BROWSE

SEARCH

ORDER DOCUMENTS

NEWSLETTER

DOCUMENT NAVIGATION

Previous Section
Table of Contents
Next Section

Alternatives Analysis, Highway 101 Widening Project — Final Report

Evaluation of Alternatives

This chapter summarizes the evaluation criteria used to assess the three "analysis alternatives" (Enhanced Bus, Rail Transit and Pricing/Enhanced TDM) and the results of the evaluation. Evaluation criteria were proposed to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Community Advisory Committee (CAC) in April and May of 1994 (see Chapter 3, Section 3.1 and Appendix D [not available] Evaluation Criteria for the Assessment of Highway 101 Alternatives). TAC and CAC comments, originally included in the project Request for Proposal, and other identified concerns were incorporated into the criteria. Final evaluation criteria and a detailed discussion of quantification methods used are found in Appendix D [not available].

Each alternative should be considered as an "analysis alternative," or a measurable transportation strategy which can serve as a basis for estimating the transportation impacts of a broad range of implementation strategies to avoid the need to widen Highway 101. Similar levels of traffic congestion relief and environmental and community impacts are expected from these more expansive implementation strategies. Individual strategies will then be combined into an integrated, multimodal alternative to the highway widening.

---

4.1 Evaluation Criteria

Technical and community based interests and concerns identified through the public scoping workshop and meetings conducted with the TAC and CAC fall into the following categories. These can be used to assess how well each alternative meets the community's objectives:

• Effectiveness in reducing single occupant vehicles and avoiding the need to widen Highway 101
• Safety
• Freedom of mobility
• Cost-effectiveness
• Minimizing environmental harm and damage
• Maintenance of a viable and healthy local economy
• Compatibility with long-term comprehensive planning
• Integration of transportation modes
• Maintenance of the area's "quality of life" and character
• Maximizing "bang for the buck"

A four part set of evaluation criteria were developed for this study. Evaluation criteria were initially identified in the revised Request for Proposal issued for this study. Criteria were then enhanced to include measures which reflect identified community interests and concerns, as well as traditional performance indicators as used by transportation planners to assess transit and travel demand management strategies. The criteria used in this study were approved by the TAC and CAC in May of 1994.

These criteria were further detailed into individual measures which are consistent with those specified in the United States Department of Transportation's regulations for evaluating major metropolitan transportation investments and with the types of measures typically used to evaluate multimodal transportation alternatives in California. Table 4-1 lists both what evaluation criteria the public asked for and what criteria the TAC and CAC approved under each of four broad categories. The methods used in this study to quantify each measure are described in Appendix D [not available].

Table 4-1
Evaluation Criteria

Public Identified Evaluation Criteria	TAC/CAC Approved Evaluation Criteria
Measures of the Problem Future congestion, lack of capacity Absence of mobility Lack of integration of transportation modes High proportions of single occupant vehicles	Measures of the Problem Forecast Daily Traffic on Highway 101 Forecast Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) on Highway 101 Forecast Daily Traffic On Parallel Arterials Total Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) on Highway 101 Total Vehicle Hours of Travel on Highway 101 Percent of VMT Operating at Level of Service F (See Figure 4-1 [not available]) Percent of VMT Operating at Levek Of Service E Total Daily Vehicle Trips Produced in the Corridor Percent Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV)
Measures of the Solutions Integration of Transportation Modes Increase in average vehicle occupancy Increase in transit mode share	Measures of the Solutions Forecast Daily Transit Ridership Forecast Percent Transit Ridership Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) in the Corridor Percent Daily Bike Trips Average Speed (MPH) on Highway 101 Net Reduction in Daily Vehicle Trips
Measures of Effectiveness Freedom of mobility Maintenance of a viable & healthy local economy Maximizing "bang for the buck" Avoidance of the need to widen Highway 101	Measures of Effectiveness Total Cost of the Alternative Total Annualized Cost of the Alternative Annualized Total Cost Per Vehicle Trip Reduced Annualized Capital Cost Per Vehicle Trip Reduced Annualized O&M Cost Per Vehicle Trip Reduced
Measures of Community and Environmental Impact Safety Minimizing environmental harm and damage Compatibility with long term comprehensive planning Maintenance of the area's "quality of life"	Measures of Community and Environmental Impact 2015 Daily Running Emissions 2015 Direct Energy Consumption Impact on Vegetative Cover Impact on Community Character Planning Compatibility

Many of these measures provide a quantitative basis for comparison of the "analysis alternatives". Forecast travel statistics serve as the basis for comparison in the Measures of the Problem and Measures of the Solution evaluation categories. Other measures are qualitative in nature and required subjective judgments by technical professionals conducting the study. Thresholds of significance such as those prescribed by local policies or through national, state, or local environmental regulations are used where available. Examples include federal and state ambient air quality standards, or Santa Barbara County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) traffic level of service (LOS) threshold, LOS D, for roadways and intersections on the CMP system (see Figure 4-1 [not available]).

---

4.2 Impact Assessment of Analysis Alternatives

The impacts of each of the three "analysis alternatives" are tabulated in Table 4-2. These impacts were estimated primarily from the application of the SBCAG regional travel forecasting model, supplemented by the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) two Pricing/Enhanced TDM Analysis Model developed by Comsis Corp. under contract to FHWA. The mode choice components of these models are based upon extensive research over the past three decades (e.g. Lave, 1969; Stopher, 1967; Spear, 1976; Domencich and McFadden, 1975; Koppleman, 1980; McCord and Villoria, 1987; Neels and Mather, 1987) of the determinants of travel mode choice, behavior has concluded that people act as rational economic consumers of travel, choosing the mode that provides them the least perceived "generalized cost" for a given trip, in terms of both travel time and monetary costs, as well as "quality of service" factors such as comfort, convenience of use, and reliability of arrival times. These factors explain the reasons why particular modes are more "attractive" to trip-makers for specific trips in the South Coast, as elsewhere in North America, and why the proposed alternatives have the forecast travel impacts that are shown.

Table 4-2
Comparison of Alternatives

		Exist. 1993	2015 No Build	2015 Build	Enhanced Rail Alt.	Enhanced Bus Alt.	Parking Pricing TDM Alt.
MEASURES OF THE PROBLEM
Forecast daily traffic on Hwy 101
E/O Salinas Street		84,000	94,700	111,900	91,400	91,400	78,400
E/O San Ysidro Road		73,000	94,500	103,200	92,100	92,000	82,200
E/O Padaro Lane (S)		68,000	85,100	93,400	83,500	83,500	74,900
E/O Casitas Pass Road		65,000	81,200	92,600	80,000	79,900	74,000
E/O Route 150		56,000	76,900	76,900	76,000	75,700	71,800
Forecast peak hour level of service (LOS)		V/C - LOS	V/C - LOS	V/C - LOS	V/C - LOS	V/C - LOS	V/C - LOS
E/O Salinas Street	WB	0.78 - D	0.88 - D	0.66 - C	0.85 - D	0.85 - D	0.73 - D
	EB	0.95 - E	1.07 - F	0.81 - D	1.04 - F	1.04 - F	0.89 - E
E/O San Ysidro Road	WB	0.68 - C	0.88 -D	0.61 - C	0.86 - D	0.86 - D	0.77 - D
	EB	0.83 - D	1.07 - F	0.75 - D	1.05 - F	1.05 - F	0.94 - E
E/O Padaro Lane (S)	WB	0.56 - C	0.70 - C	0.49 - C	0.68 - C	0.69 - D	0.61 - C
	EB	0.77 - D	0.96 - E	0.67 - C	0.94 - E	0.95 - E	0.85 - D
E/O Casitas Pass Road	WB	0.53 - C	0.66 - C	0.48 - C	0.66 - C	0.66 - C	0.61 - C
	EB	0.73 - D	0.92 - E	0.67 - C	0.90 - E	0.91 - E	0.84 - D
E/O Route 150	WB	0.29 - B	0.40 - B	0.40 - B	0.40 - B	0.40 - B	0.38 - B
	EB	0.40 - B	0.56 - C	0.55 - C	0.55 - C	0.55 - C	0.52 - C
Forecast daily traffic on parallel arterials
E/O Salinas Street:
Hwy. 192		7,800	9,500	4,200	9,200	9,200	7,900
Old Coast Highway		6,900	8,400	4,900	8,100	8,100	6,900
Cabrillo Blvd.		12,500	15,300	9,700	14,800	14,800	12,700
E/O San Ysidro Road:
Hwy. 192		8,500	10,900	1,600	10,600	10,600	9,400
North Jameson Lane		1,600	2,000	4,700	2,000	2,000	1,800
E/O N. Padaro Lane:
Hwy. 192		3,200	4,200	2,000	4,100	4,100	3,700
Via Real		7,100	9,300	5,000	9,100	9,100	8,200
E/O Casitas Pass Road:
Hwy. 192		2,200	3,100	1,000	3,000	3,000	2,800
N. Via Real		2,400	3,400	1,900	3,300	3,300	3,100
Carpinteria Ave.		5,800	8,200	1,200	8,100	8,000	7,500
Total vehicle miles of travel on Hwy. 101		851,400	1,224,500	1,340,000	1,208,000	1,207,000	1,127,500
Total vehicle hours of travel on Hwy. 101		15,500	45,200	31,500	42,500	42,500	35,000
Percent VMT operating at LOS E		0%	66%	0%	67%	67%	13%
Percent VMT operating at LOS F		0%	34%	0%	33%	33%	0%
Total daily veh trips produced in corridor		427,500	445,800	446,100	421,900	422,300	337,000
Percent SOV			67%	66%	61%	60%	48%
MEASURES OF THE SOLUTION
Forecast daily transit ridership		7,800	13,300	12,100	45,000	44,500	14,800
Forecast percent transit		1.1%	2.0%	2.0%	7.3%	7.2%	2.4%
AVO in corridor		N.A.	1.43	1.36	1.46	1.46	1.71
Percent daily bike trips		0.70%	0.70%	0.70%	0.88%	0.88%	1.01%
Average speed (mph) on Hwy. 101		54.7	27.1	42.5	28.4	28.4	32.3
Net reduction in daily vehicle trips		0	0	0	24,200	23,800	109,100
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
Total cost of the alternative (millions of 1994 $)		$0	$0	$102 - $142	$134 - $357	$43 - $47	N.A.
Total annualized cost of the alt. ($ millions)		$0	$0	$10.8 - $15.0	$10.8 - $28.8	$5.5 - $6.0	$5.0 (1)
Annualized Total cost/vehicle trip reduced		N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	$3.10-$6.30	$2.30-$2.60	$0.17
Annualized capital cost/vehicle trip reduced		N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	$1.55-$4.15	$0.80-$0.90	N.A.
Annualized O&M cost/vehicle trip reduced		N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	$1.55-$2.15	$1.50-$1.70	$0.17
MEASURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT
2015 daily running vehicle emissions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) (tons/day)			0.29	0.25	0.24	0.24	0.23
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)(tons/day)			1.44	1.41	1.28	1.26	1.20
Carbon Monoxide (CO)(tons/day)			3.59	2.89	2.77	2.57	2.51
Particulate Matter (PM10)(tons/day)			0.52	0.42	0.61	0.37	0.36
2015 Direct Energy Consumption (Billion Btu)			2,530	2,770	2,500	2,490	2,330
Impact on Vegetative Cover (2)		N.A.	X	---	X--	---	X
Impact on Community Character (2)		N.A.	---	---	X--	X	X
Planning Compatibility (2)		N.A.	---	+	+	+	+
1. The total annualized cost of the Pricing/Enhanced TDM alternative reflects the costs of the enhanced TDM components of the alternative. The parking pricing component of the alternative would generate more than enough revenue to cover the costs of the program, making the cost per trip reduced effectively to zero. 2. "+" indicates positive impact, "X" indicates no perceived impact, "---" indicates negative impact

This research has shown that travel time is not equally valued by travelers, that the time spent traveling within a vehicle (car, bus or train) is less onerous (by a factor of 1/3 to 1/2) than the time spent walking to/from the vehicle or waiting for the vehicle. Additionally, this research has demonstrated that the cost of the trip is perceived by travelers as the "out-of-pocket" cost of the trip, in terms of transit fares paid or automobile parking charges and tolls incurred during a trip. The research has also shown that these perceived out-of-pocket costs for a specific trip do not include the other, usually larger, costs of automobile ownership such as depreciation, insurance, etc.

Therefore, to induce travelers to shift from the currently predominant choice of single occupant vehicles (SOV) for at least some of their daily trips, the relative "generalized costs" of SOV versus alternative modes such as carpool and transit must be changed from the current conditions; the economic "signals" being sent to travelers must be modified. This can be accomplished both by making alternatives to SOV use more competitive with SOV and by making SOV usage less competitive with alternative modes. Making the alternative modes more competitive involves improving travel times for those alternatives as well as making them cheaper to use on an "out-of-pocket" cost basis. Making SOV usage less competitive can be accomplished by increasing SOV travel times (e.g. by allowing increased traffic congestion, limiting the availability of conveniently located parking, etc.) and by increasing the out-of-pocket costs of SOV use (e.g. charging higher parking fees, increasing the price of gasoline through taxes or fees, imposing tolls, etc.). These underlying travel behavior concepts formed the basis for the development of alternatives to the widening of Highway 101 and their forecast ability to reduce future automobile use.

Recent literature in transportation costs analysis (e.g. Litman, 1995; Miller and Moffet, 1993) extends this conclusion with efforts to bring out "hidden costs" of auto ownership and operation with the idea that the public will make more realistic mode choices. The "hidden cost" concept is described in more detail in Section 4.2.3 below. "As a significant share of drivers face paying more of the full cost of operating vehicles, some of them would choose alternatives. Transit might pick up some passengers and auto occupancies may increase" (Polzin, 1994).

A comparison can be made between the results of each "analysis alternative", the No Build alternative and the results forecast for the highway widening (Build Alternative) as proposed in Caltrans' Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) of October, 1993. The No Build alternative assumes the existing configuration of Highway 101 and most other local streets in the year 2015. (See section 2.3.2 of Chapter 2 for a description of assumed improvements in local streets and roads.) The widening of Highway 101, as described in the Caltrans DEIR, assumes a six lane facility (3 lanes in each direction) between Milpas Street and the Ventura County line (see Section 2.3.2 Future Roadway Network Characteristics). Each "analysis alternative" package of transportation improvements represents a substantially different approach to accommodating travel demand in the Highway 101 Corridor in order to analyze a broad range of options and were described in detail in Chapter 3. Their comparative impacts, by category of evaluation measure, are listed in Table 4-2, and are discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1 Measures of the Problem

Measures of the Problem compare the forecast traffic volumes and resulting levels of service along Highway 101 and on parallel arterials. Highway 101 evaluations consider the average daily traffic volumes and the peak hour level of service congestion which reflects the directional split in traffic flow. The parallel arterial comparison is based on average daily traffic as directional splits were not available for these facilities. Additional comparisons of operational characteristics which measure the problem complete this section of the evaluation.

Forecast Daily Traffic and Peak Hour Level of Service on Highway 101. If no capacity enhancing improvements are implemented in the Highway 101 Corridor by 2015, traffic volumes are forecast to increase by approximately 30 to 35 percent throughout most of the Corridor. Due to forecast growth in population and employment in both Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties (see Section 2.3.1 in Chapter 2), the percent increase in traffic at the west end of the Corridor is less than for the east end because existing traffic volumes are higher at the west end, leaving less available roadway capacity for future traffic growth. Increases of approximately 17 percent are projected at the more heavily trafficked west end of the Corridor at Milpas Street. Congestion is predicted to be greatest in the Santa Barbara portions of Highway 101 and will lessen very slightly in the Montecito area, continuing to lessen as Highway 101 approaches Ventura County.

Level of Service (LOS) is a quantifiable description of the traffic flow conditions on a roadway which is based upon the relationship between of the numbers of vehicles using the roadway and the traffic flow capacity of the road. The ratio of the traffic volume to the capacity of the roadway indicates the density of traffic flow or the level of congestion predicted on the road and can then be converted into one of six Level of Service categories (A through F). Figure 4-1 [not available] provides a graphic representation of the six levels of service which gives the reader a "feel" for traffic conditions associated with each Level of Service. Appendix G [not available] describes the methodology used to calculate LOS on Highway 101.

The peak hour level of service (LOS) on Highway 101, both in the base year (1993) and in the forecast year (2015) is worse in the eastbound direction in the p.m. peak period than westbound in the a.m. peak period. This finding is consistent with traffic flow patterns in most urban areas in the U.S. where the p.m. peak period typically has higher traffic volumes and worse LOS than the a.m. peak period. The forecasts show that the worst LOS conditions on Highway 101 in the study Corridor will exist both east of Salinas Street and east of San Ysidro Road. Highway 101 in the No Build alternative as well as in the Enhanced Bus and Rail Transit analysis alternatives is forecast to operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak at these locations, compared to LOS E in 1993. The highway widening or Build alternative, is forecast to improve Highway 101 traffic LOS east of Salinas Street to LOS D and to keep a level of LOS E east of San Ysidro Road. This reduction still results in the Santa Barbara and Montecito portions of Highway 101 operating at LOS F during peak periods and the portions in Summerland and Carpinteria operating at LOS E during average day peak periods in 2015.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative offers the best forecast LOS on Highway 101 of all the alternatives to the widening, keeping both sections of the highway operating at LOS E in the p.m. peak period. This is due to the high levels of trips predicted to be eliminated as a result of the modified work weeks and the parking charges for single occupant vehicles which park all day. The incentives to carpool, in the form of either a rebate if using public transit or reduced daily charges if carpooling are expected to provide a significant motivation for changes in the home to work trip. Traffic volumes are predicted to be lower than those forecast for the No Build alternative. Those portions of Highway 101 in the Montecito area are predicted to be operating at LOS E, in excess of the CMP threshold for congestion. Remaining portions of Highway 101 in the areas of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and south towards the Ventura County line are forecast to operate at LOS D.

2015 Forecast Daily Traffic on Parallel Arterials and CMP Intersection Impacts. The effect of any of the alternatives on local streets and roads is of paramount importance to members of the TAC and CAC. Traffic level of service on all roads in the Corridor, not just Highway 101, affects the mobility of South Coast residents. Table 4-2 displays the forecast average daily traffic on the parallel arterials at four locations along the Corridor. The No Build alternative results in highest forecast traffic volumes on these parallel arterials as forecast congestion on Highway 101 diverts more traffic to these local roads. Highway 192, Old Coast Highway and Cabrillo Boulevard in the Santa Barbara area are all predicted to experience an increase of 22 percent in average daily traffic (ADT) over the 1992 base year levels. This is a forecast increase of between 1,500 and 2,800 vehicles per day. Montecito area roadways, Highway 192 and North Jameson Lane, are predicted to experience an increase in ADT of 28 percent and 25 percent respectively. The Summerland and Carpinteria areas will also experience increased traffic volumes on parallel roadways. Highway 192, between Montecito and Summerland, is predicted to experience an increase in traffic volumes of 19 percent while Via Real is predicted to experience a 65 percent increase in traffic over the base year. Daily traffic volumes on Via Real are predicted to increase by 4,600 vehicles per day over 1992 base year traffic volumes under the No Build alternative. Carpinteria's parallel roadways are predicted to increase traffic volumes by approximately 41 percent over the 1992 levels. The primary reason for the increase in traffic on the parallel arterials under the No Build scenario is the high level of traffic congestion which is predicted to be experienced on Highway 101, which would make these parallel routes more attractive, in terms of travel time, to motorists, compared with Highway 101.

The Build alternative results in the greatest reductions in daily traffic volumes on the major parallel arterials. Forecast traffic volumes on many parallel arterial streets will be reduced substantially from ADT predicted under the No Build alternative. In the Santa Barbara area, the three parallel arterials are predicted to have traffic volumes 37 to 56 percent less than would occur in the No Build alternative. In the Montecito area Highway 192 is predicted to have ADT reduced by 85 percent over the No Build alternative. Only North Jameson Lane is predicted to experience an increase in traffic, a significant increase over the 2015 No Build estimated daily traffic volumes. This is due to the road's ability to continue to serve as a frontage road to Highway 101. This increase may result in significant congestion at this ramp.

The Enhanced Bus and Rail Transit analysis alternatives are forecast to provide slight reductions in these forecast traffic volumes compared to the No Build volumes. The reductions in traffic volumes on the parallel roadways predicted from the Rail Transit package are not as significant as those predicted for the Build alternative due to the congested conditions predicted for Highway 101. Access to bus or rail stations will still continue primarily by automobile with this traffic collecting on the parallel arterials and other major streets in each community. Increasing congestion on Highway 101 as predicted under the Enhanced Bus and Rail Transit analysis alternatives will cause drivers to look for alternate routes on local roads.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is forecast to result in traffic volumes on parallel arterials slightly higher than 1993 levels, but lower than all alternatives except the Build (highway widening) alternative, which is forecast to have arterial volumes less than 1993 values. This forecast result for the Build Alternative is a consequence of SBCAG's traffic assignment model, which, like most urban area travel forecasting models, tends to under-forecast traffic volumes on roads of lesser capacity and regional significance, particularly those paralleling a major freeway. Although a traffic volume "smoothing" approach (Appendix E) was applied to the volumes output form the traffic model to mitigate this problem, it could not completely eliminate it.

A total of nineteen Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersections were initially evaluated for traffic LOS impacts under each alternative as an additional assessment of each alternative's effect on local streets and roads in the Corridor (see Table 4-3) for full list and intersection approach volumes). In order to focus attention on those intersections which may be more adversely affected by changes in overall travel demand or circulation patterns, the following checks were applied to reduce the number of intersections that were analyzed and listed here:

• eliminate from consideration those intersections currently operating at LOS A or B;
• eliminate from consideration those intersections currently operating at LOS C which have capital improvements identified in the 1993 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Table 4-3
Study Area CMP Intersection Comparasion^(a)
(Daily Approach Volumes)

(view Table 4-3)

Intersections eliminated from further focus by the above screening procedure are presumed to have sufficient capacity to absorb additional demand through the year 2015 and still remain within the CMP LOS standards regardless of which alternative for the Highway 101 Corridor is pursued. Santa Barbara County's adopted CMP sets a threshold of LOS D for intersections, below which future intersection capacity improvements must be identified or transit or Pricing/Enhanced TDM strategies must be implemented which will bring the failing intersection to within the designated LOS threshold. Those intersections which were not screened out by the above criteria were analyzed in greater detail using the Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 method for estimating intersection level of service. Table 4-4 includes the results of this intersection analysis. CMP intersections are generally forecast to see improved levels of service under the Build, Bus, Rail or Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternatives over those forecast for the No Build alternative.

Two intersections are predicted to fail the CMP threshold under the No Build alternative and two are predicted to fail the threshold under the Build alternative. It is the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative, with its major shift of trips to carpooling and vanpooling which is expected to result in the greatest improvements in local intersection performance. None of the critical intersections are predicted to fail under the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative.

Table 4-4
Congestion Management Plan Intersection Analysis

Intersection	91-94 Cmp Los	2015 No-build		2015 Build		2015 Enhanced Bus		2015 Rail		2015 Pricing/ Enhanced TDM
		V/C (1)	LOS	V/C	LOS	V/C	LOS	V/C	LOS	V/C	LOS
U.S.101 NB. Milpas St.	D	.78	C	.85	D	.75	C	.75	C	.62	B
U.S. 101 SB-off/ Mission St.	D	.99	E	.99	E	.94	E	.94	E	.82	C
U.S. 101 NB-off/Las Positas	D	1.05	F	.82	D	1.04	F	1.04	F	.77	C
U.S. 101 NB/EW/Calle Real	D	.87	D	.69	B	.74	C	.74	C	.55	A
Castillo Blvd./ Montecito Street	D	.48	A	.54	A	.47	A	.47	A	.37	A
Calle Real/U.S. 101	D	.68	B	.98	E	.62	B	.62	B	.49	A
The LOS results above reflect Intersection Improvements identified in the 1993 RTP or the 1994 CMP. (1) V/C is volume to capacity ratio for highest traffic level intersection approach volume.

Total Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and Total Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) on Highway 101. Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) on Highway 101 are forecast to increase approximately 43 percent over 1993 levels by the year 2015 for the No Build alternative. Forecast VMT varies slightly among the alternatives, with the Build alternative forecast to have the highest VMT on Highway 101 and the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative the lowest, with a difference of 16 percent between them.

Vehicle Hours of Travel on Highway 101 are forecast to increase by 292 percent from 1993 to the year 2015 No Build alternative, reflecting the growth in delay due to forecast congestion from increased traffic volumes. The Build alternative is forecast to have the lowest level of future VHT on Highway 101, as its extra two lanes of capacity better accommodate future traffic volumes allowing for higher vehicle speeds. Among the alternatives to the widening, the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative provides the lowest forecast VHT on Highway 101, 13 percent higher than the Build alternative.

Percent of VMT Operating at LOS E or F in the Corridor. Only the Build alternative is forecast to provide for acceptable (as defined by the County's CMP) traffic flow (level of service D or better) along all segments of Highway 101 on an average daily basis in the year 2015. Based on measures of congestion, the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is the next most effective after the Build alternative in relieving forecast traffic congestion in the Corridor. Under this alternative, only one segment of Highway 101 in the Corridor, east of San Ysidro Road, (or approximately 13 percent of the forecast vehicle miles of travel) would be operating at LOS E during peak periods. The remainder of the Highway 101 Corridor is forecast to operate at LOS D during peak periods in this alternative.

The Rail Transit analysis alternative and the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative are forecast to result in traffic conditions of LOS E or worse along the entire length of Highway 101 in the Highway 101 Corridor in the year 2015. Under both the Rail Transit and Bus analysis alternatives, approximately 33 percent of the forecast vehicle miles of travel in the Highway 101 Corridor would operate under LOS F conditions.

Total Daily Vehicle Trips Produced in Corridor. The largest increases in the number of daily vehicle trips produced in the Corridor over Existing are projected to occur in the No Build and Build Alternatives (18,300 and 18,600), for an increase in daily vehicle trips of about five percent. The number of daily trips is expected to decrease by about 5,000 (or one percent) for the Enhanced Bus and Rail Alternatives. The largest decrease in trips is expected to occur in the Pricing/Enhanced TDM Alternative, with a decrease of 90,500 trips. Under this alternative, major shifts of trips to carpooling and vanpooling are expected, thereby reducing the total number of vehicle trips by about 21 percent.

Percent of Total Person Trips in Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV). Changes in the forecast average daily percentage of single occupant vehicle trips is greatest under the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative; reduced from 67 percent under the No Build alternative to 48 percent. The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative includes both an enhanced employer performance element and an areawide pricing element. The employer element is one that involves all employers within the county with 20 or more employees implementing comprehensive, aggressive Pricing/Enhanced TDM programs (See Section 3.3.3). The areawide pricing element tests the effects of pricing incentives or disincentives on reducing single occupant vehicle trips. A. $3.00 per day surcharge on all SOV all day parking in the South Coast region was used as a surrogate for various pricing disincentives (parking tax, parking charges, flat tolls or congestion fees). The surcharge was applied to all travel, i.e. all trip purposes with destinations in the South Coast region. In assessing the impact of the enhanced employer element versus the areawide pricing element, one should remember that the enhanced employer element is applied to home-based work trips (HBW) only, whereas the areawide pricing strategy is applied to all trip purposes.

The pricing element alone is estimated to reduce HBW trips by about 10 percent. Full implementation of both elements (employer and areawide elements of the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative program) is estimated to result in a reduction of HBW trips by 21 percent. The relatively impressive results generated by the enhanced employer strategies need to be tempered by the realization that HBW trips account for only 22 percent of forecast total daily trips in the Corridor. However, according to the results of the intercept travel survey (see Table 2-5), 66 percent of the trips on Highway 101 in a weekday PM Peak hour of traffic were work related trips. Thus, the full implementation of the existing Pricing/Enhanced TDM ordinance alone would have a measurable impact on traffic congestion in the Corridor during peak hours, but a lesser impact at other times of the day. By far, the effectiveness of the combined Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative on reducing daily SOV trips is derived from the application of the pricing element to all trip purposes as it provides a noticeable "out of pocket" cost to those who drive alone.

Smaller reductions in single occupant vehicle percentages are also predicted for the Rail Transit and Enhanced Bus analysis alternatives. These alternatives improve the attractiveness of transit relative to the auto for many trip origins and destinations in the Corridor, but do not simultaneously penalize the auto mode.

4.2.2 Measures of the Solution

Measures of the Solution focus on the ability of each "analysis alternative" to result in a shift in travel mode, either to transit or bicycle. The associated reductions in daily vehicle trips and travel time are summarized here for each of the alternatives.

Daily Transit Trips and Percent of Trips Made by Transit. Under the Build alternative, the percent of transit trips in the Highway 101 Corridor is estimated to be approximately two percent, compared to one percent in 1990. However, based on the SBCAG travel model forecasts, the average daily auto occupancy in the Corridor under the Build alternative is estimated to be 1.36 persons per vehicle, somewhat lower than the 1.41 estimated from Caltrans travel survey data in 1990. This suggests very little, if any, change in the predominance of the single-occupant automobile for most travel in the Corridor is forecast by 2015 for this alternative. The continued domination of the single-occupant automobile in the 2015 Build alternative can be attributed to two primary factors. The proposed addition of two lanes of freeway capacity reduces future levels of congestion (compared to the No Build alternative) and therefore the inconvenience of automobile travel in terms of travel time delays. Secondly, the Build alternative, as forecasted, does not include any significant enhancements (such as rail transit, express bus service or even enhanced local bus service) over existing conditions which would provide motorists with attractive alternatives to the automobile.

The three analysis alternative packages (Rail Transit, Enhanced Bus and Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternatives) all achieve greater transit ridership levels than those forecast for the highway widening alternative. Improved traffic flows and a highway Corridor operating with no VMT in stop and go or congested traffic in the Build alternative effectively eliminate any incentive for trip making to shift modes to transit. Both the Enhanced Bus and Rail Transit alternatives dramatically increase transit service levels and intermodal service significantly, which result in the more than tripling of the daily numbers of transit riders.

The tripling of transit ridership as a result of the Enhanced Bus Transit Package can be attributed to the addition of express bus service in the Highway 101 Corridor itself, which provides commuters an alternative to driving along in congested traffic. New or enhanced bus service levels both to and around the proposed freeway transit "stations" provide for quicker trips and less waiting time at stations for transfers from the Express Bus service into the downtown areas. The frequency of peak period service in the Carpinteria area is forecast to tripled on existing MTD bus routes as it is on most existing service which connects directly with the proposed freeway transit stations. Increased service along with the proposed new shuttle service both provide direct access to proposed freeway express bus stops. The addition of new evening local bus or shuttle service in Montecito, Santa Barbara, and Isla Vista areas on designated lines, which connect with new evening express bus service along the Corridor provides Corridor area residents and visitors the ability to travel by bus where little or no opportunity existed before.

The Rail Transit Package attracts essentially the same level of transit ridership as the Enhanced Bus Transit Package for several reasons. The new rail service is complemented by express bus service in this package resulting in travel times which compete favorably with the congested levels of service forecast on the Highway 101 freeway. New shuttles proposed in the Carpinteria area, the City College area and the new shuttle along Ward Memorial Boulevard between UCSB and the freeway provide increased service focused on trip attractors, particularly the schools, which traditionally have greater transit patronage. Conversely, the somewhat shorter travel times offered by the rail transit line compared with the express bus is offset for many potential riders by the additional time needed to transfer between feeder buses and shuttles to/from the proposed rail line.

The percent of daily trips which are forecast to be made by transit under the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is forecast to be approximately 2.4 percent, with an overall average daily vehicle occupancy in the Corridor of 1.71 persons per vehicle. Compared to the Build alternative, the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is estimated to result in a reduction of 109,100 daily vehicle trips in the Corridor. This is primarily due to the steep $3.00 per day (1994 dollars) parking charge on each SOV trip taken that is included in this alternative, compelling travelers to carpool or take transit to defray the additional out-of-pocket cost of using an auto to make a trip.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative achieves a forecast transit share of 2.4 percent, a level higher than that predicted under the No Build alternative while lower than the Enhanced Bus or Rail Transit analysis alternatives. This is due, in part, to the assumption that the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative included no complementary improvements in transit service, only incentives and disincentives encouraging its use. This results in most forecast mode shifts in this analysis alternative primarily being made into carpools and vanpools as opposed to transit. This is consistent with early Regulation 1501 experience in the greater Los Angeles area (Guiliano, Hwang, and Wachs, Transportation Research, 1993). Modified work weeks are included in the enhanced employer element of the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative. Recent evidence shows that compressed work weeks do reduce both trips and vehicles miles of travel (VMT). Additional non-work trips made do not totally off-set the commute trips avoided on the employees' day off (Ho and Stewart, 1992), thus producing a net reduction in average daily trips and VMT.

Average Vehicle Occupancy in the Corridor. The average daily vehicle occupancy (AVO) is forecast to remain relatively constant with today's AVO under either the Build, Rail Transit or the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative. A slight decrease in AVO is forecast under the Build alternative which is attributable to increased travel speeds and reduced congestion in the Highway 101 Corridor, making it less attractive for travelers to carpool. The slight increase in AVO predicted for the Enhanced Bus or Rail analysis alternatives reflects the increase in transit ridership.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is forecast to achieve the largest increase in AVO of all "analysis alternatives" evaluated, with a major shift of travelers into carpools help to defray the costs of the $3.00 per day SOV parking charge as well as reflecting the affect on mode choice of the assumed employer incentives to use alternative modes included in this alternative.

The parking fee program is expected to have a limited impact on visitor and weekend travelers to the Corridor. The impact on weekend and visitor trips is expected to be less than on the daily commute trips as vacation trips have a higher auto occupancy generally than other trips. The intercept travel survey results support this conclusion. Sunday peak period average vehicle occupancy was calculated at 2.18 persons per vehicle. Only thirty percent of the observed vehicles had one occupant, as observed during the Sunday PM peak southbound survey, while the weekday evening peak period observed drive alone share was 71.1 percent. The continuation of the 90 minute free parking program is expected to apply to the majority of visitor and non-work related trips. Although overnight stays could result in some application of the enhanced fee program to visitors to the area, most are expected to receive some subsidy due to the higher auto occupancy rate for these travelers.

Percent Daily Bike Trips. The percent of daily trips made by bicycle is a measure of the attractiveness of the bicycle mode among each of the alternatives. The future No Build and Build alternatives were estimated to have the same average daily bicycle mode share, 0.7 percent, as the base 1993 conditions, as no additional bicycle facility improvements or bicycle amenities were assumed in those alternatives. Bicycle travel can be expected to have greater reductions in the visitor and weekend trips as a result of the expanded bicycle facilities. No firm plans have been developed by MTD for enhanced bicycle accessibility on the bus system at this time, although an initial bike rack on bus equipment testing study was completed by MTD and further studies are expected. Connectivity with the existing bus service would be enhanced with the completion of the planned bicycle facilities. For these reasons, the percent of trips made by bicycles under either the No Build or the Highway widening alternative is predicted to be equal.

Increases in the percent of trips made by bicycles under either the Rail Transit or Bus Transit packages (0.88 percent of daily person trips) can be attributed in some part to the interconnectivity between planned bicycle improvements and proposed transit and rail stations or services. The two alternatives assume additional bike on transit equipment is provided. Specific examples of modal interconnectivity follow.

The existing class II bike lanes on Hollister Avenue and Modoc Road would provide a direct link to the proposed transit station in the vicinity of Five Points just east of the intersection of Hollister and Modoc Road, and the existing Maria Ygnacia Creek bike path on Patterson Avenue at the railroad tracks would provide direct access to the Patterson Avenue area transit station under the Rail Transit package. The existing State Street class II facility and the planned class II facilities in downtown Santa Barbara would be located on Anacapa Street parallel to State Street would provide a parallel route for bicyclists to connect with the existing Amtrak station. Further connections from the proposed express bus flyer station with enhanced transit connections to either downtown Santa Barbara, the Waterfront, or the Santa Barbara City College campus may provide even greater connectivity for bicyclists. Bicyclists who choose to board their bicycles could make connections to the existing class I and II facilities on East Cabrillo Boulevard as well as the other planned and existing bicycle facilities in downtown Santa Barbara.

In the Montecito area, existing class II facilities on Olive Mill Road and San Ysidro Road would provide direct access to either the Olive Mill Road station proposed under the Rail Transit package or the proposed flyer stop station at the San Ysidro Road/Highway 101 interchange. However, improvements to the route (especially Ortega Hill Road) would be required to make this route suitable for even Class III designation. In the Carpinteria area existing class II bicycle facilities on Casitas Pass Road and Carpinteria Avenue would provide nearby bicycle access to the proposed rail/transit station at Linden Avenue railroad crossing. Planned class II bicycle facilities on Linden Avenue would provide a direct connection to the Linden Avenue Interchange freeway flyer station as the route is planned to cross Highway 101 and continue to a proposed class I facility along the railroad right of way. The County's plan for a class I bike path along the existing rail Corridor would also enhance travel between stations along the highway and provide for access of freeway transit stops as proposed in under the Enhanced Bus Transit analysis alternative along the length of the Study Area.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative includes additional employer programs to support bicycle commuting. The results of the forecasting reflect the impacts on bicycle shares of these elements of the alternatives as the bicycle share for the two transit alternatives increases to 0.88 percent, a 26 percent increase over the future No Build and the share for the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative increases to 1.01 percent, a 44 percent increase over the No Build share. Most of these increases are expected to come from trips less than six miles in length, one-way, which will affect a reduction more in shorter auto trips which will have less impact on Highway 101 traffic volumes.

Average Speed on Highway 101. The average daily speed is forecast to drop by half between 1993 and the year 2015 No Build alternative due to forecast increases in traffic volumes and associated congestion as a result of forecast increases in population and employment in the South Coast and Ventura County over the next 20 years. This will result in more traffic diverting to the parallel, local arterials as they will be as fast or faster than Highway 101 to travel on during peak periods. The Build alternative is forecast to have the highest future average speed at 42.5 mph, which is still less than the 1993 average. The Enhanced Bus and Rail Transit analysis alternatives provide for a slight increase in average speed over the No Build, while the Pricing/Enhanced TDM is forecast to have the highest average speed of the alternatives to the widening, but still significantly below today's average daily speeds on Highway 101.

Net Reductions in Daily Vehicle Trips. The Rail Transit analysis alternative and the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative are both forecast to result in approximately 24,000 (5 percent) fewer daily vehicle trips in the Corridor, with a correspondingly reduced estimate of vehicle miles of travel, approximately 132,000 vehicle miles per day, 11 percent fewer than the Build alternative.

The forecast effects of the pricing element of the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative; reduced vehicle trips, are supported in several surveys of case studies where driver paid parking was initiated. These surveys are coalesced in a recent article, An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements, (Shoup, 1995) and shown in Table 4-5. Shoup observes that " on average, in these seven case studies, driver paid parking reduced the numbers of cars driven to work by 19 cars per 100 employees".

Table 4-5
Driver-paid Parking Reduces Solo Driving to Work
(Cars driven to work per 100 Employees)

Location and Date	Employer Pays for Parking	Driver Pays for Parking	Difference	Price Elasticity of Demand
Civic Center, Los Angeles, 1969 (a)	78	50	-28	-0.22
Downtown Ottawa, Canada, 1978 (b)	39	32	-7	-0.10
Century City, Los Angeles, 1980 (a)	94	80	-14	-0.08
Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles, 1984 (b)	48	30	-18	-0.23
Warner Center, Los Angeles, 1989 (b)	92	64	-28	-0.18
Washington, D.C., 1991 (a)	76	58	-18	-0.13
Downtown Los Angeles, 1991 (a)	75	56	-19	-0.15
Average of Case Studies	72	53	-19	-0.15
Sources: Groninga and Francis (1969), Transport Canada (1978), Shoup and Pickrell (1980), Surver, Shoup, and Wachs (1984), Soper (1989), Miller (1991), Wilson (1991) in Shoup (1995) (a) Case study compared the commuting behavior of employees with and without employer-paid parking. (b) Case study compared the commuting behavior of employees before and after employer

4.2.3 Measures of Effectiveness

Cost effectiveness is one concern frequently mentioned at the public scoping meeting and at several TAC/CAC meetings. Measures of effectiveness focus on the relative cost of each scenario compared with the benefits each offers.

Total Cost of the Alternative. The highest total costs for an alternative are estimated for the either the Build alternative or the Rail Transit analysis alternative, depending on which scenario or technology is selected. The total cost of the Build alternative is estimated to be between $102 and $142 million expressed in 1994 dollars based upon the cost estimates provided by Caltrans in the Draft EIR. Total project costs for the proposed rail strategy vary due to the two types of rail technology considered with $102 million representing the cost-effectiveness of the diesel rail car (DRC) technology and the $142 million representing the light rail transit (LRT) technology. Higher LRT costs are attributable to the need for construction of the 22 miles of new track, electric power distribution system, and a requirement for a complete LRT storage yard and maintenance shop. These needs are required for either a small or large LRT fleet.

Operating and maintenance costs for the DRC are higher than those for the LRT or the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative because of the cost of operating in a shared track environment with Southern Pacific Railroad and Amtrak. These costs are affected by who operates the signals and dispatch systems. Total cost estimates for the rail alternative range from $134 million for the DRC based system to $357 million for the LRT based system while total costs for the Enhanced Bus Transit package are estimated between $43 million and $47 million. Both costs include the cost of additional buses to serve the revised bus service levels. The higher bus costs are due to estimates for union based operations and maintenance costs if no contract service could be negotiated for the new Highway 101 express bus service. Total cost of the Pricing/ Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is the lowest of all alternatives evaluated except the No Build. Costs are associated with the administration of Pricing/Enhanced TDM programs estimated from cost information provided by Traffic Solutions, and the cost of providing incentives to tourists or visitors to the Santa Barbara area.

Annualized Total Cost of the Alternative. The annualized cost of the Build alternative ranges from between $11 million to $15 million per year. Annualized costs for the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative and resulting cost effectiveness are forecast to be slightly higher than those achieved by the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative. The total annualized cost of the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative is estimated at between $5.5 million and $6.0 million. Total annualized costs of the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative are estimated at $5 million per year.

Annualized Total Cost Per Vehicle Trip Reduced. As trips are predicted to increase under the Build alternative, no cost effectiveness measure of annualized cost per vehicle trip reduced can be calculated. The most "bang for the buck" is achieved with the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative with the total annualized cost per vehicle trip reduced by $0.17, or less than a quarter. The Measures of Effectiveness ("bang for the buck") for the Enhanced Bus Transit analysis alternative have been calculated as an estimated total cost per vehicle trip reduced (in 1994 dollars) of between $2.31 and $2.59. This is 12 to 14 times higher than the cost per vehicle trip reduced by the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative. The total annualized cost per vehicle trip reduced, is also the highest of the three alternatives — ranging from $3.81 to $5.70 per vehicle trip reduced.

Annualized Capital Cost Per Vehicle Trip Reduced. No capital costs within the Corridor are associated with the No Build alternative. Capital costs for the Build alternative exceed the operations and maintenance costs for this alternative.

Annualized capital cost per trip reduced for the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative are estimated as half of those for the Rail Transit analysis alternative on the low end of the estimate and nearly five times greater than those capital costs estimated at the high end. It is with capital costs that differences between the bus and rail strategies are the most dramatic. The estimated annualized capital cost per vehicle trip reduced is $1.56 for the DRC technology and $4.15 for the LRT. The corresponding annualized capital costs per trip for the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative range from $0.80 to $0.88 cents per trip. The Rail Transit analysis alternative results in annualized capital cost effectiveness rate per trip reduced which are estimated at from ten to thirty times more expensive than those achieved by the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative while the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative results in differences which are three to four times more expensive than the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternatives program's capital costs contribute an annualized cost of $0.15 per vehicle trip. The absence of expensive construction costs keeps the lid on the overall costs. This cost effectiveness evaluation also does not estimate the additional revenue generated by the parking fee program which is estimated at potentially between $25 and $50 million per year.

Annualized Operating and Maintenance Cost Per Vehicle Trip Reduced. Operations and maintenance costs for the No Build and the Build are assumed from between $500 to $2,000 per lane mile per year depending on the type of concrete (Chuck Gaunt, Caltrans District 11, personal conversation, 1994). This is estimated at approximately $96,000 per year for the No Build and $144,000 per year for the build alternatives (1994 dollars). As before, the absence of any reduction in vehicle trips due to either of these alternatives makes a comparison of annualized capital, operations and maintenance costs per vehicle trips reduced impossible.

Forecast annualized operating and maintenance costs for the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative is between $10 to $12 million (1994 dollars) per year, depending upon the amount of enhanced service forecast to be operated by private contractors as compared with MTD operation. However the annualized Enhanced Bus analysis alternative's operations and maintenance costs are a result of the lower operations costs than those estimated for the Rail Transit. The cost of even non-contract bus operations can be expected to be less than the cost of the jointly shared track operations. The estimated annualized operating and maintenance cost per trip reduced is $1.56 for the LRT technology and $2.15 for the DRC technology. These estimates were based on conversations with joint track use operations in Washington State, Oregon, and San Diego County's North County Transit District. Differences between the Enhanced Bus and Rail analysis alternatives on the operations and maintenance side range from a five cent to nearly a seventy five cent difference per vehicle trip reduced.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternatives program's capital costs contribute an annualized cost of $0.15 per vehicle trip reduced while the operating and maintenance costs contribute $0.02 per trip reduced. The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternatives program is, however, expected to generate revenue which would cover the estimated operations and maintenance costs, including the costs of proposed promotions and discounts for tourists and visitors to choose modes other than the auto for trips to and within the South Coast.

Externalized Costs of Auto Operation. The costs of infrastructure built to accommodate auto traffic are often underestimated in a general economic sense under the assumption that they encourage economic development. That causes alternatives to new roadway construction, such as the Enhanced Bus Transit analysis alternative, to be at a competitive disadvantage since many of the costs associated with the Highway 101 widening alternative are externalized and borne by society rather than the user (M.W. Cameron, Efficiency and Fairness on the Road: Strategies for Unsnarling Traffic in Southern California, 1994). These costs are both internal and borne by the automobile user or external and borne by society in the form of fuel taxes and registration fees. These "hidden" costs can also be fixed or variable, depending on use. These costs can be market costs that are goods regularly traded in a competitive market such as gasoline or non-market costs such as driver stress. Table 4-6 summarizes and classifies these "hidden" costs. Highway widening or new highway construction alternatives typically lead to increases in driving and total costs as well as reduced productivity as drivers perceive economies of scale. The economies of scale offered by new and widened roadways affect drivers who now have more route choices available when they make a trip; these route choices may lead to an increase in trip length and driving (T. Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, March 1995).

Table 4-6
Motor Vehicle Hidden Costs

	Variable	Fixed
Internal (User)	Fuel	Vehicle Purchase
	Short-term Parking	Vehicle Registration
	Vehicle Maintenance	Insurance Payments
	User Time	Long-term Parking Facilities
	User Accident Risk	Vehicle Maintenance
	Stress
External (Social)	Road Maintenance	Road Construction
	Traffic Law Enforcement	"Free" or Subsidized Parking
	Insurance Disbursements	Traffic Planning
	Congestion Delays	Street Lighting
	Environmental Impacts	Land Use Impacts
	Uncompensated Accident Risk	Social Inequity
Note: Italicized items represent non-market costs Source: T. Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, March 1995

Under priced driving, another term used to refer to "hidden" costs, is inequitable because non-drivers are forced to subsidize drivers. Typically, non-drivers are those with the lowest incomes and are those most dependent on transit. The circulation system is typically not geared towards their needs. Under priced driving also encourages residents to select automobile-dependent housing since many housing options are available to those with access to an auto.

These "hidden" costs should be used to more precisely develop estimates of the true costs to the South Coast of the Highway 101 widening alternative. Table 4-7 summarizes typical internal and external costs that have been estimated for automobile travel in the U.S.

Based on this national analysis, a cost of $0.40 per mile can be applied during the peak periods and $0.27 during the off-peak periods to approximately account for the "hidden" (external) costs of auto travel in Santa Barbara. These cost estimates, an average of the urban and rural external costs during each of the periods, reflect the level of development in the Highway 101 Study Area. Given an estimated average auto trip length of seven miles in the South Coast, these "hidden" costs can also be expressed as an average of $2.80 per peak period auto trip taken and $1.89 per off-peak auto trip.

Table 4-7
U.S. Motor Vehicle Costs, by Mile and Total

	Vehicle Miles Traveled (billions)	Internal Per Mile (dollars)	% of Total	External Per Mile (dollars)	% of Total	Total Costs Per Mile (dollars)
Urban Peak Period	460	$0.71	54%	$0.61	46%	$1.32
Urban Off-Peak	920	$0.71	68%	$0.34	32%	$1.05
Rural	920	$0.64	76%	$0.20	24%	$0.84
Weighted Average		$0.67	68%	$0.32	32%	$0.99
Source: T. Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, March 1995

4.2.4 Measures of Community and Environmental Impact

A combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation measures were developed to assess community and environmental impacts of the "analysis alternatives". These measures are more subjective in nature, with fewer established thresholds of significance available for comparison. Rating systems provide the reader the thresholds used in each area of analysis. Air quality and energy consumption impacts are quantified in grams per day and British Thermal Units (Btu's), units typically calculated for these types of impacts. Social impacts receive a more subjective rating system with a plus "+" indicating a positive impact, an "X" indicating no perceived impact and a "--" indicating a negative impact as a result of the alternative. Rating systems for social impacts are provided in the following sections while a more detailed descriptions of these rating systems is found in Appendix D [not available].

Vehicle Emissions and Vehicle Energy Consumption. Transportation energy consumption increases with the forecast amount of VMT. The greatest energy consumption impact would result from the Build alternative. The Enhanced Bus and Rail alternatives result in proportionately lower levels of energy consumption according to their predicted levels of VMT. Direct energy consumption of automobiles under the Enhanced Bus and Rail analysis alternatives results in between 1.35 and 1.4 percent less energy consumption than levels predicted under the No Build alternative.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative is forecast to result in the lowest levels of running vehicle emissions, lower than each of the other alternatives in every emission. Total mobile source emissions are forecast to decline, even as traffic volumes are forecast to increase, due to assumed improvements in vehicle emissions controls, technologies and Clean Air Act mandates. The future emissions analysis assumed that alternative technologies would be fully operational by 2015. At this point, however, not all of the technologies are ready for implementation; this analysis is, therefore, optimistic. The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative was also estimated to have the lowest annual direct energy consumption. Lower energy consumption levels are associated generally with changes in the weekday home to work trip making and are not a result in changes to the tourist or weekend travel.

Transportation energy consumption increases with the forecast amount of vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The greatest energy consumption impact would result from the Build alternative. The Enhanced Bus, Rail and Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternatives result in proportionately lower levels of energy consumption according to their predicted levels of VMT. Direct energy consumption of automobiles under the Enhanced Bus and Rail analysis alternatives results in approximately 1.4 percent less energy consumption than levels predicted under the No Build alternative. The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative would result in the lowest energy consumption levels of all of the alternatives, approximately eight percent below the No Build. Lower energy consumption levels are associated generally with changes in the weekday home to work trip making and are not a result in changes to the tourist or weekend travel.

Caltran's direct energy consumption method relies on average fuel efficiency and VMT as the two primary components used to estimate energy consumption. Speed variations are only generally reflected in the average fuel economy. Although speed does effect fuel consumption, this quantification method is not able to reflect the nuances of the speed differences.

Impact on Vegetative Cover. No impacts to vegetative cover within the Corridor are expected under the No Build alternative as there is no construction associated with this alternative and therefore no removal of any vegetation. Caltrans' Draft EIR (March 1993) summarizes the impacts of the highway widening on vegetation stating "loss of many of the mature trees is unavoidable and substantial." The removal of some mature trees is also predicted for the areas of the bus flyer stops. These stations are expected to be on and off stops adjacent to the highway at existing interchanges. The amount of mature vegetation to be removed under this alternative would most likely be less than that associated with the full highway widening approach and median plantings would not be impacted. Impacts on vegetative cover are considered negative as express bus station locations within the freeway Corridor would result in removal of trees and shrubs which have achieved maturity and substantial height. The screening benefit against noise, glare and visual intrusion would be reduced through the loss of these trees. Remaining bus station sites have limited vegetative cover and are not expected to have as great a removal of vegetation. Specific estimates of impact and possible mitigation would be determined in future, detailed implementation studies if this alternative were to be pursued further.

Impacts on vegetative cover from the Rail Transit analysis alternative are considered less negative than those resulting from either the Build alternative or from the Enhanced Bus Transit analysis alternative, as mature vegetation along the existing Highway 101 Corridor will not be disturbed. The ability to place additional track within the existing rail right of way is expected to have limited impact on vegetation along the existing alignment. The greater number of station locations proposed in the Rail Transit analysis alternative may result in somewhat more removal of vegetative cover than those proposed for the bus approach. No impacts to vegetative cover are expected from the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative as no construction is assumed necessary to meet the requirements of this alternative.

No comparison of mitigation for removal of vegetation resulting is possible in this analysis as the conceptual station location and design make it impossible to provide comparable levels of analysis between the highway widening alternative and the other alternatives.

Neighborhood Intrusion/Impact on Community Character

Change in ADT on parallel streets. Application of the rating system for changes in traffic volumes on parallel streets in the Highway 101 Corridor is based on traffic volumes and roadway segments. The changes in daily traffic volumes were rated using the following scale:

Percent Decrease in ADT	Rating
> 50% decrease	+
25% - 50% decrease	X
< 25% decrease	--

The results of the evaluation system are listed in Table 4-8. The Highway Build alternative results in the largest reductions in ADT on parallel streets due to the added capacity on the highway itself, the resulting reduced congestion, and increased speeds. Only marginal reductions in daily traffic are predicted for the parallel arterials under either the Bus, Rail or Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative.

Table 4-8
Community Impacts on Parallel Arterials

Route	2015 Build	Enhanced Rail Alt.	Enhanced Bus Alt.	Parking Pricing TDM Alt.
S/O Salinas Street:
Hwy. 192	+	--	--	--
Old Coast Highway	X	--	--	--
Cabrillo Blvd.	X	--	--	--
S/O San Ysidro:
Hwy. 192	+	--	--	--
North Jameson Lane	+	--	--	--
S/O N. Padaro Lane:
Hwy. 192	--	--	--	--
Via Real	--	--	--	X
S/O Casitas Pass:
Hwy. 192	+	--	--	--
N. Via Real	+	--	--	--
Carpinteria Ave.	+	--	--	--
> 50 Percent Decrease = + 25% - 50% Decrease = X < 25% Decrease = --

Although congestion is reduced on Highway 101 as a result of the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative, the resulting average speed of approximately 32 miles per hour does not provide enough of a travel time incentive for all motorists to remain on Highway 101. Travel times for drivers using the parallel road system will compete with those staying on Highway 101 if the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative were implemented.

Changes in Bus/Train Service Frequencies. New bus routes and increased service on existing routes, proposed as part of either the Enhanced Bus or Rail Transit packages, are expected to increase vehicular noise locally along the streets that are traversed by these routes. This noise would be the most intrusive in residential areas, particularly single family residential areas. A simplified rating system was applied based on the bus routes for which increased headways or new service were proposed.

Change in Bus/Train Route Frequencies	Rating
Frequencies increase by less than 2 times	+
Frequencies increase 2 times	X
Frequencies increase 3 times	--

Table 4-9 includes the impact results of the qualitative evaluation tool based on the increase in frequency of bus routes during the week day peak periods. No impacts under this criteria are predicted for the No Build, the Build, or the Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative. Although some increase in bus service under these alternatives is assumed due to increased growth in the area and MTD's continued service levels, the identification of what service increases would occur on which routes is outside of the scope of this study.

Table 4-9
Bus Route Frequency & Rail Station Compatibility

Station Locations	Peak Period Bus Route Frequency Rating	Station Compatibil-ity with Land Uses	Park & Ride Space Availability
Rail Transit Stations
Carpinteria @ Linden	+	+	YES
Summerland @ Evans	+	+	NO
Montecito @ Olive Mill Rd.	X	X	NO
Existing Amtrack Station	+	+	YES
Holister @ Modoc	+	+	YES
Goleta @ Patterson	+	+	YES
Storke/Glen Annie	+	+	YES
Bus Route Frequency & Bus Compatibility
Station Locations	Peak Period Bus Route Frequency Rating	Station Compatibility with Land Uses	Park & Ride Space Availability
Bus Transit Stations
Linden @ Highway 101	--	+	YES
Evans @ Highway 101	--	+	NO
San Yisidro @ Higway 101	--	+	NO
Castillo @ Highway 101	--	+	NO
State Street @ La Cumbre	--	+	YES
Holister @ Ward Memorial (SR 217)	--	+	YES
Storke @ Holister	X	+	YES
> 50 Percent Decrease = + 25% - 50% Decrease = X < 25% Decrease = --

The Carpinteria area would experience the greatest increases in noise from the addition of new or extended bus routes proposed under the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative. Many of the bus route service revisions propose a ten minute headway in place of thirty minute headways. This almost threefold increase during the morning peak period (6:00 AM to 8:30 AM) is expected to be the most noticeable as ambient noise levels are generally lower. (It is important to remember that this increase results in only six buses per hour per route.) Express bus service on the freeway connecting to existing or new stations is not expected to create disruptions to either residential or commercial areas.

Compatibility with Current Land Uses. The need for local street reconfiguration identified in Chapter 3 for freeway flyer bus or rail transit stations will serve as a basis for a negative impact. Highway widening impacts was based on those socioeconomic impacts identified in Caltrans' Draft EIR. A simplified rating system was applied to each station or bus stop location.

Station Compatibility with Existing Land Uses	Rating
Commercial	+
Industrial	+
Multifamily Residential	+
Single Family Residential	X
Special Generators (schools, hospitals)	+
Resort/ Tourist	+
Local street reconfiguration potential	--

Proposed rail or bus station compatibility with existing land uses is listed by station in Table 4-9. Current land uses are described in this section and serve as the basis of comparison for the bus and rail analysis alternatives. The stations of the Enhanced Bus or Rail Transit alternatives are expected to have the greatest impact on community or neighborhood character. Compatibility of proposed stations with existing land uses and local zoning are described. Table 4-9 includes a broad assessment of availability of space for park and ride facilities at proposed station locations. The overall rating for stations associated with the Rail Transit analysis alternative is considered compatible due to the types of land uses encountered in the vicinity of each station. Bus Flyer stations are assumed to require limited space for drop off and pick up. All stations would require further site-specific evaluation. Provisions for auto and bus transit ingress and egress would need to be examined. At several locations extensive redesign of the existing arterials and local streets would be needed to make such candidate locations viable.

The Caltrans Highway 101 Widening Project DEIR (Caltrans, 1993) states that the project will not impact access to schools or recreational facilities in the area but will require relocation of a women's rehabilitation shelter under one scenario. The report further states that "impacts to specific neighborhoods will stem from a change in character traffic patterns and land use. Neighborhoods that have the potential to be impacted include the Southbound side of Route 101 in the Olive Mill Road area and the north and southbound side of Route 101 between Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass Road in Carpinteria." (Caltrans, 1993)

Community impacts to neighborhoods are not expected to result from the Pricing/ Enhanced Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative. No new facilities are proposed and increased bus service needed to serve the additional riders is very low when compared with either the Rail Transit or Bus Transit analysis alternatives. Therefore, no intrusions into neighborhoods are predicted.

Compatibility with Long-Term Comprehensive Planning. Land use policies and land use designations of properties adjacent to either Highway 101 or proposed station locations identified in either the Rail Transit or Bus Transit analysis alternatives are used to develop an evaluation of each alternative's compatibility with long term comprehensive planning for the County, the cities of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria, and the Montecito Community. Proposed rail or bus station compatibility with existing land uses is listed by station in Table 4-9. Both the City and County of Santa Barbara's general plans and Carpinteria's general plan recognize the need for expanded carrying capacity in the Highway 101 Corridor to accommodate a projected increase in travel demand (Caltrans, March 1993). Express bus service in the freeway would increase the person trip carrying capacity of the Corridor. Enhanced and expanded local bus service will provide additional service capacity between portions of the Study Area which is predicted to further accommodate travel demand in the Corridor. Therefore this alternative is considered compatible with the local plans.

---

4.3 Evaluation Summary

In summary, Table 4-10 illustrates the relative performance of each analysis alternative against each of the evaluation criteria. A value of 1 indicates that the alternative performed best on that criterion and a value of 4 indicates that it performed the worst. No overall ranking is computed as that would be based upon a "weighted" average. Weighting of evaluation measures is always a much debated concern in most communities. No weighting system has been proposed or is recommended for these measures. Each reader is encouraged to apply their own relative importance to each factor in assessing the overall performance of each alternative. In those cases where the values forecast for a particular measure are equal, the same number is given to both alternatives.

Table 4-10
Summary Comparison of Alternatives

	2015 Build	Enhanced Rail Alt.	Enhanced Bus Alt.	Parking Pricing TDM Alt.
MEASURES OF THE PROBLEM
Forecast daily traffic on Hwy 101
E/O Salinas Street	4	2	2	1
E/O San Ysidro Road	4	2	2	1
E/O Padaro Lane (S)	4	2	2	1
E/O Casitas Pass Road	4	2	2	1
E/O Route 150	4	2	2	1
Forecast peak hour level of service (LOS)
E/O Salinas Street	1	4	4	2
E/O San Ysidro Road	1	4	4	2
E/O Padaro Lane (S)	1	4	4	2
E/O Casitas Pass Road	1	4	4	2
E/O Route 150	2	2	2	1
Forecast daily traffic on parallel arterials
E/O Salinas Street:
Hwy. 192	1	4	4	2
Old Coast Highway	1	4	4	2
Cabrillo Blvd.	1	4	4	2
E/O San Ysidro Road:
Hwy. 192	1	4	4	2
North Jameson Lane	4	2	2	1
E/O N. Padaro Lane:
Hwy. 192	1	4	4	2
Via Real	1	4	4	2
E/O Casitas Pass Road:
Hwy. 192	1	4	4	2
N. Via Real	1	4	4	2
Carpinteria Ave.	1	4	4	2
Total vehicle miles of travel on Hwy. 101	4	3	2	1
Total vehicle hours of travel on Hwy. 101	1	4	4	2
Percent VMT operating at LOS E	1	3	3	2
Percent VMT operating at LOS F	1	4	4	1
Total daily veh trips produced in corridor	4	2	3	1
Percent SOV	4	3	2	1
MEASURES OF THE SOLUTION
Forecast daily transit ridership	4	1	2	3
Forecast percent transit	4	1	2	3
AVO in corridor	4	2	2	1
Percent daily bike trips	4	2	2	1
Average speed (mph) on Hwy. 101	1	4	4	2
Net reduction in daily vehicle trips	4	2	3	1
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
Total cost of the alternative (millions of 1994 $)	NA	2	1	NA
Total annualized cost of the alt. ($ millions)	NA	3	2	1
Annualized Total cost/vehicle trip reduced	NA	3	2	1
Annualized capital cost/vehicle trip reduced	NA	2	1	NA
Annualized O&M cost/vehicle trip reduced	NA	3	2	1
MEASURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT
2015 daily running vehicle emissions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) (tons/day)	4	2	2	1
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)(tons/day)	4	3	2	1
Carbon Monoxide (CO)(tons/day)	4	3	2	1
Particulate Matter (PM10)(tons/day)	3	4	2	1
2015 Direct Energy Consumption (Billion Btu)	4	3	2	1
Impact on Vegetative Cover (2)	4	2	4	1
Impact on Community Character (2)	4	3	1	1
Planning Compatibility (2)	1	1	1	1
1. Ranking is on relative scale, with "1" representing the alternative that performed the best on that criterion and "4" representing the alternative that performed the worst.

The Pricing/Enhanced TDM analysis alternative achieves the greatest degree of improvement in the Measures of the Problem, Measures of the Solution, Measures of Effectiveness and Measures of Environmental and Community Impact of the three alternatives to the highway widening. This is primarily due to the significant $3.00 per day parking fee disincentive to single occupant vehicle use, compelling travelers to carpool, vanpool, take transit, and telecommute. The best forecast traffic Level of Service on Highway 101 and lowest traffic volumes on parallel arterials are still predicted to result from the highway widening. This is due to the faster travel speeds which result from the additional capacity offered by the widening, making Highway 101 the most attractive route to drivers, even in the face of increased traffic volumes on Highway 101 predicted for the Build alternative.

---

4.4 Alternative Implementation Approaches

The purpose of this section is to begin to "draw out" the results from the analysis of the alternative packages into a discussion of specific implementation approaches. Each of the three "analysis alternatives" described in Chapter 3 and evaluated in this chapter presents primarily a single approach as an alternative to the widening of Highway 101. The specifics of each alternative package were detailed only to a level which allowed for its evaluation and quantification at the long range planning level of analysis undertaken in this study. They can be referred to as "analysis alternatives". Individual elements of each alternative package were developed based upon recommendations from the public (February, 1994 workshop and CAC/TAC meetings) and the definition of the current transit and road systems in the Study Area.

A range of specific implementation strategies can and should be developed for each analysis alternative package. These specific implementation strategies for each of the three analysis alternatives can then serve as a menu from which a comprehensive, multi-modal recommendation for an alternative to the widening of Highway 101 will be developed. Strategies are drawn from the Task 3 Technical Report - Effectiveness of Alternative Measures, (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1994) and included here as Appendix C [not available]. As an intermediate step towards this multi-modal recommendation, which is presented in Chapter 5, an implementation strategy for each of the three "analysis alternatives" as well as identified bicycle and highway operational improvements common to all alternatives follows. A separate table is presented for each analysis alternative, which identifies:

• what the public identified as potential components of each alternative,
• what the "analysis alternative" included, and
• what the ultimate implementation strategies could include.

The supporting text describes the implementation strategies identified in each table.

4.4.1 Implementation Strategies for an Enhanced Bus Alternative

Development of an implementation strategy for an Enhanced Bus analysis alternative was initiated at the public meeting stage, defined into a TAC and CAC approved alternative which was analyzed for effectiveness. Table 4-11 includes the three components of the development process for the alternatives. Implementation strategies for a transit-based alternative to the widening of Highway 101 will build upon existing MTD ridership patterns and Traffic Solutions' ridematching database. Implementation of the Enhanced Bus analysis alternative will require ridership promotion, revisions to approved regional and local funding documents to prioritize transit freeway bus "station" development, park and ride lot construction or expansion, and transit vehicle capital acquisition and deployment. Express bus service provision prior to the design and construction of the freeway flyer stops should be implemented to build ridership.

Table 4-11
Enhanced Bus Implementation Strategies

Public Identified Bus Transit-Related Strategies	Enhanced Bus Alternative Elements	Possible Bus Implementation Strategies
Expanded or improved bus transit system	Increased frequency on MTD weekday routes 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, to tie in with freeway express bus service New Carpinteria Shuttle Freeway Flyer Bus "Stations" at seven locations along the Corridor	Local bus transit & electric shuttle service improvements longer operating hours greater service coverage higher frequency Phased implementation synchronized with ridership growth and fiscal capacity Ridership promotion for enhanced frequency on existing lines targeted to employment, school and retail business sectors. New service promotion targeted through joint efforts of MTD and Traffic Solutions to capture Carpinteria commuters Local agency capital improvement programs revised to include park & ride and transit station projects
Improved quality of transit marketing	Nothing included for modeling purposes	Express bus service promotion targeted through joint efforts of MTD and Traffic Solutions, SCAT and Commuter Transportation Services (Ventura County) to capture long distance commuters & inter-county commuters Develop transit marketing strategies: one targeted at work trips and one targeted at visitors/tourists.
Transit services designed with tourist needs in mind (evenings and weekends)	New "Old Mission Shuttle" weekend and holiday service, extend to Mission Canyon Road to connect with the Mission and the Botanical Garden All day non-stop freeway service on weekends between Carpinteria Park & Ride Lot & Downtown Santa Barbara Transit Center Continue the existing Downtown Shuttle on State Street Continue Waterfront Shuttle Service to Montecito	Semi-local/semi-express bus connections between tourist destinations Downtown merchant's & Conference & Visitors Bureau participation in promotions Transit or shuttle passes included with a visitor's hotel registration Provision of bus or shuttle tours to local activities & tourist attractions
Expansion of downtown shuttles (coverage, frequency, intermodal connection) Plan & design for better, safer, more convenient intermodal transfer facilities	Transit service additions to serve express bus connections New Carpinteria shuttle Continue the existing Downtown Shuttle on State Street Continue Waterfront Shuttle Service to Montecito	Provision of bus or shuttle tours to local activities & tourist attractions Provision of park and ride lots at existing transit stations
Add express bus service	Express bus service between Ventura and Carpinteria to Santa Barbara, Goleta and Isla Vista on Highway 101	Peak hour express bus services from Ventura County & Carpinteria to Downtown Santa Barbara Peak hour express bus services from Ventura County & Carpinteria to Goleta Peak hour express bus services from Ventura County & Carpinteria to Isla Vista

MTD Service and Capital Purchase Planning & Implementation. A detailed service plan, transit operating plan and associated capital facility and equipment requirement study should be prepared to establish a phased implementation program for express bus service including related freeway "stations", expanded bus maintenance facilities and park and ride lots. Precise locations for "stations", service frequency refinements and specific funding strategies should be determined in these studies. The initiation of express bus service and the potential for, and timing of, additional express bus routes should also be considered.

Ridership Development. All employers submitting ridesharing plans should be apprised of the express bus service and asked to identify potential riders among their employees. Efforts to target riders for the express bus service should cross jurisdictional lines into Ventura County given the significant level of intercounty commuting identified in the intercept travel survey and forecast ridership level of intercounty travel. Coordination between MTD and Ventura County's transit provider, South Coast Area Transit (SCAT), should include intercounty services and coordinate with ongoing intercity rail planning. New or expanded service promotions by MTD could target the new service connections to express bus commuter service within each community. The business organizations (e.g. local Chambers of Commerce, Santa Barbara Industrial Association, Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business (COLAB), etc.) should be asked to develop and participate in the promotional efforts. Special community events could also be used to promote ridership and use of the enhanced bus services. Separate efforts should be targeted at the tourist industry with input from local Chambers of Commerce and the Santa Barbara Conference and Visitors Bureau.

Fiscal Planning and Programming. Existing financial plans including Santa Barbara's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), MTD's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and local capital improvement programs would need to be revised during regularly scheduled updates to include the freeway flyer stations and park and ride lot construction and other transit oriented improvements. Use of flexible federal ISTEA moneys in future years, in particular, would need to be considered. Environmental clearance, design, and construction plans for freeway flyer stations and park and ride facilities should be developed and a phased implementation plan should be coordinated with MTD's bus acquisition plans. Preparation of detailed cost and revenue estimates should be prepared early in the preliminary design phase to determine needed financial strategies and actions to secure financing. Local agency financial participation in freeway flyer stations, and park and ride facilities may be needed prior to finalizing of improvement plans.

4.4.2 Implementation Strategies for an Rail Transit Alternative

The design of the Rail Transit "analysis alternative" closely parallels those rail related items identified by the public early in the study. Identified implementation strategies for an Rail Transit analysis alternative are detailed in Table 4-12 along with the publicly generated strategies and the elements of the analysis alternative for which impacts were estimated earlier in this chapter. Several scenarios for implementation are available for the rail component and were described in the technical report The Effectiveness of Alternative Measures (see Appendix C [not available]). These include:

• Using Diesel Rail Cars (DRC) and operating vehicles on the existing Southern Pacific tracks between Carpinteria and Goleta,
• Electric powered Light Rail Transit running on Santa Barbara city streets,
• Placement of a parallel track in the existing Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way and running Light Rail Transit, or
• Increasing service frequency on existing intercity service between Los Angeles, Ventura/Oxnard and Santa Barbara.

Table 4-12
Enhanced Rail Implementation Strategies

Public Identified Rail Related Measures	Enhanced Rail Alternative Elements	Possible Rail Implementation Strategies
Introduce Light Rail mode along coastal Corridor & widen Southern Pacific ROW to operate a double track line	LRT or DRC 22 mile service between Carpinteria & Isla Vista Seven rail stations at Carpinteria Summerland Montecito Downtown Santa Barbara Five Points Goleta Isla Vista	Use of existing rail line track by DRC Placement of parallel track in existing railroad ROW for LRT Running LRT rail transit on Santa Barbara city streets (not considered) Refine station locations Adopt Transit-Related land use designations in the vicinity of identified station locations Coordination with coastal cities to facilitate transit related development Establish initial express bus service and related MTD service revisions to provide connections. Increase frequency of existing intercity service Locate acceptable maintenance facility Ridership promotion for enhanced frequency on connecting transit lines targeted to employment, school and retail business sectors New service promotion targeted through joint efforts of MTD and Traffic Solutions to capture ridership RTIP revision to fundrail improvements Local agency capital improvement programs revised to include park & ride and transit station projects.
Deferred to VCTC/SBCAG Intercity Rail Study	Ventura County Commuter Rail Study recommendations: Track & signal improvements between Moorpark & Goleta Improve Santa Barbara Station & new stations at Goleta, Surf, Guadalupe & Carpinteria Develop tourist oriented weekend service in coastal strip Expand existing intercity passenger rail service (2 hr intervals for weekday service).	Look at feasibility of extending commuter rail for intercity travel between Ventura and San Luis Obispo
Look at feasibility of providing peak period commuter rail and weekend rail service to Goleta and Santa Barbara	LRT or DRC service with 20 minute peak period headways, 30 minute mid-day headways, 60 minute evening headways on weekdays & 30 minute headways weekends & holidays	Use of existing rail line track by DRC Placement of parallel track in existing railroad ROW by LRT Running rail transit on Santa Barbara city streets (not considered)
Plan & design for better, safer, more convenient intermodal transfer facilities	Improved headways on MTD routes, 5, 6, 8, 12, 11, 14, 20, 25 & 25A, & 27 New MTD Routes: City College Shuttle, 217 Shuttle to UCSB, Carpinteria Shuttle New MTD Weekend & Holiday service: Old Mission 22 Park & Ride Lots at Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta & Isla Vista stations.	Same as those included in the bus alternative

The operating of rail transit on Santa Barbara city streets was eliminated from further consideration by the TAC and the CAC due to concerns regarding the magnitude of the disruption of local traffic circulation and the related impacts to local businesses and residents as well as the slow travel speed required of rail vehicles when running on-street.

A rail transit based alternative to the widening of Highway 101 would include both intra-county and inter-county/city service elements due to both the work trip travel between Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties and the weekend, recreational based travel between several counties in the Los Angeles metropolitan region and Santa Barbara. While the emphasis in the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)/SBCAG's Comprehensive Rail Plan, Final Report (Korve, April, 1995) program focuses on inter-county/city services for longer trips, a rail plan focused on providing an alternative to Highway 101 would also include intra-county services, using either DRC or LRT technology. Consideration of inter-county rail services should include the ongoing coordination efforts between SBCAG and VCTC. Rail based alternatives will also require integrated bus transit service provision and park and ride lots to be successful.

Intra-County Rail Program Definition, Planning and Preliminary Design. SBCAG and MTD could jointly develop the details of an intra-county rail plan element, focusing on service type and frequency, station locations, feeder service, and supporting infrastructure needs within the Highway 101 Corridor. Initial steps would include the definition of an intra-county rail program including recommendations for a particular technology (DRC versus LRT), exploration of issues regarding shared use of the Southern Pacific right-of-way, and the identification of modified and new bus services to act as collector/distributor systems for the rail service. Designation by the state and local governments of a rail operations agency (MTD or new agency) and identification of other intra-county rail service needs would be critical during the early stages of project development. Development of a rail based alternative would also take the longest time to implement as no infrastructure (beyond tracks) to operate and maintain an intra-county rail service currently exists in the Highway 101 Corridor.

Express bus services (described above) could provide an initial link between the communities within the Highway 101 Corridor, serving to both build ridership and establish potential rail station locations early in the project development process. Connections to MTD's existing transit services could be established as part of the implementation of express bus service. Once more detailed rail and supporting transit service plans are developed, cost estimates and phased implementation schedules would follow.

Land uses in the vicinity of potential stations could gradually begin to be changed during the five to seven years it would require to perform the planning, design and implementation of the rail service. Early designation by local governments of station sites and possible land acquisition by the designated operating authority(ies) would provide a focus for transit-oriented land development. Use of redevelopment actions, joint development techniques, and/or general plan and zoning changes could all be used to promote a market driven change in land uses to better support a rail based alternative to the widening of Highway 101. Development of tourist related attractions in the vicinity of the rail stations would further serve to promote ridership in advance of the actual rail service implementation.

Inter-County Rail: Comprehensive Rail Plan, Action Plan Implementation. SBCAG's ongoing work with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) to implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Rail Action Plan, which only addresses inter-city service, should be continued to identify policy choices for inter-county rail and supporting local transit programming. This report recommends,