Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTY PASSENGER RAIL STATIONSALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSALINAS PROPERTY OWNERS MEETINGSalinas is the county seat of Monterey County with a Year 2000 population of 143,920. TheAssociation of Monterey Bay Area Governments estimates its 2005 population at 146,687. Althoughagriculture is the economic base of Salinas, the city is also home to more than 100 manufacturingfirms and several government offices.The proposed Salinas Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) expansion would take place on the siteof the current Amtrak station. The city of Salinas has been making improvements on this propertysince 1999. The current Amtrak station building was constructed in 1942. A new parking area andbus berths were constructed in 2000. A historical train exhibit that will serve as a focal point for thestation area is also being constructed at this site.A 2003 U.S. Transportation Authorization bill appropriated $1.2 million for additional improvements tothe station building to address access requirements by the Americans with Disabilities Act and othermiscellaneous deficiencies.The existing Amtrak station includes the equivalent of a Type 150B station building with adjacentadministrative space currently used for UPRR operations; a 10-bus-berth/circulation and passengerdrop-off/pickup roadway; 155 parking spaces available for overnight and commuter passenger use;two rail-side boarding platforms; pedestrian-scale and security lighting; and landscaping.A meeting concerning train service to Salinas was held on March 31, 2003, with owners of propertiesin the Salinas area. The meeting was held at Chapala’s Restaurant, 438 Salinas Street, Salinas.Approximately 40 property owners attended the meeting. Comments were taken and recorded to beincorporated into the Initial Study. Comments and concerns included a time schedule for taking ofproperty, viability of state and federal funding for the project, transportation management issues, trucktraffic on Market Street, the effect of closing business on nearby businesses, parking calculations andthe movement and layover of trains.SALINAS COMMUNITY MEETINGA meeting concerning Caltrain service to Monterey County was held on April 2, 2003 at the SteinbeckCenter in Salinas. There were approximately 30 members of the Salinas community in attendance.Comments were taken and recorded to be incorporated into the Initial Study. Comments and concernsincluded the cost of fares for train service, delays due to shared track utilization, whether to imposeparking fees to park in the parking structure/lots, security concerns, more frequent weekday andweekend service, passenger services in the stations, design and aesthetics of station buildings, developmentof local commercial businesses surrounding the station site, traffic circulation, pedestrianaccess, and access into the Oldtown area.In addition to the single meeting with Salinas property owners in March 2003, a series of meetingswere held with affected property owners from August 2004 through September 2005. Input receivedfrom these meetings influenced the layout of the ITC expansion and layover facilities, as ultimatelyreflected in Salinas ITC Expansion Design Options 17A, 17B, 18A and 18B.MONTEREY PENINSULA COMMUNITIESThe Monterey Peninsula Communities of Marina, Seaside, Sand City and Monterey lie to the southwestof Castroville along the Pacific Ocean, adjacent to the Monterey branch line railroad right-ofway.The Monterey branch line right-of-way has been purchased over time by the Transportationparsons CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS FROM PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS ON ALTERNATIVES 169
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTY PASSENGER RAIL STATIONSALTERNATIVES ANALYSISAgency for Monterey County (TAMC), from Castroville to Seaside; and by Seaside and Montereythrough their communities.As part of the Monterey County Fixed Guideway Study, public meetings were held in Marina, Seasideand Monterey to explore fixed guideway transit reuse of this right-of-way.A summary of public opinions expressed during the aforementioned public meetings is summarizedby topic below.Service• Express, high-speed service with limited stops on the Monterey branch line is unacceptable.• Frequent service with frequent stations and all day service is desirable.• Opportunities for adding intercity passenger rail service to San Francisco should bepreserved.• Funding availability will likely necessitate phased implementation.• MST bus service should integrate with light rail transit/bus rapid transit service, withoutduplication.Alignment• Monterey branch line service should extend between Washington Street in Monterey andArmstrong Ranch in Marina at a minimum.• Intergarrison Road should be preserved as a future transit corridor, eventually linking Marinawith Salinas, possibly via Davis Road.Equipment• Large, locomotive hauled passenger trains are unacceptable to Monterey branch line communityleaders and residents.• Electric propulsion is not required. Overhead electric lines are considered to be unsightly.• Diesel light rail transit and bus rapid transit vehicles are acceptable to community leaders andresidents if air quality and noise impacts are generally equal to electric propulsion.Stations• An intercity passenger rail station north of Marina at Highway 1 and Lapis Road should bedropped from further consideration. This site is too distant from existing or futuredevelopment.• All other proposed stations should be retained for continued project development investigations.Platform or stop locations may shift in the future to reflect community input.• Pedestrian and bicycle access to stations should be emphasized, with park-and-ride limited toselect locations.parsons CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS FROM PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS ON ALTERNATIVES 170
Page 4 and 5:
DRAFTCALTRAIN EXTENSIONTO MONTEREY
Page 6 and 7:
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
show all

Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?