Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONOVERVIEW OF MONTEREY COUNTY FIXED GUIDEWAY STUDYThe Monterey County Fixed Guideway Study considers major transit capital investment for intercountycommuting and intra-county travel needs. Inter-county commuting consists of travel betweennorthern Monterey County and southern Santa Cruz County to the San Francisco Bay Area. Intracountytravel consists of trips along the Monterey Peninsula and trips between the MontereyPeninsula and Salinas. Figure 1-1 illustrates and summarizes the travel markets considered by theMonterey County Fixed Guideway Study.The Monterey County Fixed Guideway Study had its origins in 1990 with the passage of Proposition116, a California voter initiative which identified Monterey County as a recipient of rail bond capitalfunds for passenger rail projects within the county.In 1990, the Governor approved Assembly Bill No. 222, which appropriated $100,000 for a rail passengerfeasibility study for the Gilroy–Monterey portion of the San Francisco–Monterey rail corridor.Passenger Rail Feasibility Study No. 05D423 was prepared for the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) District 5 in 1992 and finalized in September 1993. It addressed the feasibility ofpassenger rail service between San Francisco, Monterey, Salinas, and Hollister. The study found amarket for work trips using passenger rail between Salinas and Silicon Valley, and indicated thatservice to Salinas would be the most feasible short-term corridor due to the presence of existing railfacilities. A daily schedule of two northbound trains departing from Salinas and two southbound trainsterminating in Salinas was recommended.Subsequent to this study, Monterey County officials apportioned the Proposition 116 bond fundingbetween the U.S. 101 Corridor and Monterey Peninsula travel markets.U.S. 101 Corridor ElementInsofar as the U.S. 101 Corridor fixed guideway alternative(s), project scoping activities for anextension of Caltrain to Monterey County have been ongoing since 1996. From June 1996 to June1998, the City of Salinas sponsored investigations of development options for a Salinas IntermodalTransportation Center to be developed at the site of the existing Amtrak Station. Phase 1 of thetransportation center, consisting of bus layover bays, surface parking, site landscaping and lighting,was subsequently constructed and placed into operation in 1999.In 1997, the City of Watsonville prepared a Draft Pajaro Valley Station Project Study Report, incooperation with Monterey County, the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) and theSanta Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. While not finalized, the draft project studyreport (PSR) identified a potential site location and set of program requirements for this station.During the time period from 1998 to 2000, these program requirements and opportunities for adjacentsite development were further refined and explored by a Monterey County–sponsored PajaroRailyards Area Feasibility Study. This study, as well as the draft PSR, sited the Pajaro Valley Stationadjacent to the former Southern Pacific Passenger Depot, accessed from Salinas Road.parsons CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISFigure 1-1Monterey County Fixed Guideway Travel Markets Intra-County Transportation Issues:Peak period congestion on• SR 1 between Marina and Monterey• SR 68 between Monterey/Seaside and Salinas• Reservation Road/Blanco Road between Marina and Salinas Inter-County Transportation Issues:Peak period congestion on• SR 1 north of Marina to Santa Cruz• U.S. 101 from Salinas to San Francisco• SR 156 between SR 1 and U.S. 101645188AA-001v1parsons CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2
Page 4 and 5: DRAFTCALTRAIN EXTENSIONTO MONTEREY
Page 6 and 7: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 84 and 85:
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
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:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?