Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-Council Office CITY OF SAN BER,,-...RDINO""REQUEST .. ')R COUNCIL ACTION From: Councilwoman Valerie Pope-Ludlam Subject: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO Oept: Council Office PROPOSED TRANSIT MALL ON FOURTd STREET BETWEEN ARROWHEAD AVENU~ Date: 9/20/89 AND II F" STREET. Synopsis of Previous Council action: NONE. RecolTlmerld~d motion: 1. That the proposed transit mall on Fourth Street between Arrowhead Avenue and "F" Street be approved in concept. 2. That Omnitrans be directed to install a prototype bus bench prior to construction of the transit mall. 3. That the City Administrator be directed to coordinate implementa- tion of the transit mall. ---~--~>. .?..- ~.'-'~~ '-. ,,'~C-~- Signature Contact person: VALERIE POPE-LUDLAM Phone: 384-5188 Supporting data attached: Yes (Staff Report) Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda I tern No.1L 75-0262 CIT'Y OF SAN BERN RDINO - REQUEST r :R COUNCIL ACTI:)N STAFF REPORT The Transportation Committee considered the proposed transit mall concept on Fourth street between Arrowhead Avenue and "F" street at the Committee meeting of September 14, 1989. This concept was presented jointly by Main Street, Inc. and Omnitrans. The Committee voted to approve the proposed transit mall in concept and forward the recommendation to the full Council. In order to implement the transit mall, the city Administr~tor recommends that a prototype bus bench be installed prior to initiating the construction of the transit mall. Since the proposed transit mall will include the placement of a series of bus stops with bus benches along Fourth Street, it was felt that the installation of a prototype bus bench may be appropriate in order to ensure that the benches will be compatible with existing uses along Fourth street. In addi tio'n, to coordinate schedul ing and construction considerations relative to the transit mall, it is recommended that the City Administrator be assigned the responsibility of project implementation. ~ VALERIE POPE-LUDLAM sixth Ward Council Person VPL/sh 75-0264 Downtown San Bernardino Transit Mall Project Issues & strategies, June 1989 Issue statement: creation of a centralized transfer zone in Downtown San Bernar- dino has become essential in recent years as evidenced by the merging of transit rider needs with those of the larger Downtown business community. Both since and prior to the time of a failed experiment in centralized bus transfer operations in 1979, it has been obvious that an improvement in area bus stop amenities, con- venience, and safety is needed if bus passenger needs are to be adequately met. In more recent years, with the emergence of the Downtown San Ber- nardino Main Street program and new air quality regulations, it has also become obvious that improving local transit and transit facilities is critical to the future success and viability of the Downtown business community. This paper has been prepared to show how one project, construction of a Downtown Transit Mall, can address the immediate needs of transit riders, while also ~eeting the needs of the Downtown business community. current Conditions: service to Downtown San Bernardino is presently provided by 16 individual bus routes including one intercounty express route operated by SCRTD. Primary stops for these routes are scattered over a 13 block area as shown in the attached map, ~xhibit 1. Taken as a group, these stops generat~ well over 4,000 passenger trips per day, with over 80% of all trips made to and from work, shopping, or school sites. Approximately 32% of riders are "choice" riders - those having a choice between driving an automobile and riding the bus - a number which is growing daily. Because of current stop and route locations, those wishing to transfer from one bus to another often must walk 2-3 blocks to reach the route they are transferring to. This is particularly difficult for elderly and handicapped individuals. As the present stop arrangement is so spread out, it is also difficult for riders to know where they should wait for the bus they need. This is particularly discouraging for new riders. Increasingly employees of Downtown businesses will be required to find alter- natives to driving to work alone as new air quality regulations are put into place in the months and years ahead. Ease of under- . I- i.I'l ." ..... Vl ." c: Vl ~ ~ N M .s:. ..,. .... ~ . C> >- lID - - ~ ... If) ~:I:I _000 .. (,) 0 :s: - - " It) .. ::\ -I ~\ u..J - ""J'JN1 A 1 ~ VW. . - ARROWHEAD AV. nOli S1 . >- - . X .... "E" S1 . "F" S1. "G" 51. Q o (/') III ::l CP ~ standing the bus system will become increasingly important in the near future if these new riders are to be accommodated as we at- tempt to reduce local air pollution. Further analysis of Downtown conditions indicates a substantial need to upgrade both Downtown bus stops and pedestrian amenities within the core area bounded by Second street, Fifth street, Ar- rowhead, and "F" street. Varying sidewalk widths, obstructions to pedestrian traffic including some bus benches and shelters, inconsistent bus stop amenities, and lack of other pedestrian amenities such as landscape and drinking fountains discourage pedestrian traffic and reduce transit passenger comfort and con- venience in Downtown. Improved pedestrian and transit passenger facilities, additional development of office and commercial com- plexes, and design enhancements to make the overall Downtown en- vironment more attractive are needed to promote and improve the Downtown area. pevelopment strateqies: As already indicated, planning for a revised transfer system in- corporating a central transfer facility or zone has been underway for many years. Analysis of the failed former Fourth @ "E" central transfer system, indicates that the experiment failed largely as a result of design issues. Specifically, the former program centralized all Downtown transfer activity at just one stop, on the south side of Fourth street adjacent to the Central city Mall parking structure. This centralized passenger pick-UP created problems with both crowd control, transit vehicle conges- tion, and routing and scheduling. These problems can be ad- dressed through improved design efforts. Two strategies are available to address improved bus passenger convenience and transfer needs: 1) construction of an off-street centralized transfer terminal, or 2) implementation of a revised on-street central transfer zone, known as a transit mall. Each of these strategies must be evaluated in the context of the overall transit needs, as well as the needs of the Downtown busi- ness community. Transit needs identified include passenger com- fort & convenience, efficient route operating alignments, and crowd control for safety purposes. As identified by San Bernar- dino Downtown Main street, Inc., business needs include the need to 1) Improve the image of Downtown, 2) Create a positive pedestrian experience for Downtown visitors, and 3) Enhance the economic base of Downtown by putting undeveloped and under- developed land in the Downtown area to its best and highest use. ~lternatives Ana1vsis Since 1979, both city and Omnitrans staff have thoroughly studied both transit and business needs in the Downtown area. with respect to transit needs, every effort has been made to balance the needs of local businesses with those of the transit agency and its riders. These efforts have been particularly pronounced since the preparation of the American city corporation Downtown Master Plan for the Authority for Greater San Bernardino in 1983-'84, and in recent planning activities being conducted in cooperation with the San Bernardino Downtown Main Street, Inc. During the analysis process, focus has been placed on the evalua- tion of both off-street and on-street facility alternatives. The full range of sites evaluated is too broad to discuss in this document, however, the major sites reviewed and issues raised by each can, and should, be considered. By type of facility pro- posed major alternatives studied and findings are as follow: Off-Street Terminal, Remote Location A number of early alternatives considered, focused on development of an off-street terminal in areas adjacent to Downtown, with passenger service to Downtown to be provided by a connecting shuttle bus. Alternative sites considered included: Second @ Arrowhead, area of Meadowbrook Park: Third street, adjacent to the Santa Fe/AmTrak Terminal: and Rialto @ "G" Street. Primary advantages cited for the "remote proposals" were 1) reduction of bus-related traffic in the Downtown core area, and 2) the cost and availability of land for fu1l- scale transit terminal development. The primary disadvantage for the proposals was found in the fact that the majority of riders (80%) using transit service in Downtown were bound to and from Downtown, rather than on to other locations (transfers). The remote terminal concept would force riders to make an extra transfer - to a shuttle bus _ in order to reach their destination. This forced transfer would also increase service operating costs by re- quiring operation of a shuttle bus which would not otherwise _ be needed. consideration of remote terminal locations was finally dis- continued in 1986, when federal funding officials made it clear that they would not fund a project located outside of the core business area of Downtown. The Downtown core busi- ness area is defined as the area lying between Second, Fifth, "F" street, and ArroWhead. The remote site issue was recently revived by developers of the proposed Empire Dome. At the time, the developers proposed construction of a transit terminal in the area of "G" @ Rialto adjacent to the proposed facility. While con- struction of a full transfer facility at the site is not supported by Omnitrans for reasons listed above, the Agency does support development of a transit bay and Park-and-Ride facility for intercounty express bus service at the proposed Dome location. Consideration of this project - Park-and- Ride development - will be resumed at a future date if the Dome project moves forward. Off-street Terminal, Central Location Considerable study has been placed in recent years on the development of an off-street terminal within the Downtown core area. Design elements for each of the sites studied called for ability to accommodate a minimum of 16 buses at any given time, two-way vehicle access where possible, com- fortable passenger shelters and benches, construction of a pass sales and information office, and passenger safety and security accomodations including street visibility. Site alternatives considered were limited by land availa- bility within the core Downtown area. This issue was fur- ther complicated by city requests to include a 400 - 600 space multi-level parking structure adjacent to the terminal to leverage transit funds for financing purposes. Terminal design efforts focused primarily on two sites, both bounded by Fourth and Fifth Streets: City Parking Lot 1, between "F" and "E" Streets; and City Parking Lot 2, between "E" and "0" Streets. Construction of a centrally-located transit terminal, par- ticularly at the two primary sites considered was found to have a number of significant advantages. These include: 1) the ability to leverage transit funding to help finance needed parking in Downtown; 2) substantial ease of access and facility use for transit passengers; and 3) safe and ef- ficient operating conditions for transit vehicles. Disadvantages identified include: 1) Security problems resulting from poor street visibility, potentially large _ numbers of persons using the facility (including non- riders), and the potential for vandalism within an adjacent parking structure: 2) Limited flexibility for accommodation of long-term transit growth needs: and 3) Loss of a poten- tial revenue-producing development site. This last factor has become increasingly important as Main Street has begun seeking development proposals which will help to revitalize the Downtown business community, while enhancing the city tax base. The off-street terminal proposals were the target of con- siderable initial opposition from Downtown business repre- sentatives, with most opposition centering on security con- cerns. Although most concerns were ultimately addressed, active consideration of off-street terminal development was tabled in 1987 pending further review of other alternatives, and development of the Downtown Main street program. In reviewing this concept, it should be noted that this type of facility is presently being used in Downtown Riverside. Although the Riverside facility is not identical to the al- ternatives studied for San Bernardino it is essentially similar. site visits to Riverside have resulted in observa- tions of many of the advantages and disadvantages listed above. However, a number of disadvantages have proven to be considerably ~ore problematic than originally expected. These include limited site flexibility for future transit expansion, high levels of vagrancy despite the presence of an on-site security guard, and low street visibility com- pounded by construction of new office and parking facilities adjacent to the terminal site. These issues may require further consideration if the off-street terminal proposals are revived. pn-street Transit Mall, ~entral Location The last group of site alternatives considered, involve use and upgrade of existing streets to accommodate a central, on-street transfer zone. This concept, known as a transit mall, incorporates most of the features of an off-street terminal, while using existing right-of-way, rather than ad- jacent land. Transit malls can be designed to allow for dedicated, transit-only right-of-way; dedicated transit lanes, with additional lanes for other vehicular traffic: or mixed-use right-of-ways. sites considered for use as a transit mall have included: Court street; "F" street, between Fourth and Fifth; Ar- rowhead, "E" and "0" streets, between Second and Fourth: and most recently, Fourth street, between Arrowhead and "F" street. sites on second and Fifth streets in the Downtown core were excluded from consideration, due to traffic _ volumes and overly wide right-of-way widths. Of the sites considered, all but Fourth street have been dropped from consideration due to a variety of factors in- cluding adjacent land uses and right-of-way width. The ~d- vantages of transit malls in general, and the Fourth street site in particular, are discussed on the pages which folloW. Recommended Alternative, fourth street Transit Mall - flF" street to Arrowhead The staff recommendation to develop the Fourth street Transit Mall, rather than an alternate off-street terminal comes as a result of a lengthy series of discussions between Omnitrans and San Bernardino Downtown Main Street, Inc. representatives. The proposal itself has a number of significant advantages over pre- vious proposals as identified below: * Theproiect is immediately implementable with or without fur- ther capital investment. All that is necessary to put the project into place is a simple realignment and streamlining of existing bus service in the Downtown area. * Straiqht line of vision desiqn will allow improved passenqer safety and convenience. All major stops in Downtown will be cen- tered on Fourth street, with improved "user-friendly" stop design to allow greater passenger comfort, transfer access, and effec- tive crowd control. . The transit mall is fullY compatible with Main Street qoals. Improved transportation, Downtown image, .and pedestrian access are fully addressed by the proposal. Main Street streetscape plans will be included in the transit mall design. Further, the transit mall does not require a large commitment of Downtown land, allowing available land to be put to higher and better uses. This will help foster economic revitalization and increase the City tax base. . Future needs can be more easily addressed because transit mall design is more flexible than fixed off-street terminal design. Future changes in Omnitrans service, and in Downtown, can be readily addressed through changes in the mall design and/or loca- tion. froject desiqn is as follows: Six existing stops, and one new stop (Fourth @ "F") on Fourth street between Arrowhead and flF" Street will be used for transit mall service as shown in ~xhibit ~. ~11 stops in the transit mall will be upgraded with new street furniture, shelters, special signage, and landscape provided through a joint Omnitrans-Main Street streetscape program. Special attention will be paid to ensure that transit passenger amenities such as seating and shelters are 1) com- patible with Main Street street furniture design standards, and 2) that the transit amenities used will allow for ease of pedestrian access and flow along the Fourth street right-Of-way. , . _._ 6'_";:1::~;:::. i . ~.. h '9/~:,,~-... '0... - . A ~ . ~:-.. ;- <) .e: ~ " ~ ~~ ,,~ 'b. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ e: '- ~ ~ .\:i e: e: ~ :t~ <:) '- e: :t <:) ~ "F" Street I'D .~ . . - It'.l a: _ Arrowhead ... CI) "D" Street CI) .. ... CJ) .; "E" Street ... ::s o u. ao ao 0\ ...... '" ~ \I ~ , ., ~ ~ ~ :"J t- ~ C'J =\ Xi WI Additional amenities provided will include construction of an Om- nitrans pass sales and transit information office at a site central to the Fourth street Transit Mall. This will add to the "user-friendliness" of the project while also enhancing security. Efforts will also be made to develop excess land, located ad- jacent to Central City Mall, on Fourth @ "E" into small retail or other business sites. Bus bays will be added at all stop loca- tions as adjacent land is developed, thus maximizing possible joint public-private development opportunities and minimizing ex- penditures of public funds. All bus routes in Downtown, including SCRTD Express Route 496 will be realigned to reduce congestion, streamline routings, and improve passenger convenience. The proposed realignment plan calls for specific route service at pre-assigned stops only, as identified in Exhibit 2. Buses will not be allowed to stop at other than their pre-assigned stops. The proposed route alignments will accomplish two goals: 1) Pas- sengers will be required to walk no further than one block (and generally less) to make a transfer, and 2) Passenger and bus traffic will be spread in such a way as to minimize bus-related traffic congestion and maximize crowd control. Both accomplish- ments will greatly enhance passenger safety and convenience, while also increasing operating efficiency. It should also be noted that the new routings will increase bus traffic on Fourth street by no more than three buses per hour between "E" street and Arrowhead. One block, between "E" and "F" streets will receive no increases in bus traffic. Auto and other vehicular access on Fourth street will likewise be maintained. Conclusion New air quality regulations requiring Downtown employees to car- pool, vanpool, or ride the bus to work, combined with rapidly in- creasing Omnitrans bus ridership, make development of a new, easy-to-use central transfer facility essential .at this time. The ease of implementation, utility, and flexibility of the proposed Fourth street Transit Mall rank it as the preferred al- ternative to previously considered projects and project sites. For further information, reference may be made to the attached paper, "proposed Downtown San Bernardino Transit Mall, Questions , Answers" (Omnitrans, October 1988). WI '~~r.~~~~~~~~_. .~ OMNITRANS Proposed Downtown San Bernardino Transit Ma" Questions 1 Answers ~. What is a Transit Mall? A. A Transit Mall is a centrally located series of bus stops usually in a Downtown Business District. Malls are designed to improve comfor~ and convenience of transit use for ~iders through better route design, improved signing and graphics, upgraded street furniture, and better security. Additionally, transit malls can make a positive contribution to the non-riding community through use of improved aesthetics, and tie-ins with downtown streetscape programs. <=). Who will use the Proposed San Bernardino Transit Mall? A. Over 4,000 men and women ride Omnitrans buses to and from Downtown San Bernardino daily. The usual destinations for 80% of these riders are work sites, shopping, and school. 32% of Down- town riders are "choice" riders, that is persons who have a choice between driving an automobile and riding'the bus, but have elected to forego traffic and parking problems by riding the bus. A pro- file of Omnitrans riders shows that 60% are females and 71% are high school graduates or better. ~. Why is a Transit Mal' needed in Downtown San Bernardino? A. F;rst and foremost, a Mall is needed because of the sheer number of riders go; ng to and from Downtown every day. As lten- tloned above over 4,000 riders per day began or ended their trips in the Downtown area, Most of these riders were bound to and from the large number cf employment, shopping, or service centers in and around Downtown, while another smaller group was traveling Downtown to transfer to another bus to cont i nue on to other destinations. OMNfTRANS . Public Tronsit Service. 1700 West Fifth Street · Son Bemordlno. CA 92411 · (714) 880-0811 These two groups would benefit greatly from the proposed Mall. Presently, service to Downtown is provided by 16 individual bus routes. Primary stops for these routes are scattered over a 13 block area. Because of current stop and route locations, those wishing to transfer from one bus to another often must walk 2-3 blocks to reach the route they are transferring to. This is par- ticularly difficult for elderly and handicapped individuals. Be- cause the present stop and route arrangement is so spread out it is also difficult for riders to know where they should wait for the bus they need. . This ;s particularly discouraging for new riders. Construction of a Transit Mall would address these needs while also addressing larger community and merchant goals targeted to- wards improving the image of Downtown. All design standards for the project wil,l be tied in directly to the proposed Downtown Streetscape Program. lastly, by improving transit operations and making transit more attractive to non-riders, transit's ability to support community air quality goals will be greatly enhanced. Q. How will the proposed Transit Hall work.? A. As presently designed, the Mall will use existing transit stops on Fourth Street between Arrowhead and "F" Streets. Only one new stop will be added as part of the project. The new stop will be located on the N.W. corner of Fourth @ "F" Streets adja- cent to Stater's Plaza. Routes in Downtown will be re-designed to serve pre-assigned stops on Fourth Street. Passengers will be allowed to board the bus only at its assigned stop (i.e. Fourth @ "0"). Stops will be as- signed by route in such a way as to spread ridership over the 1 ength of the Mall . This is intended to prevent crowds from gathering at anyone location, and to make operation of buses within the Mall more efficient. Assignment of stops has also been made in such a way as to ensure that a rider transferring from one bus to another wi 11 have no ~ore than one block to walk to reach their next bus. All stops will be in a direct line of vision from all others, and graphics wil.l insure that the Mall is "user-friendly" to all new and exist- - ing riders. ~. Will traffic on Fourth Street be affected by the Mall? ~. No. The Mall has been designed to make operation of buses on Fourth Street faster and more efficient. As discussed above, bus stops will be restricted to designated routes only, minimizing .weaving" in and out of traffic. Because of its decentral ized design, the proposed Mall can operate smoothly while keeping Fourth Street open to traffic. Additionally, it should be added that the proposed route align- ments result in only minor increases in bus traffic on Fourth Street. As proposed, no more than approximately three buses per hour will be added to traffic between the blocks of "E" and "0", and "0" and Arrowhead. One block, "E" to "F", adjacent to Central City Mall, will receive no increases in bus traffic. This type of operation represents a significant departure from past proposal s for San Bernardi no. Thi s was made poss i bl e by spreading mall stops across a three-and-one-half block area. Past proposals have focused on concentration of bus activity into one single site or set of stops. ~. Are there any successful Transit Malls now in operation? A. Yes. Transit malls have been used successfully for a number of years all around the country. Cities with successful Malls include: Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, Monterey, and long Beach, California; and Denver, Colorado. Malls in these cities have contributed greatly both to increased ridership and Downtown revitalization. Q. How much money is ava i1 ab 1 e for the proposed Ma 111 ~. Approximately $2 million is available for stop upgrades and related improvements needed for construction of a Downtown Transit Mall. A portion of the money may also be used for upgrade of other _ key trans i t stops in Downtown. However, it shoul d be noted that . available funding can only be used within the core area of Down- town, bounded roughly by Second Street, Fifth Street, -F. Street, and Arrowhead. Q. What does the future hold? ~. All signs point towards greatly increased demand for transit service and stop improvements in Downtown in the very near future. Within the next 1-2 years Air Quality Regulation Number XV, a rule targeted towards reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips, will require all businesses with 100 or more employees to implement car, van, and bus pooling incentives and programs as part of a larger effort to improve air quality within our region. It is expected that the new regulation will substantially increase transit ridership by business commuters going to and from Down- town. Additionally, as Downtown development continues, parking can be expected to become increasingly costly and difficult to obtain. This will also increase ridership. Combined with all of this, it should.be noted that Omnitrans ridership is already grow- ing at a 10 - 15% ann~al rate. The already great need for improved bus passenger and operat i ng facilities in Downtown can be expected to become even greater in the years ahead. The proposed Transit Mall is designed to target both the current and projected needs. :: Q.WhO benefits from a Downtown Transit Mall? c. s ~. Everyone. Downtown merchants, businesses, employers and em- ployees in downtown, and of course, transit riders, all benefit from the improved aesthetics, security, .and operation of a well- designed mall. All those interested in improving air quality will benefit by making transit a more efficient, attractive part of the Downtown scene. ! -: 't ~ :;.. Omnitrans October 1988 ~ ; n. ) r :-c