Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-05 - AGENDA REPORTS - TRANSPORTATION DEV PLAN (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Boyer and Councilmembers FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: March 5, 1996 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN BACKGROUND The Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) has funded a study to develop a Transportation Development Plan (TDP) for Santa Clarita Transit. The purpose of the TDP is to present the service needs for the Santa Clarita Valley and develop a corresponding financial plan necessary to meet those needs. The TDP will encompass a ten year period, covering Santa Clarita Transit's fiscal years 1995-2004. The TDP will provide a mechanism for Santa Clarita Transit's ongoing planning activities and act as the document by which the provider can communicate its service plans and financial needs to the various funding jurisdictions as well as the community. Tasks will include: identify deficiencies in current transportation services; establish goals, objectives and standards; develop a draft Transportation Development Plan; and recommend implementation strategies. Subsequent to a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, SCAG and the City of Santa Clarita selected Michael Fajans and Associates as the consulting firm to complete the study. Work on the TDP began in October, 1995. It is expected that the TDP will be completed in April, 1996. On February 3; 1996, a community workshop was held to discuss the transportation concerns of Santa Clarita residents. Approximately 35 to 40 residents, City officials, and City staff attended the session. Participants were given the chance to voice their concerns regarding transportation in the Santa Clarita Valley_ Attendees also participated in three workshop groups which: examined the barriers to the use of alternative transportation; prioritized future transit services; and discussed the challenges of providing school service. A summary of the workshop is attached. Tonight's session will present the major service needs identified for the Santa Clarita Valley and introduce some preliminary recommendations for meeting those needs. RECOMMENDATIONS Receive staff report. ATTACHMENTS TDP Workshop Summary F^N0MEV'W\7RANSMAGENDAISTSESSON.TDP Agenda Item:a. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAIN WORKSHOP SUMMARY February 3, 1996 A workshop to discuss transportation concerns of Santa Clarita residents was held on February 3, 1996. Approximately 3540 residents, city officials, and city staff attended the session. The background environment of community growth trends and planned Los Angeles County transportation improvements were presented to the attendees who indicated their concerns about future access issues. Many attendees indicated the need for a second east -west route across the community. participants indicated a great deal of interest in both regional bus service and the Jocal bus service. Better information on ridesharing options was requested, and the possibility of a high speed rail station was discussed following the State High Speed Rail Commission's recent announcement of preference for the Route 99 alignment alternative which would have a station along 1-5 in Santa Clarita- participants felt that Santa Clarita land use patterns were not supportive of transit, and that the lack of sidewalks and pedestrian access between arterial routes and residential areas was a problem for encouraging transit usage. The attendees participated in three workshop groups which discussed the questions indicated and suggested the following as key issues: 1, What'are the barriers to more personal and community use of alternatives to private automobile use? Topography, gated areas restricting access; lack of sidewalks, and the distinct separation of land uses were cited as key barriers, with attendees indicating that the land use pattern with a limited number of large shopping centers not within walking distance of many residents being a key determinant. School locations not close to residential areas were also cited as a barrier to use of transportation altemalives. The cost of transit, particularly Metrolink fares, were also cited as a barrier, people indicating that the $144 month rate to Los Angeles was double the fare that encouraged ridership (as did the lack of freeways) following the Northridge earthquake. Others suggested that there was too much dependence on Metrolink and that buses to more locations would be preferable. Voter apathy about solving congestion problems was also indicated by several people. 2. What should the city and county do to encourage and facilitate transportation alternatives? Recommendations included: better bus stop environments such as more shelters, lighting, and sidewalks; paseo and neighborhood sidewalk connections to arterials with bus routes; mixed use and cluster development; improved feeder routes to Metrolink trains; and tho use of small, quiet buses.. Several people suggested smaller, neighborhood orientedpark- and-ride lots would be preferable to large, centralized facilities that were more prone to vandalism. The difficulty of walking across major arterials with current signaling and lack of median waiting areas was also indicated as a problem for pedestrians. 3. 4. Improved coordination with employers regarding transit information and shift times and employer transit subsidies were also suggested as useful steps to encourage use of transportation alternatives. Use of taxi vouchers for seniors to supplement dial -a -ride bus service was also suggested. What services should receive the highest priority if more resources become available to transportation? _ Sunday service and lifeline transit access to the regional network in the San Fernando Valley were voiced most frequently by those in attendance. Service every 30 minutes on Route 50 was requested by several people. Improved feeder service to early regional bus trips was also cited, with the suggestion that some trips originate in Canyon Country instead of the Saugus Metrolink Station. Creation of a transit center at the Town Center that would have an information center capable of assisting with trip planning and car/van pool matching was indicated as a desirable project. Timed transfers need to be improved, particularly between local and regional bus services. Several people suggested that Santa Clarita Transit should better coordinate with other regional operators such as the Antelope Valley Transit Authority. To what extent should the City take responsibility for junior high and high school student transportation? Although it was recognized as an unfortunate situation, the attendees understood the fiscal condition of the schools and agreed that the City must take a major share Of the responsibility of transportation to the schools. Several people suggested that the schools should bear the responsibility for monitors or supervisors who ride the buses to diminish behavioral problems associated with students leaving schools on crowded buses in the afternoon. Attendees were asked to rank the following existing transportation services in importance to the community. A ranking of five points was given to each high response, three points for each medium, and one point for each low. The resulting ratings were as shown below. High = iI Medium = M Low = L ervice importance nce Score_ Metrolink 3.6 —_ bus service to other communities 3.8 local buses 4.5 —Dial -a -ride service 2.9 — taxis 2.2 car/van pooling 3.6 _ park-and-ride lots 4.1 school transportation 4.1 Local bus service, park-and-ride lots, and school transportation service were given the highest rankings by the participants, followed by bus service to other communities, Metrolink, and car and van pooling. Dial -a -ride service and taxis were considered the least important by attendees. There was little discussion about the dial -a -ride service, but this may be a reflection of the character and interest of addeadees as opposed to a broad perspective of community needs. A video describing transportation problems associated with modern, suburban Iand use and neighborhood patterns was shown. This illustrated the negative aspects of large separation of land uses, and reliance on protected cul-de-sacs combined with a limited number of massive arterial routes. Attendees were asked to evaluate whether the ideas presented in the video could work in Santa Clarita. The following represents the distribution of response across each row for the 16 to 18 written responses received. Transit Friendly Idea Wouldn't Work Here Might Fit Here Good Idea to Pursue Here her density of Felopment 355'0 35% 30% Mixed use development 070 50% 50% Slower main streets 19% 379a' 44% Narrower main streets 575'0 37% 6% Fewer cul -desacs 25% 31 % 44% Wall breaks for pedestrian access 6% 31% 63% More sidewalks 6% 18% 76% Retail buildings oriented for pedestrians 617o 12% 82%