DOCSLIB.ORG

Citrus Heights Comprehensive Transit Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Citrus Heights Comprehensive Transit Plan Citrus Heights Comprehensive Transit Plan October 2018 Citrus Heights Comprehensive Transit Plan City of Citrus Heights Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i Citrus Heights Comprehensive Transit Plan City of Citrus Heights Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 2 Existing Conditions Market Demand Analysis .................................................................2-2 Citrus Heights in the Region ................................................................................................................. 2-2 Demographic Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 Travel Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 2-13 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 2-21 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 2-22 3 Transit Service in Citrus Heights ......................................................................................3-1 Overview of SacRT Regional Services............................................................................................... 3-1 Overview of SacRT Routes in Citrus Heights .................................................................................... 3-2 Service Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 3-5 City Ride and SmaRT Ride ................................................................................................................... 3-5 SacRT Transit Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 3-10 Partner Transit Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 3-11 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 3-13 4 Evaluation of Fixed-Route Bus Service ......................................................................... 4-14 Route Performance Characteristics ................................................................................................... 4-14 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 4-20 5 ADA Paratransit Service ..................................................................................................5-1 ADA Paratransit Service Requirements ............................................................................................. 5-1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 5-4 6 Outreach ..........................................................................................................................6-1 Pop-up Workshop #1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-2 Pop-up Workshop #2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-6 Online Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 6-16 Stakeholder Focus Group: Business Meeting .................................................................................. 6-23 Stakeholder Focus Group: Human Service Agency Meeting ...................................................... 6-24 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 6-29 7 Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................................7-1 Cost-Constrained.................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Higher Cost Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 7-4 Alternative Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 7-6 Performance Standards........................................................................................................................ 7-6 Title VI Compliance................................................................................................................................ 7-8 Transit Asset Management Plan Compliance ................................................................................... 7-9 SacRT Proposed Annexation Deal Points .......................................................................................... 7-9 8 Preferred Plan ..................................................................................................................8-1 Community Priorities for Transit Access ............................................................................................. 8-1 Service Access Standards ..................................................................................................................... 8-3 Annexation to Sacramento Regional Transit .................................................................................... 8-3 Appendix A – Route Profiles Appendix B – Comments from Outreach Surveys Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i Citrus Heights Comprehensive Transit Plan City of Citrus Heights Table of Figures Page Figure 1 Proposed Annexation Deal Points ......................................................................................... ix Figure 2 Access to Transit Service – Minimum Service Level ............................................................ xi Figure 3 Travel Time Standards ............................................................................................................ xii Figure 4 Future Transit Network Alternative – New Regional Service ......................................... xiii Figure 5 Population Density ................................................................................................................ 2-4 Figure 6 Low Income Population Density .......................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 7 Zero Vehicle Households ..................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 8 Density of Households that Rent ........................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 9 Older Adult Population ....................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 10 Youth Population Density ..................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 11 Young Adult Population ..................................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 12 Density of People with Disabilities .................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 13 Transit Dependency Index ................................................................................................ 2-12 Figure 14 Transit Trips Origins and Destinations, 2013 ................................................................ 2-13 Figure 15 Commute Inflow to and Outflow from Citrus Heights .................................................. 2-14 Figure 16 Work Locations of Citrus Heights Residents .................................................................. 2-15 Figure 17 Home Locations of Workers in Citrus Heights ............................................................... 2-16 Figure 18 Employment Density ........................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 19 Work Destination SACOG Trip Model, Commute Trips from Citrus Heights to Region ................................................................................................................................... 2-18 Figure 20 Work Origin SACOG Trip Model, Commute Trips from Region to Citrus Heights 2-18 Figure 21 SACOG Trip Model Work Destinations within Sacramento County ......................... 2-19 Figure 22 Top Origins in Sacramento County for Work Trips Ending in Citrus Heights .......... 2-20 Figure 23 Top Destinations in Sacramento County for Work Trips Originating in Citrus Heights .................................................................................................................................. 2-20 Figure 24 Citrus Heights Land Use Plan ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Save the Cost of Parking and Take Sacrt to The
    SAVE THE COST OF PARKING AND TAKE SACRT TO THE MARAFUNRUN 5K! Thanks to a partnership between the Runnin' for Rhett Foundation and SacRT, MaraFUNrun 5K participants and attendees can ride free on SacRT buses and light rail trains on Saturday,December 1, 2018, with a printed MaraFUNrun flyer (only one flyer needed per couple). A copy of the flyer is on the back of this paper and is your pass to ride for free on Saturday, December 1. GETTING THERE § SacRT recommends parking at one of our key light rail stations for better service (Sunrise, Watt/Manlove, Franklin or Roseville Road) § On weekends, light rail trains operate every 30 minutes. § Visit sacrt.com. for light rail schedules. DOWNTOWN ARRIVAL STATIONS (Closest to the race start on 13th & L Streets) § Passengers riding to the maraFUNrun race start (13th & L Streets) on the Blue Line from Citrus Heights/Roseville, from South Sacramento/Elk Grove, OR on the Gold Line from Folsom/Rancho Cordova should exit the train at the 13th Street Station. DOWNTOWN DEPARTURE STATIONS (Closest to the race start on 13th & L Streets) § Passengers taking the Blue Line toward Citrus Heights/Roseville should board a “Watt/I-80” train (check the train sign) at the 13th Street Station. § Passengers taking the Blue Line toward south Sacramento/Elk Grove should board a “Cosumnes River College” train (check the train sign) at the 13th Street Station. § Passengers taking the Gold Line toward south Folsom/Rancho Cordova should board a "Sunrise" or “Historic Folsom” train (check the train sign) at the 13th Street Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California
    Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California Hollie M. Lund, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Robert Cervero, Ph.D. Professor of City and Regional Planning University of California at Berkeley Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., AICP Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Final Report January 2004 Funded by Caltrans Transportation Grant—“Statewide Planning Studies”—FTA Section 5313 (b) Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Acknowledgements This study was a collaborative effort by a team of researchers, practitioners and graduate students. We would like to thank all members involved for their efforts and suggestions. Project Team Members: Hollie M. Lund, Principle Investigator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Robert Cervero, Research Collaborator (University of California at Berkeley) Richard W. Willson, Research Collaborator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Marian Lee-Skowronek, Project Manager (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) Anthony Foster, Research Associate David Levitan, Research Associate Sally Librera, Research Associate Jody Littlehales, Research Associate Technical Advisory Committee Members: Emmanuel Mekwunye, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Val Menotti, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Planning Department Jeff Ordway, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Real Estate Department Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Doug Sibley, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Research Firms: Corey, Canapary & Galanis, San Francisco, California MARI Hispanic Field Services, Santa Ana, California Taylor Research, San Diego, California i Travel Characteristics of TOD in California ii Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Executive Summary Rapid growth in the urbanized areas of California presents many transportation and land use challenges for local and regional policy makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sac County Folsom Blvd Butterfi
    Applicant: Sacramento County Department of Transportation Project: Butterfield Way @ Folsom Blvd Intersection Bike Lanes P. PROJECT APPLICATION Project Title Butterfield Way @ Folsom Blvd Intersection Bike Lanes SACOG ID number (if available) 30433 PPNO and/or EA number (if applicable) N/A Federal ID number (if applicable) N/A Responsible Project Manager/Contact Name: Ron Vicari II, P.E. Position: Principle Civil Engineer Address: 906 G Street, Suite 510, Sacramento CA 95814 Phone: (916) 874-5164 desk, (916) 591-2257 cell E-mail: [email protected] Co-sponsor/Partner Agencies N/A Project Location In Rosemont at the intersection of Butterfield (Also attach a map) Way and Folsom Boulevard adjacent to the Butterfield light rail station and the Franchise Tax Board. (See Context Map) Project Scope/ Description (250 word limit) Modify the intersection at Butterfield and Folsom to eliminate the barrier presented by a high voltage steel power pole between Folsom Blvd and the light rail right-of-way and extend the bike lanes to the crosswalks and stop bars on Folsom Blvd. The proposed modification will reconfigure the traffic lanes and medians to accommodate bike lanes on the Folsom Blvd approaches and departures to the intersection with Butterfield within existing right-of-way. This can be accomplished by removing one of the two westbound left turn lanes on Folsom Blvd, increasing the length of the remaining left turn lane, and optimizing the signal timing for the improved intersection geometry. Project Schedule (estimated month and year): 1. Start environmental/preliminary engineering 1. Environmental process is underway, 2. Final ED approved - Start preliminary engineering is complete engineering/design 2.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan
    CITY OF ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared For: City of Elk Grove ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of City of Elk Grove Governments 1415 L Street, Suite RAQUEL CHAVARRIA, TRANSIT PLANNER 300 EDWARD COVIELLO, TRANSIT PLANNER Sacramento, CA 95814 JEAN C. FOLETTA, TRANSIT MANAGER Tel: 916.321.9000 Fax: 916.321.9551 BETH MARASIGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT www.sacog.org KARA REDDIG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RICHARD SHEPARD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Prepared for: City of Elk Grove Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 8401 Laguna Palms Way SHARON SPROWLS, SENIOR PROGRAM SPECIALIST (PROJECT MANAGER) Elk Grove, CA 95758 LAURA BELL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH ANALYST VICTORIA CACCIATORE, PLANNING ANALYST RENÉE DEVERE-OKI, SENIOR PLANNER TINA GLOVER, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH ANALYST GAYLE GREENE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III CLINT HOLTZEN, ASSISTANT PLANNER AMY MARTIN, TRANSIT PLANNING INTERN CHRISTINE O’ROURKE, ASSISTANT PLANNER GARY TAYLOR, SENIOR PLANNER BARBARA VAUGHANBECHTOLD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS SRTP WAS COMPLETED AS PROJECT #14-003-17 OF THE SACOG OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) WITH GENEROUS FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES GRANT PROGRAM. City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page i ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1—Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (October 2019)
    Ridership Report (October 2019) Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 3,518,921 3,415,852 103,069 3.0% 11,500,000 Light Rail 3,848,176 3,641,112 207,064 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 7,367,097 7,056,964 310,133 4.4% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus 1,059,668 1,014,352 45,316 4.5% 9,500,000 Light Rail 1,063,740 1,025,613 38,127 3.7% System Total 2,123,408 2,039,965 83,443 4.1% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 41,415 40,275 1,140 2.8% Bus (Sat) 15,390 13,266 2,124 16.0% Bus (Sun) 10,371 7,915 2,456 31.0% October Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 40,939 40,510 429 1.1% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 17,127 13,500 3,627 26.9% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 12,229 9,500 2,729 28.7% Fixed Route 48% Other Services E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) 46% Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 280,319 266,440 13,879 5.2% E-Tran (Monthly) 84,775 81,648 3,127 3.8% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 3,560 3,426 134 3.9% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weelday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change 1 2,067 2,190 (124) -6% 1 768 777 (9) -1% 11 972 715 257 36% 11 447 282 165 59% 13 678 315 362 115% 13 426 - 426 15 795 1,215 (420) -35% 15 381 558 (176) -32% 19 423 658 (234) -36% 19 209 271
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sacramento
    CITY OF SACRAMENTO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LAND USE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES April 2005 Prepared by Planning Division Long Range Planning Section Development Services Department Todd Leon, Project Manager Jim McDonald AICP, Senior Planner Stacia Cosgrove, Associate Planner Christopher Jordan, Student Assistant Nathan Stephens, Student Assistant http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/plngserv/lngrng/policies.htm TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................I I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 II. CITY OF SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN...........................................................................5 SECTION 1: POLICIES........................................................................................................7 SECTION 2: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ELEMENT.........................................................12 SECTION 4: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY LAND USE ELEMENT ...............................15 SECTION 5: CIRCULATION ELEMENT............................................................................20 III. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANS .............................................................................................25 A. REGIONAL TRANSIT MASTER PLAN (1993) ............................................................26 B. REGIONAL TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BUS AND LIGHT RAIL FACILITIES...............................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Folsom Short Range Transit Plan Update Project Appendix G.1 Public
    Folsom Short Range Transit Plan Update Project Appendix G .1 Public Comments Summary BUS SERVICE Commuter Feeder Service to Folsom Light Rail Stations Feeder bus essential for Folsom residents to take advantage of light rail; should run all day. Need fast, quick feeders to/from light rail during peak commuter hours only . Local feeder routes need to be within walking distance of residences, not just businesses. Draft bus service plan seems to cater to commercial traffic much more than commuters . Why can't the commuter public be covered during peak time (i.e ., 6 AM - 7 :30 PM & 4 PM - 5 :30 PM) and commercial traffic off-peak. Consider different routes for commuters (5am - 9 am, 3pm - 7pm) than for in-town customers (run all day). Commute routes should be designed to serve largest neighborhood populations possible and travel quickly to L.R. stations . Daytime in-town routes would serve major retail, city hall, college, etc. Early a.m. pick up (bus stop) at East Natoma & Briggs Ranch to light rail to get me to work by 6:30 a.m. Maintain service on Folsom-Auburn Road from Folsom Dam Road and provide feeder service to Historic Folsom light rail station. Add a peak-only loop up Folsom-Auburn, Oak Avenue Parkway, American River Canyon, Greenback, right on Folsom-Auburn, up unused center lane ramp to the Historic Folsom light rail station. Residents in Orangevale seemed to get better service even though they already have current RT service ; RT and Folsom could make arrangements so Folsom would no longer have to loop out to Madison/Main (e .g.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transit Facts & Figures
    Sacramento Regional Transit District Fact Sheet System Profile The Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) operates Sacramento, a 6.3-mile extension with seven new stations. approximately 70 fixed routes and one general public dial-a-ride In June 2004, light rail was extended from the Mather Field/ service, and 43 miles of light rail that covers a 367square-mile Mills Station to Sunrise Boulevard with three new stations. service area. Buses and light rail operate 365 days a year using In October 2005, light rail was extended 7.4 miles east from 97 light rail vehicles and 192 buses powered by compressed the Sunrise Station to the city of Folsom, which included four natural gas (CNG) and 20 shuttle vans. Buses operate daily new stations. In December 2006, SacRT completed the final from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. every 12 to 60 minutes, depending on segment of the Gold Line when it opened the .5-mile light rail the route. Light rail trains begin operation at 4 a.m. with serv- extension to the Sacramento Valley Station (Amtrak) with the ice every 15 minutes during the day, and every 30 minutes in addition of two new stations. the evening and on weekends. Blue Line and Gold Line trains operate until approximately 12:30 a.m. and the Gold Line to In June 2012, SacRT opened the Green Line to the River Folsom operates until 7 p.m. Green Line trains operate every District, which is the first phase of the Green Line to the Air- 30 minutes Monday through Friday from approximately 6 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared By: Sacramento Area Council of Governments
    CITY OF ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared For: City of Elk Grove ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of City of Elk Grove Governments 1415 L Street, Suite RAQUEL CHAVARRIA, TRANSIT PLANNER 300 EDWARD COVIELLO, TRANSIT PLANNER Sacramento, CA 95814 JEAN C. FOLETTA, TRANSIT MANAGER Tel: 916.321.9000 Fax: 916.321.9551 BETH MARASIGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT www.sacog.org KARA REDDIG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RICHARD SHEPARD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Prepared for: City of Elk Grove Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 8401 Laguna Palms Way SHARON SPROWLS, SENIOR PROGRAM SPECIALIST (PROJECT MANAGER) Elk Grove, CA 95758 LAURA BELL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH ANALYST VICTORIA CACCIATORE, PLANNING ANALYST RENÉE DEVERE-OKI, SENIOR PLANNER TINA GLOVER, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH ANALYST GAYLE GREENE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III CLINT HOLTZEN, ASSISTANT PLANNER AMY MARTIN, TRANSIT PLANNING INTERN CHRISTINE O’ROURKE, ASSISTANT PLANNER GARY TAYLOR, SENIOR PLANNER BARBARA VAUGHANBECHTOLD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS SRTP WAS COMPLETED AS PROJECT #14-003-17 OF THE SACOG OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) WITH GENEROUS FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES GRANT PROGRAM. City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page i ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1—Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 1 Item #15-4-3
    Handout 1 Item #15-4-3 Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan Update Since the Master Plan was sent to the Committee, staff received additional feedback from the City of Roseville, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and Caltrans District 3. Staff has incorporated this feedback into the attached changes. These attachments, as described below, include three additional projects; consolidation of Caltrans District 3 projects into the multi-agency project lists for each of the six counties, including identification of project co-sponsors; consolidation of Sacramento Regional Transit District projects into City and County of Sacramento project lists; and an additional map. • Exhibit A replaces page two of the City of Roseville’s project list. Two new projects have been added (highlighted) • Exhibit B combines the El Dorado County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one El Dorado County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit C combines the Placer County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Placer County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit D replaces page 5 of the City of Sacramento’s project list to incorporate projects previously listed under Sacramento Regional Transit District (highlighted). • Exhibit E replaces page 13 of Sacramento County’s project list to incorporate projects previously listed under Sacramento Regional Transit District (highlighted). • Exhibit F combines the Sacramento County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Sacramento County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit G combines the Sutter County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Sutter County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit H combines the Yolo County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Yolo County: Multi-Agency List.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Sacramento: a Trip-Making and Accessibility Study
    Connecting Sacramento: A Trip-Making and Accessibility Study Study Overview and Highlights July 2017 Purpose of this study Local governments and transportation agencies often make challenging decisions about how best to use their limited resources to ensure they are meeting people’s travel needs. These decisions typically depend on reliable data and metrics, which help explain where issues exist, come up with logical solutions, evaluate of the impacts of potential projects, and weigh the relative benefits of different options. Decision-makers have long relied on a limited set of tools. Facility-level metrics such as road delay and on-time transit arrival provide some sense of how well different pieces of a transportation system are performing; costly travel surveys shed light on people’s actual travel behaviors; and travel demand models let us simulate travel patterns throughout a region and forecast travel behavior into the future. Unfortunately, these tools fall short in easily answering fundamental transportation-related questions: where are people going and how easily can they get there? This is particularly true regarding transit riders and potential transit users. Newer data sources and more advanced analytic tools can potentially change that drastically, but they are not well understood and rarely applied in practice. This study incorporates several of those new tools and data sources to understand how useful they are and how they can inform smarter transportation investments and more impactful improvements – particularly related to improving people’s access to existing transit and increasing transit ridership. Novel tools and data sources Accessibility metrics Accessibility metrics incorporate everything we know about existing transportation networks and land uses to explain how easily people can reach essential destinations by different modes.
    [Show full text]