Welcome to the East County Integrated Transit Study Online Open House Results!

Through the study, we worked to identify solutions for improving transit service between Brentwood and Antioch. This has been a two-year study funded through a Caltrans grant.

How this open house works

Welcome to our online open house! Here you will travel between virtual “stations” like you would in-person to learn background information about the purpose and need for this study and more!

There are multiple informational sections/stations describing:

The goals and focus of the study
What we heard from communities in our previous engagement efforts
How the previous alternatives compared
Which alternative rose to the top

Please share this link with your neighbors, community members, and friends who live and travel through East County.

Map of study area in Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, including state route 4, park and rides, existing and proposed transit stations, bus route, and Tri Delta Transit service area — Click to enlarge

Person sitting on a bench, facing web page text, gesturing, and discussing transit in East County

Study mission

Understanding our core goals

We want to provide seamless travel options for our residents, commuters and visitors – people like you. We are developing solutions that are sustainable, smart, user-friendly, and efficient.

Study Considerations

There is a lot to consider in undertaking a study like this! We have carefully considered the benefits and impacts of many electric high-capacity (high volume) transit alternatives in East County. Our study is guided by a variety of constraints and considerations:

A rechargeable battery & 2 green leave representing electric-powered transit

Any transit alternative we evaluate or propose must be powered by electricity and alternative fuels like hydrogen - not gasoline.

A person going to & from bus representing ease of transit use

The study must consider how easily people can get to, from and use the transit alternative.

A bus & clock representing reliable travel times

Compare potential travel times and reliability among alternatives to traditional auto trips.

AC Transit, BART & Tri Delta Transit logos representing connecting to & the needs of transit agencies

Consider the needs of transit agencies responsible for operating and connecting to the alternative.

A person in a wheelchair & two people walking & talking representing them discussing the needs of communities & stakeholders

The needs of communities and stakeholders - people like you - and the mobility barriers you may face. Some people have faced systematic oppression because of race, native language, gender, sexuality, income, age, and physical ability. It is really important for us to understand as many needs and barriers as possible so we can help improve the system for everyone.

A person on a laptop & upward moving graph representing high quality jobs & economic development

The alternative to driving the State Route 4 corridor must attract high quality jobs and support economic development in East County.

A clock, a bag of money & a schedule representing fast, frequent, & cost effective transit service

Alternatives to driving on the State Route 4 corridor must provide a fast, frequent, and cost-effective connection from the planned Innovation Center @ Brentwood, between Lone Tree Way and Sand Creek Road, and the Antioch Station, near Hillcrest Avenue. We’ve received inquiries about using the Southern Pacific Railroad’s “Mococo rail line”, which runs between Antioch and downtown Brentwood east of SR-4. The use of the Mococo rail line for transit has been included in several past studies, however the Southern Pacific Railroad is not interested in selling the right-of-way to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) or other transit agencies. Therefore, the Mococo rail line was not evaluated it in this study.

Person sitting on a bench facing web page text, reading about transit in East County

Study goals

4 people using a wheelchair a bike & walking at transit station talking about time, modes, transfers & parking

Improve rider experience

2 people talking about the benefits of transit represented by images of an electric bus, flowers, & crosswalk

Communicate the benefits of transit

A transit station with diverse communities, including wheelchair guide dog & bike users, many ages ancestry & genders

Respond to equitable access needs

A transit station with more and more people popping up, walking, rolling, working, shopping & living near the station

Support economic development

A transit connection map with Antioch eBART station future transit employment housing electric buses trains & people

Allow for future, innovative transit options

Benefits of active & public transit instead of only driving, such as air quality improvement, next to image of traffic & smog

Improve air quality

How we engaged communities in East County

We gathered community feedback through two online open houses that ran from October 13, 2020 to February 15, 2021 and August 13 – September 27, 2021 that included a total of three surveys. Combined, the two online open houses — which were available in 108 languages via Google Translate — collected responses from 325 people.

The survey in the first online open house was focused on understanding mobility needs and alignment with the study goals and framework. The second online open house was focused on understanding community preferences through one survey about the study alternatives and another about the importance of factors for decision making.

We also gathered community, stakeholder, and technical feedback from the study Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee about our strategies for engagement, online open houses, community-based organization communication, and social media sharing.

Study Steering and Technical Assistance Committees

The Steering Committee was tasked with advising the study team from a community perspective, and more specifically with the following:

Consider Technical Advisory Committee input and other factors
Review and consider community input
Review and/or provide recommendations on draft technical and community content

The Technical Advisory Committee was tasked with advising the study team from a technical perspective, and more specifically with the following:

Review draft technical and community content
Review and consider community input
Make technical recommendations

The Steering and Technical Assistance committees each have a representative from the following organizations:

Office of Supervisor Diane Burgis
TRANSPLAN

Promotion of online open houses

What we heard from communities in East County overall

The online open house surveys asked respondents about the factors influencing their use of public transit, their level of satisfaction as transit riders, their support of draft alternatives developed for the study, and their overall comments.

People want to drive less

As people considered their ideal travel options for the future, responses showed increased interest in taking the train, walking, jogging, or running with or without assistance, using a bike or scooter, using a personal motorcycle, moped or scooter, taking a private bus or shuttle, vanpooling, using a carshare service, or using Paratransit. Responses showed a noticeable decrease in interest in driving alone and using Uber, Lyft, or app-based ridesharing services as a single passenger.

Rail, travel time savings, and transfers are most important

Compatability with a potential future rail extension, travel time savings, and the number and ease of transfers were deemed very important by over 80% of participants.

High support for all transit alternatives

All six proposed alternatives received high levels of support – each alternative was supported by at least 50% of participants in the Round 2 online open house. Alternatives 2 through 6 were supported by 50-53.1% of participatns.

Alternative 1, which would extend BART commuter rail service in the State Route 4 (SR-4) median from the future Innovation Center @ Brentwood Station to the existing Antioch Station, had the highest level of support at 83%.
Alternative 6, a rapid bus on Slatten Ranch Road from the future Innovation Center @ Brentwood Station to the existing Antioch Station, had the second highest level of support at 53.1%.
Alternative 3, a dedicated bus rapid transit in the SR-4 median from the future Innovation Center @ Brentwood Station to the existing Pittsburg / Bay Point Station, had the third highest level of support at 52.9%.

Open-ended comments

The word cloud above presents the results of the comment forms on the surveys. Common responses included passenger preferences about safety, prices, seamless transfers, access to retail, housing, and micro mobility options, and amenities; connections to specific places; preferences for BART and rail due to perception of faster and cheaper service; and connections between different transit providers.

Where do we go from here?

The next step is to review recommendations from the detailed evaluation results, and approve the locally preferred alternative, which follows the process shown below.

An infographic showing the decision making timeline to get from draft alternatives to the locally preferred alternative(s), including the following steps:
• Steering & Technical Advisory committees consider community input and to make recommendations about the locally preferred alternative(s) on November 8, 2021.
• TRANSPLAN considers community input and provide recommendations to the CCTA board on the locally preferred alternative(s) on November 17, 2021.
• The Planning Commission considers community input and provides feedback on the locally preferred alternative(s)
December 1, 2021.
• CCTA Board reviews and considers community input and approves all final recommendations on the locally preferred alternative(s) on December 15, 2021. — Click to enlarge

Following selection, the study will begin conceptual design of the locally preferred alternative to refine the assumptions and identify critical details for further study. This will all be summarized in the final study report, which will be completed by the end of February 2022 and shared on CCTA’s website.

What happens after the study is done?

CCTA, in collaboration with East County public agencies, will begin the process of identifying and securing funding for the preferred project.

Deeper dive into Round 1 engagement

The Round 1 online open house ran from October 13, 2020 – February 15, 2021. We used this input to guide the engagement for Round 2. Nearly 90% of Round 1 respondents indicated they live in East County. View and/or print the Round 1 online open house archive PDF here.

We learned the following from East County residents like you.

Transit needs

The top three transit priorities are to improve rider experience, allow for future, innovative transit options, and to support economic development.
The top three onboard transit amenities selected were free Wi-Fi access, power outlets or USB ports, and comfortable seating.
The top three station amenities selected were car parking, bathrooms, and on-site security personnel or security cameras.
The most common travel or commute options were driving alone, taking a train, using multiple modes, using a public bus, and walking, jogging, or running with or without assistance.
As people considered their ideal travel options for the future, responses showed the desire to increase taking the train, walking, jogging, or running with or without assistance, using a bike or scooter, using a personal motorcycle, moped or scooter, taking a private bus or shuttle, vanpooling, using a carshare service, or using Paratransit. Responses showed a noticeable decrease in driving alone and using Uber, Lyft, or app-based ridesharing services as a single passenger.
The most common barriers to using transit indicated by the responses were cleanliness, safety on board, and safety at the station.

Development preferences

This feedback was used to influence elements of the alternatives, such as onboard transit and station amenities, and transfers. Check out the Round 1 engagement Summary here for more details.

Deeper dive into Round 2 engagement

During the Round 2 engagement, we hosted an online open house to survey East County communities about the alternatives and evaluation criteria. Participants were able to indicate their level of support for each proposed alternative. This feedback influenced the scores for the Community Support metric. Participants’ input regarding the importance of each evaluation criterion/metric determined how strongly each criterion factored into the evaluation of alternatives. View and/or print the round 2 engagement summary PDF here and the round 2 online open house archive PDF here.

How did participants support the alternatives?

We asked online open house participants to rate their level of support for each alternative on a scale of one to three. Approximately 50 people responded to indicate their level of support for each alternative. Alternative 1: BART in Median from Brentwood to Antioch received the strongest support at 83%, and at least 50% of respondents indicated support for each of the alternatives. It’s exciting to see East County’s enthusiasm for any form of public transit!

A table showing level of support from the community of the six alternatives.
• Eighty-five percent of respondents supported Alternative one, which would extend BART commuter rail service in the State Route 4 median from the future Innovation Center at Brentwood Station to the existing Antioch Station. Eighty-three percent expressed strong support. Fifteen percent of respondents did not support this alternative.
• Sixty-eight percent of respondents supported Alternative two, which would build a new bus-only lanes in the State Route 4 median from the future Innovation Center at Brentwood Station to the existing Antioch Station. Over sixty-five percent expressed strong support. Twenty percent of respondents did not support this alternative.
• Sixty-three percent of respondents strongly supported Alternative three, which would build new bus-only lanes in the State Route 4 median from Brentwood through the State Route 160 interchange to support service that runs to the existing BART Pittsburg / Bay Point Station. Fifty-three percent expressed strong support. Thirty-seven percent of respondents did not support this alternative.
• Sixty-four percent of respondents supported Alternative four, which would provide express bus service in existing State Route 4 travel lanes between the future Innovation Center at Brentwood and the existing BART Antioch Station. Fifty percent indicated strong support. Thirty-six percent of respondents did not support the alternative.
• Fifty-nine percent of respondents supported Alternative five, which would provide express bus service in the existing State Route 4 travel lanes between the future Innovation Center at Brentwood and the existing Pittsburg / Bay Point Station. Fifty-one percent indicated strong support. Forty-one percent of respondents did not support the alternative.
• Sixty-five percent of respondents supported Alternative six, which would provide rapid bus service using existing and new local street network between the future Innovation Center at Brentwood Station and the existing Antioch Station. Fifty-three percent expressed strong support. Thirty-five percent of respondents did not support the alternative. — Click to enlarge

How important were the evaluation criterion metrics to East County?

We asked how important each evaluation criteria metric was and 36 people responded. As you can see in the graphic below, most participants generally find all the evaluation criterion metrics to be important. Allowing for a potential future rail extension came in as the most important at 83.3% followed closely by travel time savings at 82.4% and transfers at 80%. We interpret this to mean that modes of transportation that are perceived as faster and easier, like rail, are preferred, because travel time savings and ease of travel are important to participants.

A table showing the level of importance of fourteen metrics to the community. Every metric received a rank of “very important” from at least thirty-eight percent of respondents. Future rail extension, transfers, and travel time savings were the most important metrics with eighty percent or more of respondents rating them as “very important”. Conversely, respondents felt that cost effectiveness, compatibility with local and regional planning, and time to implement were the least important of all metrics.
• About seventy-one percent of respondents felt that capacity on roadway was a very important metric, with over twenty-five percent indicating it was somewhat important, and less than three percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Forthy-nine percent of respondents felt that community preferred solution was a very important metric, with around fourty-six percent indicating it was somewhat important, and the remaining six percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Forty-four percent of respondents felt that compatibility with local and regional planning was a very important metric, with thirty-three percent indicating it was somewhat important, and twenty-two percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Thirty-nine percent of respondents felt that cost effectiveness was very important, with fifty-three percent indicating it was somewhat important, and eight percent felt it was not at all important.
• Over fifty-six percent of respondents felt that dedicated transit right-of-way was a very important metric, with twenty-five percent indicating it was somewhat important, and nineteen percent feeling it was not at all important.
• Nearly sixty percent of respondents felt that emissions reduction potential was a very important metric, with around twenty-three percent indicating it was somewhat important, and seventeen percent feeling it was not at all important.
• Sixty-nine percent of respondents felt that flexible service - now known as future transit investments - was a very important metric, with twenty-nine percent indicating it was somewhat important, and three percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Eighty-three percent of respondents felt that a future rail extension was a very important metric, with around fourteen percent indicating it was somewhat important, and three percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that quality access was a very important metric, with around twenty-three percent indicating it was somewhat important, and three percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Forty-seven percent of respondents felt that time to implement was a very important metric, with forty-two percent indicating it was somewhat important, and eleven percent feeling it was not at all important.
• Eighty percent of respondents felt that transfers was a very important metric, with twenty percent indicating it was somewhat important. No participants indicated that this metric was not important at all.
• Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that transit ridership potential a very important metric, with eighteen percent indicating it was somewhat important, and nine percent feeling it was not at all important.
• Fifty-seven percent of respondents felt that transportation costs was a very important metric, with thirty-one percent indicating it was somewhat important, and eleven percent feeling it was not at all an important metric.
• Eighty-two percent of respondents felt that travel time savings was a very important metric, with eighteen percent indicating it was somewhat important. No participants indicated that this metric was not important at all. — Click to enlarge

How did your feedback impact the study?

Weighting of the evaluation metrics (criteria)

In the Round 2 online open house survey about the importance of the evaluation metrics, the East County communities indicated that Travel Time Savings, Transfers, and Future Rail Extension were the most important evaluation metrics (criteria) to the public. As a result of this input from the public, the project team increased the weight of the Future Rail Extension metric in the evaluation process. The community response on the importance of Travel Time Savings and Transfers metrics validated the already high weighting that the study had for these two metrics.

Community Preferred Solution

The Round 2 online open house survey about support for the alternatives directly impacted the scoring of each alternative for the Community Preferred Solution metric. With 83% of respondents strongly supporting Alternative 1, it scored a 5 of 5 in the Community Preferred Solution metric. The other alternatives were strongly supported by between 51% and 54% of the respondents, and all scored 3 out of 5 in the Community Preferred Solution metric.

How do the alternatives compare to each other when it comes to meeting the goals of the study?

In the graphic below, the study alternatives are listed with a thumbs up, down, or up and down to indicate mixed ratings against the study goals, which are listed as the bold column headers. This performance is determined by the technical team through modeling and weighted based on feedback from the community, stakeholder, governmental, and teering / technical advisory committee members (as described above).

Alternative 1: BART in Median from Brentwood to Antioch, is listed first since it leads not only in community preference (as shown above), but also in terms of performance against the goals of the study and from a technical perspective (below).

The goal categories include user experience, equitable access, improve air quality, economic development, flexible expansion, and communicate benefits and tradeoffs.
• Alternative 1: BART in Median from Brentwood to Antioch scored highly in all goal categories, except economic development where it’s scores were mixed.
• Alternative 2: Bus Rapid Transit in Median from the Future Innovation Center @ Brentwood to Antioch scored highly in equitable access and future transit investments, scored poorly in user experience, and had mixed scores in the three remaining categories.
• Alternative 3: Bus Rapid Transit from the Future Innovation Center @ Brentwood to Pittsburg / Bay Point had mixed scores for all six goals.
• Alternative 4: Express Bus from the Future Innovation Center at Brentwood to Antioch scored highly in economic development and communicate benefits and tradeoffs, scored poorly in future transit investments, and received mixed scores in the three remaining categories.
• Alternative 5: Express Bus from the Future Innovation Center at Brentwood to Pittsburg / Bay Point scored highly in user experience and communicate benefits and tradeoffs, scored poorly in equitable access and future transit investments, and had mixed scores in the two remaining categories.
• Alternative 6a: Rapid Bus on Lone Tree/Heidom from the Future Innovation Center at Brentwood to Antioch scored well on equitable access, scored poorly on improve air quality, and had mixed scores on the remaining three goals.
• Alternative 6b: Rapid Bus on Slatten Ranch from the Future Innovation Center at Brentwood to Antioch scored poorly on improve air quality, improve air quality, and communicate benefits and tradeoffs, and had mixed scores on the remaining three goals. — Click to enlarge

How do the alternatives compare to each other when it comes to meeting the goals of the study?

Comment box

Thank you!

Share your email to stay updated on this study and other projects in Eastern Contra Costa!

Sign up for email updates

We've detected that Javascript is not enabled. It is required for an optimal survey taking experience.
Please check your browser's settings and make sure Javascript is turned on. Learn how to enable Javascript.

Skip survey header

EAST COUNTY INTEGRATED TRANSIT STUDY

Welcome to the East County Integrated Transit Study Online Open House Results!

Study mission

Understanding our core goals

Study goals

Improve rider experience

Communicate the benefits of transit

Respond to equitable access needs

Support economic development

Allow for future, innovative transit options

Improve air quality

How we engaged communities in East County

What we heard from communities in East County overall

People want to drive less

Rail, travel time savings, and transfers are most important

High support for all transit alternatives

Open-ended comments

Where do we go from here?

What happens after the study is done?

Deeper dive into Round 1 engagement

Deeper dive into Round 2 engagement

Weighting of the evaluation metrics (criteria)

Community Preferred Solution

How do the alternatives compare to each other when it comes to meeting the goals of the study?

Comment box

Thank you!

Sign up for email updates

337-001-000 - contra costa tranp study - po email sign up

Share this site with others

Contact us