Gateway Cities Maximum Transit Scenario Assessment Final Draft

Transcription

1 Gateway Cities Maximum Scenario Assessment Final Draft Date: March 11, 2014 Prepared for: Gateway Cities Council of Governments Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Prepared by: 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ES-1 Ridership... ES-2 Capacity and Utilization... ES-3 Source of New Trips... ES-4 Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction... ES-5 Summary... ES Assessment Content Existing Services Planned Services Methodology Assumptions Diversion Rate Assumptions Calculation Steps Maximum Scenario Database Findings Existing Service No Build Maximum Summary of Analysis A. Summary of Ridership, Modal Diversion, and Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction... A-1 B. Data Sources... B-1 C. Park-and-Ride Database... C-1 i

3 List of Tables Table ES.1 Summary of Service Improvements Included in the 2035 Maximum Scenario... ES-2 Table ES.2 Peak-Hour Seated Capacity and Utilization by Type (2013 to 2035)... ES-4 Table ES Maximum Source of New Weekday Trips by Mode... ES-5 Table ES.4 Weekday Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction (2013 to 2035)... ES-6 Table 2.1 Ridership Elasticities Table 2.2 Trip Mode Diversion Assumptions Table 2.3 Intercity and Commuter Rail Trip Mode Diversion Assumptions Table 3.1 Year 2013 Average Weekday Ridership by Mode Table 3.2 Ridership by Mode and Major Route Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Peak-Hour Seated Capacity and Utilization by Type Daily Parking Demand and Utilization Rates by Park-and-Ride Facility Table 3.5 Source of New Ridership (2035 Maximum ) Table 3.6 Weekday Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction Table A.1 Summary of Ridership, Diversion and Vehicle Reduction (2013 to 2035)... A-3 Table B.1 Prior Studies Reviewed... B-1 Table B.2 Agencies Interviewed to Develop the Assessment... B-2 Table B.3 Agencies that Did Not Respond to Request for Comment... B-3 Table C.1 Excerpt from Park-and-Ride Database... C-3 iii

4 List of Figures Figure ES.1 Gateway Cities Ridership by Type of (2013 to 2035)... ES-3 Figure 1.1 Existing Services Figure Maximum Planned Rail and BRT Improvements Figure 1.3 Max Future Services (Combined Existing/New).1-6 Figure 3.1 Gateway Cities Ridership by Type of (2013 to 2035) Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v

5 Executive Summary The Gateway Cities Maximum Scenario Assessment consists of an inventory of existing transit services and a sketch-level analysis of the potential effects of greatly increased subregional transit service in the Gateway Cities. This scenario illustrates how expanded transit service might affect ridership, transit utilization, and effects on automobile travel and other modes. Table ES.1 indicates all transit service improvements assumed in the 2035 Maximum scenario. The Maximum Scenario concept was originally developed as a proposed travel demand model scenario concept for the I-710 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS)/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) project. This analysis differs from the original I-710 RDEIS/SDEIR concept in that it applies sketch-planning analysis on a route-by-route basis to estimate ridership and potential modal effects. The assessment relied on current and historic data from existing public documents, transit provider interviews, and analysis using widely accepted transit factors. The analysis considered three scenarios: Existing. Existing conditions; No Build. Continuation of 2013 transit service levels, but increased population and employment consistent with regional and statewide growth forecasts; and Maximum. Aggressive service frequency improvements for existing transit, robust new transit route and service offerings, and increased population and employment consistent with regional and statewide growth forecasts. ES-1

6 Table ES.1 Summary of Service Improvements Included in the 2035 Maximum Scenario System High Speed Rail (Phase 1 Blended) Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Metrolink Metro Blue Metro Green Metro Gold Eco Rapid Huntington Park Downtown Shopper Shuttle Atlantic Boulevard Bus Rapid OCTA Route 722 a Long Beach Bus Rapid a Existing Rapid and Local Bus Routes Improvement New interregional rail service between San Francisco/ San Jose, Merced, and Los Angeles/Anaheim Various operational improvements, service enhancement Various operational improvements, service enhancement 16-percent service-level increase 16-percent service-level increase Eastside extension (Washington Blvd alignment) New transit service from Los Angeles Union Station to Cerritos New trolley service on Pacific Boulevard linking downtown with Northwest area-specific plan New bus rapid transit (BRT) service along Atlantic Boulevard New express bus service from Santa Ana to California State University Long Beach Six new BRT lines (Artesia, Del Amo, Willow, Lakewood, Norwalk, and 7 th Street) 1. If a route s 2035 No Build headway is greater than 20 minutes, headways are reduced by 50 percent; 2. If a route s 2035 No Build headway is between 10 and 20 minutes, headway is reduced to 10 minutes; and 3. If a route s 2035 No Build headway is less than or equal to 10 minutes, headway is equal to 2035 No Build headway. a Long Beach BRT and OCTA Route 722 projects would influence regional transit in the 2035 Build scenario, but both were excluded from quantitative evaluation in this report due to limited available data. RIDERSHIP Figure ES.1 indicates the change in ridership by type of transit across all three scenarios. The major transit ridership trends are as follows: Existing transit services, including local bus, express bus, light rail, and heavy rail, serve about 318,790 passengers in the Gateway Cities each weekday; The 2035 No Build scenario has projected average weekday subregional transit ridership of about 352,940 by the year 2035, which is an 11-percent increase over existing conditions; and ES-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

7 The 2035 Maximum scenario increases weekday transit ridership in the Gateway Cities to 462,700, a 45-percent increase over existing conditions, and a 31-percent increase over 2035 No Build conditions. Proposed light rail improvements offer the greatest increase in ridership. Figure ES.1 Gateway Cities Ridership by Type of (2013 to 2035) 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50, Existing 2035 No Build 2035 Max Local & Other Bus Light Rail Commuter & Intercity Rail Rapid & Express Bus Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of existing conditions and trends. CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION Table ES.2 indicates peak-hour seated transit capacity by transit type under existing and 2035 Maximum conditions. Aggressive transit improvements enhance seated peak-hour transit capacity in the subregion by 69 percent over existing conditions from about 13,860 to 23, Demand for new services exceeds peak-hour capacity on several lines in the 2035 Maximum scenario; most notably on the enhanced Metro Blue, Green and Gold light rail lines, as well as the Metro Route 760 Line, and Metrolink Riverside and Orange lines. Local bus routes are not projected to experience utilization in excess of capacity. The parking utilization rate for existing and planned parking spaces in the Gateway Cities is estimated at 83 percent in the 2035 Maximum scenario (including planned lot expansions), a 2-percent increase over existing conditions. 1 The system can seat more total passengers than this number during the span of a peak hour because there is a flow of passengers getting on and off, allowing those seats to be used by multiple riders. But at any one moment in time, this is the seated capacity. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-3

8 Six park-and-ride lots have forecasted weekday demand in excess of capacity by 2035: Montebello/Commerce; Norwalk; Wardlow; Florence; Del Amo; and Artesia. Table ES.2 Peak-Hour Seated Capacity and Utilization by Type (2013 to 2035) 2013 Existing 2035 Maximum Net Change ( ) 2035 Maximum Utilization Commuter & Intercity Rail 3,335 4,390 1,055 74% Light Rail 3,015 8,060 5, % Rapid & Express Buses % Local & Other Buses 6,740 9,990 3,250 42% Total 13,850 23,350 9,500 SOURCE OF NEW TRANSIT TRIPS Each new passenger attracted to transit due to service improvements can be thought of as shifting from one of a number of prior travel modes. Table ES.3 shows the approximated prior travel mode for new weekday transit trips under 2035 Maximum conditions: Personal Vehicles. Approximately 27,070 new daily transit riders are estimated to have previously made their trip in a personal vehicle, such as a car or truck. The actual number of vehicles removed from area roadways is smaller since personal vehicles often carry more than one traveler. Air. The proposed California High-Speed Rail Phase 1 Blended system is forecasted to draw approximately 2,490 weekday passengers from air travel. Other. About 38,770 transit trips are forecasted to shift from local or other bus to newer, more rapid options each weekday. This explains why ridership on local and other buses declines on some routes under 2035 Maximum conditions compared to 2035 No Build, despite significant service enhancements. Biking and Walking. About 10,470 new riders are projected to have previously walked or cycled from their origin to their destination. Induced Trips. About 5,950 new trips are projected to be induced as a result of new transit opportunities under 2035 Maximum conditions. ES-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

9 Table ES Maximum Source of New Weekday Trips by Mode Type Personal Vehicle Air Other Walk Bike Induced Trips Commuter & Intercity Rail 11,690 2, Light Rail 13,010 33,620 5,160 2,440 Rapid & Express Bus 2,000 5, Local & Other Bus 7,070 4,520 2,260 Total 33,770 2,490 38,770 10,470 5,950 PERSONAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION According to travel demand model results, approximately 5.6 million personal vehicle trips occur within the Gateway Cities each weekday under existing conditions. This figure is projected to increase to 5.8 million by Table ES.4 shows the approximate number of personal vehicle trips removed from subregional roadways under all scenarios. The major personal vehicle trip reduction trends are as follows: Existing transit services currently remove an estimated 125,880 personal vehicle trips (2.3 percent of total subregional travel) from the subregional roadway system each weekday. The 2035 No Build scenario diverts about 139,840 personal vehicle trips (2.4 percent of total subregional travel) from subregional roadways, or about 13,970 more vehicle trip diversions than are estimated to occur in The 2035 Maximum scenario is forecasted to remove a total of 161,100 personal vehicle trips (2.7 percent of total subregional travel) from the subregional roadway system each weekday, or about 21,260 more vehicle trip diversion than are forecasted to occur under 2035 No Build conditions. This represents a 28-percent larger personal vehicle reduction compared to existing conditions, and a 15-percent larger reduction compared to 2035 No Build conditions. Compared to total vehicle trip forecasts, the additional reduced vehicle trips constitute 0.3 percent of total personal vehicle travel in the subregion. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-5

10 Table ES.4 Weekday Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction (2013 to 2035) Mode Existing 2035 No Build 2035 Maximum Change No Build Maximum Commuter & Intercity Rail 4,350 6,160 13,470 7,310 Light Rail 40,150 44,170 52,300 8,130 Rapid & Express Bus 6,740 7,410 7, Local & Other Bus 74,640 82,100 87,540 5,430 Total 125, , ,100 21,260 SUMMARY This analysis provides a sketch-level forecast of the potential ridership and multimodal effects of planned and proposed subregional transit investments. The study concludes the following: ridership growth may not keep pace with aggressive capacity expansion. The enhancements in the Maximum scenario provide a 69-percent increase in peak-hour seated transit capacity within the Gateway Cities compared to existing conditions. This capacity increase yields a 39- percent increase in ridership, 11 percent of which can be explained by socioeconomic growth. Planners often refer to such results as indicating an inelastic relationship. Newer and faster transit options attract current local bus passengers. New light-rail and bus rapid transit services offer more reliable, direct access for current bus users, which can attract passengers of existing local bus routes. As passengers shift from bus to these new types of transit, only modest ridership gains on local buses result, despite significant capacity improvements. Some transit service providers have noted that increasing bus service without fixed-rail enhancements might boost ridership modestly, while avoiding large capital and operating costs. Some new transit users formerly used personal vehicles. The transit expansions assumed in the Maximum scenario draw about 43 percent of their new ridership from prior bus users; about 43 percent from personal vehicle users; 12 percent from pedestrians and bicyclists; and about 7 percent are new travelers entirely. Maximum slightly reduces personal vehicle travel. While expanding transit options is expected to reduce personal vehicle travel in the Gateway Cities, the reduction attributable to expanded Maximum ES-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

11 services amounts to less than one-half percent of total forecasted vehicle travel in the subregion in Limitations and Areas for Further Study This analysis describes future conditions based on readily available data, trends, and planning factors. The analysis assumes consistent socioeconomic growth based on prior trends, and that passengers respond similarly to capacity changes on each local bus line. Actual passenger behavior may differ from route to route depending on many specific factors beyond the scope of this analysis. Therefore, this analysis should be considered a general overview of regional trends rather than actionable data on any one transit line. Future analysis conducted as part of the Gateway Cities Strategic Transportation Plan will apply a new multiresolution model to forecast transit effects and the interaction between travel modes. Those more rigorous forecasts may differ from these sketch-level forecasts. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-7

12 1.0 Assessment Content This section describes the content of the existing and proposed services evaluated in the transit assessment database, and includes instructions for navigating and using the database. 1.1 EXISTING SERVICES The database includes information for the following existing transit services: Commuter and Intercity Rail Amtrak Pacific Surfliner; Metrolink Orange Line; Metrolink 91 Line; and Metrolink Riverside Line; Light Rail Metro Blue Line; Metro Green Line; Rapid and Express Buses Metro Rapid Bus Route 760; Metro Rapid Bus Route 762; and, Metro Other Rapid or Express Bus Routes; Local and Other Buses Metro Local Route 60; Metro Local Route 108; Metro Local Route 110; Metro Local Route 115; Metro Local Route 251; Metro Local Route 260; Metro Other Local or Shuttle Routes; Long Beach Route 1 Easy Ave; 1-1

13 Long Beach Route 21 Cherry; Long Beach Route 22 Cherry Ave/Downey Ave; Long Beach Route 37 Pine Ave/Downtown Long Beach/Queen Mary; Long Beach Route 45 Anaheim St to Santa Fe; Long Beach Route 46 Anaheim St to downtown; Long Beach Route 51 Long Beach Blvd to Artesia Station; Long Beach Route 61 Atlantic Ave to Artesia Station; Long Beach Route 71 Orange Ave; Long Beach Route 72 Orange Ave; Long Beach Route 81 10th St to CSULB; Long Beach Route 91 7th St/Bellflower Blvd; Long Beach Route 92 7th St/Woodruff Ave; Long Beach Route 93 7th St/Clark Ave; Long Beach Route 94 7th St to Los Altos Only; Long Beach Route 96 Zap 7 th St; Long Beach Route 101 Carson St/Centralia; Long Beach Route 102 Willow/Spring; Long Beach Route 103 Carson St to Lakewood Mall; Long Beach Route 104 Willow/Spring; Long Beach Route 111 Broadway/Lakewood Blvd; Long Beach Route 112 Broadway/Clark Ave; Long Beach Route 121 Ocean/Belmont Shore/CSULB/PCH at Ximeno; Long Beach Route 131 Redondo Ave to Alamitos Bay Landing; Long Beach Route th St; Long Beach Route 171 PCH to Market Place; Long Beach Route 172 PCH/Palo Verde; Long Beach Route 173 PCH/Studebaker; Long Beach Route 174 PCH/Ximeno Ave Only; Long Beach Route 176 ZAP PCH; Long Beach Route 181 Magnolia Ave; 1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

14 Long Beach Route 182 Pacific; Long Beach Route 191 Santa Fe/Del Amo Blvd; Long Beach Route 192 Santa Fe/South St; Bell Gardens ; Bellflower Bus; Cerritos on Wheels; City of South Gate; Commerce Municipal Bus Lines; Compton Renaissance System; Cudahy Area Rapid ; DowneyLink; El Sol Shuttle (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works); Huntington Park Local Bus; Los Angeles Department of Transportation (Commuter Express; Community Connection, DASH Southeast Route); Lynwood Breeze; Montebello Bus Lines; Norwalk ; Orange County Transportation Authority; Paramount Easy Rider; Sunshine Shuttle (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works); and Willowbrook Shuttle. See Figure 1.1 for a map of these existing transit services. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-3

15 Figure 1.1 Existing Services 1-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

16 1.2 PLANNED SERVICES The database includes information for the following planned improvements to transit service in the Gateway Cities subregion: California High-Speed Rail Phase 1 Blended Service; LOSSAN corridor track improvements and Pacific Surfliner service expansion; Metrolink Orange County Line operational improvements and service enhancement; Metrolink 91 Line operational improvements and service enhancement; Metrolink Riverside Line operational improvements and service enhancement; Metro Blue Line 16 percent increase in service; Metro Green Line 16 percent increase in service; Metro Gold Line Eastside extension; Metro Gold Line Eastern extension to Orange; Eco Rapid 2 ; Huntington Park Downtown Shopper Shuttle; Atlantic Boulevard Bus Rapid (BRT); Long Beach BRT Artesia Line; Long Beach BRT Del Amo Line; Long Beach BRT Willow Line; Long Beach BRT Lakewood Line; Long Beach BRT Norwalk Line; Long Beach BRT 7 th St Line; and Aggressive improvements to local bus service frequencies. Figure 1.2 shows the location of all planned rail and BRT improvements. Figure 1.3 illustrates the combined existing and new transit services. For information on data sources used to develop assessment content, see Appendix B. Appendix C contains information on planned park-and-ride lot expansions. 2 Also referred to as Orangeline Development Authority (OLDA) or Pacific-Electric Rightof-Way, West Santa Ana Branch. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-5

17 Figure Maximum Planned Rail and BRT Improvements 1-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

18 Figure 1.3 Future Services (Combined Existing and New) Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-7

19 Notes on Planned Improvements Commuter and Intercity Rail The California High-Speed Rail Authority is building an HSR system running from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via the Central Valley, and later to Sacramento and San Diego. The California High-Speed Rail Program Revised 2012 Business Plan (2012 Business Plan) provides an implementation strategy of early investments in intercity, regional, and commuter rail systems and phased HSR system delivery (Phase 1 Blended scenario). The blended approach, which integrates HSR service with existing systems allowing for coordinated scheduling, ticketing, and transfers, is a key element to HSR implementation. The ridership forecast synthesis follows the California State Rail Plan methodology, in which HSR trips that connect to Metrolink, Pacific Surfliner, and other transit routes are accounted for only as HSR ridership, not ridership on the other services. Similarly, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trips that connect to Metrolink or other subregional transit routes are accounted for only as Amtrak Pacific Surfliner ridership. Similar methods are followed for Metrolink trips that connect to subregional transit routes. The 2012 California State Rail Plan and the 2012 Business Plan indicate no Phase 1 Blended HSR stations within the subregion. Metro Gold Line Extension (Washington Blvd) The Metro Gold Line Eastside extension is considering two possible alternatives: to Whittier along Washington Boulevard, along SR 60. This analysis assumes the Washington Boulevard alignment. 3 The Gold Line Eastern extension to Orange County is a possible further extension of the Gold Line, which would be implemented after completion of the Eastside extension. Very little quantitative information is available for this possible project. Eco Rapid The alternatives analysis for Eco Rapid includes several alternatives, from systemwide local transit improvements, to a light-maglev system. This analysis averaged the results for the three light-rail alternatives. The inputs included 2035 average daily ridership to/from and through the subregion, diversion rates for personal vehicle and transit trips, and descriptive data such as running time, frequency, and capacity. 3 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Eastside Corridor Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis Report, pages Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

20 Atlantic BRT The Atlantic Boulevard high-capacity transit alternatives have included light-rail and BRT. This analysis assumed BRT transit service (capacity, speed, etc.) replacing existing Metro Bus Routes 260 and 762. Therefore, these local bus routes have no ridership forecasts for the 2035 Maximum scenario. Long Beach BRT Six Long Beach BRT routes have been proposed. While listed here and illustrated in the maps, insufficient data existed at the time of publication to include these routes in quantitative analysis. Local Bus Services This report assumes aggressively improved service frequency on local and other buses in order to gauge the potential effect of such enhancements, although no specific transit provider plans were referenced in the development of these assumptions. Section 2.0 describes the methodology underlying the Maximum scenario, including the assumptions regarding increased service frequency on local buses. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-9

21 2.0 Methodology This section outlines the key assumptions and methods used in the Maximum scenario analysis. 2.1 ASSUMPTIONS Service Frequencies and Ridership We developed transit service frequencies and ridership using the following inputs: 2013 Existing. For existing conditions, we used actual existing transit service frequencies and capacity as collected from transit provider documentation and interviews. For more information on data sources, see Appendix B No Build. For 2035 No Build conditions, we used actual transit service frequency and assumed ridership under existing conditions, but included ridership growth commensurate with forecasted socioeconomic growth Maximum Scenario. For the 2035 Maximum scenario, we assumed forecasted socioeconomic growth and made the following additional service assumptions: High-speed rail, commuter rail, and light rail. We used all fixed rail service frequencies and ridership assumed under the Gateway Cities Assessment 2035 Build scenario. These correspond to planned service enhancements on Metro rail routes, Amtrak, and Metrolink. For proposed new service and routes, estimates are taken directly from planning documentation or business plans. Rapid and local bus. The I-710 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS)/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) assumed a global 68-percent increase in all local bus service and a global 33-percent increase in all Metro Rapid bus services from the existing 2009 conditions to a Maximum scenario. In contrast, this Maximum assessment calculates bus service increases on a routeby-route basis. We assumed the following bus service frequency 2-1

22 enhancements 4, and applied elasticities to estimate ridership effects by route 5 : 1. If 2035 No Build headway is greater than 20 minutes, headway is reduced by 50 percent; 2. If a route s 2035 No Build headway is less than 20 minutes, reduce the headway to 10 minutes; and 3. If a route s 2035 No Build headway is less than or equal to 10 minutes, maintain No Build headway. All existing transit service headway assumptions included in this report were reviewed and approved by Ernesto Chaves at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Ridership Elasticity ridership elasticity refers to the percent increase in transit ridership resulting from a percent decrease in transit service headways from 2035 No Build to 2035 Maximum. Table 2.1 displays the transit ridership elasticities assumed under 2035 Maximum. For example, if a bus route s headway were reduced from 30 minutes to 10 minutes (a 67-percent headway reduction), ridership would increase by 31 percent (an elasticity of -0.46). Table 2.1 Ridership Elasticities 2035 No Build Scenario Bus Service Headway Elasticity Less than 10 minutes minutes Greater than 50 minutes Source: Lago, A., P. Mayworm, and J. McEnroe, Ridership Response to Changes in Services, Transportation Research Record 818, Park-and-Ride Facilities The 2035 Maximum scenario assumes the same planned and proposed park-and-ride facilities included the Gateway Cities Park-and-Ride Assessment. For each park-and-ride facility, we assumed parking demand growth at the same 4 Frequencies in this report are expressed as headways: the average time between vehicles servicing a transit stop. 5 The first two assumptions were developed in the I-710 RDEIS/SDEIR Corridor Project Technical Memorandum Multimodal Review (March 2009). The third was established for this report. 2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

23 rate as ridership growth on the facility s primary transit line. For a listing of primary transit lines by park-and-ride facility, see the Gateway Cities Park-and- Ride Assessment. 2.2 DIVERSION RATE ASSUMPTIONS When new transit systems are introduced, new transit trips come from a variety of prior transportation modes, including those who previously traveled by personal vehicle, by other transit modes (e.g., those who previously traveled by bus but now have access to more reliable transit), and by walking or bicycling. In addition, new transit services may also induce a small proportion of new trips. We refer to this collective phenomenon as diversion from other modes. This section explains the assumptions used to estimate modal diversion in this report. Note that these rates represent broad assumptions based on readily available data and widely used planning factors. More thorough analysis using travel demand and mesoscopic modeling will likely produce differing results. General Diversion Rate Assumptions We developed default diversion rates based on methods used in prior studies for cases where route specific data were not available. 6 For Existing or No Build conditions, no diversion is possible from other transit. We allocated transit diversion from the Build scenario to the other modes to account for the change. To calculate weekday personal vehicle trip reductions on subregion roadways, we first calculated the number of travelers who chose transit rather than using a personal vehicle. Each such traveler is known as an automobile person-trip, which refers to a trip made by an individual in a personal vehicle. This trip could be made as either the vehicle driver or a passenger. To calculate the personal vehicle trip reduction, we divided the number of automobile person-trips by an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.59, which is 6 Diversion rates represent a summary of rates from the following sources: 1) Evans, Jay et al., 2004, Cooperative Research Program Report 95 Chapter 9, Cooperative Research Board; 2) Tann, Helen, 2006, The San Pablo Rapid BRT Project Evaluation, Federal Administration (FTA); 3) Alameda-Contra Costa District, 2012, AC East Bay Bus Rapid Project Final EIS/R; and 4) Iteris, Inc., 2013, Technical support materials for I-605 Congestion Hot Spots for Gateway Cities Transportation Strategic Plan. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3

24 based on the U.S. Department of Energy s 2009 estimate. 7 Table 2.2 illustrates the default diversion rates by mode. Table 2.2 Trip Mode Diversion Assumptions Scenario/Conditions Auto Other Walk or Bike Induced Build (new service) 24% 62% 9.5% 4.5% Existing or No Build 62.5% 0% 25% 12.5% Sources: Evans, Jay et al., 2004; Tann, Helen, 2006; AC, 2012; and Iteris, Inc., Intercity and Commuter Rail Diversion Rate Assumptions While these diversion rates are reasonable for typical light rail or other trip modes, longer distance trips require a separate set of assumptions. For example, because intercity passenger rail trips are much longer in length, we would not expect many travelers to make these trips by walking or bicycling today. Furthermore, prior analysis by the California High-Speed Rail Authority has provided detailed high-speed rail (HSR) diversion rates by market pairs, reflecting the wide differences in diversion rates associated with travel distance and destination. Table 2.3 illustrates the route-specific diversion rates for HSR, Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink, and some intraregional express routes where additional market and mode diversion data were available from previous studies. Table 2.3 Intercity and Commuter Rail Trip Mode Diversion Assumptions Type Personal Vehicle Other, Walk/Bike Air Induced HSR San Francisco (SF) to LA 55% 0% 42% 4% San Joaquin Valley to LA 93% 0% 5% 2% LA to San Diego 98% 0% 0% 2% SF/Sacramento to San Diego 38% 0% 61% 0% Within LA Basin 90% 0% 0% 10% Amtrak Pacific Surfliner 90% 0% 0% 10% Metrolink Orange, 91, Riverside 90% 0% 0% 10% Source: 2012 California HSR Revised Business Plan, Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Technical Appendix, modeling assumptions for Phase 1 Blended (model run d). 7 U.S. Department of Energy: accessed July Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

25 2.3 CALCULATION STEPS Calculating 2035 Maximum Headways and Ridership For planned and proposed commuter and light-rail route expansions, 2035 Maximum service headways and ridership are estimated based on planning documents, as documented in the Gateway Cities Assessment. For local and rapid bus routes headways, we applied service headway reductions pursuant to the three-step process itemized in Section 2.1. Ridership increases from the 2035 No Build scenario to the 2035 Maximum scenario were derived for each bus route based on its headway reduction and the appropriate transit ridership elasticity from Table 2.1. Calculate 2035 Auto Person-Trips Reduced Auto person-trips refer to personal vehicle trips made by an individual, either alone or with other passengers. For each transit route, we calculated the number of auto person-trips reduced by multiplying: 1) the increase in transit ridership from 2035 No Build to 2035 Maximum by 2) the percentage of transit trips diverted from personal vehicles (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). Calculating Autos Removed from Roadways Auto person-trips do not equate to entire vehicle trips, since some vehicles contain more than one passenger. To estimate the number of personal vehicle trips removed from roadways, we divide the number of auto person-trips by a rate of average vehicle occupancy. We assumed an average occupancy rate of 1.59 based on the U.S. Department of Energy s 2009 estimate. 8 Calculating Demand and Utilization Rates at Park-and-Ride Facilities For each of the 19 park-and-ride facilities located in the Gateway Cities, we extracted existing parking demand and primary transit lines from the Gateway Cities Park-and-Ride Assessment. Maximum scenario parking demand is estimated by multiplying: 1) the existing parking demand, and 2) the primary transit line s ridership increase (in percentage) from existing conditions to the 2035 Maximum scenario. We calculated parking utilization rate by dividing the Maximum Scenario parking demand over the existing and planned parking spaces in Appendix C contains the Park-and-Ride Assessment analysis summary. 8 U.S. Department of Energy: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5

26 2.4 MAXIMUM TRANSIT SCENARIO DATABASE All calculations and methods reported in this section are documented in a separate spreadsheet database. There are two primary components to the spreadsheet: 1. Maximum Scenario, a worksheet that specifies headway, transit ridership, capacity, and estimated personal vehicle trip reductions under existing, 2035 No Build, and 2035 Maximum conditions, by transit route; and 2. Park-and-Ride Utilization, a worksheet that specifies parking demand and parking utilization rates under 2035 Maximum conditions for the 19 existing and planned park-and-ride lots identified in the Gateway Cities Park-and-Ride Assessment. 2-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

27 3.0 Findings This section presents the major findings of the Maximum Scenario Assessment EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Table 3.1 describes existing average weekday transit ridership by mode in the subregion. Existing transit services, including local bus, express bus, light rail, and heavy rail, provide about 318,780 trips in the Gateway Cities each weekday. Table 3.1 Year 2013 Average Weekday Ridership by Mode Mode Average Weekday Ridership Commuter and Intercity Rail 7,660 Light Rail 102,790 Rapid and Express Buses 17,240 Local and Other Buses 191,080 Total 318,770 Source: Cambridge Systematics, Gateway Cities Assessment, March These existing transit services currently remove an estimated 125,880 personal vehicle trips from the subregional roadway system each weekday. According to travel demand model estimates, approximately 5.6 million auto trips occur within the Gateway Cities each weekday under existing conditions. Thus, existing transit services account for an estimated 2.3-percent total reduction in the volume of subregional personal vehicle trips in year NO BUILD If projected population and employment growth occur without changes to existing transit and park-and-ride service levels, the Gateway Cities Assessment estimates that average weekday transit ridership in the subregion will increase by 11 percent to about 352,950 by the year This scenario diverts about 139,840 personal vehicle trips from subregional roadways, or about 13,970 more vehicle trip diversions than are estimated to occur in According to travel demand model forecasts, approximately 5.8 million auto trips will occur within the Gateway Cities each weekday by

28 services would, therefore, account for an approximate 2.4-percent total reduction in auto trips by 2035 under no build conditions MAXIMUM TRANSIT Ridership Table 3.2 shows estimated ridership under existing conditions, and forecasted ridership under 2035 No Build and 2035 Maximum scenarios, by type of transit service. Together, 2035 Maximum scenario service enhancements produce a subregional weekday transit ridership of 442,260, a 25-percent increase over existing conditions, and a 23-percent increase over 2035 No Build conditions. Local and other bus routes serve the majority of transit trips under 2035 Maximum conditions (51 percent), followed by light rail (38 percent), commuter and intercity rail (6 percent), and rapid and express buses (6 percent). Figure 3.1 shows the change in Gateway Cities transit ridership by type of transit under existing conditions, 2035 No Build and 2035 Maximum. Approximately 44 percent of subregional transit trips occur by fixed rail modes (as opposed to buses) under 2035 Maximum conditions, an increase of 9- percent compared to existing conditions. Compared to 2035 No Build conditions, the 2035 Maximum scenario results in the following net changes to transit ridership in the Gateway Cities: Light Rail improvements attract the largest number of new riders (54,220); Commuter and Intercity Rail improvements, such as high-speed rail and improvements to Amtrak and Metrolink services attract 15,090 new riders; Local and Other Buses attract a net 13,910 new riders despite significant diversion to improved light-rail and rapid bus services; and Rapid and Express Buses, such as the new Atlantic Boulevard BRT, attract a net 6,100 new riders, including diversion from discontinued routes. These figures include a large number of riders expected to shift from local buses to more frequent, reliable forms of transit, such as light-rail and rapid or express bus. See Section 2.2 for additional information. 3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

29 Table 3.2 Ridership by Mode and Major Route Weekday Ridership in Gateway Cities 2035 Maximum Change No Build Maximum 2035 No Project Existing Build Commuter & Intercity Rail Amtrak Pacific Surfliner 3,040 4,380 5,390 1,010 Metrolink 4,620 6,350 11,010 4,660 High-Speed Rail (Phase 1 Blended) 9,410 9,410 Subtotal 7,660 10,730 25,810 15,080 Light Rail Eco Rapid 28,330 28,330 Metro Blue Line 76,050 83,650 87,420 3,770 Metro Green Line 26,750 29,420 30,750 1,330 Metro Gold Line 20,800 20,800 Subtotal 102, , ,300 54,230 Rapid and Express Buses Atlantic Boulevard BRT* 8,310 8,310 Metro Route 760 5,120 5,630 5,630 All other Metro Rapid/Express Routes* 12,130 13,340 11,120 (2,220) Subtotal 17,250 18,970 25,060 6,090 Local and Other Buses Metro Route 60 10,259 11,285 9,978 (1, 307) Montebello Bus Lines 16,637 18,301 19,903 1,602 Norwalk 8,500 9,350 10, Long Beach 91, , ,164 5,008 LADOT DASH 7,082 7,790 8, All Other Metro Local and Shuttle* 46,549 51,204 48,545 (2,659) All Other Small Operators 10,998 12,093 21,863 9,765 Subtotal 191, , ,094 13,910 Total 318, , ,260 89,310 * This analysis assumed the Atlantic BRT will replace Metro routes 762 and 260 in the Maximum scenario. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-3

30 Figure 3.1 Gateway Cities Ridership by Type of (2013 to 2035) 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50, Existing 2035 No Build 2035 Max Local & Other Bus Light Rail Commuter & Intercity Rail Rapid & Express Bus Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of existing conditions and trends. Capacity and Utilization Table 3.3 shows the estimated change in seated peak-hour transit capacity in the Gateway Cities by transit type, from 2013 to Maximum service enhancements are expected to increase seated peak-hour transit capacity in the subregion by 69 percent, from 13,850 to 23,350. With the planned improvements, the largest share of seated capacity in the subregion would be provided by local and other buses (43 percent), followed by light rail (35 percent), commuter and intercity rail (19 percent), and rapid and express buses (4 percent). Table 3.3 also shows peak-hour capacity utilization by transit type in the 2035 Maximum scenario. The following light-rail lines experience utilization greater than 125 percent of seated peak-hour, peak direction capacity: Metro Green Line (156 percent); Metro Blue line (140 percent); and Metro Gold Line (135 percent). 3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

31 Table 3.3 Peak-Hour Seated Capacity and Utilization by Type 2013 Existing 2035 Maximum Net Change 2035 Maximum Utilization Commuter & Intercity Rail 3,335 4,390 1,055 74% Light Rail 3,015 8,060 5, % Rapid & Express Buses % Local & Other Buses 6,740 9,990 3,250 42% Total 13,840 23,350 9,500 In addition, the following lines approach the 125-percent utilization threshold: Metrolink Riverside Line (122 percent); Metro Rapid Bus Route 760 (118 percent); Atlantic Boulevard BRT (118 percent); and Metrolink Orange Line (108 percent). Utilization on local bus lines fall well under 125 percent due to significant increases in service frequencies under the 2035 Maximum scenario. Park-and-Ride Table 3.4 shows parking demand under the existing conditions and under the 2035 Maximum scenario, by park-and-ride facility. This table reflects the most recent available parking demand from existing conditions. As in the Gateway Cities Park-and-Ride Assessment, growth in parking demand at each lot is equivalent to expected growth in ridership on the primary transit line served by each facility. Based on these assumptions, parking demand across all 19 facilities would increase by 23 percent from existing conditions to the 2035 Maximum scenario. Existing and forecasted utilization varies by facility, but six lots show demand exceeding capacity in the 2035 Maximum scenario. The assessment estimates an average utilization rate across all 19 facilities of 83 percent under the 2035 Maximum scenario. Under 2035 Maximum, six of the 19 park-and-ride facilities in the region would experience demand that exceeds planned capacity, an increase of four lots over existing conditions. Increased transit ridership would result in an estimated 23 percent parking demand increase from existing conditions to the Maximum scenario, and a parking utilization rate of 83 percent at the 19 Gateway Cities park-and-ride facilities. See Appendix C for more data from the Park-and- Ride Assessment. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5

32 Table 3.4 Daily Parking Demand and Utilization Rates by Park-and-Ride Facility Park and Ride Facility Existing Conditions 2035 Maximum Demand Growth 2035 Parking Spaces 2035 Maximum Lot Utilization Artesia % % Atlantic % % Commerce % % Del Amo % % Florence % % Indiana % 42 52% Lakewood Blvd % % Lakewood West % 83 85% Long Beach Blvd % % MLK Jr. Center (Compton Station) % % Montebello/Commerce % % Norwalk 2,194 2,522 15% 2, % Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs % % Taylor Ranch % 40 68% Third Street and South La Verne Ave 30% 87 0% Wardlow % % Willow % 1,819 53% Willowbrook % % Total 5,738 7,067 8,519 83% Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Gateway Cities Park-and-Ride Assessment, Source of New Ridership Each new passenger attracted to transit due to new service improvements can be thought of as shifting from one of a number of prior travel modes: Personal vehicle (driver or passenger); Air travel 9 ; Other transit modes (e.g., those who switch from bus to new rail options); 9 Only efficient long-distance travel modes such as high-speed rail are effective at attracting passengers from air travel. 3-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

33 Walking or bicycling; or Induced travel (i.e., new trips that would not have been taken otherwise). New shorter-distance transit enhancements, such as light-rail or rapid buses, typically draw most of their new ridership from those who previously took other less reliable modes of transit, followed by those who drove, biked, or walked. By contrast, longer-distance enhancements, such as commuter and intercity rail, typically draw most new riders from personal vehicle travel and few if any from bicycling or walking, which are more suited to short-distance trips. Table 3.5 shows the estimated prior travel mode for new transit trips under 2035 Maximum conditions: Personal Vehicles. As a result of the new transit enhancements in the 2035 Maximum scenario, approximately 27,070 new daily transit riders are estimated to have previously made their trip in a personal vehicle such as a car or truck. Note that the actual number of vehicles removed from area roadways is significantly smaller since vehicles often carry more than one passenger. The effect of transit on the number of personal vehicles on area roadways is presented later in this section. Air. The proposed California High-Speed Rail Phase 1 Blended system is forecasted to draw approximately 2,490 weekday passengers from air travel. Other. In the 2035 Maximum scenario, a total of 38,770 transit trips are forecasted to shift from local or other bus to more frequent, higher-speed options, such as light rail (33,620) and rapid or express buses (5,150) each weekday. This explains why ridership on local and other buses declines on some routes under 2035 Maximum conditions compared to 2035 No Build, despite significant service enhancements. Biking and Walking. Under 2035 Maximum conditions, about 10,470 new riders are projected to have previously walked or cycled from their origin to their destination. This figure does not take into account shortdistance bike or walk trips used to access bus stops or transit stations, which would likely increase under 2035 Maximum conditions as a result of higher transit capacity and demand. Induced Trips. The improvement of transit access can allow a small number of potential riders to take transit trips, where they would otherwise have taken no trip at all. About 5,950 new trips are projected to be induced as a result of new transit opportunities under 2035 Maximum conditions. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-7

34 Table 3.5 Source of New Ridership (2035 Maximum ) Project Personal Vehicle Air Other Walk Bike Induced Trips Commuter & Intercity Rail Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Metrolink 4, High-Speed Rail (Phase 1 Blended) 6,540 2, Subtotal 11,690 2, Light Rail Eco Rapid 6,800 17,560 2,690 1,270 Metro Blue Line 900 2, Metro Green Line Metro Gold Line 4,990 12,900 1, Subtotal 13,010 33,620 5,160 2,440 Rapid and Express Buses Atlantic Boulevard BRT* 2,000 5, Metro Route 760 All other Metro Rapi/Express Routes* Subtotal 2,000 5, Local and Other Buses Metro Route 60 Long Beach Route 61 Montebello Bus Lines Norwalk LADOT DASH All Other Metro Local and Shuttle* All Other Long Beach 680 1, All Other Small Operators 5,510 2,440 1,220 Subtotal 7,070 4,520 2,260 Total 33,770 2,490 38,770 10,470 5,950 * This analysis assumed the Atlantic BRT will replace Metro routes 762 and 260 in the Maximum scenario. 3-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

35 Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction To estimate the number of personal vehicles removed from area roadways, we apply an auto occupancy factor to estimates and forecasts of transit trips that would otherwise have traveled by car or truck. Table 3.6 indicates estimated personal vehicle trip reductions due to transit service under existing conditions, and forecasts of personal vehicle trip reductions in the 2035 No Build and 2035 Maximum scenarios. Table 3.6 Weekday Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction Mode Existing 2035 No Build 2035 Maximum Change No Build Maximum Commuter & Intercity Rail 4,350 6,160 13,470 7,310 Light Rail 40,150 44,170 52,300 8,130 Rapid & Express Bus 6,740 7,410 7, Local & Other Bus 74,640 82,100 87,540 5,430 Total 125, , ,100 21,260 The difference in personal vehicle trips from 2035 No Build to 2035 Maximum represents the forecasted reduction in roadway traffic that can be attributed to the full slate of 2035 Maximum scenario improvements. An estimated total of 161,100 personal vehicle trips are reduced under 2035 Maximum conditions, a reduction of 21,260 daily trips. Planned and proposed light rail, commuter and intercity rail services account for the largest share of personal vehicle trip reductions compared to No Build conditions. Light-rail transit service increases account for 38 percent of reductions in personal vehicle trips attributable to service enhancements, followed by intercity and commuter rail (34 percent), local and other buses (26 percent) and express/ rapid buses (2 percent). Eco Rapid accounts for the largest single reduction in daily personal vehicle trips compared to 2035 No Build (4,250), followed by high-speed rail (4,090) and the Metro Gold Line extension (3,120). The reduction in personal vehicle travel associated with Maximum scenario improvements (21,260 daily vehicle trips) constitutes less than one-half of 1 percent of the 5.8 million forecasted daily vehicle trips in the Gateway Cities by The total effect of all existing and proposed changes to the transit 10 Forecasts of total vehicle travel in the Gateway Cities developed by Iteris, Inc. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-9

36 network under Maximum conditions (161,100 daily vehicle trips) amounts to 2.8 percent of forecasted daily vehicle trips in the Gateway Cities. Due to the sketch-level nature of this assessment, we cannot reliably estimate the portion of personal vehicle trip reductions attributed to freeways versus arterial highways, truck versus auto trips, and through trips versus trips within the Gateway Cities. Reliable estimates for such comparisons would require travel demand modeling and further analysis, which will be conducted as part of the Strategic Transportation Plan, due in However, we can assume that longerdistance commuter and high-speed rail trips are more likely to divert personal vehicle travel from freeways; whereas, local and other bus systems are more likely to divert personal vehicle trips from arterials and other roadways. 3.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS This analysis provides a sketch-level forecast of the potential ridership and multimodal effects of planned and proposed subregional transit investments. The study concludes the following: ridership growth may not keep pace with aggressive capacity expansion. The enhancements in the Maximum scenario provide a 69-percent increase in peak-hour seated transit capacity within the Gateway Cities compared to existing conditions. This capacity increase yields a 39- percent increase in ridership, 11 percent of which can be explained by socioeconomic growth. Planners often refer to such results as indicating an inelastic relationship. Newer and faster transit options attract current local bus passengers. New light-rail and bus rapid transit services offer more reliable, direct access for current bus users, which can attract passengers of existing local bus routes. As passengers shift from bus to these new types of transit, only modest ridership gains on local buses result, despite significant capacity improvements. Some transit service providers have noted that increasing bus service without fixed-rail enhancements might boost ridership modestly, while avoiding large capital and operating costs. Some new transit users formerly used personal vehicles. The transit expansions assumed in the Maximum scenario draw about 43 percent of their new ridership from prior bus users; about 43 percent from personal vehicle users; 12 percent from pedestrians and bicyclists; and about 7 percent are new travelers entirely. Maximum slightly reduces personal vehicle travel. While expanding transit options is expected to reduce personal vehicle travel in the Gateway Cities, the reduction attributable to expanded Maximum services amounts to less than one-half percent of total forecasted vehicle travel in the subregion in Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

37 Limitations and Areas for Further Study This analysis describes future conditions based on readily available data, trends, and planning factors. The analysis assumes consistent socioeconomic growth based on prior trends, and that passengers respond similarly to capacity changes on each local bus line. Actual passenger behavior may differ from route to route depending on many specific factors beyond the scope of this analysis. Therefore, this analysis should be considered a general overview of regional trends rather than actionable data on any one transit line. Future analysis conducted as part of the Gateway Cities Strategic Transportation Plan will apply a new multiresolution model to forecast transit effects and the interaction between travel modes. Those more rigorous forecasts may differ from these sketch-level forecasts. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-11

38 A. Summary of Ridership, Modal Diversion, and Personal Vehicle Trip Reduction Table A.1 presents a summary of Gateway Cities forecasts of ridership, diversion to transit from other modes, and reduction in personal vehicle trips. For more information, see Section 2.0 of this report. A-1

39 Appendix Table A.1 Summary of Ridership, Diversion and Vehicle Reduction (2013 to 2035) Project Commuter & Intercity Rail Existing Peak-Hour Seated Capacity Weekday Ridership in Gateway Cities a Diversion: Prior Mode for All New Ridership Personal Vehicle Trips Removed 2035 Maximum 2035 Max Utilization Existing 2035 No Build 2035 Maximum Change No Build Max Amtrak Pacific Surfliner % 3,040 4,380 5,390 1, ,750 2,590 3, Metrolink 2,900 3,100 89% 4,620 6,350 11,010 4,660 4, ,600 3,570 6,190 2,620 High Speed Rail (Phase 1 Blended) % 9,410 9,410 6,540 2, ,090 4,090 Subtotal 3,330 4,400 74% 7,660 10,730 25,810 15,080 11,690 2, ,350 6,160 13,470 7,310 Light Rail Eco Rapid 2,740 56% 28,330 28,330 6,800 17,560 2,690 1,270 4,250 4,250 Metro Blue Line 1,970 2, % 76,050 83,650 87,420 3, , ,710 32,680 33, Metro Green Line 1,050 1, % 26,750 29,420 30,750 1, ,450 11,490 11, Metro Gold Line 1, % 20,800 20,800 4,990 12,900 1, ,120 3,120 Subtotal 3,020 8, % 102, , ,300 54,210 13,010 33,620 5,150 2,440 40,150 44,170 52,300 8,130 Rapid and Express Buses Atlantic Boulevard BRT b % 8,310 8,310 2,000 5, ,250 1,250 Metro Route % 5,120 5,630 5,630 2,000 2,200 2,200 - All other Metro Rapid/Express Routes b % 12,130 13,340 11,120 (2,220) 4,740 5,210 4,340 (870) Subtotal % 17,250 18,970 25,060 6,090 2,000 5, ,740 7,410 7, Local and Other Buses Metro Route % 10,259 11,285 9,978 (1,307) 4,007 4,408 3,898 (510) Long Beach Route % 9,484 10,432 10,204 (229) 3,705 4,075 3,986 (89) Montebello Bus Lines 764 1,220 33% 16,637 18,301 19,903 1,602 1, ,499 7,149 7, Norwalk % 8,500 9,350 10, ,320 3,652 3, LADOT DASH % 7,082 7,790 8, ,766 3,043 3, All Other Metro Local and Shuttle b 1,068 1,238 80% 46,549 51,204 48,545 (2,659) 18,183 20,002 18,963 (1,039) All Other Long Beach 2,852 4,868 40% 81,567 89,724 94,960 5,237 3,273 1, ,862 35,048 37,094 2,046 All Other Small Operators 1,090 1,085 26% 10,998 12,098 21,863 9,765 6,103 2,441 1,221 4,296 4,726 8,540 3,814 Subtotal 6,739 9,991 42% 191, , ,094 13,910 11,316 4,526 2,263 74,639 82,103 87,537 5,434 Total 13,847 23, , , ,260 89,310 38,016 2,490 38,770 10,467 5, , , ,100 21,255 a Daily weekday; Includes pass-through trips. b Future Build values represent Atlantic Blvd rapid transit replacing existing MTA Routes 260 and 762. Personal Vehicle Air Other Walk Bike Induced Trips Existing 2035 No Build 2035 Maximum Change No Build Max Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-3

40 B. Data Sources This appendix summarizes the data sources used to develop the database underlying the Maximum Assessment. The following tables describe the sources compiled as part of the Gateway Cities Assessment. Table B.1 lists documents referenced in development of the transit assessment; Table B.2 lists the agencies interviewed to develop information for the transit assessment; and Table B.3 lists those agencies that were contacted, but did not respond. Table B.1 Prior Studies Reviewed I-710 Major Corridor Study I-710 EIR/EIS (Various Studies): 2008 SCAG RTP Traffic Model Railroad Goods Movement Study Alternative Goods Movement Technology Study Multimodal Review I-710 Geometric Studies at the SR 91 Freeway I-605/SR 91/I- 405 Hot Spots Feasibility Study Gateway Cities Strategic Transportation Plan Phase I (prepared by Infraconsult, 2012) SR 91/I-605/I-405 Project Final Multimodal Analysis Report Freeway Congestion Analysis Report Arterial Intersection Congestion Analysis Report Feasibility Report I-5 EIR/EIS (SR 91 to I-605) Carminita Road, Alondra Boulevard, Imperial Highway, Rosecrans Avenue, Valley View Avenue, and Florence Avenue I-5 EIR/EIS (I-605 to I-710) Metro Eastside Corridor Phase 2 SR 60 Carpool Addition Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy Orange and Los Angeles Intercounty Transportation Study Orangeline Development Authority (OLDA) Studies B-1

41 Appendix Table B.1 Prior Studies Reviewed (continued) ITS Integration Plan for Goods Movement SR 91 Lane Additions in Orange County (OCTA) SR 91 Toll Lane Potential (OCTA) I-605/I-405/SR 22 Carpool Lane Connector Ramps (OCTA) Tierra Luna EIR Air Quality Plans I-710 EIR/EIS AQ/HRA GCCOG AQAP SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) SCAG 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) 2012 California State Rail Plan 2012 California High-Speed Rail Revised Business Plan 2012 LOSSAN Strategic Implementation Plan Table B.2 Agencies Interviewed to Develop the Assessment Bell Gardens Bellflower Bus City of Cerritos Cerritos on Wheels 11 Compton Renaissance System Cudahy Area Rapid East Los Angeles Shuttle Long Beach Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Paramount Easy Rider Sunshine Shuttle 11 The City of Cerritos provided information on Cerritos on Wheels ridership and service for the bidirectional loop they operate. Due to the relatively low ridership and limited service area, the quantitative data was not included in the database. The route was considered in overall analysis of transit needs in Gateway Cities. B-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

42 Appendix Table B.3 Agencies that Did Not Respond to Request for Comment City of Bell Huntington Park Local Bus Lynwood Breeze Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-3

43 C. Park-and-Ride Database This appendix includes a supplementary summary of the park-and-ride database from the 2013 Gateway Cities Park-and-Ride Assessment. The Park-and-Ride Assessment involved four scenarios: 1. Existing. Summary of existing conditions as of 2011; No Build. A future scenario in which no park-and-ride lots are constructed; Build. A future scenario in which planned park-and-ride lot expansions are built but demand is limited by available capacity; and Unconstrained. Each section has several data fields described below. Each future scenario consists of two potential levels of transit: 1. Low assumes transit demand consistent with Maximum Assessment s 2035 No Build scenario; and 2. High assumes demand for rail transit consistent with the 2035 Maximum scenario. The database is summarized in Table C.1. C-1