Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-06; City Council; 6234; Beach Parking StudySUDJECT: BEACH PARKING STUDY EXHiBlT Beach Parking Study Council Action: 5-6-80 Council received the Study and set the natter to workshop on May 27, 1980, at 7:OO P.M. for discussion. 5-27-80 Council directed staff to explore the possibility of using state lands for further parking, and to include in the study the area across from the San Diego Gas b Electric plant, and to report back to Council. I BEACH PARKING STUDY h SCOPE OF THE REPORT The area of concern for this study was limited to the 3r8a bounded by Palonrar Airport Rond to the south, the Atchlson, Topeka and Santa Fe Rall- road to the east, the Buena Vista Lagoon to the north and, of course, the beaches to the west. Thc area was chosen because It presently represents the area of greatest demand and need for beach parking relief. Studies were made within the area on the location and number of existing parking facilities, potential parking demands, availability of land for future .- parking facilities, present land acquisition cost, the feasibility of bus transit systems and other studies related to these matters. BACKGROUND The beautiful coastal beaches and lagoons have traditionally made Carlshad a beach and recreation oriented comnunity. These same qualities serve to attract a large influx of visitors each year to the City. The State of California has recognized this attraction of Carlsbad beaches by establishing two State beaches in the area. Unfortunately, the desira- bility of these beaches has also created the attendant traffic congestion and parking problems. Adding to these problems Is the Tremendous popula- tion growth of the surm:mding area, the closing off of certain areas to private developments, the losz of sand on these and other nearby beaches and the general rise in the publlr's interest in physical fitness and healthful living. All of these thinqs have brought about increased pres- sure an the beaches' limited facilities and resources. - . The State Division of Beaches recognized the area's impending parking problem as early as 1958 when they roleased a set of preliminary develop- ment plans that designated extensive areas for future parking. SubseqLent development plans generated by the State have proposed numerous parking areas paralleling the beach. Unfortunately, these plans were predicated upon the use of a portion of the coastal highway for parking. with tbe subsequent narrowing of Carlsbati Boulevard and are, therefore, Of little practical use today. 1 I ”-. _-. SITE CHARACTERISTICS With the exception of one section of flat beach at -the outlet of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad’s beaches are characterized by narrow stretches of sand backed up by 15 to 25 foot cliffs. ‘The beaches are served by public roads that run along the top of the cllffs and parallel to the beaches. The beach areas are separated from the roadway by private development along the northern three-fourths of a mi!e and portions of the southern end of the study area. For the remalnder of the study area, the roadway either fronts directly adjacent to the beach or is separated ! by State beach property. Public accecs to the beaches located beneath the cliffs is provided at the access points noted on Exhibit 1. Private 3 access and numerous hiking’trails leading dosn the cliff face provide ad- ditlonal access to the beach areas below ?he cliffs. Access to the beaches .- , in areas without cliffs is provided directly from the roadway and parking I i faci I ities. EXISTING FACILITIES A survey was made of the existing parking facilities and public access points. Next, a study was conducted to dstermine the patential demnd:for . parking facilities within the study area (a copy of which has been included in Appendix I of this report). The number of existing and required parking spaces was thon grouped into subareas based on their proximity to public access points. A comparison of the parking needs of the subareas was then made. The results of this comparison are shown in tabular form in Exhibit I and graphically on Exhibit II of this report. .On the graph the blocks below the heavy zero line indicate areas where the existing parking is less than the potential parking demand. The blcjciis above the zero line indicate a surplus of existing parking over the potential demand. The numbers within the blocks indicate the total number of surplus or deficient parking spaces per the respective public access point. From the graph it can readily be seen that the areas of greatest need for additional parking facilitiss are along the Ocean Street frontage at the north end.. of the study arRa. along the Agua Hedionda peninsula, in front of the Encina power plant. and on the State property between Palomar Airport Road and the Terramar area. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS The solution to the problem of providing for additional parking facili- ties can be approached from two different directions. Either more parking .. . .. 1 . 4- i I ! I facl!ities can be constructed to meet the parking demand or the parki,ng demand can be reduced to reduce the number of parking facilities required. Increasing the number of parking facilities would be the simpler though not necessarily mre desirable method of solving the probiem. It would basically require the location and acquisition of availabie property and the construction of an appropriate parking fecility on that property. In some cases it would be desirable to supplement new parking lots with a modest shuttle bus system for facilities located sufficiently distant from the beach. Reducing parking demands, on the other hand, is not so easily accomplished. The mst feasible ntethod of reducing this demand would be the establishment or expan,sion of alternative transit systems. At the present time, the only econriical alternatives are bus and bicycle transit. Each of these alternatives would have the added benefit of reducing local pollutant levels and conserving energy. It can readily be assmed tha? an effective bus transit system would lead to a mre significant reduction in parking demand than an expansion of the present bike route system. Creat- ing an effective bus transit system will, however, require a considerable amount of time, effort and funds to establish new or expended routes and to formuiate a pub! ic awarenpss program to attract beachgoers away fr& the use of their private vehicles. It is reasonable to assme for the purpose of this report that the ultimate solution of the prob\em will include ele- ments of a1 I these methods. Appendix I I I of this study includes a brief sumnary of some unusual approaches to these alternatives that were con- sidered. WTENTIAL FACILITIES .- The study area was surveyed for available sites for future parking facilities. It was determined from the survey there were 22 existing Sites which could potentially be developed into parking lots. Each of these sites was photographed, numbered and field-reviewed for parking lot suita- bility. Each site was considered regardless of ownership, including those owned by the State or the San Oiego Gas & Electric Company. A data sheet was prepared on each site and a preliminary estimate of the cost to acquire and develop the property was made. (See /+ppendix I1 for further information on acquisition and development cost.) The sites were divided into two basic types - pedestrian access lots and bus transit lots. Pedestrian access lots arc those which are Close I ,? enough to the beach that users would simply walk directly frm ?he lots to the beach. Bus transit lots are those which are sufficiently distant from the beach that access to and from the beach wottld have to be provided by a shuttle bus to gain maximum utilization of the parking lot. Exhibit Ill presents a priority listing of the most desirable of the parking lot properties base2 on their location, their estimated acquisi- tion and development cost and their suitability for development. LOCAL SHUTTLE BUS SYSTEM If a bus transit parking lot is to function properly it must be served by an efficient, frequent and relatively inexpensive shuttle bus system. A variety of transport modes’are available but mosi are much too exotic and specialized to be considered for the City’s purposes. A basic presumption mb-e in this analysis is that the transport system used for this circum- stance will be ii bus system (most probably a mini-bus system) operated either by the City (as Parking Authority) or by contract from the North County Transit District (NCTD). The latter may be the more feasible ai- ternative since the NCTD presently provides a considerable amount of school transport, making a summertime-only arrangement a compatible utilization of drivers and vehicles which might otherwise be i’dlt.. In any case, the fol- lowing characteristics would provide the most desirable criteria necessary to establish the most effective and efficient shuttle system: 1. Shuttles should be provided from late morning to near sunset. 2. Schedules must be frequent, on the order of every 20-30 minutes. 3. Schedules should be well posted and available at all pick-up points. 4. The system should interconnect with existing bus routes. 5. The fee should be inexpensive. 6. Discharge and collection points should be as near as possible to public I beach access points. 7. Provision should be made on buses for beach gear storage. 8. An initial marketing program to inform the public of the existence of the shuttle service and parking lots. AREA-WIDE BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM The majority of the comments and criteria concerning the local shuttle system mentioned above would apply equally well to an area-wide transit sy.&tem. one difference would be that ,the frequency schedu,le for the area- k l-2 2 U' oz za w4 a xn W Ov, 2.z >I- ww ow VIl- wm a 0 '2 w 32 zu d4 -0 - W - 0 0 0 " - - g m "D 0 (I, - 0 0 9 0 W N - VI W P- - Li zz 9s W a V =I- V ow -I U4 OZ 3 W ou -0 In I 40 wz zz - N m ln UJ ww uv 24 a ma a- m= d ow za *I- m-l ao L- a un I-E .. wide system might 'be extended to 45 minutes to one hour to allow for the longer circulation pattern. In addition, an area-wide transit system should meet these added criteria to enhance its effectiveness: 1. Special runs to schools after dismissal time and to rsmote portions of the City such as La Costa. 2. Bus stops should be located near motels, restaurants and population centers . 3. Provisions should be made for bike racks. Because a City-wide bus system would require a large commitment on the part of the City, it is suggested that before any decision is made to pro- ceed with the implementation of such a system mre in-depth st'udies be con- ducted on the overal I practical and economical considerations involved. For example, it is not known at this time what percentage of the parking demand would be reduced by the implementation of a City-wide bus system . nor, for that matter, what percentage of the existing beachgoers are City ! ? residents who presently dr1,ve to thc? beach. If this and other information were known it would then be possible to calculate whether or not a bus ; system will significantly reduce the present beach parking demand or, when ,(. used with population projections, at what point such a system would have a significant impact on the parking demand. i. * $ TRANSIT ECONOMICS .$ The cost for the implementatlon of any bus transit system is basic- : Also affecting the overall cost of the system Is the number of days the 1 ? ally dependent upon energy cost, maintenance cost, wages and capital cost. system will operat5 during each year and the number of hours of operati,on each day. For the purposes of this repor: it was assumed the system would operate between the hours of 10:OO a.m. and 7:OO p.m. from June 15 to Sep- tember 15. This would correspond with the peak use of the beach facilities and also with the school vacation time. Two routes (shown on Exhibit IV), labtiled Route A and Route B. were assumed for study purposes. Route A rrould correspond dith the beach park- ing shuttle system and Route 8 with the City-wide ueach transit System. Exhibit V shows the estimated cost breakdown for each of these transit routes. Assuming an operating life of 15 years .for the buses with a 6% inter- est rate, the ycarl,, recovery cost for a 1660.000 blls would be 96.720- For : LEGEND "- ROUTE A' ROUTE B POTENTfAL PICK-UP POlN - I - .- f Route A the yearly cost which must be expended to keep the system in op- eration Wnuld be this figure plus the operation cost or approximately S16,700. If we assume an average of ten people on the bus at one time with a turnover rate of three per trip at nine tr-ips per day for a 90-day ' operation, there dill be approximately 24,300 fares for the season. tising fhcse assumptions the estima.ked ridership cost per person would be approxi- mafaly 694. If we further assume the charge per fare is kept to 254 to encourage ridership, the City would have to subsidize the system in the amunt of 444 per fare or approximately 611,000 per year. it would be impractical to give an estimate on ridership for Route B using the limited information available at this time, but it can reasonably be assumed the system would have to be subsidized at about the same level as Route A. Howevar, it would probably be feasible to raise the fare to - 354 for Route B.without seriously reducing the ridership level which would somewhat reduce the overall subsidy. RECOMMENDA: 1 ONS From an overall standpoint it would appear the most effective and de- sirable solution to the parking problem would be the establishment of,pe- destrian access parking lots and the installation of facilities which would encourage the use of existing bus and bicycle transit systems. It is fel: that existing bus routes will satisfy the short-term needs for a City-w:de beach transit system and that the local beach trallsit system is not justi- fied economically or practically. However. it is suggested that further sludies be done on the feasibility of implementing a separate City-wide ' beach bus system at a later time in the growth sf the City. Specific rec- omnendatlons to achieve these ends are as follows: 1. Set aside funds !n the budget for the acouisition and development of beech parking lots as part of the ongoing Capital lrnprovcment Program for the City. 2. Investigate the establishmen? oi J parking authority which would service not only the beach areas but the downtown redevelopment area as well. 3. Investigate sources of funding for bcach facilities from Federal and State agenc i es . 4. Establish projects to provide security lockers and suitable bike racks as a means of encouraging bus and bike use. 5. Encourage tho North County.Transi1 District to provide expanded servicc to beach areas. ... . '.., .,<,:.* x., . . . . . ~ ,::'t .. 6 + .. 6. Encsurage the'State Division of Beaches to improve their unimproved . . access points and to add an additional access point at Chestnut Ave- nue to even out the parking denland and To reduce the cliff erosion. i i i I 1 ;. i ! ! 7. Encourage the State Division of Beaches to develop additional parking facilities on State properties where feasible. .. fi h ESTIMATED BUS OPERATING COST ROUTE A Trip length - 3.7 miles Trip frequency - 30 minutes or 18 tiredday Season mileage - 3.7 X 18 X 93 = 6,231 miles Hours of operation/season - 93 X 9 = 837 hours Bus rating - 6 miles per gallon Capital Cost Purchase of minibus Operatinq Cost Fuel (current year prices) - 6,231 miles/6 MPG X $1.30/gai. Maintenance @ 20U/mile Wages - 837 hours X $7.33/hour X 1.2 overhead factor Tota I Operating Cost/Year .ROUTE a Trlp length - 22 miles Trip frequency - 1 hour or 9 times/day Season mileage - 9 X 22 X 93 = 18,414 miles burs of operation/season -93 X 9 = 837 hours Bus rating - 6 miles per gallon Capital Cost Purchase of bus Operatinq Cost Fuel (current year prices) - 18,414 miled6 MPG X $1.30/gal. Maintenance @ 20Q mi le X 18.414 miles Wages - 837 hours X $733/hour X 1.2 overhead factor Total Operating Cost/Year EXHIBIT $60,000 1,350 1,250 7.400 $10,000 - $60,000 4,000 3,650 7,350 $15,000 ? APPENDIX I PARKING SPACE DEMAND CALCULATIONS The beach utilization capacity was based on the following criteria most of which has been borrowed from previous studies and analyses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Beach capacity was estimated at 100 S.F. per person although peak loads may lead to capacities as high as 64 S.F. per person. Usable beach area from base of bluff to the sea was estimated at 75 feet. The actual figure varies with the tides and with the seasonal sand transport. Vehicle occupancy was estimated at 2.4 persons per car. Estimated walk-ins is 22%. 3 Turnover rate (number of times same beach area is used per day) Is assumed.to be three times. 1 2 Thus, for a 100-foot length of beach ths number of people leaving 1s:- 75 feet X 100 feet/:00 S.F. per person = 75 people - Subtracting out the walk-Ins the number of people is: 75 people - (.22 X 75) = 58.5 people The number of vehicles per 100 feet of beach is: 58.5 people/3 turnovers/2.4 people per vehicle = 8 vehicles per 100 feet of beach ' 8 page 29, by Moh le, Perry d Associates, unpublished report prepared for City of Carlsbad. - i a ' lbid lbid i I: I ; !. ! !' I v i 1 i- APPENDIX II ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT COST Property values were estimated based on probable 1979 cost figures. The values were determined as follows: ..._ 1. Ocean frontage lots - SIE/S.F. - %20/S.F. 2. Land between Ocean Street 6 Carlsbad Boulevard - $16/S.F. - S17/S.F. 3. Land between Carlsbad Boulevard B Atchison, Topeka 6 Santa Fe right-of- .. . , .. . '' .. ;. . . . ' ,r.. way - S15/S.F. 4. San Diego Gas 8 Electric Co. property - $15/S.F. Development costs were estimated at' approximately $3.4/S.F. This figure includes.concrete, paving and base cost as well as landscaping. ir- rigation and electrical cost and is based on current cost figures. I- APPENDIX Ill ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO BEACH PARKING PROBLEM During the review of the beach parking study, staff considered sev- eral alternative approaches to the problem. It was felt that some of these Ideas had merit and are, therefore, presented in this appendix for the sake of discussion on the matter. One idea considered was the establishrent of a large parking facility along the Atchison, Topeka L Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. To increase the use of this lot it was proposed that there be a mini-shuttle system ' ..:. .. . .. which would ferry beachgoekfrom the parking lot the beach and back. Thls alternative suffered from the same problems as discussed in the report .- on shuttle bus parking facilities. In addition, the alternative was com- pllcatsd by the fact the right-of-way is under control of the Atchison, Topeka 6 Santa Fe Railroad.and the City would not be able to receive a guarantee of permanent facilities. j < ., ,. 8. .. Another idea, this one suggested by the City's traffic engineeripg consultant, called for the closure of Carlsbad Boulevard at the Agua Hedi- onda Brldge. Through traffic along the Boulevard would be routed to Inter- state 5 along Tamarack Avenue to the north and Cannon Read to the south. Carlsbad Boulevard along the Encina fishing area between the power plant and Agua Hedionda Bridge would be converted into a parking facility. Carlsbad Boulevard north of the Agua Hedionda Bridge to Elm Avenue could possibly be reduced to two lanes of traffic leaving room for additional on-street parking and even a protected bicycle/pedestrian walk. ail within the existing paved area. The Agua Hedionda Bridge, which is currently slated for replacement with a four-lane superstructure, would be refur- bished or replaced with a two-lane bridge allowing only for bicycle, pe- destrian and emergency vehicular traffic. The major problem with this alternative is, of course, the one associated with the closure of Carlsbad Boulevard and the disruption of an established circulation system. The benefits of such a mve would be a reduction in traffic and noise levels, increased beach parking capacity and enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area. - h .i .. -, i: .. .- . 5451 Los Robles Drive Carlsbad, California May 21, 1'380 The Council City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 1200 Elm Avenue Ladies and Gentlemen: This concerns the BEACH PARKING STUDY on which the Council is scheduled to have a working session on May 27. I wish to submit for your Consideration three other potential parking lots which are located on level land already owned by the City of Carlsbad. They are the areas labelled "POTENTIAL PARKIIPG" on the attached sketch. The land on Cannon Road between Cannon Pond and the AT&SF tracks could provide parking for Cannon Park, as well as serving the Cannon Pond Park when the city develops that property. It is as close to the beach as parking lots 4 and 9 shown on the MAP OF BEACH PARKING STUDY AREA attached to the Beach Parking Study. A little more than a block south of Parking Lot Number 20 on the Map of Beach Parking Study Area, Palomar Airport Road intersects Carlsbad Boulevsrd. The intersection is surrounded by two good potential parking lots. The northern one, psrtially in use now for parking, has been landscaped by the City. South of Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad Boulevard is a dual highway. For almost a mile between the north- and southbound lanes, there is a broad, level expanse which also belongs to the City. With very little work, it could be converted into a parking lot. These three Potential Parking lots are not indicated on the Map of Beach Parking Study Areas attached to the Beach Parking Study, but they are within the area covered by the map. and would be very expensive to acquire. Lots 21 and 22 are State- Of the lots shown on the map, Lot Number 20 is privately-owned owned. Lot 22 produces fine crops of expensive tomatoes, squash, and beans under the skilled care of a Carlsbad farmer. He also employs several Carlsbad residents in his operation. remove these potential trouble-spots (parties, noise, drinking, The parking lots I have suggested for your consideration would drugs, etc.) from close proximity to our Terramar residences. They would cost the City nothing to acquire. They would allow potential. Yet they are only a block farther from the Tamarack productive agricultural land and residential lots to achieve their the beaches north of' South Tamarack State Beach Park. Therefore, Beach area. They are already serving as informal parking areas for I hope you wIll consider them as more than adequate substitutes for lots 20..'21. and 22 of the Map of Beach Parking Study Area. rSincerelu. ! ! I .., ." 'P?,.:. ., C f