SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT June 2013 MOVINGFORWARDTHINKINGTM INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared For: San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 E. Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202 209.235.0600 Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 428 J Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, California 95814 916.226.2190 Project Manager: David Reinke Project Principal: Jim Damkowitch Project No. 13101 June 2013 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 1 1.2 REGIONAL COMMUTE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 3 1.3 CURRENT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................. 5 1.4 DESIRED FEATURES OF AN INTERREGIONAL MULTIMODAL TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM ................................................................................ 8 1.5 GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE: ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 10 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 13 Regional Profile ..........................................................................................................15 2.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 15 2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................... 15 2.3 EXISTING COMMUTE SERVICES ............................................................................ 17 2.4 COMMUTE PATTERNS .......................................................................................... 21 2.5 LOCAL AND NEIGHBORING TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS .......................... 29 2.6 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 31 Literature Review & Peer Case Studies ........................................................................33 3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 33 3.2 CASE STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 35 3.3 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 36 Survey Results ............................................................................................................39 4.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 39 4.2 ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS ............................................................................... 39 4.3 COMMUTE MODE ................................................................................................ 41 4.4 SYSTEM ACCESS PREFERENCE .............................................................................. 43 4.5 PREFERRED TRIP PLANNING TOOL FEATURES ....................................................... 44 4.6 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 46 Needs Assessment ......................................................................................................47 5.1 CURRENT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCES ............................................ 47 5.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 49 5.3 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 53 Systems Alternatives & Evaluation ..............................................................................55 6.1 MMTP FEATURES ................................................................................................. 55 6.2 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 67 6.3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 71 Summary and Recommendations ...............................................................................73 Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Study Approach ............................................................................................. 2 Figure 1-2. Work trip destinations for commuters who work outside their county of residence ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-3. Commute mode shares by work destination ................................................. 4 Figure 1-4. Example: Google Maps transit trip plan, Stockton to Lodi ............................. 5 Figure 1-5. Commute Connection screen, transit alternative from Stockton to Lodi ....... 6 Figure 1-6. User screen example: top-level comparison of mode alternatives ................ 8 Figure 1-7. User screen example: top-level comparison of vanpool alternatives ............. 9 Figure 1-8. User screen example: detailed comparison of selected vanpool alternatives ................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2-1. Three-County Region Transit Services ......................................................... 18 Figure 2-2. Inter-county commuting out of the three-county region ............................ 24 Figure 2-3. Inter-county commuting within the three-county region ............................ 25 Figure 2-4. San Joaquin County inter-city commutes .................................................... 26 Figure 2-5. Stanislaus County inter-city commutes ................................................... 27 Figure 2-6. Merced County inter-city commutes ...................................................... 28 Figure 4-1. County of Residence .................................................................................... 40 Figure 4-2. County of Work/School ............................................................................... 40 Figure 4-4. Previous Experience with Trip Planning Tools ............................................. 44 Table 4-3. Preferred MMTP System Elements ............................................................... 45 Figure 5-1. Example: Google Maps transit trip plan, Stockton to Lodi ........................... 47 Figure 5-2. Commute Connection screen, transit alternative from Stockton to Lodi..... 48 Figure 6-1. Vanpool stakeholders and key success factors ............................................ 59 Figure 6-2. User screen example: top-level comparison of mode alternatives .............. 64 Figure 6-3. User screen example: top-level comparison of vanpool alternatives .......... 64 Figure 6-4. User screen example: detailed comparison of selected vanpool alternatives ................................................................................................ 65 Figure 6-5. Detailed list of desired features, priorities, and sources ............................. 66 Figure 6-6. Detailed features, estimated implementation difficulty and cost for each system alternative ...................................................................................... 68 ii | San Joaquin Council of Governments Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Summary assessment of system alternatives by type of feature .................. 12 Table 2-1. Summary socioeconomic and work travel statistics for Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties .......................................................... 16 Table 2-2. Transit providers for the three-county area .................................................. 17 Table 2-3. Interurban transit routes in three-county area ............................................. 19 Table 2-4. Interregional commuting from/to Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties ...................................................................................................... 21 Table 2-5. Commute modes from Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties for i nter-county commutes ............................................................................... 21 Table 2-6. Commute modes from Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties to places outside the three-county region ..................................................... 22 Table 2-7. Commute modes for intercity commutes within the three-county region .... 23 Table 2-1. Case study regions ........................................................................................ 36 Table 4-1. Preferred Commute Modes .......................................................................... 41 Table 4-2. Average Travel Time by Commute Mode ...................................................... 42 Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | iii 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The three-county region comprised by San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties has unique trans- portation problems that require unique solutions. Nearly a quarter of all commuters in the region travel to a different county to work - many to other regions including the Bay Area and Sacramento. Most of these trips are made by driving alone. Ensuring that the demand for interregional travel is well managed is a key objective