DOCSLIB.ORG

US-101 Express Bus Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US-101 Express Bus Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT US-101 Express Bus Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT November 2018 This project has been made possible by a grant from the California Department of Transportation and a grant from the Regional Planning grantmaking strategy of Silicon Valley Community Foundation. [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PAGE] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Board of Directors, 2018 Project Team and Contributors Charles Stone, Chair Millie Tolleson, Project Manager and Principal Planner, Planning Carole Groom, Vice Chair Daniel Shockley, Senior Planner, Planning Jeff Gee Christy Wegener, Director, Planning Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Margo Ross, Director, Bus Transportation Rose Guilbault Patrick Blankenship, Manager, Operations Karyl Matsumoto and Scheduling Dave Pine Alex Lam, Senior Planner, Operations and Josh Powell Scheduling Peter Ratto Jessica Epstein, Government & Community Relations Officer, Government Affairs Executive Team Brent Tietjen, Government & Community Relations Officer, Government Affairs Jim Hartnett, CEO / General Manager Robert Casumbal, Manager, Marketing and Michelle Bouchard, Chief Operating Officer, Creative Services Rail Jeremy Lipps, Social Media Officer, April Chan, Chief Officer, Planning, Grants, Marketing and Communications and Transportation Authority Christiane Kwok, Manager, Market Research John Funghi, Chief Officer, Caltrain & Development Modernization Derek Hansel, Chief Financial Officer / Treasurer FUNDING PARTNERS Carter Mau, Deputy General Manager Caltrans District 4 Seamus Murphy, Chief Communications Silicon Valley Community Foundation Officer San Mateo County Transit District David Olmeda, Chief Operating Officer, Bus TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Catharine Crayne, Associate Transportation Planner, Caltrans Vu-Bang Nguyen, former Program Officer, Silicon Valley Community Foundation John Ford, Executive Director, commute.org Jean Higaki, Transportation System Coordination, C\CAG Andrew Heidel, Senior Planner, San Francisco County Transportation Authority Joe Hurley, Director, San Mateo County Transportation Authority Michelle Go, Transportation Planner, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Matthew Lee, Transit Planner, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Jay Tyree, Senior Transportation Planner, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Thomas Szelazek, pointC CONSULTANT TEAM Danny Wu, WSP Sudhish Verma, WSP Lyne-Marie Bouvet, WSP Daniel Jacobson, Fehr & Peers Drew Levitt, Fehr & Peers Joanna Jansen, PlaceWorks Cliff Lau, PlaceWorks Claudia Garcia, PlaceWorks TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Study Process............................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3. Study Area.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4. Related Projects and Studies ............................................................................................................................ 11 1.5. Report Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 14 2. Public and Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................... 17 2.1. Spreading the Word............................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2. Phase 1 Outreach .................................................................................................................................................. 18 2.3. Phase 2 Outreach .................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.4. SamTrans Employment Center Survey ......................................................................................................... 21 3. Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 25 3.1. Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.2. Need ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3. Project Constraints ............................................................................................................................................... 29 3.4. Project Goals ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 4. Travel Markets Analysis and Route Identification ................................................................ 35 4.1. Travel Market Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 35 4.2. Travel Patterns ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 4.1. Travel Markets ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 4.2. Route Concepts ..................................................................................................................................................... 42 5. Screening and Evaluation of the Routes .............................................................................. 47 5.1. Evaluation Process ................................................................................................................................................ 47 5.2. Step 1: Initial Screening ...................................................................................................................................... 50 5.3. Step 2: Detailed Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 51 5.4. Route Refinements and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 59 5.5. Conceptual Operating Plan ............................................................................................................................... 61 6. Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................... 67 6.1. Phasing Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 67 6.2. Capital and O&M Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 74 6.3. Funding and Financing Strategies .................................................................................................................. 74 6.4. Performance Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 80 7. Moving Forward ................................................................................................................. 85 Appendix A: Public and Stakeholder Outreach Summary Report................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Travel Market Analysis and Maps .......................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Shortlisted Route Maps with Communities of Concern........................................... C-1 Appendix D: Travel Demand Model Validation Memo ............................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Detailed Evaluation Results .................................................................................... E-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Study Process and Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: US-101 Express Bus Feasibility Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Transit Services, 2017 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4: Former FX Route Map ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 5: Transit Ridership Trend in the Study Corridor ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 for the MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPT
    THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 FOR THE MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This staff report provides the status of a planning feasibility study for a future pedestrian connection tunnel between the Transbay Transit Center and the BART/MUNI Metro stations on Market Street. SUMMARY: The TJPA is conducting a study of the feasibility and estimated construction cost for a new pedestrian connection tunnel along one of the following four alternative alignments. • Beale Street (Alternative 1) • Fremont Street (Alternative 2) • First Street (Alternative 3) • Ecker Place (Alternative 4) Estimated construction costs vary for each alignment, with the Beale Street and Ecker Place alignments expected to cost less than the Fremont Street or First Street alignments due to the shorter total length of the tunnel structures. There is currently no funding identified for inclusion of the pedestrian connection tunnel in Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program. Consequently, it remains a “design option” that would be implemented during the Caltrain Downtown Extension project in Phase 2 of the Transbay Transit Center Program, as originally envisioned in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR). If adequate funding is secured, construction of the pedestrian connection tunnel appears technically feasible along any of the four alignments studied. A study report with input from City and regional stakeholders is planned for consideration by the TJPA Board at its May 2007 meeting. REPORT: FEIS/EIR Consideration of a Pedestrian Connection Tunnel The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that was adopted during the preparation of the FEIS/EIR included a “design option” for a pedestrian connection tunnel below Fremont Street between the train mezzanine level of the new Transit Center and the mezzanine level of the existing BART/MUNI Metro Embarcadero Station, as part of the Caltrain Downtown Extension Project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Crossing
    The Third Crossing A Megaproject in a Megaregion www.thirdcrossing.org Final Report, February 2017 Transportation Planning Studio Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) at the College of Environmental Design (CED) at UC Berkeley, the University of California Transportation Center and Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UC Berkeley for support. A special thanks also goes to the helpful feedback from studio instructor Karen Trapenberg Frick and UC Berkeley faculty and researchers including Jesus Barajas and Jason Corburn. We also acknowledge the tremendous support and insights from colleagues at numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations throughout California. A very special thanks goes to David Ory, Michael Reilly, and Fletcher Foti of MTC for their gracious support in running regional travel and land use models, and to Professor Paul Waddell and Sam Blanchard of UrbanSim, Inc. for lending their resources and expertise in land use modeling. We also thank our classmates Joseph Poirier and Lee Reis; as well as David Eifler, Teresa Caldeira, Jennifer Wolch, Robert Cervero, Elizabeth Deakin, Malla Hadley, Leslie Huang and other colleagues at CED; and, Alexandre Bayen, Laura Melendy and Jeanne Marie Acceturo of ITS Berkeley. About Us We are a team of 15 graduate students in City Planning, Transportation Engineering, and Public Health. This project aims to facilitate a conversation about the future of transportation between the East Bay and San Francisco and in the larger Northern California megaregion. We are part of the Department of City and Regional Planning in the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, with support from the University of California Transportation Center and The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Temporary Terminal : Project Fact Sheet
    Transbay Temporary Terminal PROJECT FACT SHEET Temporary Terminal The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) continues to make exciting progress toward building the Transbay Transit Center, the “Grand Central of the West.” Groundbreak- ing commenced in December 2008 for the Temporary Terminal that will serve bus pas- sengers while the new Transit Center is un der construction. ➤ SPEAR STREET ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ HOWARD STREET MAIN STREET ➤ Temporary Temporary Terminal Rendering + Terminal Site ➤ BEALE STREET ➤ ➤ Sign-up for Notices ➤ The TJPA is committed to mitigating traffic impacts during ➤ FOLSOM STREET the course of construction. However, traffic disruptions are FREMONT STREET expected throughout the course of the project. ➤ In order to stay informed on our progress, upcoming community meetings and potential street closures, please ➤ ➤ sign up to receive email alerts and to join our project mailing list at www.temporaryterminal.org Map of Project Area + PROJECT TIMELINE December 2008 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Late Fall 2010 2012 2017 2018 Temporary Terminal Temporary Terminal construction completed. Demolition SamTrans Construction Construction Construction Groundbreaking. of East Loop and Golden of the of the of the Caltrain Greyhound, AC Transit, MUNI and WestCAT (Phase II of Gate Transit Caltrain Transbay Downtown Lynx operations move to the Temporary Temporary move to the Downtown Transit Rail Extension Terminal. Terminal) Temporary Rail Center to be to be Begin demolition of Transbay Terminal; completed. Terminal. Extension to completed. completed. construction of new Transit Center begins. begin. Temporary Terminal to close. For more information, please visit: www.temporaryterminal.org 06.10 PROJECT FACT SHEET Frequently Asked Questions Transbay Transit Center Rendering + WHAT IS THE TEMPORARY TERMINAL? The Temporary Terminal is the temporary replacement bus facility that will serve bus passengers while the new, multi-modal Transbay Transit Center is under construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Samtrans Service Plan Final Recommendations
    SamTrans Service Plan Final Recommendations May 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................i Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Plan Background ..........................................................................................................3 Plan Framework ...........................................................................................................6 Service Plan Development .......................................................................................10 SamTrans Service Plan ..............................................................................................21 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................31 Appendix A: SamTrans Service Plan Route Recommendations ...........................................A-33 Appendix B: SamTrans Service Plan Route Maps ................................................................... B-38 Appendix C: Outreach Summaries ............................................................................................C-91 2 | SAMTRANS SERVICE PLAN - MAY 2013 Acknowledgments Board of Directors 2013 Project Team Carole Groom, Chair April Chan, Executive Officer, Planning & Jeff Gee, Vice Chair Development Jerry Deal Chuck Harvey, Deputy CEO Rose Guilbault Douglas Kim, Director, Planning Shirley Harris
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions Updated February 26, 2021 Alta Way
    Frequently Asked Questions Updated February 26, 2021 Alta Way Grading Permit The Marin County Community Development Agency’s Planning Division (CDA) is a regulatory agency responsible for implementing State and local land use laws through the entitlement process. While the CDA is not the permitting authority for a Grading Permit, we prepared this informational document to provide responses to questions that we have received about the Alta Way Grading Permit application. 1. Why is the project not considered a “Subdivision”? Response: The Marin County Development Code defines a subdivision, in part, as follows: “The division, by any subdivider, of any unit or portion of land shown on the latest equalized Marin County Assessment Role as a unit or contiguous units…”. The project applicant is not proposing to create additional, new lots. The proposal will provide access to a number of existing lots that were created by a prior subdivision map (Map of Garden Valley Park Subdivision 1, filed for record on October 9, 1919 in Volume 5 of Maps at page 4 in the Office of the Recorder, Marin County Records). The applicant proposes to “merge” or combine 8 of the existing lots into 4 lots. As a “merger” involves the combination of existing units of land rather than a division of a unit or units of land, a merger is not considered a subdivision under the County Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. Therefore, the provisions for subdivisions do not apply to the proposed project. The applicant has applied to the CDA to merge the lots described above.
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center
    Transbay Transit Center TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Transbay Transit Center Why do we need the Transbay Transit Center? It is time for public infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century. The project will centralize a fractured regional transportation network—making transit connections be- tween all points in the Bay Area fast and convenient. The new Transit Center will make public transit a convenient option as it is in other world-class cities, allowing people to travel and commute without the need for a car, thereby decreasing congestion and pollution. The Transit Center will provide a downtown hub in the heart of a new transit- friendly neighborhood with new homes, parks and shops, providing access to public transit literally at the foot of people’s doors. When will I be able to use the Transit Center? The Transit Center building will be completed in 2017 and will be a bustling transit and retail center for those who live, work and visit the heart of downtown San Francisco. When will I be able to take Caltrain into the new Transit Center? The construction of the underground rail extension for the Caltrain rail line and future High Speed Rail is planned to begin in 2012. It is estimated to be completed and operational, along with the Transit Center’s underground rail station, in 2018 or sooner if funding becomes What is the Transbay Transit available. Center Project? How many people will use it? When the rail component is complete, it is estimated that The Transbay Transit Center Project is a visionary more than 20 million people will use the Transit Center transportation and housing project that will transform annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center
    Transbay Transit Center Building the First Modern Multi-Modal Transportation Station in the United States The Transbay Transit Center Project will centralize the region’s transportation network by making transit connections between all points in the Bay Area fast and convenient for more than 100,000 passengers per day. The Project will replace the current bus terminal with a new multi-modal transportation center—the “Grand Central Station of the West”— and house eleven transit systems under one roof. The new Transit Center will make public transit a convenient option as it is in other world-class cities and return San Francisco to a culture of mass transit. As the northern terminus for high speed rail in California and the first modern high speed rail station to be constructed in the United States, the $4.2 billion project will create a modern regional transit hub and: • Stimulate the economy by creating more than • Serve as the San Francisco terminus for California 125,000 jobs High Speed Rail Service which will reduce California CO2 emissions by 1.4 percent statewide • Generate more than $87 billion in Gross Regional Product and $52 billion in personal income • Serve up to 45 million passengers per year through 2030 • Use cutting edge designs and technologies to • Create a demand in transit use through intermodal achieve LEED certification connections for eight Bay Area counties and • Feature a fully accessible city park and utilize Southern California natural light to conserve water and energy • Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 36,000 tons each year from the Caltrain commuter rail extension alone The Transbay Project is the Largest Transit Project Under Construction in the Western United States www.transbaycenter.org 1.11 Transbay Transit Center TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER The Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco will transform transportation in California and stimulate the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • MPO Partners Meeting SACOG - MTC - SJCOG Thursday, October 6 – Noon to 2 P.M
    MPO Partners Meeting SACOG - MTC - SJCOG Thursday, October 6 – Noon to 2 p.m. Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814 AGENDA 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. Target Setting - Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Scenarios (Andy Chesley, Steve Heminger & Mike McKeever) 3. Passenger Rail Planning Coordination (Matthew Carpenter, SACOG) 4. Mega-Region Goods Movement Plan (Ken Kirkey or Matt Maloney, MTC) 5. Economic Development Partnerships (Rebecca Sloan, SACOG) 6. Next Steps Agenda Item 3 Mega-Region Rail Highspeed Rail: Collaborations • Phase 1 (Blue) & Phase 2 • State & Federal Funding (Gold) Programs California’s rail ownership • Changing Relationship with • Inter-city Amtrak driven by PRIIA systems (Red) Section 209 • Network Integration Planning • 2018 State Rail Plan • High Speed Rail Commute Travel in the Megaregion Non-Commute Travel in the Megaregion Northern California Intercity Rail Ridership Trends • Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) • Amtrak Capitol Corridor • Amtrak San Joaquins Capitol Corridor Service Integration is: Planning for Future Mobility Needs Now Vision Plan Key Concepts . 1-hour travel time between Sacramento and Oakland . Clockface frequency with 90 daily trains between Sacramento and San Jose . Minimize freight and passenger railroad interference . Increase railroad safety (grade separations, signal technology) Initial Vision Plan Ridership Estimates 2040 Baseline 2040 Vision with 2015 Service (2015 Service Levels) Growth* 1,402,300 2,267,200 6,112,567 % increase above 2015 service 62% 336% *Average ridership growth for several alignment alternatives considered in the Vision Plan Update (2014). Capitol Corridor: Big Challenges – Crucial Opportunities CCJPA Vision Plan: Key Focus Areas Sacramento - Auburn . Roseville 3rd Track Project will expand current capacity to operate up to 10 roundtrip trains in this segment .
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco
    CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN Transit-Oriented Development Case Studies Prepared for City of Laguna Niguel 27781 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Prepared by PBS&J 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 November 2007 Contents CASE STUDIES Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 CASE STUDY 1 Downtown Arlington Heights, Illinois......................................................................................3 CASE STUDY 2 Del Mar Station, Pasadena.....................................................................................................7 CASE STUDY 3 EmeryStation, Emeryville, CA............................................................................................... 11 CASE STUDY 4 North Hollywood Commercial Core ................................................................................... 17 CASE STUDY 5 Rail Station District, Santa Ana............................................................................................ 21 CASE STUDY 6 Grossmont Transit Station, La Mesa ................................................................................... 25 CASE STUDY 7 Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village ...................................................................................... 29 CASE STUDY 8 Rincon Hill Area Plan, San Francisco .................................................................................. 33 CASE STUDY 9 Transbay Transit
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • VTA Daily News Coverage for Monday, July 22, 2019
    From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 3:07 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: From VTA: July 22, 2019 Media Clips VTA Daily News Coverage for Monday, July 22, 2019 1. Google’s big plans for downtown San Jose — answers for all your questions (Mercury News) 2. Caltrain has an ambitious plan to run BART-like service. Here’s what it will mean for Bay Area traffic (Mercury News) 3. Caltrain maps out big growth and how to pay the $25 billion tab (San Francisco Chronicle) 4. Editorial: Pair big Bay Area transit tax with tough decisions (San Francisco Chronicle) 5. Targeting Bay Area gridlock, groups floating $100 billion tax measure (San Francisco Chronicle) 6. Is this supposed to make us feel better about 101-87 mess? 7. Man On Bike Hit, Injured by VTA Train Friday Morning 8. Bicyclist struck and injured by VTA train in San Jose (KTVU Ch. 2) Google’s big plans for downtown San Jose — answers for all your questions (Mercury News) (Click link above for video report on transit village) In the next decade, Google, BART and a new Diridon Station will transform San Jose There’s been a lot of buzz about Google gobbling up land in San Jose and big plans for an overhaul of the city’s sleepy downtown train station. But when will it all start to happen? When will we see those artist renderings of the tech giant’s gleaming new campus or shovels hitting the ground and cranes crawling across the sky? When will the first BART trains roll into Silicon Valley’s new futuristic station? And what has to happen along the way before any of this gets done? Read on to find out.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Business Plan
    Caltrain Business Plan JULY 2019 LPMG 6/27/2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 2 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service investments (past, surrounding communities of Caltrain including • Number of people present, and future) • Corridor management governance and delivery riding the trains • Infrastructure and strategies and approaches • Infrastructure needs operating costs consensus building • Funding mechanisms to to support different • Potential sources of • Equity considerations support future service service levels revenue 3 Where Are We in the Process? Board Adoption Stanford Partnership and Board Adoption of Board Adoption of of Scope Technical Team Contracting 2040 Service Vision Final Business Plan Initial Scoping Technical Approach Part 1: Service Vision Development Part 2: Business Implementation and Stakeholder Refinement, Partnering, Plan Completion Outreach and Contracting We Are Here 4 Flexibility and Integration 5 What Service planning work to date has been focused on the development of detailed, Understanding illustrative growth scenarios for the Caltrain corridor. The following analysis generalizes the 2040 these detailed scenarios, emphasizing opportunities for both variation and larger “Growth regional integration within the service Scenarios” as frameworks that have been developed.
    [Show full text]