3.0 Responses to Comments
is complete and adequate. Comment 40-58 details a performance measure to ensure that future transit service meets future demand. 40-60 The comment states, “This Chapter does not consider the effects and mitigation required for a successful “pedestrian-oriented” project, e.g., dispersion of more automobile traffic from freeways to arterials and traffic management measures required to less this dispersion.” The connection between a pedestrian oriented project and traffic dispersion from freeways to arterials implied by the comment is not understood. The Specific Plan will address the existing jobs/housing imbalance, and improve pedestrian and bicycle in the Specific Plan area, thereby reducing the length and frequency of vehicle trips per household. 40-61 The comment states, “Acquire, review, assess, and mitigate corridor, signalization, and transit elements. Provide a revised and updated information base for re-modeling the Project Area and Study Area traffic and transit movements.” The modeling of the Project and impact analysis contains all necessary elements, and revisions to the analysis provided in the Original DEIR and remodeling are not necessary. 40-62 The comment states, “The 43 intersections and networks were analyzed without including public transit and without 2010 census, land use, and ridership information. Review and incorporate 2010 census, land uses, and transit ridership information in the models. Revise projections, re-assess impacts and mitigation, and provide an updated DEIR, Chapter 4 and appendices.” The travel demand model prepared for the CASP study area contains the full public transit network for the region. An effort was conducted to ensure that the transit network and headway information contained in the model accurately reflects the level of transit service in the Specific Plan area. The model includes transit ridership on transit lines in its mode choice model step. The CASP model uses the Census and land use inputs of the SCAG model, updated to reflect the proposed build out of the Specific Plan. The 2010 United States Census data was not available at the time of the development of the CASP model. As detailed in Appendix 4C, the model was validated in accordance to procedures/guidelines established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and was determined to adequately assess the existing transportation conditions of the 2009 base year for the CASP study area. Thus, it is not necessary to revise modeled projections and re-assess impacts because public transit, the most recently available Census data, and land use and ridership information were all factors in the modeling process. 40-63 The comment states, “Within the Transportation Study Area assessment of the Mission/Main/Valley intersection is erroneous and several intersections are either mislabeled, misidentified, or incompletely described, or are not consistently designated (#20, #21, #35, #36, #37, etc.). AM/PM commuter parking restrictions are not fully Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan FEIR
3-117