HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-26; City Council; 15458; North Coast Transportation Study.
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
I
I I I
I
I
I
,
, .
iB# 15.458
JITG. 10/3.6&y-
IEPT. ENG
TITLE- &
REVIEW OPTIONS FOR
NORTH COAST TRANSPORTATION STUDY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City Council to review and discuss the options and alternatives to be considered by the Policy
Committee on the North Coast Transportation Study and direct representatives, as appropriate,
and include such recommendations as a part of our Legislative Platform.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
For several years, SANDAG has been administering a contract to study options that will provide traffic congestion relief in the Interstate Highway 5 corridor. Staff from the represented cities and
agencies have comprised the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of this study and elected
officials and other designated individuals sit as the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for the North
Coast Transportation Study. The Policy Advisory Committee has representatives from:
l City of Carlsbad 0 Caltrans 0 City of Del Mar l Department of Defense
0 City of Encinitas a MTDB
l City of Oceanside l NSDCTDB
l City of San Diego l Orange County TCA
l County of San Diego 0 City of Solana Beach
Mayor Pro Tern Hall is the Policy Advisory Committee representative and Council Member Nygaard
acts as the alternate. The Policy Advisory Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for
October 22, 1999 to review the final alternatives and provide recommendations that SANDAG staff
will present to the SANDAG Board of Directors at their November 19, 1999 meeting. At that
meeting, the recommendations will be considered for inclusion in the draft Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP).
To address the congestion relief issue, various modes and transportation alternatives were
included in the North Coast Transportation Study. These alternatives are discussed below and are summarized as:
0 Freeway
l Arterial streets 0 Coaster 0 El Camino Real limited bus service 0 Pending or additional studies
The North Coast Transportation Study included travel forecasts for Year 2020 and environmental
analysis of the alternatives. Comparisons were made for each alternative against the Base Case
(no-project alternative). The Base Case is the Year 2020 forecast data and includes projects that
are under construction or are funded.
Freewav Alternatives
Neither transit or arterial street improvements are included as part of the freeway alternatives. Table 1, produced by SANDAG, compares alternatives to the Base Case by indicating the
corresponding increases or decreases in Base Year 2020 forecast data.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 15,458
For the Base Case, freeway improvements are estimated to cost about $411 million. Improvements
include the completion of the I-51805SR 56 interchange, completion of SR 56 from l-5 to l-15, and
several other projects.
Freeway improvement costs range from $630 million to add carpool lanes (8+2) along the entire
length of the corridor to more than $1.4 billion for a widened freeway that includes an elevated “managed-lane” facility from Del Mar Heights Road to Encinitas Boulevard. Slightly higher capacity
can be achieved if the Demand alternative is implemented instead of the elevated alternative. The Demand alternative cost is about $780 million and the elevated alternative cost is about
$1,400,000,000. However, the Demand alternative requires the widest freeway right-of-way.
When compared with the Base Case, each freeway alternative facilitates an increase in vehicle
trips. Although each freeway alternative reduces congestion, only the Demand alternative
eliminates congestion in the corridor. The Demand alternative facilitates the highest growth in
mobility (over 7,300 daily vehicle trips) and it is the only alternative that permitted an increase in
daily vehicle miles of travel (an additional 51,944).
Each of the freeway alternatives result in a decrease in total transit ridership by about 7,000 daily
riders. The Demand alternative causes the greatest decrease in Coaster ridership over the Base Case ridership by 3,000 daily riders.
Arterial Streets Alternative
The Arterial Streets alternative was compared to the Base Case and is also shown on Table 1. For
the Arterial Streets alternative, a new connection across Penasquitos Canyon and the San Dieguito
River was included. Also included are many intersection improvements, interchange improvements,
street widenings and advanced technology programs.
The incremental cost of the Arterial Streets alternative over the Base Case is $700 million. By
providing more direct travel, this alternative significantly reduces the daily vehicle miles traveled
and facilitates an increase of 5,000 daily auto trips. With this alternative, there is a reduction in total
daily transit trips of 1,800 and a reduction in total daily Coaster trips by 900.
SANDAG lists the following factors that the Arterial Streets alternative achieves on l-5, I-15 and other streets in the various cities and county locations.
0 The connection across the San Dieguito River carries 73,000 daily trips,
a Interstate 5 traffic decreases by 17,000 ADT; peak-hour traffic decreases by approximately
1,200-l ,300 person trips.
0 Minimal change in traffic volumes on Del Dios Highway.
0 El Camino Real traffic decreases by about 10,000 ADT.
0 Coast Highway1101 traffic has a slight decrease in ADT.
0 Interstate 15 traffic decreases by about 26,000 ADT; peak-hour traffic decreases by
approximately 1,900-2,000 person trips.
Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. 15,458
Coaster Alternatives
A comparison of transit alternatives to the Base Case is shown on Table 2, produced by SANDAG. For transit, the Base Case includes two major double-track projects in the southern portion of the
corridor and the University City Coaster Station at a total capital cost of $77.8 million.
Coaster improvement alternatives range from $288 million for Coaster 1 alternative, with no tunnel
segments, to almost $700 million for the Tunnel 3 alternative. Tunnels at both University City and Del Mar are included in the Tunnel 3 alternative. The entire capital costs of Tunnel 2 and Tunnel 4 are reduced through the elimination of the $270 million Mid-Coast Trolley extension project, also included in the Base Case.
The annualized cost per rider used in transit fiscal analysis is a cost-effectiveness measure. The
incremental change in annualized cost per rider of the Tunnel 1 alternative is 50% higher than the Coaster 1 alternative and the incremental change in annualized cost per rider of the Tunnel 3 alternative is twice that of the Coaster 1 alternatives. Tunnel 2 and 4 alternatives eliminate trolley service north of Old Town and their incremental changes in annualized cost per rider is about the same as the Coaster 1 alternative.
Although the cost effectiveness of the Tunnel 2 alternative is shown to be relatively high, its viability is dependent on the availability of self-contained diesel vehicles that can operate on the same tracks as conventional trains. That type of vehicle is under development with its final cost, performance characteristics and acceptability to the Federal Railway Administration (FRA)
unknown at this time.
No urban level rail service north of Old Town will be provided by the Tunnel 4 alternative and it is
projected to have a small decrease in transit ridership over the Base Case. Additionally, Tunnel 4
alternative has the least impact on total daily vehicle trips and daily vehicle miles of travel of the Coaster alternatives.
El Camino Real Limited Bus Alternative
A limited-stop, high-speed bus service in the El Camino Real corridor was compared with the Base
Case (Table 2). Although the bus service is not fully separated from other traffic on El Camino
Real, it could use queue jumper lanes at major intersections (if right-of-way is available) and
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology to increase travel speeds and to travel through intersections where the most delay occurs.
The subsidy per passenger for this alternative is very high, even though the low capital cost
appears to have a positive impact on vehicle trips and transit ridership. Concepts in this alternative
need to be further refined and verified.
Pending or Additional Studies
Various studies are ongoing by different agencies. Therefore, no final information or recommendations are available in several areas. These are:
a Del Mar Bluffs alternatives: Two separate studies; the first by NCTD in coordination with Del Mar and the City of San Diego and the second by the California High Speed Rail Authority.
0 University City Coaster station and transit service: by MTDB and NCTD; coordination of Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Bus and Amtrak services and the resolution of the issues identified by the Joint Board for Regional Transit.
3
Page 4 of Agenda Bill No. 15,458
0 El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road transit service: by NCTD as a part of the development of its Business Plan (Fast Forward: 21” Century Transit Solutions for
North County).
a Arterial Corridor Refinement: by the City of San Diego for the Camino Santa Fe connection; and by the County, San Marcos and San Diego for the Twin Oaks Valley Road/Camino Ruiz connection.
Issues and Recommendations
The following are issues and the potential study recommendations prepared by SANDAG that the
Policy Advisory Committee could consider. At the PAC meeting of August 20, 1999, based upon
public comment and Committee discussion of the recommendations, the Committee asked
SANDAG staff to provide more specific information on the alternatives. That information will be
mailed to the Technical Advisory Committee on October 8, 1999 and will be presented at the Policy
Advisory Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for October 22, 1999. The additional issues that
the Policy Advisory Committee asked SANDAG staff to address are:
1. Prepare a freeway recommendation that eliminates (or at least minimizes) the need for additional right-of-way, even if the recommended width of the freeway be reduced. This
alternative should maximize the aesthetic appeal of the corridor.
2. Re-evaluate the potential to build railway tunnels in Del Mar and in the University
Community of San Diego (including a new UTC station). This would allow for double
tracking of the entire line. Several PAC members recommended removing the railway from
the bluffs. The PAC also supported grade separations where feasible.
3. Expand and clarify the Arterial Street recommendation, providing information on any
potential alignments of the segment crossing the San Dieguito River. In addition, identify the
impacts of not building one or both of the two new northern arterial segments.
4. Request that NCTD (as part of the NCTD Business Plan) prepare potential service concepts
for improved bus service, in the El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (employment)
corridors.
5. Several members of the PAC requested that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) look
into other, more creative ways to solve congestion problems. Suggestions included highway
management (ITS), demand management (peak-hour restrictions) and land use strategies.
FREEWAY (Alternative g-Demand)
0 Freeway Expansion
1. l-5, Del Mar Heights Road to Encinitas Boulevard: 12+2 HOV+auxiliary
2. l-5, Encinitas Boulevard to Van De Grift Boulevard: IO+2 HOV+auxiliary
3. l-5, Van De Grift Boulevard to SR241: 8+2 HOV+auxiliary 4. l-5, SR241 to San Clemente: 8+0 HOV
5. l-805, l-5 to SR52 8+2 HOV+auxiliary
l Freeway Interchange Improvements
1. I-5/SR78 (new west to south direct connector, improved north to east connector).
2. I-5/SR56 (new south to east and west to north connectors).
3. I-5/Lomas Santa Fe.
Page 5 of Agenda Bill No. 15,458
COASTER (Based on the Coaster 1 Alternative)
Provide 20 minute peak period service in both directions (6:00-9:00 AM & 3:00-6:00 PM).
Provide 60 minute off-peak service in both directions (9:00-3:00 PM & 6:00-IO:00 PM).
Provide for hourly Intercity Rail Express/limited stop service (Amtrak or High Speed Rail).
Provide a 50-55 minute travel time from Oceanside to Centre City, primarily be eliminating
scheduled delay through double-tracking the line.
Double-track the entire line from Oceanside to the San Diego River except for the Del Mar
bluff area to permit increased service and decreased travel times. This includes:
1. Fallbrook Junction to the existing Del Mar passing track,
2. Carmel Valley Road to the San Diego River, and at
3. Several locations in Camp Pendleton.
Stabilize the Del Mar bluff segment for continued single-track service unless an alternative alignment is identified and funded.
Additional Coaster Stations at:
1. Del Mar Fairgrounds for special events only (based on previous studies), and 2. University City (see note C below).
NOTES:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The goals of providing 20-minute peak period Coaster Service and hourly Intercity service can be approached but may not be fully achieved without complete double-tracking of the right-of-way south of Oceanside.
The Del Mar bluff stabilization recommendation is considered an interim recommendation
(or place-holder), pending the completion of other studies.
A Nobel Drive station in University City (as adopted in the MTDB Mid-Coast Alternatives Analysis) was assumed in the Base Case for the North Coast study. The Joint Committee on Regional Transit recommended that both transit boards support the implementation of the Nobel Drive station, contingent on the successful resolution of several outstanding
issues including cost-sharing and feeder bus service to the station.
New stations at Carmel Valley Road and Christianitos Road are not recommended because
of station access problems, marginal patronage increases, and environmental and parkland impacts.
Tunnel segments are not recommended at this time because of their relatively low cost effectiveness. The tunnel options should remain open, pending the completion of studies by NCTD, the California High Speed Rail Authority, Amtrak, and Caltrans Division of Rail. Non-local funding would potentially be available for these projects.
-
Page 6 of Agenda Bill No. 15.458
Additional information:
1. The recommended vision for this study is to double-track the full line. This double-tracking is desirable if the line is to support the objectives of four peak-period trains in each direction (three Coasters and one Amtrak) and a five-minute travel time reduction. Without full double-track line, travel delay (which would be planned for in scheduling the services) is inevitable.
2. Double-tracking of the line along the bluffs is not considered practical and, therefore, is not recommended. A long-term solution to double-track through the City of Del Mar must be found through more detailed engineering studies which are programmed by NCTD.
SANDAG’s engineering consultant has provided a general, planning-level cost
estimate for relocating the trains to a double-track facility beneath Camino Del Mar.
However, there are many issues or uncertainties in the project’s design, feasibility, political acceptability and cost. These uncertainties will be addressed in a subsequent, more-detailed future NCTD study. Until these issues are resolved, SANDAG staff does not recommend a relocation project.
3. Grade separations between the road system and the railroad should be pursued
where physically feasible and desirable. Intersection improvements to promote
safety and reduce noise associated with train horns should also be pursued. This third point was not discussed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), but is consistent with the intent of the TAC recommended program.
ARTERIAL STREETS:
0 New arterial street segments connecting:
1. Camino Santa Fe across Penasquitos Canyon, and 2. Twin Oaks Valley Road to Camino Ruiz.
l Urban Interchanges at:
1. El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, 2. El Camino Real and Oceanside Boulevard, 3. Ranch0 Del Oro and Oceanside Boulevard, and 4. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Questhaven Road
0 ITS Projects on:
1. Coast Highway (Carlsbad Boulevard), from l-5 to Carlsbad Village Drive, 2. El Camino Real, from Oceanside Boulevard to Carlsbad Village Drive,
3. El Camino Real, from Olivenhain Road to Encinitas Boulevard, and 4. Lomas Santa Fe, from Highway 101 to l-5.
a Street and Road widening and intersection improvements:
1. As identified by individual cities.
2. No road widening or intersection improvements are recommended by County of San Diego staff.
Page 7 of Agenda Bill No. 15,458
EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR:
The “Priority Bus” Service on El Camino Real which was evaluated in this study was not
cost-effective, however, improved service in this corridor is essential. This service should be
evaluated by NCTD in the preparation of its Business Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Environmental review for this project is being conducted by consultants hired by SANDAG.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minor administrative impacts to attend meetings. Development of future projects will require capital
expenditures. Consultants for SANDAG have developed very preliminary planning level capital
construction cost estimates. For improvements in Carlsbad, the cost estimates are:
Urban Interchanges:
Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real $20 million
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road/Questhaven Road $18 million
Intersection Improvements: $10.0 million
Traffic Signal Interconnect $0.50 million
EXHIBITS:
1. Table 1 Numeric change from Base Case-Highway Alternatives (from SANDAG).
2. Table 2 Numeric change from Base Case-Transit Alternatives (from SANDAG).
3. Arterial Improvement Alternative (from SANDAG).
4. Memorandum to City Manager dated October 18, 1999.
EXHIBIT 1
; ’
; 1
1 /
I ,
i i
4 I j
i
, : i I
1 -013 I ;I z.gqg
j “ggg
‘N.
i.+ j t 3. -- d to (D * ( , ’ : ( I n-m I HIM/ !nim
if- N ’ 100 sse 10 m*o*-*y , 2
I;w: q h( 8 2 8 Id $ : . fj $58; $y$;yj cj ;-&I$+ ONW ’ IIV) 8 $j$Ei ) $0, : ’
g -q!i$i .;,
* 111 I*- 1 i
w-A5$xij~i H 8’ s h! fp$ *- - - - - ‘!a’ I : espy I i 5 uilti;
‘pi
Iij/ N 1
I ’
*Hub - - ;..,:r’l
i : 4 4-r
I?
i I ’ ! :
EXHIBIT i’
.- --7 Q)ofDw ** 8 ss* ’ I gig !
I* g-- i ss
iF !C. f , !C
:I? wwm -- - :: : ! : 6 ES : .*%gq ; : s’-,s*YII XK$ : fw=l8 q-g 3 ggglf’$’ , z y’l6 6 G , 1 ’ : . . . ; ! ; i j
NC9 ; p3i5-3 , ; = ! i j ! ’ 1 I
.l-+p- “=-~~p zi
I I
is ! : i ; ‘#I
g- !cyy g!
I I5 1
IS W+HH n D
, *
i : inn
I eIB/glZi ‘0 7
ti (W 9 8 i ’
, i ,‘lOd I
iI!:
; 68 cq s
i ww
j i ; i
,/ I i j !
w ubiwtw;
.I
An
; I I
1 ; ; : :
I i ! ! 1(1,* i I 1 I
/ -
%!ZiS~j~ 8 ! 1 $8
I I i ! :‘ldd ; y=&
: ! I 1
;
L.- - -
iZOWUJ A--=
*88$E : ,
gsc?g g:gig:+.g,o
s d 6 r;’
** 5%’ ,dd
8
,
i5 . “! 9 ’ !
F
b
p? , > I
, I
z
i i i I
; a
J I j
,. :
ill
$
ii;
: I
I !i .n / I** . -
i ; i :
F :.zrzm
LQLlQl . . . . c -‘.-i . . d ;vm3 F :’ 6 &&yg 4-3 +4. :x, -:j I...&& 9,
DEL MAR
. .
.:
r
7
October 18,1999
Exhibit #4
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
NORTH COAST TRANSPORTATION STUDY
At the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on October 13, 1999 for the referenced project, George Franck of SANDAG presented additional’information that was requested by the
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) during their August 20, 1999 meeting. The following is a summary of issues directly / indirectly affecting the City of Carlsbad and some additional
miscellaneous information.
1. Additional freeway right of way would be required in Carlsbad along the west side of
Interstate Highway 5 between Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. For
about 3000 linear feet a 17-foot high retaining wall would be necessary to
accommodate the widening to achieve 10 traffic lanes plus two HOV lanes. The
existing retaining wall on the east side of the freeway would have to be heightened.
About 5-10 feet of land would be necessary to acquire on the west side for the
widening and this would not remove any structures. Final details and impacts would
be determined at the time environmental studies are performed. A cross-section of
the freeway, prepared by Caltrans, for the segment between Tamarack Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive is attached.
2. SANDAG staff will recommend that under the Arterial Alternative the extension of
Melrose Drive as it extends southeasterly of the City of Carlsbad be eliminated. This is due to environmental concerns with sensitive habitat areas. Additional information
will be provided to the PAC regarding traffic impacts on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and
other streets with the elimination of the Melrose Drive extension.
3. Bus corridor planning on El Camino Real will be referred to NCTD to study in their business plan update.
4. Innovative techniques to reduce congestion is attached and was prepared by
SANDAG staff.
The next Policy Advisory Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 29, 1999 or
November 5, 1999, probably in Del Mar.
ROBERT T. JOHkON, JR., P.E.
Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
RTJ:kn
c: Public Works Director
.
INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE CONGESTION
North Coast Transportation Study
October 1999
-., L-..
--m-- CnrJ-M*-
‘T
./- --r’ ,
./--
TO REDUCE CONGESTION
DESCRIPTION: The North Coast alterna-
tives already include a number of innovative
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
strategies and system management elements.
These are listed below:
l Ramp Metering to control access at free-
way on-ramps.
l Signal Coordination to efficiently move
traffic along arterials and across jurisdic-
tiOXlS.
l Signal Preemption to allow buses to acti-
vate the “green” at signals along major
arterial corridors.
l Express Bus Service with limited bus stops.
Additional ITS elements, Demand Manage-
ment and System Management strategies are
possible to maximize the efficiency of our
transportation network. These are described
herein and in the attachments.
SI’ATUS/HISTORX The San Diego region is
currently using ITS Strategies, System Man-
agement and Demand Management in areas
such as the I-15 corridor and arterial corri-
dors.
CAPITAL COST: Integrated into cost estimate
for each alternative.
TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS
The use of ITS components, system management and demand management can allow a transportation
facility to function at its peak efficiency. Many of our transportation facilities are not operating at peak
efficiency or maximum capacity. The following points and the attached sheets provide some informa-
tion:
l An average freeway lane, operating at its maximum capacity, can accommodate a flowrate of 2,000
vehicles per lane per hour traveling at a speed of 60mph.
l When freeway capacity is exceeded by too many vehicles trying to use the freeway; or the capacity is
reduced because of accidents or bottlenecks, the flowrate decreases, causing lower speeds and longer
travel times.
. In addition, congestion occurs for reasons such as:
1. Insufficient off-ramp capacity, causing back-ups onto freeway through lanes.
2. Lack of coordinated off-ramp signal timing, wasting available green time on the arterials.
13
-
3. Uncoordinated arterial signal timing, which stops efficient vehicle progression through the
signals.
4. Unexpected driver lane-change behavior, causing sudden braking.
5. Special events, adding unfamiliar drivers and more traffic to the system.
l The implementation of lTS strategies, system management and demand management can incre-
mentally reduce congestion by resolving the factors that degrade freeway throughput (or capacity).
Combined, these incremental resolutions can maxim&e the efficiency of the transportation system
thereby increasing capacity.
l Taking away the population growth factor, a significant reduction in congestion can occur with only
a minor decrease in vehicles. For instance, during the L.A. Olympic Games in 1984, the peak period
commute traffic on L.A. freeways was reduced by 1%. This was due to a well-planned traffic
management system. The 1% reduction produced an average peak period commute speed of 60
mph compared with the normal 12-17 mph.
l A 1% reduction in peak-period traffic volume on a freeway operating at maximum capacity (2,000
vehicles per lane per hour) amounts to only 20 vehicles per lane/hr.
l Congestion on Interstate 5 is noticeably reduced during holidays and when school is not in session.
Data shows that the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Wednesday, November 11,1998 (Veteren’s Day)
was only 2.8% less than a normal commute day.
Potential Impacts
These strategies improve upon existing systems, rather than building new facilities, thereby producing
minor impacts to the environment.
Attachments
A. Examples of Maximizing the Transportation System’s Efficiency
B. Strategies to Improve Transit Ridership
Attachment A
EXAMPLES OF MAXIMZING THE TIWNSPORTATION SYSIEM’S EFFICIENCY
SANDAG-October 1999
The following are examples of incremental improvements that can maximize the
efficiency of the San Diego transportation system:
1. Widen and/or lengthen off-ramps to accommodate freeway exit demand at high
volume interchanges.
2. Develop signal coordination between off-ramp signals and arterial signals to
optimize the flow at freeway exits and eliminate back-up onto freeway through
lanes.
3. Implement coordinated signal timing plans along arterials to efficiently move the
peak-direction traffic, including timing plans across jurisdictional boundaries.
4. Install minor lane barriers on freeways to reduce sudden, multi-lane changes and
resulting incidents.
5.
6.
Eliminate bottlenecks by widening where necessary.
Implement “managed lanes” with movable barriers to accommodate peak-direction
traffic volumes.
7. Install High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
8. Provide tangible incentives for employees to car-pool.
9. Allow single drivers to use HOV lanes through pricing, like I-15.
10. Implement an incident management program to clear freeway lanes in cases of
accidents, including an Incident Management Task Force for major accidents.
11. Provide incentives to shift employees start times outside of peak commute hours.
12. Alter truck delivery schedules outside of peak commute periods.
13. Install Changeable Message Signs (CMS) to inform special event traffic of less
congested routes/freeway exits and parking locations.
14. Install driver alert signs to advise drivers of advanced lane conditions to prevent
rear-end collisions.
Attachment B
SI’RATEGIES TO IMPROVE TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
SANDAG-October 1999
San Diego is a rapidly growing region, therefore population growth quickly counteracts
the positive effects of peak-period vehicle reduction. However, incremental reduction of
peak-period vehicles on the freeways and arterials can help maintain mobility. The San
Diego region is approaching its limit on available right-of-way to build more freeway
lanes and arterials. Alternatives like carpooling and mass transit provide a path
towards shifting trips off the freeway.
Surveys of potential transit riders’ show that some relatively low-cost improvements
(compared to building more lanes or a new train/trolley system) can increase ridership
on existing transit systems:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Travel Time: Develop alternatives so that transit travel time is equal or better than
the auto trip.
Routes/Stous: Serve large commuter destinations such as airports, large
employment sites and universities. Locate bus/shuttle stops very close to
destination (4 block).
Accessibilitv: Provide sufficient parking at Park & Ride lots and/or provide
convenient transit to stations.
Connections: Provide convenient connections from transit stations and Park & Ride
lots to destination.
Transfers: Coordinate timing of transfers.
Safety: Improve lighting and hire security guard at transit stations and parking lots.
Schedule: Increase frequency and on-time performance so that wait times are short.
Comfort: Ensure comfortable, clean seats and interiors and clean stations/stops.
Incentives: Provide incentives to use transit such as employer-subsidized transit
passes.
10. Free Passes: Allow students (including college students) to ride free on transit.
11. Prior& Service: Allow buses to have preferential access to freeways and along
arterials.
12. Technolow Use latest technology for faster travel such as higher speed trains.