DOCSLIB.ORG

CITY of ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared By: Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 1-1 Chapter 2—Planning Context 2-1 Chapter 3—Overview of Existing Fixed Route Service 3-1 Chapter 4—Overview of Existing e-van Service 4-1 Chapter 5—Transit Demand Analysis 5-1 Chapter 6—Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Prior Recommendations 6-1 Chapter 7—Staffing and Administration 7-1 Chapter 8—Marketing 8-1 Chapter 9—Fleet and Facilities Plan and Financial Analysis 9-1 Chapter 10—Service Alternatives 10-1 Appendix A1—Detailed Commuter Route Analysis A1-1 Appendix A2—Detailed Local Route Analysis A2-1 Appendix A3—Detailed Boarding and Alighting Counts A3-1 Appendix B—Copy of 2013 e-tran On-Board and Online Surveys B-1 Appendix C—Example Rider Guide – Yuba-Sutter Transit C-1 Appendix D—Engineering Drawings for Blue Line LRT Extension D-1 City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 ELK GROVE STUDY AREA 2-2 FIGURE 2.2 CONCENTRATION OF 2010 POPULATION 2-8 FIGURE 2.3 CONCENTRATION OF 2010 POPULATION UNDER AGE 18 2-9 FIGURE 2.4 CONCENTRATION OF 2010 POPULATION AGE 65 AND OVER 2-10 FIGURE 2.5 FAMILIES IN POVERTY 2-11 FIGURE 2.6 HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE OR NO VEHICLES AVAILABLE 2-12 FIGURE 2.7 CONCENTRATION OF NON-WHITE 2010 POPULATION 2-13 FIGURE 2.8 ELK GROVE: 2008 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY 2-15 FIGURE 3.1 ELK GROVE: TRANSIT SYSTEM 3-2 FIGURE 3.2 E-TRAN PARK AND RIDE LOTS 3-12 FIGURE 3.3 AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP BY COMMUTER ROUTE 3-14 FIGURE 3.4 AVERAGE WEEKLY RIDERSHIP ON COMMUTER ROUTES TO/FROM BUTTERFIELD LRT STATION 3-18 FIGURE 3.5 AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP BY LOCAL ROUTE 3-21 FIGURE 3.6 ROUTE 157 RIDERSHIP PER RUN 3-26 FIGURE 3.7 AVERAGE RIDERSHIP ON ROUTE 160 3-30 FIGURE 3.8 AVERAGE RIDERSHIP ON ROUTE 162 3-30 FIGURE 3.9 ROUTE 151 SCHOOL TRIPPER AVERAGE RIDERS PER RUN 3-32 FIGURE 3.10 ROUTE 152 SCHOOL TRIPPER AVERAGE RIDERS PER RUN 3-32 FIGURE 3.11 ROUTE 153 SCHOOL TRIPPER AVERAGE RIDERS PER RUN 3-33 FIGURE 3.12 WEEKEND SHUTTLE AVERAGE RIDERSHIP PER RUN (SATURDAY) 3-35 FIGURE 3.13 WEEKEND SHUTTLE AVERAGE RIDERSHIP PER RUN (SUNDAY) 3-36 FIGURE 3.14 MAP OF PROPOSED BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT 3-39 FIGURE 4.1 FARE MEDIA USE: DEMAND RESPONSE (OCTOBER 2012) 4-3 FIGURE 5.1 ON-BOARD SURVEY: ZIP CODE 5-1 FIGURE 5.2 ON-BOARD SURVEY: GENDER 5-2 FIGURE 5.3 ON-BOARD SURVEY: AGE (LOCAL) 5-2 FIGURE 5.4 ON-BOARD SURVEY: AGE (COMMUTER) 5-2 FIGURE 5.5 ON-BOARD SURVEY: HOUSEHOLD SIZE 5-3 FIGURE 5.6 ON-BOARD SURVEY: INCOME (LOCAL) 5-3 FIGURE 5.7 ON-BOARD SURVEY: (COMMUTER) 5-3 FIGURE 5.8 ON-BOARD SURVEY: ETHNICITY (LOCAL) 5-4 FIGURE 5.9 ON-BOARD SURVEY: ETHNICITY (COMMUTER) 5-4 FIGURE 5.10 ON-BOARD SURVEY: INFORMATION SOURCE (LOCAL) 5-4 FIGURE 5.11 ON-BOARD SURVEY: INFORMATION SOURCE (COMMUTER) 5-4 City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page ii FIGURE 5.12 ON-BOARD SURVEY: ROUTE CROSSOVER 5-5 FIGURE 5.13 ON-BOARD SURVEY: TRIP PURPOSE (LOCAL) 5-6 FIGURE 5.14 ON-BOARD SURVEY: TRIP PURPOSE (COMMUTER) 5-6 FIGURE 5.15 ON-BOARD SURVEY: FREQUENCY OF TRIPS BY PURPOSE 5-6 FIGURE 5.16 ON-BOARD SURVEY: OTHER TRANSIT SYSTEM USE 5-7 FIGURE 5.17 ON-BOARD SURVEY: RIDER LONGEVITY (LOCAL) 5-7 FIGURE 5.18 ON-BOARD SURVEY: RIDER LONGEVITY (COMMUTER) 5-7 FIGURE 5.19 ON-BOARD SURVEY: RIDER FREQUENCY (LOCAL) 5-8 FIGURE 5.20 ON-BOARD SURVEY: RIDER FREQUENCY (COMMUTER) 5-8 FIGURE 5.21 ON-BOARD SURVEY: VEHICLE AVAILABILITY (LOCAL) 5-8 FIGURE 5.22 ON-BOARD SURVEY: VEHICLE AVAILABILITY (COMMUTER) 5-8 FIGURE 5.23 ON-BOARD SURVEY: E-TRAN ALTERNATIVE (LOCAL) 5-9 FIGURE 5.24 ON-BOARD SURVEY: E-TRAN ALTERNATIVE (COMMUTER) 5-9 FIGURE 5.25 ON-BOARD SURVEY: ATTITUDES TOWARD E-TRAN (SYSTEMWIDE) 5-10 FIGURE 5.26 ON-BOARD SURVEY: PATRON-REQUESTED IMPROVEMENT TO E-TRAN 5-11 FIGURE 5.27 ON-BOARD SURVEY: SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT COMMENTS 5-12 FIGURE 7.1 CITY OF ELK GROVE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATION CHART 7-2 FIGURE 7.2 PERCENT OF OPERATING BUDGET SPENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FY 09/10 – FY 11/12 7-5 FIGURE 8.1 E-VAN RIDER GUIDE 8-3 FIGURE 8.2 E-TRAN WEBSITE HOMEPAGE 8-5 FIGURE 8.3 SIGN AT E-TRAN BUS STOP IN ELK GROVE 8-7 FIGURE 8.4 CRC BUS STATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 8-8 City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 EMPLOYERS IN ELK GROVE WITH 150+ 2-3 TABLE 2.2 STUDY AREA POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS, 2010 TO 2020 2-4 TABLE 2.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2-5 TABLE 2.4 ELK GROVE WORKER FLOWS (2010) 2-14 TABLE 2.5 RECENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, JOB CENTERS, AND POINTS OF INTEREST 2-16 TABLE 3.1 E-TRAN CURRENT FARE TYPES AND PRICES 3-4 TABLE 3.2 PEER AGENCY COMMUTER FARE PRICES 3-5 TABLE 3.3 FARE MEDIA USE: COMMUTER ROUTES (MAY-DECEMBER 2012) 3-5 TABLE 3.4 FARE MEDIA USE: LOCAL ROUTES (MAY-DECEMBER 2012) 3-6 TABLE 3.5 FIXED ROUTE AND COMMUTER BASE OPERATING STATISTICS 3-7 TABLE 3.6 LOCAL FIXED ROUTE AND COMMUTER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS 3-8 TABLE 3.7 FIXED ROUTE AND COMMUTER COST-EFFICIENCY INDICATORS 3-8 TABLE 3.8 LOCAL FIXED ROUTE AND COMMUTER ADMINISTRATIVE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 3-9 TABLE 3.9 E-TRAN FIXED ROUTE ON-TIME PERFORMANCE 3-9 TABLE 3.10 E-TRAN COMMUTER ROUTES TO/FROM DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO 3-10 TABLE 3.11 E-TRAN PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS 3-13 TABLE 3.12 WEEKDAY COMMUTER ROUTE PERFORMANCE 3-14 TABLE 3.13 MOST USED BUS STOPS: COMMUTER ROUTES 3-15 TABLE 3.14 COMMUTER ROUTES TO/FROM BUTTERFIELD STATION 3-17 TABLE 3.15 BUTTERFIELD LRT STATION CONNECTIONS 3-18 TABLE 3.16 WEEKDAY COMMUTER ROUTE PERFORMANCE 3-19 TABLE 3.17 CURRENT E-TRAN AND RT SCHEDULES AT MATHER/MILLS LRT STATION 3-20 TABLE 3.18 WEEKDAY LOCAL ROUTE PERFORMANCE 3-22 TABLE 3.19 TYPICAL LOCAL ROUTE TRANSFERS, BY PERCENTAGE 3-22 TABLE 3.20 MOST USED BUS STOPS IN ELK GROVE: LOCAL ROUTES 3-23 TABLE 3.21 SUGGESTED TIMEPOINT ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROUTE 154 3-23 TABLE 3.22 SUGGESTED TIMEPOINT ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROUTE 156 3-24 TABLE 3.23 SUGGESTED TIMEPOINT ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROUTE 157 3-26 TABLE 3.24 MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL BELL TIMES 3-27 TABLE 3.25 SUGGESTED TIMEPOINT ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROUTE 159 3-27 TABLE 3.26 WEEKDAY PERFORMANCE ON NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTES 3-29 TABLE 3.37 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPOSED BRT SYSTEM 3-40 TABLE 3.28 OPERATIONS, COST, AND REVENUE DATA FOR BRT PROJECT 3-41 TABLE 3.29 FTA PROPOSED NEW STARTS AND SMALL STARTS POLICY GUIDANCE 3-42 City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page v TABLE 4.1 E-VAN CURRENT FARE TYPES AND PRICES 4-3 TABLE 4.2 E-VAN OPERATIONS AND ADA REQUIREMENTS 4-4 TABLE 4.3 E-VAN BASE TRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS 4-7 TABLE 4.4 E-VAN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 4-8 TABLE 4.5 E-VAN DEMAND RESPONSE ON-TIME PERFORMANCE 4-8 TABLE 4.6 E-VAN WEEKEND RIDERSHIP BY DAY AND ROUTE 4-11 TABLE 4.7 PURPLE ROUTE STOPS AND SCHEDULE 4-13 TABLE 4.8 PEER AGENCY DEMOGRAPHICS AND SYSTEMWIDE OPERATING MEASURES (FY 11/12) 4-15 TABLE 4.9 PEER AGENCY DEMAND RESPONSE OPERATING STATISTICS (FY 11/12) 4-16 TABLE 4.10 PEER AGENCY DEMAND RESPOND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 11/21) 4-16 TABLE 5.1 STATUS OF NEEDS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS PROCESS , 2008-2012 5-14 TABLE 5.2 ELK GROVE SRTP OPEN HOUSE: RECOMMENDATIONS, QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS 5-15 TABLE 6.1 TRANSIT-RELATED POLICIES, CITY OF ELK GROVE GENERAL PLAN, 2003 6-2 TABLE 6.2 CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6-3 TABLE 6.3 CITY PERFORMANCE TARGETS 6-4 TABLE 6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2013 TDA TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT 6-5 TABLE 6.5 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND STANDARDS FROM 2008 SRTP 6-6 TABLE 6.6 PEER AGENCY MISSION STATEMENTS 6-7 TABLE 7.1 CONTRACTOR TURNOVER RATES FY 09/10 – FY 11/12 7-5 TABLE 7.2 PEER COMPARISON, VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS PER FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (VSH/FTE) 7-6 TABLE 9.1 PROJECTED PURCHASED TRANSPORTATION COSTS BASED ON CURRENT MV CONTRACT 9-2 TABLE 9.2 E-TRAN BUDGETED (2013-14) AND PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS 9-3 TABLE 9.3 OPERATING REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS 9-3 TABLE 9.4 OPERATING REVENUES 9-4 TABLE 9.5 ESTIMATED FISCAL AND FLEET IMPACTS OF SERVICE CHANGE ALTERNATIVES 9-7 TABLE 9.6 E-TRAN BUDGETED AND PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS 9-9 TABLE 9.7 FLEET REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE 9-10 TABLE 9.8 PROJECTED CAPITAL REVENUE 9-11 TABLE 10.1 RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY 10-1 City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Elk Grove Short-Range Transit Plan Update This transit planning document has been prepared for the City of Elk Grove to meet state and federal planning requirements, and to provide a management tool and recommendations for operating the City’s transit system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Transitrenewal Draft Report
    TransitRenewal Draft Report Prepared by: Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................. 3 2. RT Market Analysis .................................................. 4 3. Service Analysis ...................................................... 24 4. TransitRenewal Performance Measures ............... 67 5. Public Outreach ...................................................... 73 6. Service Recommendations .................................... 88 Transit Renewal 2010‐2017, Draft Report 1. Introduction The 2011‐2012 Sacramento Regional Transit Comprehensive Operational Analysis, commonly known as “TransitRenewal”, includes a review of existing market conditions and transit service and aims to position the RT network to sustainably meet future transit demand within the service area. Sustainability is the method of using a resource without depleting or gdamagin it for future use. Sustainable transit planning focuses on meeting transit needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet such needs1. TransitRenewal responds to changing economic circumstances and RT’s new financial realities. In 2010, RT implemented substantial service reductions which included discontinuing several bus routes, reducing service levels, and reducing spans. TransitRenewal responds to RT’s plan to regain previous FY 2010 service levels and intends to identify core areas of the RT system where investment will have a maximum benefit, and will guide RT to a more financially sustainable future.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Ridership Rpt Nov19.Xlsx
    fs Ridership Report Current Month & Fiscal YTD Summary February 2019 Average Daily Boardings Monthly YTD Weekday Saturday Sunday Days 20 4 4 28 Bus 34,656 11,421 7,158 774,464 6,586,937 Full-Size Bus 32,847 11,421 7,158 731,245 Community Bus 1,031 20,614 SmaRT Ride 466 9,313 Folsom Service 313 6,269 Special Service* 7,023 Light Rail 36,580 14,697 10,770 836,605 7,021,990 Blue Line 18,783 7,318 5,756 427,956 Gold Line 17,481 7,379 5,014 399,192 Green Line 316 6,316 Special Service* 3,141 System Total 71,236 26,118 17,928 1,611,069 13,608,927 February 2019 KPI Comparison - Average Weekday Boardings Actual KPI Goal Difference Percent Difference Bus Avg Weekday 34,656 36,348 (1,692) -4.7% Rail Avg Weekday 36,580 32,861 3,719 11.3% Monthly Total 1,611,069 1,549,873 61,196 3.9% Total YTD 13,608,927 13,134,797 474,130 3.6% February 2018 Average Daily Boardings Monthly YTD Weekday Saturday Sunday Days 20 4 4 28 Bus 38,071 13,407 7,686 850,930 6,838,881 Full-Size Bus 37,232 13,407 7,686 Community Bus 839 Special Service* 5,133 Light Rail 35,490 12,800 10,100 810,692 7,199,174 Blue Line 16,400 6,900 5,700 Gold Line 18,700 5,900 4,400 Green Line 390 Golden 1 Service 9,292 System Total 73,561 26,207 17,786 1,661,622 14,038,055 % Change FY 2019/2018 Average Daily Boardings Monthly YTD Weekday Saturday Sunday Total Bus -9.0% -14.8% -6.9% -9.0% -3.7% Light Rail 3.1% 14.8% 6.6% 3.2% -2.5% System Total -3.2% -0.3% 0.8% -3.0% -3.1% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Fixed Route Bus) Weekday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Feb 2019 Feb 2018
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (August 2019)
    Ridership Report (August 2019) Year to Date Summary Rolling 24 Month Trend Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change 12,000,000 Bus** 1,542,508 1,530,603 11,905 0.8% Rail Bus Light Rail 1,859,238 1,700,126 159,112 9.4% 11,500,000 System Total 3,401,746 3,230,729 171,017 5.3% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category August 2019* August 2018 Difference % Change 9,500,000 Bus** 806,687 815,472 (8,785) -1.1% 9,000,000 Light Rail 946,115 927,742 18,373 2.0% Jul18 Jul19 Jan18 System Total 1,752,802 1,743,214 9,588 0.6% Jan19 Sep17 Sep18 Nov17 Nov18 Mar18 Mar19 May18 May19 *August 2019 had 1 less weekday than August 2018. Accounts for approximately 2.3% reduction in ridership Daily Summary August Ridership by Mode 2% Category August 2019 August 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 32,379 32,138 241 0.7% Light Rail Bus (Sat) 12,425 11,499 927 8.1% Fixed Route Bus (Sun) 7,578 7,404 174 2.4% 44% Other Services 54% Light Rail (M-F) 37,374 36,330 1,044 2.9% Light Rail (Sat) 15,940 13,300 2,640 19.8% Light Rail (Sun) 10,994 9,600 1,394 14.5% Etran services will be included in the summary next month. August ridership was flat. **Bus includes Fixed Route, CBS, SmaRT Ride, Folsom Fixed Route, Folsom DAR and other special services, Folsom ridership not complete.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Triennial On-Site Safety and Security Review Sacramento Regional Transit District (Srtd)
    CPSD/RTSS/RDW/vdl/mc1 Mailed 9/24/08 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Consumer Protection and Safety Division Resolution ST-99 Rail Transit Safety Section September 18, 2008 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ST-99 GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPORT ON THE 2008 SAFETY & SECURITY REVIEW OF THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT (SRTD) Summary This resolution approves the Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) final audit report titled, "Triennial On-Site Safety & Security Review of the Sacramento Regional Transit District," dated August 14, 2008. SRTD is ordered to implement the recommendations contained in the report and to provide monthly progress reports. Background Commission General Order No. 164-D, "Rules and Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway Systems" requires staff to conduct on-site safety reviews of transit agencies operating Rail Fixed Guideway Systems at least once every three years. The Rail Transit Safety Section (RTSS) conducted an on-site safety and security review of SRTD beginning April 7 and concluding April 11, 2008. Staff conducted a post-audit exit conference with SRTD management on Monday, April 28, 2008. The methods used to conduct the audit included: a. Interviews with SRTD employees at all levels from rank and file through SRTD management; b. Reviews of design, construction, procurement, testing, training, operation and maintenance programs; c. Reviews of records and procedures; d. Observation of operations and maintenance activities; and e. Inspections of equipment and facilities. 352706 - 1 - CPSD/RTSS/RDW/vdl/mc1 Resolution ST-99 September 18, 2008 A full description of the audit, including the scope, results, and recommendations, is contained in the final audit report which is attached to this resolution as Attachment A.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (January 2020)
    Ridership Report (January 2020) FY20 Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19 YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 6,172,715 5,812,472 360,242 6.2% 11,500,000 Light Rail 6,538,014 6,185,385 352,629 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 12,710,729 11,997,857 712,871 5.9% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category January 2020 January 2019 Difference % Change Bus 909,004 813,453 95,551 11.7% 9,500,000 Light Rail 907,018 890,563 16,455 1.8% System Total 1,816,022 1,704,016 112,006 6.6% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category January 2020 January 2019 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 37,527 34,044 3,483 10.2% Bus (Sat) 14,597 11,369 3,228 28.4% Bus (Sun) 10,265 7,098 3,167 44.6% January Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 37,016 35,860 1,156 3.2% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 15,361 16,400 (1,039) -6.3% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 10,869 11,400 (531) -4.7% Fixed Route 49% Other Services 45% E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 466,820 439,796 27,024 6.1% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS E-Tran (Monthly) 65,292 57,380 7,912 13.8% and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 2,996 2,613 383 14.7% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weekday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change 1 1,651 1,562 89 6% 1 700 774 (74) -10% 11 929 589 340 58% 11 452 265 187 70% 13 716 240 476 199% 13 464 - 464 15 737 1,042 (305) -29% 15 410 494 (84) -17% 19 364 581 (217) -37% 19
    [Show full text]