & Company, at th e conclusion of a $1,000 survey, reported:

"Our studies clearly show that there isno economy in th e operation of trolleycoaches under the conditions prevailingwithin the Alameda-Contra Costa TransitDistrict.

"The additional cost required to operate 16 lines with trolley coaches as opposed to diesel coaches is estimated atover $1,000,000 a year."

The special study was requested by theBoard of Directors following a suggestionseveral months ago by Director J. Howard Arnold that th e District should convert an d operate about 80 per cent of th e

route miles now covered by Key SystemTransit Lines with electric trolleycoaches.

Th e DeLeuw study estimated that initial capital costs to operate no miles oftrackless trolleys on th e heavily used lineswould require an additional $11,300,000above th e initial outlay required for asimilar motor coach operation. Most ofthe additional expense was attributed toconstruction of th e overhead wire systeman d substations.

Many cities are gradually replacingtrolley coaches, an d some have eliminatedthem entirely because of th e heavier financial burden, th e enginering reportstated.

Findings of the report have been referred to th e Committee on ProgramPlanning for study an d recommendationat a meeting of the Board of DirectorsJune 17.

Local Hayward Service To Be DoubledTwice th e amount of existing local

transit service is planned for th e Haywardarea by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.

George M. Taylor, district administra

tive officer, told a meeting of the Hayward Lions Club recently that district engineers have recommended four new 10-cal lines connecting surrounding residential area with th e downtown Haywardbusiness district.

Population in Hayward has increasedmore than 350 pe r cent in last eigh t years,Taylor reported. "Yet, despite this spectacular gain, no satisfactory local transitservice exists in these many new residential districts."

"We consider it an utmost necessity to

inaugurate n ew lines into these areas," hesaid, noting that Southern AlamedaCounty is getting twice as many tracthomes this year as last year at this time.

Some 25 miles of new local transit

routes would serve the residential areasof Palma Ceia Village, Schafer Park,Huntwood Manor, Tennyson Gardens,Warren Park an d San Lorenzo Village.

The new lines would provide directservice to the Alameda County officebuilding on Winton Avenue, the site ofthe proposed Hayward City Hall an dAuditorium, an d Tennyson High School.

Additional new inter-city express lineswould provide faster an d more convenient service among th e several SouthernAlameda County communities.

3


3/5

SfUd4! iee{zMt

Parking Your E m p l o y e . ~ sTakes Money Away From ProfitsAdequate Public Transit

Could Reduce FinancialBurden 01 Free Auto Lots

A major consideration in the location of industry is plantaccessibility to e mployees wh o daily mtl8t travel to and fromtheir ;obs.

Reprinted below, in part , is an address delivered recentlyby John R. Worthington, general manager of th e Transit Dis-trict, before the annual meeting of the Berkeley Manufac-turers Association. Its title: "Industry Has a Big Stake inTransit,"

I am sure that for most businessmen the kind and qualityof transportation available to and used by your employeesare your every-day concern.

I t cannot be otherwise because the efficiency of youroperations is so closely and so inseparably linked with employee transportation.

Tardiness, absenteeism, and low efficiency, all reRectedon the wrong side of th e profit an d loss account, are an inevitable result of inadequate or the wrong kind of employeetransportation.

A survey conducted among employees of several industrialfirms in West Berkeley a number of months ago disclosedthe rather startling fact that only three per cent of these wageearners traveled to work by public transportation. About75 pe r cent drove their own cars and the remainder were

members of car pools.Wrong Kind of Transportation

Driving to and from work in private automobiles is th ewrong kind of transportation for many employees, who haveconvenient access to public transit facilities serving yourbusiness establishments or who would have convenient aeceess to public transit if these facilities were provided.

Not only is driving to and from work a needless expensefor employees, it also subjects them to the delays and hazardsof th e peak periods of street traffic congestion.

It's an economic waste of major proportions, both for theman d for the genera1 public, inasmuch as the average rate of

occupancy is only 1.47 passengers pe r automobile at a timewhen street space for moving people is at a premium.

But that is only a part of the picture.For employers, even those with relatively small payrolls,

there is constantly increasing pressure for the establishmentor expansion of free parking lots for employees. This appliesnot just for those who do not have convenient access to public transit, 'bu t also for those who could use transit facilities,but do not choose to do so.

A Heavy Cost BurdenEmployee parking lots may be free for employees, bu t they

ar e a heavy cost burden to management and stockholders

who are attempting to earn a fair return on invested capital.First of all, parking lots occupy real estate that otherwisewould be available for productive operations. Of themselves,parking lots do not contribute measurably to plant production or to employ ee productivity.

Th e major item of cost, of course, is the Jand, wheth er it ispurchased specifically for parking purposes, or is taken fromholdings acquired for future plant or office expansion. Othercosts include grading, drainage, lighting, fencing, entrancesan d exits, signing an d space markings. These costs may alsoinclude substantial payments in settlement of personal injuryor personal property damage or loss claims.

Research indicates that land cost (o r evaluation) for em-

Workers Could Take Home $300More A Year Riding Improved

Public Transit In Place Of Autosployee parking lots approximates $1.25 pe r square foot, except in high Jand value areas where the cost may soar to amaximum of $30 to $35 a sq uare foot.

Each parking space requires 300 to 350 square feet of land.Th e land cost alone, therefore, runs to $375 or $440 pe r space.

To this must be added approximatetly $300 per space forimprovements to adapt the land for parking purposes, plusoperating expenses an d annual taxes of some $45 pe r space.

Thus a free parking lot for only 200 employee-owned carsrequires an investment of about $145,000 and annual operating costs of $9 ,000. A 1,000 car lot costs about $725,000 andimposes annual operating costs of $45,000.

Driving To Work Is CostlyCertainly no progressive-minded corporation and no pro

gressive-minded individual would contend that employeesshould not own and drive automobiles, bu t it is economicallywasteful for employers, for employees, an d for th e generalpublic to provide costly inductments for empolyees to driveto and from work when they could have easy access to goodpublic transit.

How economically wa steful it is for employees alone isdisclosed by research studies. An employee, who uses publictransit 250 days a year instead of driving to an d from work,will save more than $300 in transportation costs, not including any expenditures for parking. This saving, compoundedannually at three per cent, would total $11,000 in 25 years.

Public Transit Is SaferFurthermore, driving to an d from work in rush hours is

not only much more hazardous than going by bus, it is alsoa most inefficient use of street space at the times when thisspace should be used at its maximum capacity.

Research data indicate that it is six times as safe to travelby bus as by private automobile during rush hour periods,and that buses are six to seven times as efjicient in the use ofstreet space


4/5

What the Editors Are Saying About TransitUrban Buses Must. Be Speeded Up To Win Riders

Reprinted from The West Frankfort (Ill.) American:

T HE MASS transportation problem isnot limited to th e railroads. A surveyshows that 13 urban bus companies wentout of business last year. They couldn'tcompete with th e comfort an d convenience of the private car.

Th e auto not only takes passengersfrom th e buses bu t its constantly increasing numbers, by creating still more congestion, make th e buses less satisfactoryfor their remaining riders.

Metropolitan areas need both localmass transit an d intercity railroad trains.Threatened loss of rail service hasbrought remedial action in some states,notably in Ne w York. Bu t comparativelylittle has been done about the deteriora-

tion of bus service.To hold present riders an d win back

those who have wearied of th e strain ofdriving twice a day through bumper-tobumper traffic, bus movement must bespeeded up. In Washington, for example,their average speed has been calculatedat less than eight miles an hour, or aboutthe speed at which horses an d buggiesmoved a half century ago.

Several cities have tried to increase busspeed by reserving a lane for them in th edirection of heaviest traffic flow. Wheremotorists are not penalized for encroaching on the bus lane, its usefulness hasbeen limited. Where they are ticketed, itis reported to be working well.

Key Agrees On Part Of Track RemovalTh e remaining abandoned transbay

train tracks will be removed from Oakland streets within two years, accordingto a recent agreement between Key Syste m Transit Lines an d th e City of Oakland.

Discussions are still underway, however, on th e removal of tracks in Berkeley.

First Oakland project will be on GrandAvenue between Telegraph an d RandAvenues, estimated to cost $100,000.

Other h'acks remaining are on Lakeshore Avenue between Rand and WesleyAvenues, 12th Street between Poplar an dJefferson Streets, an d portions of Piedmont Avenue, Claremont Avenue and55th Street.

Tracks already have been removed on12th Street between Oak and JeffersonSh'eets an d a section of Grand Avenue.

6

A right-of-way trade between Key an dthe city le d to th e removal of tracks on40th Street which is currently underway.

Th e entire removal program, whichinitially was estimated to cost a total of$750,000, is expected to be completed byApril, 1961.

In Berkeley, th e transit company hasturned over $30,000 to pay the cost ofremoving tracks on Shattuck Avenue between University and Durant Avenues.Bu t discussions are still underway for theremainder of th e program on Sutter Streetbetween Rose Street and The Alamedathrough th e Northbrae Tunnel; ShattuckAvenue between Rose and Ward Streets;Adeline Street south of Ashby Avenue,an d Claremont Avenue between Ashbyan d College Avenues.

Estimated cost of th e Berkeley projectis $150,000.

UNIQUE BUS STOP SHELTER-A new bus stop shelter recently installed in BeverlyHills is one of several designs under consideration by Alameda-Contra Costa TransitDistrict for use in East Bay area. The shelter is fabricated completely of aluminumand is illuminated at night. Its open construction offers a minimum of obstruction toview in all directions.

Public Favorable To New Bus Stop ShelterA newly designed bus stop shelter has

been installed in th e City of Beverly Hillsas part of a program to increase th e attractiveness of public transit riding.

Th e Beverly Hills model is one of several being studied by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District for possible usein th e East Bay area.

Designed as part of a city-sponsoredcontest by a University of Southe rn California student, the shelter is all-aluminum, an d is approximately eight feet widean d twelve feet long. A ten-foot benchwill comfortably seat six people.

A curved cantilivered roof protects

waiting passengers from th e weather, andan eight-foot-long fluorescent tube lightsthe shelter at night. Just beneath the tubeis a bus schedule and map under a glassplate. Cost of the pilot Beverly Hillsmodel was $1,300.

Public reaction to th e shelter has been"very favorable," acc ording to Harvey L.Hurlburt, assistant administrative officerfor Beverly Hills.

Several East Bay organizations, including the San Lore nzo Village Home s Association, have expressed a desire to havebus stop shelters located at principaltransfer an d waiting points in their areas.

7


5/5

At an adjourned regular meeting May28, 1959, the Board of Directors:

Conducted a public hearing on formation of Special Transit Service DistrictNo. I, and hearing no objections, votedto create the specia l district, on motionof Director Bettencourt.

* * *At its regular meeting June 3, 1959, the

Board of Directors: Heard a report from Attorney Nisbet

that petitions were on file from ConcordCity Council and Contra Costa CountyBoard of Supervisors, request in g exclusion from the District of the City of Concord and unincorporated area of ContraCosta County with the exception of Kensington. The attorney said the WalnutCreek City Council will conduct a publichearing on a similar petition June 10.

Instructed the attorney to prepare aresolution approving contract wit h DeLeuw, Cather & Company for engineering studies to cost no more than $25,000,on motion of Director Cope land. (De

tails, Page 1.)

TranBi t Tlm8B

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District700 Plaza Building

Oakland 12, California

Adop ted a report of the Committeeon Public Information, Director Copeland chainnan, recommending that aproposed series of public hearings bepostponed until after the District's finaltransit plan is prepared, on motion ofDirector Copeland.

Adopted a report of the Committeeon Program Planning, Director Deadrichchainnan. recommending that no actionbe taken on a proposed public opinionsurvey, and that the Board declare itsintention to hold a special bood electionNovember 3, 1959, on motion of DirectorCopeland.

Approved a resolution of intent tohold special bond election in SpecialTransit Serv ice District No. 1 next No-vember 3. on motion of Director Bettencourt. (Details, Page 1.)

Adjourned meeting to June 17 at 8p .m. for purposes of setting a pu bli c hearing date to consider petitions filed byConcord City Council and Contra CostaCounty Board of Supervisors requestingwithdrawal of area from Transit District,

on motion of Director McDonnell.

BULK RATE

U.s. POSTAGE

PA I DP ermit No. 2BB

Berkeley, California

transit times volume 2, number 2

Documents