Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISThese numbers indicate that Silicon Valley workers can better afford houses in neighboring MontereyBay counties than in Santa Clara County and that these same Silicon Valley workers can better affordthese houses than local Monterey County residents.Monterey County’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2005) states that “Almost half of new homespurchased in Salinas are bought by people that work in Silicon Valley, placing further demands on thetransportation network. It is anticipated that in the near future, more and more workers will be willingto tolerate a one and a half to two hour commute to work in order to own a home.”Therefore, the number of commuters traveling from Monterey County and its neighbors to jobs inSanta Clara County and beyond is increasing significantly. Table 2-3 reflects the number of MontereyCounty residents commuting to Santa Clara County and elsewhere, indicating that Monterey Countyresidents bound for Santa Clara County increased more than 140 percent between 1990 and 2000.At the same time, the number of people who lived in Monterey County and also worked theredeclined.Table 2-3 also provides similar information for Santa Cruz County. The project would directly servethe City of Watsonville, which comprised 17 percent of Santa Cruz County’s population as of 2000.By 2030, Watsonville’s population is expected to increase by nearly 60 percent compared with year2000 levels, and the city will be home to 23 percent of the county’s population.Although the historical pattern of commuter growth from Monterey County to Silicon Valley slowedduring 2002 and 2003 due to the downturn in the region’s technology-based economy, it is expectedto resume in the near future. MTC estimates that by 2030, approximately 15,000 commuters willtravel daily from Monterey County to Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties,an increase of 113 percent over 2000. Insofar as Santa Cruz County, MTC estimates that 41,600commuters will travel from this county to the same four Bay Area counties, an increase of 62 percentover 2000.Table 2-3Monterey County and Santa Cruz County Commuting Trends (1990 and 2000)Commuting 1990 2000 Percent ChangeMonterey CountyTotal Population 355,660 401,762 +13.0Work in Monterey County 162,079 159,157 –1.8Live and work in Monterey County 151,520 146,444 –3.4Live elsewhere and work in Monterey County 10,559 12,713 +20.4Percent workforce commuting into Monterey County 7% 8% +14.3Live in Monterey County and work elsewhere 12,750 18,073 +41.7Santa Cruz County 6,821 7,601 +11.4Santa Clara County 2,411 5,799 +140.5San Benito County 601 1,187 +97.5San Luis Obispo County 329 540 +64.1Alameda County 246 533 +116.7San Mateo County 173 378 +118.5Fresno County 113 254 +124.8San Francisco County 120 220 +83.3Contra Costa County 83 155 +86.7Los Angeles County 295 134 –54.6Yuma County, Arizona 222 112 –49.5Outside U.S. 262 105 –59.9San Diego County 85 101 +18.8Other locations 989 954 –3.5parsons CHAPTER 2: EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS 19
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISCommuting 1990 2000 Percent ChangeSanta Cruz CountyTotal Population 229,734 255,602 +11.3Work in Santa Cruz County 102,674 107,407 +4.6Live and work in Santa Cruz County 89,628 93,084 +3.9Live elsewhere and work in Santa Cruz County 13,046 14,323 +9.8Percent workforce commuting into Santa Cruz County 13% 13% –Live in Santa Cruz County and work elsewhere 25,571 33,022 +29.1Santa Clara County 17,693 21,540 +21.7Monterey County 3,650 5,164 +41.5San Mateo County 1,373 2,010 +46.4Alameda County 712 1,419 +99.3San Benito County 322 622 +93.2San Francisco County 470 621 +32.1Contra Costa County 263 244 –7.2Marin County 53 194 +266.0Sonoma County 7 142 +1,928.6Los Angeles County 197 109 –44.7Outside U.S. 65 88 +35.4San Joaquin County 32 62 +93.8Santa Barbara County 6 57 +850.0Other locations 728 750 +3.0Source: U.S. Census645188AA-005If traveling by automobile, these commuters will increase traffic volumes on U.S. 101, which is projectedto operate at unstable levels of service (LOS) barring capacity improvements or a significantmode shift. As reported in the following section of this document, the Transportation Concept Reportfor Route 101 (2001) projects 2020 peak-hour operating conditions will degrade to LOS E and F fromsouth Salinas to the San Benito/Santa Clara County line. The proposed Caltrain extension providesan alternative to roadway travel in this corridor and mitigates the impact of increasing volumes ofcommuters on the highway network.Moreover, it is likely that a second group of potential Caltrain commuters—unskilled workers who donot own automobiles—could also access employment opportunities in Santa Clara County iftransportation was available to them. Additional rail service will also increase access to extensiveSanta Clara County health care services for Monterey County residents.The Monterey County RTP (2005) includes the extension of commuter rail to Salinas in its list ofplanned passenger rail service:“The proposed extension of Caltrain to Salinas would provide an alternative means of travelbetween the Monterey County and the San Francisco Bay Area counties, allowing travelers toavoid traffic congestion along Highways 156 and 101. In addition, the commuter rail extensionwill bring a significant increase in ridership to both the existing Caltrain and the connectingCapitol and Altamont services. Other benefits of this new service are an increase in job opportunities,more transportation alternatives for senior citizens and those with physical disabilities,access to health care in the Bay Area, and economic development around the stations.”The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission RTP (2005) includes a fundingcontribution for the design of the Pajaro Rail Station and right-of-way purchase from the Union Pacificparsons CHAPTER 2: EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS 20
Page 4 and 5: DRAFTCALTRAIN EXTENSIONTO MONTEREY
Page 6 and 7: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 102 and 103:
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?