HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 OCTA'S GO LOCAL PROGRAM 06-03-08Agenda Item
Reviewed:
AGENDA REPORT City Manager
�
Finance Director
MEETING DATE: JUNE 3, 2008
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
12
NIA
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINAL REPORT FOR CITY -INITIATED TRANSIT
EXTENSIONS TO METROLINK (THE "GO LOCAL STEP 1" PROGRAM) AND
AUTHORIZATION TO PURSUE THE "GO LOCAL STEP 2" PROGRAM
SUMMARY
In order to address future Metrolink service expansion, the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) developed a program known as "GO LOCAL" to plan and implement City -initiated transit
extension to OCTA's Metrolink Commuter Rail Line. Step 1 of the "GO LOCAL" Program provided
each of the 34 cities in Orange County a $100,000 grant to study possible extensions to the
Metrolink line. The City of Tustin, through Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-0799 with OCTA,
accepted the grant funds to develop project concepts to enhance transit service to the Tustin
Metrolink Station. A final report containing recommendations to expand existing transit service and
improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the Tustin Metrolink Station has been prepared for City
Council review and approval. Once approved by the City Council, these recommendations will be
submitted to OCTA for participation in Step 2 of the "GO LOCAL" Program. Step 2 is a process
where the participating cities will compete for additional funding to further develop the most
promising projects:
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the final report for the "GO LOCAL Step 1" Program
and authorize submittal of the final report to OCTA for consideration under the "GO LOCAL Step 2"
competitive process.
FISCAL IMPACT
A local funding match of ten percent, up to a maximum of $100,000, is required under the "GO
LOCAL Step 2" Program. It is anticipated that the detailed planning and alternative analysis needed
to determine a defined local shuttle system between the Metrolink Station and other Tustin locations
could be completed for $75,000. The City's share of $7,500 would be budgeted in the Public Works
Department/Engineering Services FY08/09 Operating Budget.
BACKGROUND
The 'GO LOCAL" Program was established by OCTA in 2006 to implement a four step process to
plan and implement City -initiated transit extensions to the OCTA Metrolink Commuter Rail Line. The
four step process consists of the following:
• Step 1: $100,000 grants for initial needs assessment for interested cities to develop their
own future transit vision.
• Step 2: Detailed planning and alternatives analysis of the concepts emerging from Step One
for interested cities, with projects qualifying through a competitive process.
Approval of Final Report for City -Initiated Transit Extensions to Metrolink (the "GO LOCAL Step 1"
Program) and Authorization to Pursue the "GO LOCAL Step 2" Program
June 3, 2008
Page 2
Step 3: Project development/implementation (preliminary engineering through construction)
of those projects, which qualify through a competitive process for continued funding.
• Step 4: Additional work on the Metrolink corridor to transform stations into transportation
centers.
It should be noted that a recommendation from OCTA to advance a "GO LOCAL Step 1" project
proposal into Step 2 denotes that the concept has merits for further study; however, it does not imply
approval of a specific project.
The "GO LOCAL" Program is funded through Measure M. To date, the cities of Anaheim and the
joint Santa Ana and Garden Grove proposal have each received $5.9 million to move forward with
Step 2.
DISCUSSION
The "GO LOCAL Step 1" Study developed five recommendations to enhance transit service
along with pedestrian and bicycle access to Tustin's Metrolink Station. The Study analyzed
existing and future conditions at the station with particular focus on improving access to the
station for Tustin residents and businesses.
Recommendation Number 1 is to implement a local shuttle connecting the Metrolink Station
to City Hall and other downtown locations. Traveling to City Hall from the station requires
several transfers and extensive walking between stops. As a result, a trip that takes 10
minutes by car could require an hour when transit is used. Additionally, future transit routes
planned for the station will improve access to the City of Irvine (i -shuttle) and other areas of
Orange County (Edinger Avenue BRT). It is anticipated that implementing a local shuttle
with 6 buses providing 20-30 minute service frequencies during weekday peak hours would
require a capital investment from $1.2 to $1.6 million, with annual operating costs of
$300,000 to $600,000. Given the number of employees and residents proximity to the site,
daily boardings could be in the 400-600 range.
Recommendation Number 2 is to provide additional pedestrian connectivity to areas north of
the station. This recommendation would involve removing the existing BNSF spur line and
constructing a lighted, paved pedestrian walkway to Dow Avenue. The City has been
informed by OCTA that OCTA may acquire the spur line right-of-way from BNSF and
construct the walkway in conjunction with the construction of the future parking structure. It
is estimated that right-of-way acquisition, engineering, and construction could be completed
for $500,000.
Approval of Final Report for City-Initiated Transit Extensions to Metrolink (the "GO LOCAL Step 1"
Program) and Authorization to Pursue the "GO LOCAL Step 2" Program
June 3, 2008
Page 3
Recommendation Number 3 is to provide transit service to the Legacy Project. While some
of the residential units are within the '/z mile radius typically considered ideal for walk access
to fixed guide way or rail transit, all of the non-residential development is outside of the '/2
mile walkshed. It is anticipated that 2-3 shuttles with 20-30 minute service frequencies
could be provided for a capital cost of $400,000 - $600,000 with annual operating costs of
$100,000 to $300,000. A funding agreement with the Master Developer of the Legacy
Project could assist in alleviating some of the implementing costs.
Recommendation Number 4 is to enhance the pedestrian connectivity from the Legacy
Project across Edinger from the East Connector. These enhancements could include
textured concrete, laddered crosswalk striping and additional signing. The improvements
could be done in conjunction with roadway construction for under $25,000.
Recommendation Number 5 would provide a connection from the station easterly along the
tracks to the Peters Canyon Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail. Because of the need for a bridge, the
implementation of this recommendation could cost as much as $750,000.
During the Step 2 Phase of the "GO LOCAL" Program, cities will compete for additional
funding to further develop the most promising projects. Proposed projects will be judged
against well-defined and well known criteria, such as project readiness (with priority given to
projects that can be implemented with the first 5 years of renewed Measure M), local
funding commitments, regional as well as local benefits, ability to attract other partners, etc.
With these criteria in place, Recommendation Number 1 would be the most competitive
recommendation for Step 2 funding. A scope of services that would meet the requirements
of the Step 2 Program to develop a local shuttle that could be implemented in the future
through Step 3 funding of the "GO LOCAL" Program is attached. The proposed scope of
work includes services that will identify alternatives, develop ridership forecasts, develop an
operating plan and determine revenue sources. The proposal would serve as the City's
funding request for inclusion in the Step 2 process and would involve the City providing a
10% local match of $7,500 of the total $75,000. It is recommended that the City Council
approve the "GO LOCAL Step 1" report and authorize its submittal to OCTA for
consideration in "GO LOCAL Step 2" Program, along with a funding request of $75,000.
Tim D. Serlet Dana R. Kasdan
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Engineering Services Manager
Attachment: "GO LOCAL Step 1" final report
"GO LOCAL Step 2" proposal
S:\City Council Items\2008 Council Items\Approval of GO LOCAL Step 1 Final Report 2.docx
f�
Ft iii: &�LLI:S
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
May 28, 2008
Terry Lutz
Principal Engineer -Public Works Engineering
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: Scope of Services for OCTA Go Local -Step 2 Support (Ridership and Route
Planning)
Dear Mr. Lutz:
Fehr & Peers is pleased to submit this scope of services to implement Recommendation #1 from
our previously prepared OCTA Go Local Step 1 Study. This recommendation identified the need
to implement additional local bus service from the Metrolink Station into the Downtown Tustin
area. We identified that this route would be needed given the gaps in existing OCTA bus service
and the resulting limited transit access from the City of Tustin to the Tustin Metrolink station.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1— Review Data from Step I Go Local Study
Our initial work on this effort will include a review of the Step 1 Go Local Study to verify that none
of the information presented in the report has been changed. For example, we will determine
whether any of the existing OCTA bus routes have been updated or there is new employment
and population data. It is our expectation that there would be little or no change in the information
presented in our previous report that would substantially affect the analysis.
Task 2- Verify Previous Route Recommendation
Concurrent with Task 1, we will meet with the City of Tustin to verify the route identified in the
Step 1 Go Local Study. During this meeting, we will also discuss any potential alternatives which
would include additional service within Old Town Tustin and minor modifications to the route to
add other employment and population centers.
Task 3- Identify Potential Alternatives
During this analysis, we will consider up to three alternative routing concepts. We anticipate that
these route concepts will serve as minor variations from the route identified in the Step 1 Go
Local Study. At the end of this task, we will identify one route for more detailed analysis.
Task 4 — Develop Ridership Forecasts
In this task, we will develop detailed ridership forecasts for the preferred transit route by
considering the location of major employment and residential centers. Specific items we will
perform during this task would include:
■ Meeting with major employers along the corridor to determine their interest in this service
15707 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 155 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 859-3200 Fax (949) 859-3209
www.fehrandpeers.com
Terry Lutz
May 27, 2008
Page 2 of 3
F�
I M A N S III II IA I' I,N LUN SUI IAN II
■ Conducting surveys of employees to determine their interest and willingness to use this
service. These surveys will also note service characteristics and preferences that might
encourage usage. For example, we may ask survey respondents about their minimum
level of service frequency (15 minutes, 30 minutes), which would inform the Operating
Plan developed in Task 6.
■ Reviewing additional sources of land use data to verify the number of households and
employees located along this route
• Obtaining agreements with major employers to encourage the use of this route through
the provision of transit passes and other incentives to maximize the usage of this route.
Task 5 — Identify Stop Locations
Using the information we developed in Tasks 2-4, we will identify appropriate stop locations. For
each stop location, we will prepare approximate ridership estimates based on the overall ridership
estimates identified in Task 4.
Task 6 — Develop Detailed Operating Plan
Using the data from Task 1 through 5, we will develop a detailed operations plan which will
include the exact route for the transit service, the stop locations, hours of operations, and vehicle
headway. We anticipate that this vehicle headway will reflect both peak and off-peak periods of
operations. We will also consider the need for weekend service in addition to weekday service.
Task 7 — Identify Appropriate Technology
We will also recommend an appropriate technology for this route by evaluating which kinds of
transit vehicles are currently being used by OCTA and which vehicles might likely be used by
OCTA in the future. To the extent possible, we will recommend the use of alternative fuel
vehicles to reduce fuel costs and emissions.
Task 8- Develop Capital and Operating Costs
We will identify capital and operating costs for the first five years following the implementation of
this service. Capital costs will include the costs of the buses while operating expenses will
consider labor, bus maintenance, and other factors typically applied.
Task 9 — Determine Revenue Sources
Concurrent with Task 8, we will also identify potential revenue sources which could include fares
from riders and supplementary funding from major employers located along the route. We will
also consult with the City of Tustin to determine if there are any available funding sources which
the City could use to implement this service.
Task 10- Identify Project Phasing
We will also consider the applicability of phased implementation of this service. For example, it
may be possible to implement a limited form of this service in the short term by reorienting an
existing OCTA bus line (Route 75) that currently serves other areas of the City of Tustin.
Task 11— Documentation
We will summarize the results of Task 1-10 in a Draft Report. We will submit this report initially to
the City of Tustin for their review and comment and update the report as necessary.
Terry Lutz
May 27, 2008 . r
Page 3of3 Fii!: & I'[CI,,,
I -N III iA IIII 111-I1AIII
Task 12- Meetings & Coordination with OCTA
For scoping purposes, we are assuming that there would be 10 meetings associated with this
project. These meetings would include:
■ Kick-off meeting with City of Tustin
■ Two (2) meetings with OCTA to discuss this study and also to obtain any additional data
needed
■ Three (3) meetings with property owners and major employers to discuss potential use of
the route
■ Four (4) other meetings with the City of Tustin or other parties as needed
COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE
Fehr & Peers will prepare this study on a time and materials basis to a maximum fee of $75,000,
which will be billed on a percent complete basis. Invoices will be submitted monthly for services
rendered and are due and payable upon receipt. The draft traffic impact study can be completed
within 10 weeks following the receipt of written authorization to proceed.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions about this scope
of services, please call Chris Gray in the Fehr & Peers Irvine office at 949.859.3200 or by e-mail
at c.gray@fehrandpeers.com.
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS
Christopher J. Gray, AICP
Associate
Steven J. Brown, P.E.
Principal
Final Report
TuSTIN METROLINK STATION
OCTA GO LOCAL STEP 1 STUDY
Fehr & Peers
15707 Rockfield Blvd.
Suite 155
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 859-3200
Fax (949) 859-3209
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2006, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) initiated a transit planning effort called the
OCTA Go Local Program. The purpose of the Go Local Program is to identify transportation improvements
which would facilitate the use of the regional Metrolink System. The City of Tustin elected to focus their Go
Local efforts on the Tustin Metrolink station. This study outlines existing conditions at the station and
provides recommendations related to improvements at the Metrolink station. These recommendations
include several items that are potential candidates for future funding under later phases of the OCTA Go
Local Program.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Our study evaluated existing and future conditions at the Tustin Metrolink Station considering transit,
pedestrians, vehicular access, and parking. Some key findings included:
■ The Tustin Metrolink Station is a key component of the regional transit system. The station is located
mid -way between the heavily used Irvine and Santa Ana Metrolink stations. Station patrons are drawn
from areas throughout Southern California with many riders beginning or ending their trips in cities
outside of Tustin.
■ Major destinations which can be accessed from the station include the John Wayne Airport, the Irvine
Business Center (IBC), the Tustin Market Place, and other locations within the cities of Irvine and Tustin.
■ Transit access to/from Irvine is good and is expected to improve with the addition of the Irvine Shuttle.
There are several existing OCTA bus routes which provide direct access into the City of Irvine.
■ Transit connectivity between the City of Tustin and the Tustin Metrolink station could be improved. Travel
to locations within the City such as City Hall can require several hours with multiple transfers. The
existing OCTA transit system provides limited direct access to the City of Tustin. Even with proposed
service improvements, transit access into the City of Tustin will remain inadequate.
■ Existing pedestrian access to the station is adequate but could be improved. A significant number of
transit patrons access the station from the north via an unauthorized access. Additionally, there are
several existing and proposed recreational trails which could be connected to the station.
■ A major development, the Tustin Legacy Project, is currently under construction south of the station.
While this development has adequate vehicular and pedestrian access, there is limited transit access to
this project.
f? Page 1
F EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our review of the existing and future conditions at the station, we developed several
recommendations to improve access to the station, with a particular focus on improving access to the station
by Tustin residents.
Recommendation #1- Provide a Local Shuttle Connecting the Metrolink Station to City Hall and Other
Locations in Downtown Tustin.
There are major destinations within the City of Tustin which have limited connectivity to the Tustin
Metrolink Station. This shuttle would connect the Metrolink Station to City Hall and Downtown Tustin.
We anticipate that 2-4 buses operating on 20-30 minute peak headways could provide sufficient
service. This service would be new service or could replace several existing OCTA routes which either
have limited ridership (Line 75) or are duplicated by new service proposed for the study area (Line
470/471).
Recommendation #2- Provide Additional Pedestrian Connectivity to Areas North of the Station
Under this proposal, an additional path would be constructed north of the Metrolink Station to facilitate
pedestrian access. This facility would provide access for station patrons who currently access the
station without an authorized access route.
Recommendation #3- Provide Transit Connection to the Tustin Legacy Project
The Tustin Legacy Project will have sufficient population and employment to justify transit service. This
service would connect major locations within the Legacy Project to the Metrolink Station. The existing
circulation plan for the Legacy Project already includes physical accommodations for transit via bus
stops and bus pullouts. We would recommend this improvement only be implemented if the Legacy
Project provides some level of continuing support or assistance.
Recommendation #4- Enhance Pedestrian Connection to the Tustin Legacy Project
As noted previously, the Tustin Legacy Project is a large development which will be built south of the
Metrolink station. A key component of the Legacy Project is a central trail system which extends
through the project. To facilitate pedestrian access to the station, we would recommend the addition of
pedestrian enhancements where this trail terminates at Edinger Avenue near the station. These
enhancements would include textured and colored pavement, additional crosswalk striping, and
signage directing pedestrians to the station. It is anticipated that these enhancements will encourage
pedestrian access to the station from the Legacy Project.
Recommendation #5- Provide Connection to the Peters Canyon Regional Bike Trail
One of the major bicycle trails in Orange County is the Peters Canyon trail. Currently, this trail passes
by the station but lacks a direct connection. Within the study area, the trail travels south generally
paralleling Jamboree Road until it reaches the rail tracks east of the station. From there, it travels east
along the tracks until it reaches Harvard Avenue, where the trail continues south. We recommend the
construction of a pathway from the station to the east to connect with the portion of the trail which
f? Page 2
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
extends along the tracks. Constructing this connection would require a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
the existing drainage canal east of Jamboree Road.
REVIEW OF OTHER ITEMS NOT RELATED TO OCTA GO LOCAL PROGRAM
In addition to the recommendations identified above, City staff asked us to analyze other items pertaining to
either station operations or additional transit within the City of Tustin, which are not directly related to the
OCTA Go Local Program. Many of these items relate to operation and access of the station during
construction of a future parking garage. This review concluded the following:
■ We determined that the size of the proposed parking garage is adequate, based on ridership
estimates that we developed.
■ It would be feasible to provide a shuttle within the Old Town Tustin area, if an appropriate funding
source can be identified.
■ It would not be feasible to provide off-site parking for the station during construction of the garage,
unless this parking is provided directly adjacent to the site.
■ It is possible that the combination of existing and proposed transit at the station could result in
inadequate bus bays since there are currently only two at the station. We would therefore
recommend that the City review the design of the parking garage to ensure that there would be
sufficient bus bays. We anticipate that as many as 5 buses or other transit vehicles in the future
might need to access the station simultaneously.
■ We would recommend that the City maintain transit and pedestrian access during construction of the
garage.
■ We would also recommend that the City pursue a direct connection from the adjacent Jamboree
Road southbound connector roadway into the parking garage.
f? Page 3
F EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
�oA
ILr'
' E ]
rz
t'
N
.0
C
a
a
a
C
iC
T
U
.�d
■C
`�
yi
T
C
C
z
t
v
ti
W
. V
LLJ
u)
rz
!a
i F-
■ /R
1 Z
Cl)
I
W
■ co
■
■ Cl)
■ Z
Ip
1 F-
�a
• Z
W
1 �
�O
.v
LU
oC
J
a
V
0
O
C)
1
T
'�//1�
V+
W
W
1=
_V
INTRODUCTION
In 2006, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) initiated a transit planning effort called the
OCTA Go Local Program. Under this Go Local Program, all of the incorporated cities within Orange County
were provided with a grant of $100,000 to initiate transit planning efforts. The purpose of this initial grant was
to develop concepts (Step One) which would be subject to further refinement and implementation (Step Two).
Only a portion of the recommendations identified in the various Step One studies can be funded in Step Two,
given the finite amount of funds available under Measure M.
TUSTIN METROLINK
The City of Tustin elected to focus their Go Local efforts on the Tustin Metrolink station. This station is
located between the Irvine and Santa Ana stations along the Orange County Metrolink line at 2795 Edinger
Avenue. Currently, there are 36 northbound and southbound trains which stop at this facility on the weekdays
when trains begin accessing the station at 4:30 AM on and with service continuing until 7:30 PM. On the
weekends, service begins at 7:00 AM and continues until 10:00 PM with 14 trains (both northbound and
southbound) accessing the station.
The location of this facility is provided on Figure 1. Regional access to this facility occurs from Jamboree
Road which connects to Edinger Avenue. Local access to the station is provided through two driveways
along Edinger Avenue. Land uses around the station currently include several automotive servicing
establishments (oil change, gas station, etc), a veterinary center, a convenience store, and a fast food
restaurant.
This facility currently provides an at -grade parking lot with 317 parking spaces. The existing at -grade parking
lot will be replaced by a parking structure, with construction anticipated to begin in 2010.
STUDY ORGANIZATION
This study considers both existing and future conditions at the Tustin Metrolink Station and addresses the
following items:
■ Existing Transportation Policies, Plans, and Services (Chapter 3)
■ Existing OCTA Bus Routes (Chapter 4)
■ Ridership Survey (Chapter 5)
■ Future Transit Improvements (Chapter 6)
■ Existing and Future Bicycle/Pedestrian Connectivity (Chapter 7)
■ Key Findings of Our Review of Existing and Future Conditions (Chapter 8)
■ Station Area Enhancements under OCTA Go Local Program (Chapter 9).
■ Additional recommendations pertaining to other planning issues not related to the OCTA Go Local
Program (Chapter 10).
f? Page 5
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
`
n
P �
3
4 �
:
I°I
W�
• T
'* _..� .� w.. �,. • � a.�: °•� f ,' .��Y.n¢ a:'7 � � • -,w, 'fir , ... �. __� . ' �pe� _
°
..�`Y_
I PL
kv
,
L
' � E
• i X
, p tic
., ' . , �... •+iia' � k - agt, n � � �, �`
'�_ .. � 4. :�. a T w��� ,�1 T'. � �k �..'�4�`� ,�' 4 r $ � ,5' �. �1h'.`.w � � �' � � ���„�, w9�-� � � . ,.. � �`.•
,
,
�$ �? i�W y `. •e _# ivf,�.sSeifE'C; ',, - y' - aY6.. a� TFa'4.,:.. ■ s.. 4.. J Y ..i'k.. S�¢
n �. ark _ �,,� , � +�;� a� `� - x'`•4,.`.4- - E � - � s � a A .� _ °.. �
w_
s ^
r. .:
9
k!�` � � ���°, i° '. � $ `,� �, �„«-fir* •�
`�c�a "° � � � i^ Y r' i`t',+`"+siy'''�` •# k �' *3: � �k �.�s �*,i<,P "C'; a i
•
•
3 x
Tom, • _, � �* � � _ -" F �
r.
e
fir- e. �-• a u. � _ - : � # "^
a
s
T 41
_
sit
lot
A" 4jP
• , r
. ill �� -1
M 7■ ''f
,
-
.
- .� �
40
it
' Yui r..y °"�. �_ � - ' +� � . w'F � '':, • t � �
�q!'
' "` + 9► .r �dv
.r .. �- -� _ _ -' �, .'���' 'E �� � ill•
■C
C
a(IR
`C%
i
a
C
■c
z
C%U
i
t
G
t
v
AM
EVALUATION CRITERIA
As noted above, OCTA will be using the recommendations from various Step One studies to identify further
improvements that will be selected through a competitive process. OCTA staff has indicated that the
following evaluation criteria will be used to differentiate between the various proposals:
1. Local jurisdiction funding commitments- Includes discussion of local funding commitments allocated
to these improvements.
2. Proven ability to attract other financial partners- Would include information regarding funding
commitments from other parities including either existing funding commitments or an action plan to
obtain such funding commitments. This evaluation criteria would also address rideshare
commitments from employers along the route.
3. Proximity to jobs and population centers- This evaluation criteria addresses the relationship between
nearby employees and residents to increase access to Metrolink.
4. Regional benefits- This criteria discusses relationship of the proposed improvements to the larger
region. It includes a discussion of cities served by the proposed project and also existing and planned
activity centers accessed by proposed improvements.
5. Ease and simplicity of connections- This criteria addressed items such as the new transit
connections, the ease of access from the Metrolink platform to boarding location, and the general
level of connectivity to the new service.
6. Cost-effectiveness- This criteria considers items such as cost per rider, cost per passenger mile, and
other relevant cost items.
7. Traffic congestion relief- Items addressed under this criteria would include estimates of new transit
riders and any reduction in daily VMT traveled resulting from this new ridership.
8. Right-of-way availability- This criteria would address items including the need to acquire new right of
way or proof that sufficient right of way is available.
9. Sound long-term operating plan- This criteria would include discussion of the 5+ operating plan,
projected farebox recovery, and a qualitative assessment of the proposed funding sources.
10. Compatible and approved land use- Under this criteria, we would discuss the general transit
supportiveness of the land use served by the proposed project and also any letters of support related
to any proposed improvements.
11. Project readiness- This criteria addresses the ability of the project to be implemented within 5 years.
12. Safe and modern technology_- Under this criteria, we would address a qualitative assessment of the
safety and reliability of the proposed technology.
For each of the recommendations identified in Chapter 10, we have identified how the project relates to the
evaluation criteria and scored each recommendation.
f? Page 7
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PLANS
This chapter reviews the applicable existing transportation policies and plans.
TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Tustin Circulation Element is part of the Tustin General Plan. The purpose of the Circulation Element is
to provide a safe, efficient, and adequate circulation system for the City. The Circulation Element contains
goals and policies designed to improve overall circulation in Tustin and to address circulation issues that
concern the City.
The Circulation element addresses needs for new transit facilities. For example, the Circulation element
states that in order to maximize the use of public transit, new development should be designed to
accommodate bus stops. It also suggests there is a need for Park -and -Ride facilities to enhance bus
ridership for non -local trips.
Many of the Circulation Element goals and policies are supportive of transit, including:
■ Providing a street system that meets the needs of residents and facilitating efficient movement of
people throughout the City (p. 10)
o Policy 1.11 - Encourage new development which facilitates transit services provides for
vehicular circulation and minimizes vehicle miles traveled
■ TSM and TDM strategies (p. 13)
o Policy 4.3 - Encourage the implementation of employer TDM requirements and participate in
regional efforts to implement TDM requirements
o Policy 4.4 - Require that proposals for major new residential developments include
submission of a TDM plan to the City including monitoring and enforcement provisions
o Policy 4.5 - Encourage the development of additional regional public transportation services
and support facilities
■ Public transit (p. 13-14)
o GOAL 5 - Support development of a public transportation system that provides mobility to all
City inhabitants and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile
travel
o Policy 5.1 - Support the efforts of the appropriate transportation agencies to provide
additional local and express bus service to the Tustin community
o Policy 5.2 - Require new development to fund transit facilities such as bus shelters and
turnouts where deemed necessary to meet public needs arising in conjunction with
development
o Policy 5.3 - Ensure accessibility of public transportation for elderly and disabled persons
consistent with City responsibilities for accessibility
f? Page 8
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
o Policy 5.4 - Encourage employers to reduce vehicular trips by offering employee incentives
such as subsidized bus passes and vanpool programs
o Policy 5.5 - Promote new development that is designed in a manner which facilitates
provision or expansion of transit service and provides non -automobile circulation within the
development
o Policy 5.6 - Encourage developers to work with agencies providing transit service with the
objective of maximizing the potential for transit use by residents and/or employees
o Policy 5.7 - Promote the provision of safe transit stops and shelters
■ Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (p. 14-15)
o GOAL 6 - Increase the use of non -motorized modes of transportation
o Policy 6.1 - Promote the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists by adhering to uniform standards
and practices
o Policy 6.2 - Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide
pedestrian walkways between developments schools and public facilities
o Policy 6.3 - Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled
o Policy 6.12 - Provide for a vehicular circulation system that encourages bicycle transportation
and pedestrian circulation
o Policy 6.13 - Maintain a City of Tustin Bikeway Plan that complements and is coordinated
with the County Plan as well as neighborhood jurisdictions
o Policy 6.14 - Require new development to dedicate land and fund improvement of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities where deemed necessary to meet public needs arising in conjunction
with development
TUSTI N LEGACY
The Tustin Legacy project is a large mixed-use development located on the site of a former Marine Corps Air
Station. Components of the project include:
■ 4,600 homes
■ 10 million square feet of non-residential space including office and retail uses
■ 275 acres of parks
■ 2 -mile long linear park
Figure 2 provides an illustrative graphic for the project. The land use plan for the site concentrates most of
the non-residential development south of the Metrolink Station along Barranca Parkway. One issue related to
the site plan is that most of the density associated with the site (including both residential and commercial) is
concentrated to the south of the site closer to Barranca Parkway and Red Hill Avenue.
f? Page 9
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
.tl
N
LYON
Al GO
I
ELEM . .
SCHOOL
ComMUNI
PARK
0
EDUCATION
DISTRICT
4
E I
Y
1I
1
-" w crry
OF-TusTIN - iKIL
M PROPERTY:WARNE AVENUE—' -I
MDR STATION ' I
I! I TUSTIN f=I'EL0G
I'
14HDR
LDRi 1 .
RIE� a
�pp y�I
R
H00 LDR
ADR
' I LAINMKA
� I
LD pp■`
MDR MDR
MDR
nW IM11I W
f X , s i LENNAR
LDLDa 1 J i
of � fi A
MDR
MDR
Ht _
_ r
WARN ENUL
THE [DISTRICT ped
1pl
v, r Li NEIGHBORHOOD COMMIEI
fC
' I W LDR Low DENSITY RESIDEN-no
LU
f Ing(,'0 j GO�,� M MEDIUM DENSI 'Y RESIDE
51
Figure 2- Tustin Legacy Land Use Plan
VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY
As noted in Figure 2, the Legacy Project will construct an internal roadway network within the site. This will
include a "loop system" connecting the various internal components of the project. This loop roadway
connects to the external roadway system at the following locations:
■ Edinger Avenue
■ Red Hill Avenue
■ Barranca Parkway
■ Jamboree Road
f? Page 10
[EHR &_ PEEM
RAN SP0kIAIION II SULIANIS
Along Edinger Avenue, the connection would occur at the existing traffic signal near the Metrolink Station.
From any location within Tustin Legacy, it would be possible to travel to the Metrolink Station via automobile
using this internal roadway network.
TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY
The Specific Plan documents do not reference any planned internal bus system or any plans to reroute
existing OCTA bus lines into the Tustin Legacy project. Several of the Specific Plan graphics do indicate that
the project would provide some level of transit accommodation by providing bus stops or bus turnouts within
the project.
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY
Our review of the Specific Plan indicates that a majority of the roadways would accommodate pedestrians via
sidewalks. The project will also include a linear park that extends through the site. We anticipate that
pedestrians wishing to travel to the Metrolink Station would be able to travel along the provided sidewalk
system or through the proposed linear park.
f? Page 11
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
3. EXISTING OCTA TRANSIT SERVICE
Existing OCTA bus service serving the City of Tustin is shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 3. Transit
access to and from the Tustin Metrolink Station includes OCTA Lines 470, 471, and 75. Line 70 which is a
higher frequency route than 75, 4707 471, stops outside of station on Edinger Avenue. Lines 470 and 471 are
weekday commuter routes while Line 75 is a weekday community circulator with hourly service. Lines 470
and 471 currently operate but will be reconfigured at some point in the future with the implementation of the
Irvine Shuttle. Line 75 is not heavily patronized according to information provided by OCTA.
Table 1
OCTA Bus Routes Serving Tustin
Weekday Weekend (Sat)
Line Route Descrintion Tvne Service Snan Max Fran- Service Snan Max Frea_
60
Downtown Tustin to Long Beach
Trunk
24 -hr
7 min
24 -hr
15 min
64
Downtown Tustin to Huntington Beach
Trunk
4:30a to 11:30p
10 min
5:00a to 11:00p
12 min
66
Westminster to Irvine via Tustin
Trunk
4:00a to 12:30a
10 min
5:00a to 10:30p
10 min
70
Sunset Beach to Dana Point via Tustin Metrolink
Trunk
4:30a to 12:00p
10 min
5:00a to 11:30p
20 min
71
Yorba Linda to Balboa via Downtown Tustin
Trunk
5:00a to 11:00p
30 min
6:00a to 9:00p
30 min
72
Southeast Tustin to Sunset Beach
Trunk
5:00a to 9:00p
20 min
7:00a to 8:00p
45 min
75
Tustin Marketplace to Newport Beach via Tustin Metrolink
Feeder
6:00a to 7:30p
60 min
No Service
No Service
79
Downtown Tustin to Newport Beach
Feeder
5:00a to 11:00
30 min
6:00a to 9:00p
60 min
167
Anaheim to Irvine via Downtown Tustin and Tustin Mktplace
Feeder
5:00a to 9:00p
45 min
9:00a to 7:00p
60 min
470
Tustin Metrolink to John Wayne Airport
Commuter, 5:30a to 7:00p*
15 min
No Service
No Service
471
Tustin Metrolink to Irvine (FDA)
Commuter 6:00a to 6:30p* 1
10 min
No Service
No Service
*AM Southbound Only. PM Northbound Only. No Midday Service
Our review of the existing OCTA routes and operations, led to several conclusions including:
A majority of the routes connecting to the station are east/west oriented with a few north/south routes
Transit connectivity to/from the station is best into Irvine, particularly the IBC through Route 470 and
471
There are several routes which connect to the
City of Tustin but connect only indirectly to the --ti
Metrolink station
We had anecdotal evidence that it was difficult to
connect to Downtown Tustin, particularly City Hall (as
shown in the photo to the right) from the Metrolink
Station. One of our staff members made the trip but
needed to perform the following steps:
■ Board Route 75 at the Metrolink Station
■ Travel on Route 75 into the City of Tustin to the
stop at EI Camino Real
fp Page 12
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
■ Wait 30 minutes for the Route 167 bus
■ Take Route 167 to a stop near City Hall
■ Walk to City Hall
We estimated that this trip required a total of 60 minutes. By comparison, this trip by passenger vehicle
generally requires only 10 minutes even during peak travel hours.
fp Page 13
1� EH R &- EE kS
RANSPO kFAIION C�JNSULIANIS
.W'
•
C : • • • •
Ir Ir Ir cr
•
• • • • • • • • • • • I•
NO
AP All
lit 4e'
A.
TE
Wdr
six
,
•i " a *'
i
n
-
h
•
1 P'
P ( r
, A
9�
n
e
e _ i•
- s . + . ;•
a
r ,
r 4
v
e.
+
w.ry
rs .
jar
^
r -
. `P F
R
1
F
a `� �: •; urs. "" _ .� ,
,
_ s
>
n
H
.a Ps
1
� M, .• � ;i� fir. �., •
e a
,
�k
... xa
a PON
ONr
- i P III • �c j., - �'� urPlY a``
Oil a Now
r 10
76,
IL^
•- ,Vzqeq
,
P i
,
t�_
AV
G „
,s
�' ,wa•��'.s ` r'SP-.s� ■�y:'r'. �L_•a wa '�c � ..an ^Ih. ' -, o : h -- '' .:_.^! -_.`_
L.;,.s�r,:A,�,�IY i
�S. ulen S
Aempeoa8 S
R�
aaMoij S
■m
C
RC
a
Q
AM
W
V
■ >
LLJ■
cn
■
Z
�a
F-
0 0
' Z
♦PPPPPP
Y
1 x
Iw
M
■
■ W
I
1
1
■ UL
4. RIDERSHIP SURVEY
To obtain additional information about the patrons/riders using the station, we conducted an origin/destination
survey at the station in December 2007 which asked the following questions:
1. What is your home zip code?
2. What is your work zip code?
Data was collected during the morning peak hour (6 AM to 9 AM) and the evening peak hour (3 PM to 6 PM).
We surveyed 118 persons in the morning and 206 persons in the evening. A summary of the zip code results
are provided in Figure 4, which indicates that a majority of the persons using the Tustin station have either a
home or work zip code in the City of Irvine. Approximately 60 percent of the persons using the station were
from Irvine, while the remaining 40 percent were split evenly between Tustin and other locations.
Figures 5-8 document the results graphically. Figures 5 and 6 show the home and work zip code of those
persons getting on the train in the AM; Figures 7 and 8 show the home and work zip code of those persons
getting on the train in the PM.
From a review of this data we can conclude the following-
f?
Page 15
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
Figure 4
Tustin Survey Respondents
120
100
a�
80
0
0
�
60
0 AM
®PM
4-
0
L
40
E
Z
20
0
Tustin Irvine Other
Figures 5-8 document the results graphically. Figures 5 and 6 show the home and work zip code of those
persons getting on the train in the AM; Figures 7 and 8 show the home and work zip code of those persons
getting on the train in the PM.
From a review of this data we can conclude the following-
f?
Page 15
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
A majority of the persons accessing the station are from the City of Irvine, which indicates that access
to/from Irvine is more than adequate. We anticipate that this access will improve once the City of
Irvine implements the proposed Irvine shuttle.
The number of persons accessing the station from Tustin is limited. Tustin has an overall population
of over 70,000 persons yet contributes little to the ridership at the adjacent Metrolink station. The lack
of usage by Tustin would suggest that the station's connectivity to Tustin could be improved.
f? Page 16
FEHR &- PEEM
IRAN SPO ItrAIION ',0NSULIANIS
U07
w
^w
r'1
7GJ�i
cla.gEli
Cf
I:
5. STATION AREA BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY
This chapter discusses existing and future pedestrian connectivity to the station. We evaluated the
connectivity in each cardinal direction (North, South, West, and East) through a series of field visits and field
observations at the site.
CONNECTIVITY TO THE NORTH
From first glance, it would appear that there is little or no connectivity to the north, since there is no
designated or formal path across the unused spur tracks to the adjacent uses to the north. However, several
field visits indicated that there is a significant level of pedestrian travel to the areas north of the tracks. While
there is a fence designed to prevent crossings, it has fallen over in several areas as shown in the photos
below, which are looking north from the station into the adjacent parking lots.
At,11as
Van Lines
4
,17
a
- :�' , a ,rs ,.F ' . � � �•� rWrf �. i<as'e _yr•
During limited observations for several hours on one day, we noted 20 persons walking to/from this northern
area. Several persons were seen climbing over the fence to leave the station area. During our field
observations related to parking, we determined that several of these persons were employees of Printronix, a
major employer within the area north of the station.
CONNECTIVITY TO THE SOUTH
Currently, the land to the south of the station is vacant. With the development of the previously described
Tustin Legacy Project, there will be extensive development to the south of the station. We anticipate that as
many as Y2 of the proposed residences within the Legacy Project would be located within the traditional Y2
mile walking area (or walkshed) that is considered to be optimal for transit access at a rail or train station.
From our review of the Tustin Legacy plan, we determined that there would be a linear park extending
through the site which would connect with at Edinger Avenue across from the Metrolink Station. At this time,
there are no detailed plans which describe how this linear park might connect to Edinger Avenue or if the
f? Page 21
[EHR - PEEM
RANSPORfA11UN CI1MSULIAN1S
Legacy project would provide any pedestrian enhancements at Edinger Avenue to facilitate access to the
Metrolink Station.
CONNECTIVITY TO THE WEST
There is a sidewalk which extends from the entrance of
the Metrolink Station to the west along Edinger
Avenue. However, there are few destinations along
this sidewalk, and the sidewalk eventually terminates
one-half mile down the roadway. While conducting
field observations, we noted one person who walked
down from the western end of Edinger Avenue to the
train station. The photo to the right shows the
termination of the sidewalk.
In the future, there will be a sidewalk along the south
side of Edinger Avenue once the Tustin Legacy Project
is complete.
CONNECTIVITY TO THE EAST
A sidewalk extends from the Metrolink Station under
Jamboree Road and continues past a residential
development. We did not observe anyone walking to
the station since this development was more than Y2
mile from the station. Edinger Avenue is also a high
speed, high volume roadway. The photo to the right
shows the sidewalk leading away from the Metrolink
Station.
In conducting our field reviews, we noted that the
Peters Canyon Trail is located to the east of Jamboree
Road about Y2 mile away from the platform. This facility
is a recreational trail for both hikers and bicyclists and is
heavily utilized. We noted that there was no direct
connection to this trail from the Metrolink Station.
f? Page 22
F EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
6. FUTURE TRANSIT
IRVINE BUSINESS CENTER SHUTTLE
The Irvine Shuttle is one major new transit route that would connect to the Metrolink Station. The shuttle will
serve businesses and employers within the IBC area and will connect to the major transit hubs of the Tustin
Metrolink Station and John Wayne Airport, as shown in - TuarInmetroh* # �T4
Figure 9. Three routes are planned for the IBC shuttle.,..ro.`ati LF
including:
Route A- Route A would travel from the Tustin Metrolink
Station to the John Wayne Airport via Von Karmen
Avenue. Weekday service would start at 5:00 AM and
end at 7:30 PM. Weekend and holiday service would be
provided from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM. Service on this route
should begin in June 2008.
Route B- This route would travel from the Tustin Metrolink
Station into the IBC via Jamboree Road and Michelson
Drive. Weekday service would start at 5:00 AM and end
at 7:30 PM. Weekend and holiday service would be
provided from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM. Service on this route
should begin in June 2008.
Route C- This route would run internally to the IBC.
Service would be provided every 10 minutes from 10:30
AM to 2:30 PM. Serve began on this route in March
2008.
• SHUTTLE S1
+� ROUTE A
ROUTE B
ROUTE
1
II LL'+
Within the IBC, 3,200 residential units are occupied with
5,300 additional under construction or planned. 6,000 Y i
businesses and 80,000 employees are located in the
IBC. Surveys of IBC employees and residents indicated Figure 9- Proposed Irvine Shuttle Routes
that 27.2% of employees and 18.8% residents said they g p
would take a shuttle to/from the Tustin Metrolink Station.
Ridership projections for the Irvine Shuttle suggest a potential daily ridership of 2,288 passengers. This
ridership estimate includes a combination of people who may be able to take the shuttle to get to work (from
their residence in the IBC, or from the train station) and people who are expected to still drive their car to get
to work, but would take the shuttle to business or lunchtime destinations within the IBC.
The Irvine shuttle will serve commute period travel to/from the Tustin Metrolink Station in addition to a midday
circulator route that would be limited to the Central IBC area. The commute routes were designed with 10
minute headways and a service span from 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 7:00 p.m.
f? Page 23
RANSPORrAlION CONSULTANTS
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
OCTA is planning one Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) route that will travel into
the City of Tustin and provide access to
the Tustin Metrolink Station. Line 570
will travel along Edinger Ave between
the Tustin Metrolink Station and
Goldenwest Transit Center in
Westminster. The route is illustrated in
Figure 10. Implementation is scheduled
for 2018. Planned service frequency is
for 12 minute peak headways.
According to OCTA, no other service
changes are currently planned for the
City of Tustin.
Figure 10- Proposed OCTA BRT Route
f? Page 24
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',,ON SU LIA N IS
7. KEY FINIDINGS
This chapter discusses our key findings related to the existing transit service, current station patrons,
bicycle/pedestrian accessibility, and future transit service. From reviewing these items, we can identify where
additional connectivity could be provided through new/improved transit service or additional bicycle/pedestrian
connections.
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
In reviewing the current OCTA bus routes, we determined that the City of Irvine is well served by the current
transit service. For example, several of the current OCTA bus routes provide a direct connection to locations
within the City of Irvine. Currently, OCTA operates Route 470/471 connecting to the John Wayne Airport and
the Irvine Business Center. It is anticipated that these routes would be reconfigured once the Irvine Shuttle is
implemented.
Much of the other service that operates within the study area is regional in nature. Of the 11 transit routes
that run near the station, only 5 stop at the station. Of these routes, only 1 (Route 75) provides a direct route
to any destination within the City of Tustin, which is the Tustin Marketplace.
In reviewing the existing transit service, we noted particular difficulty in traveling to and from many of the
major destinations in the City of Tustin from the Metrolink station. As noted previously, we encountered
significant difficulties while trying to travel to the Tustin City Hall from the station. This trip required several
transfers and extensive walking from one transit stop to another.
CURRENT STATION PATRONS
We also surveyed station patrons to determine their origins and destinations. Our review indicated that a
majority of the station patrons were traveling either to or from the City of Irvine. Over 60 percent of the AM or
PM respondents either lived in or worked in the City of Irvine. Only 20 percent of the respondents lived or
worked in the City of Tustin. Since there are over 70,000 persons living in the City of Tustin, we would
question why there is not greater utilization of the station.
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY
We determined that the bicycle/pedestrian connectivity could be improved in the following ways:
There is no authorized path that is available to access the site from the north. There are currently
persons who access the station from the industrial park to the north who must cut across private
property to reach the station.
■ There is an existing bicycle trail located to the east of Jamboree Road. There is no direct connection
between this trail and the Metrolink Station, except for a bicycle lane along Edinger Avenue.
■ The large Tustin Legacy Project will be located to the south of the station. There will be a linear park
which extends through the site and connects to Edinger Avenue. At this time, there are no defined
pedestrian improvements at the terminus of this linear park.
f? Page 25
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICE
We determined that there are two major transit improvements within the study area. These improvements
include the IBC shuttle and a BRT route along Edinger Avenue. With these improvements, regional access
including transit connectivity to the City of Irvine would be improved. However, we could identify no future
transit improvements which would provide additional transit connectivity into the City of Tustin.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Based on our review of existing transit service, usage patterns of current patrons, bicycle/pedestrian
connectivity, and future transit service, we can conclude the following about the Tustin Metrolink station:
■ There is good connectivity to various destinations in the City of Irvine and other areas of Orange
County from the station. A majority of the peak period station users (80%) are from cities other than
Tustin.
■ There is limited transit access from the Metrolink Station to the City of Tustin. Many destinations in
the City of Tustin can only be accessed indirectly from the Metrolink station. For example, traveling to
City Hall from the station requires several transfers and extensive walking between transit stops. As
a result, a trip that takes 10 minutes by car can requires an hour when transit is used.
■ We determined that the future transit routes planned for the Metrolink Station will improve access to
the City of Irvine (Irvine shuttle) and other areas of Orange County (Edinger Avenue BRT). However,
we could find no new transit routes that would improve access to existing areas within the City of
Tustin.
■ The bicycle and pedestrian connectivity could be improved by providing additional connections to the
north, east, and south.
■ The proposed Tustin Legacy Project would benefit from transit connectivity and improved pedestrian
connections at Edinger Avenue.
f? Page 26
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
8. GO LOCAL RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents recommendations regarding improvements at the Metrolink Station which would be
included in the OCTA Go Local Program. These improvements include pedestrian enhancements and
additional transit service.
These recommendations are ranked in order of priority. This chapter also concludes with a discussion of how
each recommendation compares against the evaluation criteria developed by OCTA.
RECOMMENDATION #1- PROVIDE A LOCAL SHUTTLE CONNECTING THE METROLINK
STATION TO CITY HALL AND OTHER LOCATIONS IN DOWNTOWN TUSTIN.
We determined that the existing and proposed transit service does not provide a high level of connectivity to
the City of Tustin. Consequently, we would recommend that providing additional transit service into the City
of Tustin should be a priority.
Under this proposal, a local transit route would connect the Metrolink Station to many destinations in the City
of Tustin that are not currently served by an OCTA. Therefore, this route would be in addition to the existing
service by OCTA.
We anticipate that this service would require a mid-size bus such as one shown below.
a
f� Page 27
FEH &_ PEEPLS
FRANSPORfAIION CONSULTANTS
F-
'O
• W
.o
rW
�LL
'z
i J
■O
1
r �
I W
I Q■
■
■ V
I
■ z
1 F-
Vr
i
■ F-
■ 1
LU
j T
T
C)
m
Figure 11 documents the proposed route for this new transit service. Some key advantages of the proposed
route is that it travels by 3 major employment centers in the City of Tustin including City Hall, where over 300
persons are employed in a variety of City Departments. This route also connects to Old Town Tustin and
other employments areas. We anticipate that there are approximately 750 employees in various locations.
This route also passes by 14 multi -family residential complexes with a total of 2,700 units.
Service parameters would likely be as follows:
■ Peak hour service with 4 buses and off-peak service with 2 buses.
■ Service frequencies of 20-30 minutes during peak hours and 30-60 minutes during off-peak hours.
■ Service would be provided both on the weekdays and weekends. On the weekends, limited service
hours could be implemented.
We anticipate that each of these buses would cost between $300,000 and $400,000 each with a total capital
cost ranging from $1.2 to $1.6 Million. Yearly operating costs would range from $300,000 to $600,000.
Some benefits of this proposal would include:
■ Providing a direction connection between major destinations in the City of Tustin (City Hall, Old Town
Tustin) and the Metrolink Station.
■ Linking some of the largest employers in the City of Tustin to the Metrolink Station. These firms
employ over 750 workers who would be able to access the Metrolink Station directly without having to
resort to the use of a station car.
■ Providing a more direct connection for 14 multi -family residential complexes with over 2,700 dwelling
units to the Tustin Metrolink Station.
We anticipate that the daily ridership for this service would range from 400-600 boardings per day. Given the
employees and residents proximate to the site, we would consider this estimate to be conservative.
If the new service cannot be provided or proves to be infeasible for other reasons, we would suggest
modifications to the existing OCTA routes to provide this service. The likely candidate is the existing Route
75, which currently connects the Tustin Marketplace with the Tustin Metrolink Station and currently has limited
ridership. We would recommend eliminating the connection to the Tustin Marketplace and instead provide
service to the destinations noted above. As this newly proposed route would connect to a similar number of
employees but a higher number of residents, we anticipate an increase in ridership.
RECOMMENDATION #2- PROVIDE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY TO AREAS
NORTH OF THE STATION
Under this proposal, a pedestrian pathway would be constructed north of the Metrolink Station to facilitate
pedestrian access. The location of this path is shown on Figure 12 below.
This pathway would extend from the existing station platform, cross several existing spur tracks (along the
railroad wye), and travel up to Dow Avenue. According to the City of Tustin, OCTA is in the initial planning
stages of this improvement and has budgeted up to $500,000 to build the pathway and make the necessary
improvements. In addition to this proposed improvement, we would recommend that OCTA rebuild or replace
the fence along its right-of-way which previously limited access from the areas north of the tracks. A photo of
f? Page 29
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
this downed fence is provided on Page 25. Adding this fence, in conjunction with the improvement shown on
Figure 12 would provide the following advantages:
■ A means of authorized access would be provided between Dow Avenue and the Station
■ Station area patrons would no longer have to cut -through the office and industrial buildings at 3002
Dow Avenue. Based on our conversations with the property owners of this parcel, they are not
interested in providing any access to the station through their property. While they have not acted
against any person traveling through their site, we would recommend that the City provide some form
of an authorized access so that this cut -through would no longer be necessary.
■ Replacing the fence will ensure that transit patrons are accessing the station at the appropriate
location. We noted previously that several persons were seen jumping over the fencing around the
station.
Pedestrian
Pathway
Figure 12- Pedestrian Pathway
E;
f� Page 30
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
RECOMMENDATION #3- PROVIDE TRANSIT CONNECTION TO THE TUSTIN LEGACY
PROJECT
As noted previously, the Tustin Legacy Project provides some accommodations for transit vehicles in the form
of bus turnouts and bus stops. We would recommend providing transit service to this site for the following
reasons:
■ There will be over 4,000 dwelling units, which could result in a population between 10,000 and 12,000
people
■ Over 10 Million square feet of non-residential space will be constructed (office, commercial, etc).
Much of the commercial space will be concentrated in the District development.
■ Both a regional park and a City park are included in the project.
■ The project provides a high level of pedestrian amenities, which should encourage walking within the
project.
Given the size of the project, it is unlikely that all of the persons living and working within the site would be
able to walk to the Tustin Metrolink Station. While some of the residential units would be within the Y2 radius
typically considered ideal for walk
access to fixed guide -way or rail _
transit, all of the non-residential
development is outside of the Y2k1_
mile walkshed.
To maximize use of transit within
the Legacy, we recommend the
development of a local shuttle
service connecting the Metrolink
Station. There are already
Metrolink passengers who travel to
similar destinations in Irvine like the
IBC, which shares much of the
development scale and type with
the Legacy project.
We anticipate that this service
would take the form of a local
shuttle, using a vehicle similar to
the one shown to the right.
f? Page 31
F EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
P.
IG�
cc
O
a
J
V
V
V
a
0
LU
J
Z
H
U)
H
M
T
MW
1.�
_V
M
Service parameters would likely be as follows:
■ 2 buses or shuttles during peak hours and 1 bus or shuttle during off-peak hours
■ Service frequencies of 20-30 minutes during peak hours and 30-60 minutes during off-peak hours.
■ Service would be provided both on the weekdays and weekends. On the weekends, limited service
hours could be implemented.
We anticipate that each of these buses would cost between $200,000 and $300,000 each with total capital
costs ranging from $400,000 to $600,000. We estimate yearly operating costs would range from $100,000 to
$3007000.
Some benefits of this proposal would include:
■ Reducing the need for Legacy residents and employees to drive to the Metrolink Station, which
should reduce the need for further parking garage expansions or additions.
■ Provides some trip reduction benefits to the Legacy Project by diverting some vehicular trips to
transit. With a projected daily trip generation ranging from 100,000 to 200,000 trips, even a limited
use of the shuttle would result in daily patronage ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 boardings.
■ Facilitate the use of the recreational facilities within the site. It is likely that some of the persons
visiting either the regional or local park would be shuttle patrons.
In providing this recommendation, we note that it would be difficult to implement this service without the
support of the Tustin Legacy project. Potential options to support this service could include:
■ Purchasing of the shuttle vehicles to initiate the service
■ Providing some contribution to operate the shuttles
■ Providing a combination of the above in various combinations (some support for the capital
purchases combined with continued operating support, etc)
This proposal would also lend itself to a phased implementation in that OCTA and the City of Tustin could
purchase a single shuttle and operate the service on a trial basis. If there is sufficient ridership, then this
shuttle could be continued and expanded.
A map showing a potential route for this service is shown on Figure 13.
f� Page 33
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
RECOMMENDATION #4 -ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE TUSTIN LEGACY
PROJECT
As noted previously, the Tustin Legacy Project is a large development which is being built south of the
Metrolink station. A key component of the Legacy Project is a central trail system which extends through the
project. To facilitate pedestrian access to the station, we would recommend the addition of pedestrian
enhancements where this trail terminates at Edinger Avenue near the station. These enhancements would
include textured and colored pavement, ladder crosswalk striping, and signage directing pedestrians to the
station. It is anticipated that these enhancements will encourage pedestrian access to the station from the
Legacy Project.
The location of these enhancements is shown on Figure 14 below.
TRANSIT
S tl
STATION
14
. _ a-: -• �
.��� •.
n
e � E
�I I
Enhancements
MDQ
R�
9LAING
NIHIRoJR
N
t_ D M
F FF,T AVF,,F
Md,
r0
• • � .. ' . � -, ��
. Vd 94� ems,_ �-�
MDRI ii _ �, ;
��
Figure 14- Tustin Legacy Pedestrian Enhancements
We estimate that the cost of these improvements would be relatively minor and would range from $15,000 to
$25,000. One reason why the costs would be limited is that they would be constructed in conjunction with the
Tustin Legacy Development.
f� Page 34
[EHR _ PEEM
RAMSPORfA11UN CI1NSULIAN1S
Some of the potential pedestrian enhancements are shown in the photographs below.
f�
FEHR &- PEEM
IRAN SPO ItIAIION ',,ON SU LIA N IS
Stamped or Textured
Pavement
Ladder crosswalk
Page 35
RECOMMENDATION #5- PROVIDE CONNECTION TO THE PETERS CANYON REGIONAL BIKE TRAIL
One of the major bicycle trails in Orange County is the Peters Canyon trail. Currently, this trail passes by the
station but lacks a direct connection. Within the study area, the trail travels south generally paralleling
Jamboree Road until it reaches the rail tracks east of the station. From there, it travels east along the tracks
until it reaches Harvard Avenue, where the trail continues south. We would recommend the construction of a
pathway from the station to the east to connect with the portion of the trail which extends along the tracks.
Constructing this connection would require a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over the existing Peters Canyon
Channel east of Jamboree Road.
We estimate that this connection would require the construction of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across the
Peters Canyon Channel that is located to the east of Jamboree Road. Because of this bridge, the estimated
cost of this pathway would be a minimum of $750,000.
The route for this connection is shown on Figure 15 below.
.-
am a
a
401 At
OP
Figure 15- Peters Canyon Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail
f� Page 36
F LHR &- PEEM
PANSP0krA110N C11NSue7ANIS
COMPARISON WITH EVALUATION CRITERIA
For each of the five proposals identified previously, we determined their consistency with the evaluation
criteria identified by OCTA. For each of the evaluation criteria, we rated each item on a Low, Medium, and
High scale. The results of this comparison are provided in Table 2.
fp Page 37
1�EHR&- PE
RANSPO kFAIION C�JNSUi1ANIS
cncn
C U
p0
a)
-0 cn
_
m OC)
G�C
aC:
0 to O p
>%E
0
O O
t6
O
U >
m >
Z C: E
V
m
� C: C:
0 cn
� )
0 • —
a
Ln
J
J
. _
U)
C a) U) p ^'
cn
L) � cn 0
-0 a) � a) a) O O_ �
4-0 •O �' p
0
'N
cn
W Q)
j L~(D 0 0 ca
to O
L L) p U U) C M
O a) C }, , N a) to cn U
•�
0 0 }- 0 •0
� O �+
0 O Q 0 O c
0
.0 U) 0 E -a •O
4.0
O
�1�J Y>J
�� W
W c: E L
0 0 a) v a)
> cn
m W t� m Tl1 O L U
•— YJ V! U VOA }� N N p m
!_Q
.L
, p i= O L
E O O U •� N p L 0 J
m ��C C: cn
O U) E C m ca U) 0
0 Q Qpm a)��Q 0- j -C '—
=
a) E cn v cn r
V
L
cn
C;
L v
i
a)
O N
}, L +r
•N 0Cl)
v U) O
0 L 'Q is
0 a) a) L p ca
to p O L
a) cn 4-0
cn C a) �_ a) U
W
G� O
J�
0 +r � 0 O C
�0 ��
p 0 C ) O
E �•�� 0.0 c o
U a) .0 • V t6
c6
O O •O �_ 0 a) a- C• L
V
O
o
}'
��
O N a) U a) OU
'�>�-Ecn
a) E 0 cn to U p cn
_E• Q 4-j 01) m�
N N
v
~
~ c am >' n
��C
o cin L) U
M
(a Com•—
-i a L- a i--'
a) ��� J,0
4-0
a) a)
L
�
p J p i
L
U) M U) m m
0 M
O
CLp0�+r
i ■�L)
0
<L a)
Oa
0 m 00 ca a
aa)i U
E0—CU
O
'��U'
E��+ 0-80
0� p�
O
0 0-7-0
.i
CC: > cn
C
E
N
_r_ E
Z
O
V
0
V/o
cn
.U)
U) cn0 cu
E �p L W>,
U) E 2 '0
U
m 0 O L Q-0
4.0
a)
L O U +r a) � V L a) 5 - b - o cn
> L O
+-r p C 1--� N. V U) E
N to 0 C C c /1 O
a) O 0 cn O O Y N C O
a) E• C_ 0
L C
a) cn 0
U) i--' — O� O O cn
L a) 1--r 0 U) o p p• O
a) m
a) a) u)
cn
O > !E� a)
0 cm Q Q) - E o a)
�.
>% a -
"'j -0 2
Z D
ca C 'Fn•cn0
cn
L-
0
Q 0 N 0 0 L ca
♦"�
J m a)
a) 0 E }' to
C
0
4-a
O L
+r a)
C
■ _ ■�
cn
>%
4 -j+ -r L
cn W
W
U
p Co to
0 OU
L 4-jJ
a_ to �
4-0
M L
C:}, a) 0
m cn
�+
cn
L O L
O
cn
0
O� OU ui
O
+- cn E w a)
ftftft
m N L
a U O.- c U
U 4- +r O
Wi m'
p
+
E a) — 8-
cn
W
•— Qj a)
N W �--�
v
>+ ca
W c
•M cn W
Q ^L^'' +�
W 0
'> ca cn m
m !Q
a• cA cn
En
— U c�
'�}, O
1 O W N O
L O
�•a) O
a
Ln
U
J�
�"' U
J
L
v) }'
4-a a) 4-a 0 -0 LI.- M
a)
C:
y
C:0
-C}, cA � cn O a) O O t6 N +r
O O to '� �_ •�
+r += :3 +r
'U U
> O >+
N Ea)cn ,U)
m�0)c �v c � �� cn
`� c C:
N i
cn — c M 0- M
L
-C O }, U
(6
G1 .O
a)
O M, c .0 Q a) O O cn O J Cfl },
c a
c
N
ca c.�
v J
cn
>Q) E N 0 c
>'X •— cn•L N > O-0
cn J
:3 -0
ca
CL
Io-��.���03E ca=cn
cn
�
�� '>
p
N
� � im a o a) a) 0 M
� L�
��0'��
O O +r
� � U
�� t6
(�
2 ca pJ QU
04-1
.�
V
O N O O O 0 p a) a) p
p
}, ♦ 0 N +r ca L
> U
W
Co\ v 0 a)
Q
��
�:3 EM M ��
a��U��c��oo�c�a)�a�i�
cnU�c�i)
H
E
ca .� .� O O cn E O 'O
V
O
O
N
E O L O Q c w ,c O N 0-^ (D
' X CL . - a) Q (� a) >, (6 cn
a)
O L
_
M
Qco E
0 N cn a) O�
•—
N N J Cfl
2 m p O N m U O a) Co
a) a)
a) cn ca U
}' J � }' �
4-0
O •c L N
O O �_ O 4-1
O ,fn
a)
U)
O cn +r t6 a) O U
O L cn 0) � +r U
'o
c6 a)
' U (a
O
O
.
E o O�� - o
`� L) M p
O
i
O a) � m U -0O cn
cn
=> E U v
cn
W 0■i Zcn
M cn
O O 0
L
a > A
E •n V •�
a. 0
cn
E
N
Q�
O
O
cn
3: 16
}' O � —, U a) (' � O O
a) U4-0
cn
O
'�
'X 'o
•� U U
~
.� S� O c c
� O E 0-O���a= CLO'O
~ N �
W O
La E C- a rm a) � a) O U+
a) a) (a 0 O U'' O E 0 a)
' O
O O
'
4-0 U
5:=E cC0o.cn c c.L
15
;
-
O
C:
.—L
p c 0 (a
can �`-'
*k
N (�
Ucn
0
c
0
O t6
4-1
>C�
uJ
EOL
' X }?
O
—
.cm
a- m U
fl�
N
O a) a) -6
-0 0 CO N
a) m
•—
+r�� to
0 N
U�
G�O
a i
4-0
O O. CD a
a) cn ,
pr_l O O to O
U >+ O_ O
V a) N U)a)
CL+�
U O-0
L N U L
i= C: �
,,
p '— p p Z J
`�c6+r
Q> >+O
C
0�0
a)
O M
+-+ c
p
,cam
cn E cu cn
V'
p J N U
a) C
O
m
M
a
Ln
O0 �
2 0
OL•U E O
2 0 0 o U
J��-0 E
m O L
♦••�
p a) >�
o a) C
a) 0 O >, M
0� P N
0 a
O '> •� c
~
O A
� J
O O a) p +r U)
O 0 O to O
-0.—
a) O O O to 0 Cn
N 0 a O
> 'i +� L)
0 0 cn +r cn
O U U
U _0
p },
: a) }, p � - >
E +�
L �
-0 Cn a) U
v � M 0-.O
W
ca N p cu
— J
_E
~ ca O O O M
1 •-
0 O J ) a) L
~ N 2- N � �^'' N M'
1 W L
'i
W +r
�_ (�
O1 . W a)
� L
1 ' (a U1
+�
+r +r
� L 0 0 i
O . — to a) ' c!) '
+�—•+
O
2 > O C'O
— �
•�L
J= �_ O
0 CDV
C
= •— U O
L
cn O
0 C O �, 0 0)
p o
a)4.0
� a) o Op
•�
V
0 p
0 L•—
N.� p 0� �O cn
��J 0�
�Lcu
CD CL
� a)c) o�•�.-.
LIJ
as O
a)
� � N a)
� C:
c� � ca � a) 0
0 •a) CD m a) >1
H
�00
~����0�0��
•��
L-
-a�(D>%CD
O
O
~ E p Z
O N
1
� (a m 0 O O 0 O L
�Q�Op� L-
�
A -0
N N
V
~
L-.
OMS a)
�— U� to
�,-.>O �
0 U
J}, �p E �O
•—
M
L m C/)
+a O
a) L L o
3:f�
p cn
N m +r O
(� N O
fco
-0 N
>,
a)cn
a)
}'�
-
a) a)
mo a)
o:30oO
�
�
iE
•O
Q4-jU
0
O a)J
LL
Op
cn
O
a�
^O
D O o O
o
N a aa)
0 n E
•••�
L 0-0 0
U•—}, C
U
O :� a) cn
L cn O L-0 a) L -
O 00—
t
cn Cn 0
'>O
N E E ca .2
OU
a) 0 4-j
O •� _�
cn
ca
O
O
p
J
U
}, a) a) O :3
i
�
O
U O
� p }' �
t� -0 cn
O }' . E CO
N a) -0 0 U
p 0 � � L-� U)
E
N
� ca
m
L
U
2 0 ca L U
� 0
J 3 � • � ) a)
L
O
4-0
a)
� U t6 C)
L p s
�--� to c) a) .
t6 +-+
_
O C/i
p}' p.0 0�
O OO+rO
1--� >O.2 -O
•—
O � ,
a) > to
cn L�
0 E m cn
a)
��p� J
C
ui =
i
L 0
� `� a) O• U >�
>, cn _ L
o L o
p ,�
U p a) p O
O c L >+
o`er
.�
U p
0 0- a) o�
LM O
0� U
cn, L to
. U) L Cl)a)
cn t6
cn
0 c
O
~�
C: Y
CL �o��
cf;
C
G� O
ZQ
(a
a) � m O
+r +r
cn
m
O E o L
>�
0-0
L L O
^'
L W
'
r 0
c�m
}'
a O
?� O.O
o
J+r•p 0-0
a)}'
_0
0
J . —
cn
_V
cn
(
a)
O
O
�- •�
� cn
Ea)
v
ca
♦••�
'in o
-0 j
4-j0)
UQ)
C
OU
V
a)
r-
O
LU
O
U
M U
W o
C/)
p
U
a)
i
� O
4-0
W•M
to M
moa)
L N C
C:
O0 O
4-0
Hca
a
�
a) � C
p U 0
cn
C
O—
'�
_ U
=
O L � to
U O
•U N =
'
O
CO +a cn
a)
t6 L-
O
V
N4-0
4-0
Xca
C
a)
m (L0
Q) a)
a)
O
cn
C
0 O
Ln
4-0
,
_�
U
O O
t�
�'� U
C�y .L t6
'
W
a) CU
� L
t� a)
L
ci) Q)
G1 ~
0
Q a)
c_0 c
Z O 2 ' u^)`
L 4l
O .
0
N
O '�
O
4-0
,N a) L E
cn
i U> L OU
CD
o L
3:E
a)
~ C
.Q
MEMEMEJ
'o
o °n
' a G�
cn
cn •X O
X
0.5
.� U p
ca
'-
L
a)
1=-+
O
_� }, ai
L
•—
_ — C:
04-
m
V
C:
MIMEME
4-0
^) -C � —0 aL L
cu
O E )�U
:3 = cu .t6
��
MIMEME
p0
O O__O O
O
'} O a)
W
Vw+r O
W
>'�0p-6
:L L 0) E
o>�O},�L0�CL
= W
0 cn
J w�++
� I • a) Z �
Lam' 0 � ^' • � • to p • >
cn
L to _O' L O t^o'
U
F000'
}� ��
^W' ^^O
O L I..L U ZT
' cn W CU a) ^L'' >
L• U W
�
' U) CU W W
-C > L
O d)
E
��
cn 1- 0 a)
L
C > cn
m O U)
�' C to
LCU
O
o
U
a'm cn
p •N p L
O
E m cn ca camcu
(a C ,
�
N °n C_a;
O U
� Lcul
L p p� CL L
— C U
U
._
J
a) O cn cn
a) O—
a) O
U C O
CDNIEEEEE
'L
O
0.��
i ■0
-WN
_ W
?�
X
L a) a)
O cncn
4-0
'E
H4—j
�
cn
OU O0
0 C ,C
L
Ocu
Q
.cu
L i
Q) cn U
L
a)
cn O
4-0
0L
0
Q
�f'i
+ ZCU
p M L
C
O
AL)
W
L
O
L +r Q
�'� cn
4--O
�.� N
C
J O
E
N
}'
O
V
},
N4
L
a>
O N
�
CUA C:O�
O (D •�
4-0ca
, E��
-a
O L
5 L p
O a) cn
U >+ V p C
a) a) O C a)
F000a)
'
.-�
ui
cn d)
O O
�U
0
�� O��
t
a)�� �_0
U
LM ♦O
~
c4-0
n cn
O p C
Q �
'� 0 0 c6 �' a
= —
'X
o
' O O
�C: a)
C E t6 OU
zD
�z
•�a)p�c�
L
--
_'FnL-��
'
To' O
�o
o ".-�
- a)U
= Ca
L t6
N to
E
cn
}+ .L
L
CU
},
cu
�
6) C
O
CL) CU
�_
L
(�
O
^`
= W
is >
W
�.c
},
t6
�0
CU
cn o
U o
!Q N
_E C �
a)
C: 0-
c c
O to m cu
IEEEEE
a) c6
a) a)
0-0
CU
Z�
cu
cn
0 �,O
(�
C
o� c o'-
E cn 0 c6 cLa
0 a)
`� L Q
V
•T o a) _
- 0-0
,cn U) m
� U 0)
m !Q
cn �-0
Ln
OU
_ •C
�-
U)
moi= O 0.-�+r•ta� L
� � � +r
C
� � O
i
0 O U O •�
}' O d)
p .O c O_0 J+
_
L
ca
0
> O �,
>,
L,o cn—
0
+r C
��
O O � a) a)
�_E L ��
a)
•U}? a)a
O a±
a)—
a)+r 405
a)�
<
t�
CL a�
� .-0
E u) cn m o a)
o o 0 O,U•— 3:a)
.cn � m
c.c.s c
a) U +cn
2 m EU
0
}'
C.)
JC 0) CL a) ,� N O
— U
U
i
V
O J
= c
•—
a) -EoMIMEMEa) U p
O
O
z-- C:V N
Ocu
cuc
O
4=
ca
V
M +�
_� L O O
}' J a) in cn
a)
N
E�
O +r 4-0
a) c ca L
��a)UW
LLo04-00—Uo
+W 0 U>,
)
a�0cCnU
E
a) L
o !E U
}a)ocn
�
O
o
c�N
E ooc°a) o.—
cn
•�cva)
aH
'
N
C)
8- >,
-0 cn
C S a)
O O4—
O 4 U
0-0 O L
J U a_ U O
L
!Q ai
IEEEEE
cn O
O
t
o
_�
L- cu
cn
�O !
a)%
�O-0 :
c�—oE
��}'a)
���
— cn
'v
O
.IMEMEca O
L.
<},_0 >
�•� , o
U oa
`� LIQ
O
N Vt
�oO�o�
U ca c
,cn C ca
.i
�o'��
(DZ 0
a
)U
0_-o
t6
E
N
'�
U
2 .�
O
V
c
cn cu
IEEEEEcoc.cn�cn
O +r +r
a)
_
.2 O a) O
��CU�
+r
a) a) -a a)O •�
o�
M cnO acn
M-0 L U
a) O cn p
> U -P cn
iEEEEE
O a)
co�c �'�a)a)
E C:a)
• U
������
G� O
Z 0
0
Ecna)
E L
O a) a)
L U
L
CL
O
cn
cn
a)
a)
�+
nL'
O
E
}.
O
U0
W
0
0
•o
L
=
(U 0
9. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of our study, we developed several recommendations related to the Tustin Metrolink
station. These recommendations relate to the adequacy of the proposed parking garage, provision of a local
trolley within Old Town Tustin, off-site parking locations, operation of the station during construction, and
access to the future parking garage. Although these items were not directed related to the OCTA Go Local
program, we have included them in this report for future reference.
PARKING GARAGE ADEQUACY
Background
To address limited parking at the Tustin Metrolink Station, OCTA is proposing to construct a multi -story
parking garage at the station. At the request of the City of Tustin, we evaluated whether the garage was
appropriately sized. Our analysis assumes that if the ridership forecast used in the design of the parking
garage are accurate, then we can reasonably conclude that the parking garage is adequacy sized. We
applied a Direct Ridership Model to estimate ridership, which is documented below.
Direct Ridership Mode/
Fehr & Peers began work on the Direct Ridership process to help the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART)
evaluate a potential system expansion in 2004. The Direct Ridership model was developed mainly due to the
inability of the regional travel demand model to produce acceptable forecasts at a local transit station. The
regional model was perceived to be insensitive to changes in land use and was also thought to be a "black
box" which was only accessible to a few modelers.
In response to these concerns, we developed a model based on existing statistical relationships between
ridership and land use data at BART stations in the Bay Area. These statistical relationships were defined
using 30 years of research about the interaction of land use and transportation. We also built on our
nationally -recognized research into the impact of the 4D's (Density, Diversity, Design, and Destination) on
transportation behavior during the development of the Direct Ridership model. Our Direct Ridership model is
based on statistical relationships between boardings and station area data. These relationships are estimated
using regression analysis. The model development process is as follows:
■ Identify applicable variables
■ Collect station area data
■ Apply regression equations
■ Determine validity of the model by verifying goodness of fit (R2 value)
The model applied to Tustin is a regression -derived equation to estimate daily boardings using the following
variables:
■ Total population within 1/2 mile
■ Retail employment within 1/2 mile
■ Non -retail employment within Y2 mile
f� Page 43
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItrAIION ',0NSULIANIS
■ Catchment area population (area that might drive to the station)
■ Number of feeder buses during peak periods
■ Station area parking
How Reliable Are the Models
From a statistical perspective, direct ridership models are very reliable. The initial models had an R2 value of
0.87 which indicates that the model accounted for 87 percent in the variation among stations. Since then, we
have continued to refine and apply these models. Our latest models have a much higher R2 value of 0.98
indicating the model explained nearly 100 percent of the variation in the number of riders at each station.
Assumptions and Data Sources
Much of the data required by the model was directly available from the data collected. When data was not
available, we made the following assumptions:
■ The catchment population is based on the total population of the City of Tustin.
■ Factors that were contributing to increased ridership are:
o Change in catchment area population and employment
o Increased service to the station
o More feeder buses (Irvine shuttle)
o More parking spaces
Using the process outlined above, we applied the ridership models to estimate daily boardings at the Tustin
station in 2030. Our estimates are as follows:
Future Ridership Forecasts
Based on the change in population and employment, we estimate that the ridership would increase by 500-
600 riders by 2030. The main catalyst for this increase will be the substantial increase in population and
employment outlined in the latest demographic forecasts within the catchment area.
While this increase is substantial, there appear to be several factors which limit future ridership, including:
■ There is little growth expected within a Y2 mile radius of the station. Much of that area is built out and
most of the Tustin Legacy project is outside of the half -mile radius.
■ We anticipate that the Irvine shuttle might draw from existing transit routes that currently serve the
Tustin Metrolink station. For example, the IBC shuttle overlaps with the existing Routes 470 and 471,
which are heavily patronized at this time.
f? Page 44
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
Conclusions
We determined that the results of this forecasts are consistent with previous studies cited by Parsons -
Brinkerhoff (PB), who is preparing the design plans for the Metrolink Garage. Therefore, we can conclude
that the parking garage is sized appropriately.
OLD TOWN TUSTIN TROLLEY
In addition to the transit improvements we identified in relation to the Tustin Metrolink Station, we also
determined that the City could provide a local trolley within Old Town Tustin. We have not included this
recommendation previously as this improvement would occur outside of station area improvements.
We would recommend providing this local trolley service for the following reasons:
■ The Old Town Tustin area is currently underserved by transit with no local circulating service
■ This area is composed of smaller mixed-use developments which are accessible to each other
through walking
■ The City of Tustin has long considered the Old Town area suitable as a tourist destination, particularly
on weekends. Providing a trolley service could serve as a catalyst for future development or activity
in Old Town. Other successful trolley services operate in tourist oriented areas.
■ Funding for this kind of service could be provided through a business improvement district (BID),
since this type of financing mechanism would be ideal for a local trolley service. Absent such a
financing mechanism, financing for this service would have to be provided by the City of Tustin.
Service parameters would likely be as follows:
■ 2 rubber tire trolleys during peak hours and 1 trolley during off-peak hours
■ Service frequencies of 20-30 minutes during peak hours and 30-60 minutes during off-peak hours.
■ Service would be provided both on the weekdays and weekends. On the weekends, limited service
hours could be implemented.
We anticipate that each of these trolleys would cost between $200,000 and $300,000 each with a total capital
cost ranging from $400,000 to $600,000. Yearly operating costs would range from $100,000 to $300,000
depending on the number of vehicles, the hours of operation, the frequency of service, and other
considerations.
Instead of a traditional bus or shuttle, we would recommend the use of a rubber tire trolley vehicle as shown
in the photos below. A suggested route for the trolley is shown in Figure 16
f? Page 45
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
Tustin Metrolink Station — OCTA Go Local Step 1 Study- Final Report
May 2008
" . �: �►-�,�.��;�`� ems_ _ _ _ — � �-
LENKATt
4
%Liao
jL--
IWA
` � IWW
IL•KS.
' �!•
_ -
rp
11i -I 4u
-- - ➢ a • o —
n "
S Ilk
u
•a
-
- —
d ■ nl
r � - � - `� �'�� � � � ■ � +� � 'LIQ I:,
•
o
Ir
46
mr
p16
'Jill
- ➢
Apt
_ph
4f,
m -
. U
,.
m 1 -V ,
r
LP
n •• r y.
.�"9r. h
■ AL_
" �. F.
a • ® ".
W
_ Q
41
- • 3
4w
m
i ur II AN
° ➢ n
3
*0 _ - D
w
LIP
1.III j L I k I
Li-
-,� �� _ � � � n = •., _ � ®vX
■ -. ■ ■ �*
mL
_
"
116 _
i
_ I3
u
S y `
y
W
1
r
I
➢',
➢,
1
or
It
k rr, -
Fr
WL
LW
-OL--
-
�
JU
MIL
Y4 c L I Itl a ,: did � " � r + • �, � ° -, - �IF
' � _. rl �. ° -„ � :
a�
mr
z ... s
VIP
Tli
dm 9'1 AL
"
:
- � r
;
7r '
1
NOW
LIZ
All
IF
u
� - B
I—
r ,
r
.
Etwo_soNew,
30
al
aid I Mid
Ar IL
OFFSITE PARKING DURING PARKING GARAGE CONSTRUCTION
As noted previously, the existing at -grade parking lot will be replaced by a multi -story parking garage.
Construction is anticipated to last approximately 1-2 years. During this construction period, we anticipate that
the existing parking lot will be inaccessible. At the request of the City of Tustin, we considered how parking
demand might be accommodated during this construction period. To accommodate the anticipated parking
demand, we considered several options:
■ Provide off-site parking within walking distance of the station in an existing parking lot
■ Provide off-site parking within walking distance of the station on vacant parcels
■ Provide off-site parking within walking distance along an existing street location that might have
available parking
■ Provide off-site parking in a location which would connect to the station by a shuttle
■ Provide no off-site parking
Our recommendation was to provide no temporary parking for the following reasons:
■ The businesses currently adjacent to the station have approximately 100-150 spaces available. This
number of spaces is insufficient for the likely parking demand. Also, these businesses currently
enforce parking restrictions to limit use of their spaces by Metrolink Patrons
■ There are vacant parcels on the south side of Edinger Avenue from the station. However, these
parcels are on the site of the Tustin Legacy Project and may be under construction while the parking
garage is being built.
■ The City could provide parking on Dow Avenue north of the station which would accommodate some
or most of the diverted parking. However, it is not possible to walk to Dow Avenue from the station
without trespassing on private property. Until the pedestrian pathway identified in the previous
chapter is constructed, this option is not viable (Recommendation #2)
■ We were able to identify several locations where an off-site parking lot could be located. Many of
these locations are located to the south of the Metrolink Station; however; a majority of the persons
using the Tustin station live or work in the City of Irvine. If we locate off-site parking in Irvine and
provide a shuttle to the station, potential users might be opposed to using it as they would be
traveling a circuitous route to access the station
■ The riders who use station cars and store them at the station might be hesitant to utilize an off-site
parking lot
■ There are several adjacent stations on the Metrolink line which could accommodate any riders who
would temporarily divert from the Tustin Station. For example, these riders could travel to the
adjacent Irvine or Santa Ana station
Construction Worker Parking
The City of Tustin also asked us to consider how construction worker parking might be accommodated during
the construction process. As there are no detailed plans for the garage complete at this time, we were able to
evaluate this item in general terms. Based on our previous experience in preparing traffic studies for similar
projects, we determined that workers would likely be accommodated on-site for most of the construction
f? Page 48
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
period. For example, as the upper floors of the garage remain under construction, the lower floors of the
garage would be available for worker parking. However, there may intermittent periods when the site may not
accommodate worker parking. This situation could occur when the first floor of the garage is under
construction. Given the limited parking available nearby (as discussed previously) there would be little
opportunity to use nearby surface parking spaces. If no proactive measures are taken to ensure that there is
sufficient worker parking, there may be spillover onto adjacent properties, which would negatively affect these
property owners.
As OCTA will be overseeing the construction of the parking garage, the City of Tustin should coordinate with
OCTA to ensure that there are no negative impacts resulting from worker parking spillover during
construction. Some potential measures that OCTA could implement to address this issue would include:
■ That the parking garage construction phasing be designed to provide sufficient on-site parking at all
times
■ Providing an off-site parking location when on-site parking can not be provided
■ Disclosing in the Environmental Document (Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the Parking Garage how worker parking will be accommodated
■ Providing a contact number for adjacent businesses to call if they note workers parking in their lots
By implementing these and other measures, OCTA can limit any worker parking spillover and the resulting
impacts to the adjacent businesses.
STATION ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Since the parking lot will not be accessible during construction, we also considered if there should be
additional access restrictions. We determined that it would be appropriate to allow access to both pedestrians
and transit vehicles during the construction process for the following reasons:
■ There are currently pedestrians accessing the project and there would be little impact on construction
if pedestrians would continue to do so
■ Transit is currently a major mode of access at the station. There are 4 existing OCTA bus routes
which access the station
■ The City of Irvine will begin operation of a shuttle in June 2008 connecting the Metrolink Station to
various locations within the City of Irvine. If the station is completely closed and inaccessible to
transit, then it is doubtful that this shuttle could operate.
TRANSIT ACCESS TO THE STATION AFTER GARAGE CONSTRUCTION
Following the completion of the parking garage, there would be sufficient parking for persons driving to the
station. However, there could be problems with transit vehicle access because of the increased transit usage
at the site. This increase transit usage would result from the addition of the IBC shuttle, the proposed OCTA
BRT, and other transit vehicles such as those identified previously in Recommendation #1 and #3.
Currently, there are only two transit access bays at the station. We would recommend that the parking
garage be designed to allow access of up to 5 transit vehicles. Since there are no design plans for the
parking garage, we can not determine whether the parking garage would provide sufficient transit access. As
f? Page 49
[EHR _ PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
these design plans are prepared and finalized, we would suggest that the City of Tustin ensure that adequate
transit access and queuing is provided.
VEHICULAR ACCESS AFTER CONSTRUCTION
The City of Tustin also asked that we consider vehicular access to the completed parking garage. While the
parking garage would be accessed at Edinger Avenue, we considered whether additional access should be
provided.
We determined that additional access to the garage could be provided from an access road adjacent to
Jamboree Road. This access road connects to Jamboree Road and provides access to Edinger Avenue. To
determine if it would be feasible to connect from this access road to the parking garage, we first conducted a
speed study of this roadway. The results of this speed study are provided in the Appendix. The speed
survey determined that the 85t" percentile speed on this access road was 50 miles per hour, meaning that we
would have to provide appropriate deceleration into the parking garage from the adjacent access roadway.
Figure 17 documents our access proposal which includes several options which would extend from the
access roadway into the parking garage.
f? Page 50
[EHR - PEEM
RAN SPO ItIAIION ',0NSULIANIS
�• Z
1
S
d
O
�a o
I ,w
o�
Z
j
Z J
J
U
Ld
m o
r O �
w
a Z
W
ujU
th
Z_
Q
a
LUU
2
O
U
rr^^Ov
vJ
Q
QQ
/C�
Q
Cf)�
LU
Q
U�
U�
Q LL
W
a
Q
cc
a
0
Z
Y
cc
a
CL
Y
Z
J
O
oC
LU
LU
Z
ch
H
H
G
LL sl