Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Transportation Report Synopsis Present and future transportation problems in the City of Santa Cruz are the focus of
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 16 findings
F1
The Master Transportation Study cost a total of $632,000: • $250,000 from UCSC. • $250,000 from City of Santa Cruz general fund. • $32,000 grant from Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Board for general use. • $50,000 grant from Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Board for pedestrian study. • $50,000 grant from Transportation Development Authority for Soquel Avenue bike lane study project. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Santa Cruz Sentinel, 10 April 2004. The City and UCSC entered into an agreement to share the $500,000 portion of the project evenly.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Master Transportation Study took over two years to develop. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The MTS was accepted as a foundation for transportation to be incorporated in the policies, programs and projects in the 2020 General Plan process for the City of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. City Planning Department staff is currently working on the General Plan and will use the MTS and the last General Plan as the central policy documents for the new circulation element.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
A recurring theme in the MTS suggests three basic requirements for reducing the impact of growing traffic: a. Use of carpools and ride sharing. b. Increase walking and bicycling. c. Significantly increase ridership on the SC Metro. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District AGREES. Each of the items mentioned above will serve to reduce the impact of growing traffic.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The automobile is the predominant method of travel in Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District AGREES.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
If the traffic management measures suggested in the MTS prove successful, Vehicle Hours of Delay in 2020 will be approximately 15% worse than today. If they are not, VHD is projected to increase 92%. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. - 86 Transportation Report
No recommendations for this finding
F7
One and one half pages of the MTS’s 284 pages look at traffic considerations generated by UCSC. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The Master Transportation Study evaluated UCSC traffic as part of its Future Traffic Analysis: See Table 4 ( ), Table 6 ( ), and Table 8 ( ). It also discussed options for addressing UCSC-related traffic in the following areas: Eastside/UCSC connector route ( ), future UCSC growth and an enhanced regional transit system ( ), transit background (Pages 71, 72, 73 and 74), Transportation Systems Management ( ), TDM Activities in Santa Cruz ( ), “Park and Ride” lots for University commuters ( ), car share program ( ), and University growth ( ).
No recommendations for this finding
F8
UCSC growth is seen as an issue for future consideration with respect to traffic congestion. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. At the time of the completion of the MTS, UCSC had not identified a growth target for the new Long Range Development Plan.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
UCSC’s Long Range Development Plan includes 6,000 additional students that will further affect traffic congestion and parking in Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY DISAGREES. UCSC’s current Long Range Development Plan assumptions include a 21,000 student population. The MTS future traffic projections were based on a UCSC student population of 16,000 students. Based on these numbers, the General Plan and the UCSC Long Range Development Plan will need to address an additional 5,000 students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The City of Santa Cruz should develop a plan to solve the UCSC traffic impact problems for now as well as in the future. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable to promise that we can solve traffic impact problems with a separate UCSC plan. The recommendation focuses only on growth from UCSC while future delay and congestion is influenced by factors which include local and regional growth. In 2000, UCSC vehicle trips represented 7% of the total vehicle trips in Santa Cruz, 22% of the carpool trips, and 17% of the transit trips for internal trips. Focusing only on UCSC traffic impacts will not fully address current or future problems. The City of Santa Cruz is working cooperatively with UCSC and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD) on transportation issues related to UCSC and City growth. Most recently, the agencies have combined resources to apply for a transportation planning grant for the Bay Street corridor, the primary access to UCSC. In addition, ongoing coordination exists between the City and UCSC on the development of the UCSC Long Range Development Plan and the City’s General Plan Update.
F10
The MTS refers to a “high-occupancy passenger connection from UCSC to regional transit via a new access method needs to be evaluated as a potentially more efficient and effective route to reduce Westside traffic impact and serve local and regional UCSC travel markets.”11 Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. 11City of Santa Cruz Master Transportation Study, .
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The MTS was precluded from any consideration of an eastern access to UCSC as a stipulation in the agreement setting up the MTS. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
City Council, by motion and acceptance, will not entertain the idea of any road through Pogonip. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. The City Council stated that it will not entertain a road serving automobiles. It did not preclude a busway or railway as a possible alternative.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The MTS is seen by the City Council as a framework. Its recommendations are non-binding. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. It serves as a foundation policy document for the General Plan
No recommendations for this finding
F14
City Transportation Commission is charged to develop specific plans to implement the MTS. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Santa Cruz City Council approved of 19 prioritized projects for roadway modification and signal projects. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The City of Santa Cruz should develop a short-range plan to mitigate existing, escalating traffic flow and parking problems beyond those offered in the 19 prioritized projects passed on January 20, 2004. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented to the extent that funding permits. The projects that were proposed at the meeting come from the MTS for inclusion in the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) update. These are in addition to the many other City projects in the current RTIP which carry forward to the update. Projects must be in the RTIP in order to receive Federal and State transportation grants. There are other locally funded transportation projects that are not part of the RTIP, but are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Modifications to the RTIP and CIP can occur on an annual basis based on more current traffic studies and revised priorities. Limited funding for these projects is always an issue, especially during - 90 Transportation Report the current State and local budget crisis. The City, like every other agency, relies heavily on State and Federal transportation grants for implementation of transportation improvements.
F16
Santa Cruz Metro ridership should increase 125% by 2020, according to MTS. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as part of the No Growth Alternative for external trips as part of the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit on the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor. For internal transit trips, the transit trips would need to increase 50% (see Table 7, ). Response: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District AGREES. The issue that is not discussed within the MTS document is the funding strategies as to how this increase would be accomplished. The challenges that exist would be the - 88 Transportation Report operating funding to run the additional service, and the capital funds to purchase the equipment. The current plans for the MetroBase project do not have the capacity to deal with this level of expansion. The MTS also does not address nor consider transit needs throughout the County, which is the jurisdiction for Santa Cruz METRO. The City of Santa Cruz is only represented on the METRO Board by two of the 11 members. Conclusions
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R2A park-and-ride facility should be developed at or near the intersection of Highways 1 and 9, with express bus service to major destinations within the city. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will, we hope, be implemented in the future if the planning process described below results in a positive recommendation for such a facility and if funding is available. The City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency is in the process of developing a re-use plan for Salz Tannery (Tannery Arts Center), located at the northeast quadrant of the Highway 1/9 intersection, which includes a Park and Ride Lot. In addition, the City’s Redevelopment Agency has funded the design of improvements to the Highway 1/9 intersection and the preparation of a Caltrans Project Report. It is anticipated that express bus service to UCSC and over the hill, and the Beach shuttle could be accommodated. These and other possible express bus service to other destinations would have to be evaluated by the SCMTD.
Conclusions 4
-
CL1 Page 11UCSC appears to have been short-changed by the MTS despite contributing more than one-third of the funding for the study. Considering the amount of traffic generated by the university, and the increased traffic congestion and parking by an additional 6,000 students, it deserves more than a page and a half devoted to its impact. To make matters worse, the title of its chapter suggests that the university growth is an issue for future consideration, rather than something to look at now.
-
CL2 Page 11In the original requirement precluding the MTS from consideration of any eastern access to the university, and again by restating the sentiment of the City Council in a motion to not entertain any road through the Pogonip, the City Council has boxed itself in. Given the traffic congestion and parking problems surrounding UCSC, the citizens of Santa Cruz have the right to expect their elected representatives to solve the problem.
-
CL3 Page 11A viable, though partial, solution to traffic congestion in the city could be the construction of a park-and-ride facility at or near the intersection of Highways 1 and 9, with express bus service to and from major destinations (UCSC and the beach area).
-
CL4 Page 11Traffic congestion and parking problems will continue to escalate unless traffic management measures suggested in the MTS prove successful.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Santa Cruz
City