5.3 Prioritization Analysis

5.2.2 Prioritized Bus Stop Safety Programs

1. Transit Ambassador Program

This is an implemented program by transit agencies such as Bay Area Rapid Transit and Long Beach Transit and other parts of the country. Omnitrans is currently working to implement an Ambassador program however it’s travel training oriented.

2. Homelessness Programs

Homelessness was an important issue from the focus groups, stakeholders and surveys. Riders did not feel safe if shelters were littered or occupied by the unhoused. Programs such the Hub of Hope in Philadelphia and the Alpha Project in San Diego are good examples of agencies and programs that can relieve homelessness around bus stops and in general.

3. CAHOOTS Program

This is another successful program that can be explored along with various homelessness programs to help respond to mental illness and substance abuse. Instead of engaging law enforcement for non-violent offenders, which can be perceived in a negative light in certain neighborhoods, a crisis team is employed to intervene. Crisis teams are specifically trained in de-escalation techniques for individuals with mental illness and with addiction issues. Omnitrans does have a relationship with San Bernardino County Department of Public Health that can be tapped into to pursue additional partnering opportunities.

5.3 Prioritization Analysis

The team developed a proposed project list based on need, expected effectiveness/benefits, and implementability (cost and feasibility of implementation). Need for proposed projects was based on results of data analysis and input from the TAC such as locations with high incidences of crashes or safety incidents, or locations where passengers reported feeling the most unsafe.

To achieve effective prioritization, it is important to include stakeholders in the process and tailor the process to address stakeholder needs. The BSSIP TAC played an important role in the project and program identification and prioritization processes.

Cost

Feasibility relates to whether the estimated cost to construct an infrastructure project or develop and install a program. Costs vary from city to city in terms of construction and the extent of the project itself. Projects that require minimal infrastructure changes such as bike lane striping or installing high-visibility crosswalks may only require thermoplastic road markings and can be installed in a short period of time. Other physical countermeasures such as mid-block crossings may require a traffic study, warrant analysis, materials, and the construction costs, which would be the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. Programs vary depending on the purpose of the program, the geographic reach of the program, materials and staff time to design, produce materials, and implement. Some programs may also only run for a short period of time.

Currently, Omnitrans’ typical annual budget is $300,000-$400,000/year of State and Federal capital funding to spend on safety and security. This allocation can only be used for projects over $5,000 that are for design, construction, or purchase of physical amenities that would improve safety. This budget, however, may already be allocated to Omnitrans’ projects and not all be available to spend immediately on the recommendations within this Plan. Through a prioritization process, Omnitrans will need to supplement these funds with outside sources for bus stop safety improvement or program design and implementation.

Feasibility of Implementation

These criteria should confirm if the specific project can be built or a program be designed and implemented? Are there funding sources available to pursue and implement these projects and programs? Is there sufficient right-of-way to build the project? Is there enough political will and support from the local jurisdictions, Omnitrans and/or other interested parties to pursue these projects and programs?

For infrastructure projects, are the projects part of a past or current planning effort to incorporate the recommendations. For example, if a travel lane is to be converted into a bus-bike lane, is there enough political support to implement the project?

Project/Program Benefit-Cost Ratio

Benefit-Cost criteria show a ratio to compare the cost relative to the benefit to be able to rank and prioritize projects. Benefit-cost framework makes use of an existing body of knowledge to assess the benefits between various improvements of programs. For infrastructure projects, implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more effective approach to addressing system-wide safety issues. While this approach may not address all safety issues for a given location or city, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures can often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be if Omnitrans chose Transit Signal Priority (TSP) instead of floating bus islands or low-cost bulb outs with flexposts and thermoplastic markings instead of higher-cost concrete curb extensions.

5.3.1 Infrastructure Benefits Identifying bicycle, pedestrian and bus stop safety projects and programs are the key components of this Plan. However, with limited funds readily available to plan and construct infrastructure projects and design and implement programs, cost effective and measurable countermeasures must be taken into account and would likely be preferable in order to build political support for a larger project and pursue grant funding. For infrastructure projects, there is a body of knowledge regarding the benefit of countermeasures that are effective and cost efficient and improve overall bicycle and pedestrian safety.

The FHWA provides guidance on the proven safety countermeasures which are used in Local Road Safety Plans that analyzes collisions and identifies effective countermeasures for local agencies to consider. The countermeasures can then be further explored by the local jurisdiction based on project need, road geometry, location and cost. Benefits used for prioritizing project types uses Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) to determine the effectiveness of the recommendation in reducing bicycle and pedestrian related collisions. Moreover, www.PedBikeInfo. org provides comprehensive information on costs and the effectiveness of countermeasures for safety.

Through research, communication with other transit agencies, Omnitrans’ Focus Groups and the BSSIP’s outreach efforts, lighting (at the stop and it’s surroundings), homelessness issues around the bus stops, and shelters were identified as high priority improvements. While shelters are dependent on space provided on city sidewalks and available funding, they provide comfort and shelter from the elements and lighting for visibility. When shelters are not provided, some riders will seek out shade nearby until they see the bus arriving. At times, bus drivers may not see the rider at the bus stop and may skip the stop. If a bench is not provided, a lean bar should be provided when feasible which is especially helpful for senior citizens. An example of a lean bar can be seen at a bus stop in Sacramento, CA above.

Bus stop lean bar (Sacramento, CA)

5.3.2 Program Benefits In many cases when a benefit-cost approach and/or monetized measures are used for programs, there are considered objectives that cannot be easily quantified. Thus, many of the examples in the literature include a combination of highly quantitative and more qualitative approaches. Both quantitative and qualitative measures can be combined within a multicriteria scoring framework where different categories of outcomes are assigned weights, which are then used to aggregate results and compare across projects. This is the case with the programs researched as part of this plan. Performance metrics, or benefits, were not readily available, if collected, so programs were derived from correspondence with other transit agencies on their programs and commonality between them.

Measuring the performance of safety programs and campaigns is complex and challenging. Existing efforts often lack hard data to support conclusions, providing anecdotal evidence of success at best. Yet reporting the results of a campaign is often expected by public officials. Output measures, the easiest data to obtain, quantify the volume or level of marketing activities. Examples include the number of materials distributed, the reach and frequency of the campaigns, and mentions in the news media.

A second category of outputs reflects the outcome (how citizens responded) to what the local jurisdiction did. These are called outcome measures. Possible values include whether people noticed the effort, whether it changed their level of knowledge, or whether it influenced their action or behavior. Internal records and tracking mechanisms can be used to measure outcomes by analyzing before and after effects. Surveys can also be reliable ways to measure outcomes from campaign efforts.

The third and perhaps most challenging category of measurement is impact measures. This measurement captures the actual effect that citizen actions had on social, economic, and/or environmental conditions. For transit security programs and campaigns, an example of an impact measure is how many unhoused individuals have been displaced with the improvement or has crime decreased around the bus stop. And were these results tied to the improvements or other factors. Obviously, these types of examples are rare and/or involve more data driven analysis or annual and more technical surveys.

5.3.3 Equity Lastly, the recommendation is to use demographic data to evaluate the equity implications of the needs of transit riders at bus stops. Equity considerations should follow state and national best practices and uses the following demographic variables:

CalEnviroscreen 3.0. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 is a screening methodology that can be used to help identify California communities that are burdened by environmental impacts. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 utilizes environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by pollution. The following are the indicators used to identify disadvantaged communities throughout California.

» Exposure Indicators (Pollutants) » Environmental Effect Indicators (Cleanup Sites, hazardous waste facilities, impaired waterbodies) » Sensitive Population Indicators (Asthma, cardiovascular disease, low birth-weight infants) » Socioeconomic Indicators (Education, linguistic isolation, poverty, unemployment, low-income households)

Omnitrans’ Title VI Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Policy and Language Assistance Plan

» Omnitrans is required to demonstrate that it does not discriminate against, exclude from, or deny service to individuals based on race, color, or national origin. The FTA requires that funding recipients develop a Language Assistance Plan that takes reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important parts of its program for persons of Limited English

Proficiency (LEP).