Core Service Area – Service Restructure Proposal

Core Restructure Concepts

Clayton, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek

Core Service Proposed Map

  • Streamline Route 19 to use Concord Ave. instead of going to Concord BART via Sun Valley Mall.
  • Streamline Route 9 by eliminating routing to JFK, Patterson Blvd., and Oak Park Blvd.
  • Realign Route 18 to service Patterson Blvd., and Oak Park Blvd. and adjust trip times to meet school bell times; consider routing along Taylor Blvd. instead of Viking Dr.
  • Create a new alignment for Route 10 to turn around at Washington/Michigan instead of the Ayers Rd./Kirker Pass loop. End 50% of peak trips at this loop that currently continues on to Marsh Creek Rd. in Clayton. Only one quarter of the ridership rides past Kirker Pass
  • Extend Route 14 to Walnut Creek BART to expand access to jobs from the Monument Corridor. Increase frequencies to every 30 minutes.
  • Terminate Route 15 at Pleasant Hill BART (it will no longer service Walnut Creek BART, this will be covered by Route 14
  • Eliminate Route 1M and Route 2 due to low ridership and poor efficiency
  • Realign Route 95X to exit Hwy. 680 at S. Main St., to provide direct access to Downtown Walnut Creek from the south and avoid congestion
  • Eliminate Route 301 to Rossmoor due to low ridership
  • Extend 311 to John Muir Hospital to cover the Ygnacio Valley Rd. portion of 301
  • Increase frequency on Route 4 from 15 minutes to 12 minutes
  • Adjust times, where possible, on local routes to meet school bell times in the Pleasant Hill area
  • Eliminate Route 315 due to low ridership

 

 

39 thoughts on “Core Service Area – Service Restructure Proposal

  1. If you decide to eliminate routes with low ridership the least you could do is replace them with similar routes that are more appealing and can draw in more riders. Not as many people own cars as you think.

  2. Route 2 proposed termination.

    It seems this issue comes up every 2-3 years.

    While it is true that ridership is low, the route is very small, so it’s a little hard to increase the numbers given the route really starts at the shopping center and loops through Walnut Creek South. You run a free bus to the shopping center and not sure if route 5 is still free.

    You have cut the route to four times a day, two in the morning and two in the evening. Pretty small schedule compared to other routes.

    I use the bus route and would like you to note my objection to the elimination of the route.

    My proposal/alternatives
    – increase the route to gain ridership
    – Use smaller buses for efficiency
    – Try to use one of the other routes to expand to our area

    I would like to make one more observation in regards your public meetings as they seem to be scheduled during working hours. Makes it a little hard for most working people to go to these meetings. I work in SF and in order to get to the bus, I have only two late time slots to go home, get my car and attend one of your meetings. No way to get to the meeting unless I took a whole day off.

    Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be much publicity letting people know or how to protest these changes. This web page is hard to find from the main site.

    Please enter my objection, Thank you.

  3. You say that Route 15 will no longer service Walnut Creek BART; that will be taken over by Route 14. But will Route 14 follow the exact route formerly taken by the No. 15? Specifically, will it go from Walnut Creek BART down N. Civic Drive to Pleasant Hill BART? There is a sign on my bus shelter at BART, threatening major route changes!

    1. Our proposal would be to terminate Route 15 at Pleasant Hill BART and extend Route 14 to Walnut Creek BART, along the same route. We hope to be able to provide more frequent service on Route 14. We are not sure where the signs came from, but we’ll look into it. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us at: customerservice@countyconnection.com

  4. Regarding the Routes for Walnut Creek Schools, there are no route to connect Buena Vista neighborhood/Larkey park to walnut creek downtown/WCI/Las Lomas High as well as BART station. A bus route along Buena Vista Blvd might be appealing to the residents in this area, especially younger students.

  5. If services continue to decline, we’ll be using Uber even just to attend County Connection public hearing meetings very soon

    With constantly increasing density of population, public transportation system must be a key player to sustain the normal operation in the area and to minimize the impact to the nature. Transportation Agencies must find other means of funding and restructure its budget but not to decrease the level of service. Actually increased level of service and public awareness must be a first priority. This is where taxes should go. City approves construction of apartment complexes and conversion of single family homes into multi dwelling units, they also must support transportation system in advance of those changes..

  6. My mother is wheelchair-bound in a nursing home on Concord Blvd. near Denkinger. I don’t drive, so I walk to BART and take the 315 from and to Concord BART every weekend, to see her. Eliminating the 315 would mean I’d have to take the 310 up Clayton Rd., then walk the mile to her nursing home. Difficult, as I walk with a cane! And that mile walk would be miserable when it’s very hot, or raining. And completing unsafe after dark. I cannot afford to spend $16.-$18. on Uber every week! And eliminating the paper passes and transfers is unconscionable; your proposals would more than double my transportation costs.

  7. I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to eliminate Route 2. This is the second time you have attempted to eliminate this route in the last few years. It is how I and others get to/from BART to get to our jobs. People of limited means and/or no access to a car use this route. When you cut the service a few years back, it made it difficult for people because there are only two routes in the AM and two in the PM. Not everyone has flexible work schedules to allow for these changes so it’s not surprising that ridership is low. You are supposed to serve people who rely on public transit to get to the important places, like work, shopping, health care facilities, etc. Route #2 provides these options and more. Please don’t eliminate it. You will cause a severe hardship for those of us who rely on it. Try increasing the morning and evening commute times. Try advertising the bus schedule in the service areas. But don’t just eliminate it, which is guaranteed to make life more difficult for tens of people. Thank you.

  8. I live near Ridgeview and Morello in Pleasant Hill. . We have no service near us. The nearest bus stop is more than a mile away. Couldn’t one of your routes run down Morello on its way to DVC or BART?

  9. I want to express my deep objection to eliminating Route 2. Both my daughters and many of their classmates use this service to go back and forth to their schools. Without this route, I am not sure how we can get them to and from school. The termination would definitely increase morning and afternoon traffic and place more cars on the road. Please forward my objection to the planning committee.

    1. Thank you for your comment concerning Route 2. Based on the feedback we’ve received there seems to be some confusion on our Route 2 service and our Route 600’s series service. There are no changes to the route 600s series. Route 602 which provides service in the Trotter neighborhood will remain unchanged serving the local schools. On the other hand, Route 2 has limited ridership and a high cost per passenger which is why it is proposed to be eliminated.

  10. I do not believe it is in the best interest of our city to eliminate this bus route. Without this route, many people (both adults and children) will not have transportation to their neighborhoods and it will, therefore, I believe impact the desirability of our neighborhoods.

  11. Regarding Route 4 frequency change: Looks like a good plan, given current BART midday times at Walnut Creek.

    A while ago I wrote CC about the route 18 leaving just before the College Park dismissal times. Publicizing this to the school may capture some additional patrons.

  12. Route #2 travels along San Miguel and other streets with either NO or severely inadequate bike/ped infrastructure. By eliminating it, you’ll be forcing people onto the street, which is dangerous. Alternatively, you’ll be forcing them into a car, which increases VMT and GHGs. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. In fact, it’s the opposite of what a public transit agency should be doing.

  13. I am also writing to strongly object to the proposal to eliminate Route 2. It serves community access to the schools, downtown, and BART. Coupled with parking removal at BART, elimination would serve as a reduction to other transit services placing further pressure in an already congested traffic pattern. By shrinking routes and reducing service, you are guaranteeing the decline of your system. The focus should be on fast, frequent, and reliable service; not reductions

  14. Many years ago when it was the 102 and went to DVC, it was used by a lot of students. When it was broken up into smaller routes it seemed to lose much of its ridership.

  15. My teen depends on Route 2 while I am at work- Please do not eliminate it – there was NO bus service in that area when I first moved there and it was very dangerous for my little sister and then years later my oldest child to get to/from home… my youngest utilizes route 2 now.
    These areas of WC feel so far away when you have no car or bus when you need to get somewhere important.
    Please record my response & enter my objection, Thank you.

  16. I reply on this route so I can get downtown and to BART. If my car breaks down, this is my only alternative. It is very dangerous to walk into town along San Miguel. I don’t even feel safe riding a bike along that route! Could you run a smaller bus??? Please, please don’t isolate us out here. I have recently semi-retired and am concerned if I should ever not be able to drive, I most certainly must use the bus. Already it has limited times it runs. Now is the time I most often will use it.

  17. I have used this route many times. It’s a vital connection to downtown & bart. Given we have no sidewalks in most of the unincorporated area the bus serves along San Miguel drive it’s not feasible to walk safely. And it’s a considerable distance even to get to Whole fods/Macy’s north broadway area by walking. Sadly the trail which had been sketchy for a while is definitely not safe any longer to walk alone as evidenced by the woman who was attacked and dragged behind Whole Foods recently. I urge u to keep the route- while limited I’m no longer walking the trail alone into town.

  18. I leaves in Los Angeles years ago. I used the DASH buses to get to work from Beverly Hills adjacent to Hollywood for like 25c. The buses were small but always full with people that either could not drive or have the means. Why can’t WC think of such smaller buses instead of the huge ones that run empty and waste resources? Maybe the smaller buses with frequent service may be the answer, but total elimination of route 2, please no.

  19. Route 2 is so important to get kids to and from school! Our neighborhood is one of the furthest from WCI and the bus gets them there on time and home after school. As a kid I took the County Connection in Lafayette to and from middle school, my neighborhood was one of the furthest from school and the bus enabled me to be independent and my parents to work full time. Working parents need bus service! Either to/from BART, work, shopping or school, it’s important for everyone to have the option of bus service. As it is now, only a few times a day does not accomodate everyone, but its so much better than nothing.

    1. Thank you for your comment concerning Route 2. Based on the feedback we’ve received there seems to be some confusion on our Route 2 service and our Route 600’s series service. There are no changes to the route 600s series. Route 602 which provides service in the Trotter neighborhood will remain unchanged serving the local schools. On the other hand, Route 2 has limited ridership and a high cost per passenger which is why it is proposed to be eliminated.

  20. Please do not eliminate Route 2. The lack of parking at BART often makes driving infeasible, and that situation is likely to get worse. Without this route, we would be forced to take a cab or Uber, which is not cheap . You will be stranding a considerable number of your constituents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *