UJ
03
<E
UMTA-
Department
99-3
ransportation
ui Dan Mass
Transportation
Administration
Comprehensive
Plan for the
Virgin Islands
Transi
Technical Report
JANUARY 1989
UMTA-M A- 08-9023- 88-1
A
DOT - TSC- UMTA- 89-
3
NOTICE
This document
is disseminated under the sponsorship
of the Department of Transportation
in the interest
of information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no
liability for
its contents or use thereof.
NOTICE
The United States Government does not endorse
products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers'
names appear herein solely because they are considered
essential to the object of this report.
HE
if. 5*
.A37
no,
fo OT-
TSC-
Technical Report Documentation Page
1.
Report No.
UMTA-MA- 08 -9023-88-1
A
2.
Government Accession No.
3.
Recipient’ s Cot.lo, Noj
flgpjjRjjJSj--
| transport.®oT"
ON
4.
Title and Subtitle
S
5.
Report Date
§
January 1989
|
J J 0
.
J
i j
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE
VIRGIN
ISLANDS,, - Technical Report
6.
Performing Organi zatiefi Code
DTS-49
I
7 Rd?ft£?'t
s *F.
Casey,
Judith
C.
Schwenk,
and
"'•Herbert
S. Levinson*
DOT-TSC-UMTA-89-3
9.
Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S.
Department
of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
Transportation Systems Center
10.
Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
UM981/U9103
11.
Contract or Grant No.
uamDriage,
ma
uziaz
*3,
Type of Report and Period Covered
12.
Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
U.S.
Department
of Transportation
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Final Report
September
1987
- July 1988
Office of Grants Management
Washington,
DC
20590
14.
Sponsoring Agency Code
UGM-20
15.
Supplementary Notes
*Under contract
to:
U.S.
Department
of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
Transportation Systems Center
Cambridge, MA
02142
16.
Abstract
This
report contains
a description
of the elements and recommendations of
a
transportation
study of the
islands of St. Thomas,
St.
Croix, and
St. John
in
the U.S. Virgin Island archipelago.
An extensive data
collection
effort,
including
traffic volume
counts,
turning movement
counts,
a cordon
count
(Charlotte
Amalie),
speed
and
delay
runs,
transit
and
taxivan
ridership
counts,
and
transit
schedule
adherence
checks, was undertaken
to provide the base data
for
the study.
In
addition,
interviews with Government
officials
and
private
citizens
concerned
with
transportation
and
environmental
matters
were
conducted.
St. Thomas
transit recommendations
included
the purchase of new buses,
the construction
of new main-
tenance
facilities,
a
substantial
increase
in
service
levels,
and
an open
competition
for management and
operation of the service.
For
St. Croix,
a subsidized taxivan service was recommended on a
trial basis on
three
routes.
Highway recommendations
included
an
increase
in
roadway
capacity along
the
Charlotte
Amalie
waterfront,
reconstruction
of
critical
intersections,
traffic
engineering
improvements,
and
the
implementation
of a
paid
on-street parking program
for
St. Thomas.
Reconstruction
of major
intersec-
tions, several turning movement enhancements, construction of the long-proposed Christiansted bypass, the
expansion
of
off-street
parking
lots
in
Christiansted,
and
on-street
parking
management
changes
were
recommended
for
St. Croix.
The study endorsed current Department of Public Works plans
to rehabilitate
sections
of
major
roadways
on
St.
John.
Of an
institutional
nature,
it was recommended
that
a new governmental
instrumentality
be
created
to
oversee
mass
transportation
(including
ferries),
parking,
and
taxi
services.
Several
possible
sources
of
added revenue were discussed as potential means of providing the funding
for the needed improvements.
17.
Key Words
Transit Plan, Highway Plan,
Urban Transportation, Urban
Traffic Congestion
19.
Security Class* f. (of this report)
Unclassified
18.
Distribution Statement
DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD,
VIRGINIA 22161
20.
Security Classif.
(of this page)
Unclassified
21* No.
of P oges
310
22.
Price
Form DOT F 1700.7
(8-72)
Reproduction of completed page authorized
PREFACE
The authors,
Robert
F.
Casey and Judith
C.
Schwenk of
the Transportation
Systems Center
(TSC),
and Herbert
S.
Levinson,
a transportation consultant,
gratefully acknowledge the contributions of many individuals who provided
information and assistance
in the formulation and preparation of this
report.
Special thanks are due to Commissioner James
C.
Savage,
Deputy Commissioner
Verne
R.
Callwood,
Jr.,
and Transit Planner Randolph Richardson of
the Virgin
Islands Department of Public Works
for serving as our hosts,
for providing
much of the transportation information used in this study,
for providing the
manpower
to conduct the data collection efforts requested by TSC for this
study,
and for arranging meetings with a large number of individuals and
organizations.
The authors wish to thank
the many individuals listed
in Appendix G who
gave of their time and opinions and provided the study team with the local
perspective on the major transportation issues
in the Virgin Islands.
The
information furnished was most helpful
in developing the transportation
alternatives and recommendations of this
report.
The contribution of Michael Jacobs,
Chief of TSC's Service Assessment
Division, who assisted in data collection, who reviewed and commented on
draft versions of the
report,
and who provided overall support and super-
vision of this study, was invaluable.
In addition,
the excellent work of Mary
L.
Lawler of TSC, who typed the
written material submitted by the consultant and tabulated many of the person
and vehicle counts conducted in St.
Thomas,
and Michael Abegg of TSC, who
produced many of the graphics for this
report via computer, was most
appreciated.
Finally,
the authors are indebted to Paul Verchinski,
the UMTA Project
Manager, who provided overall project guidance, who reviewed the
report
material,
and who arranged for the UMTA and DOT reviews and guided the
report
through the proper administrative channels.
James McCullagh,
the UMTA Region
II Director of the Office of Financial Management and Administration,
provided helpful advice during the course of
the study as well as comments on
the draft summary report.
iii
METRIC / ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS
ENGLISH TO METRIC
METRIC TO ENGLISH
LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)
1 inch (in) =
2.5 centimeters (cm)
1 foot (ft) =
30 centimeters (cm)
1 yard (yd) =
0.9 meter (m)
1 mile (mi) =1.6 kilometers (km)
AREA (APPROXIMATE)
1 square inch (sq in, in 2
) =
6.5 square centimeters (cm 2
)
1 square foot (sq ft, ft2
) =
0.09 square meter (m 2 )
1 square yard (sq yd, yd 2
) =
0.8 square meter (m 2
)
1 square mile (sq mi, mi2
) =
2.6 square kilometers (km 2
)
1 acre = 0.4 hectares (he) = 4,000 square meters (m 2
)
MASS -WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)
1 ounce (oz) =
28 grams (gr)
1 pound (lb) =
.45 kilogram (kg)
1 short ton = 2,000 pounds (lb) = 0.9 tonne (t)
VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)
1 teaspoon (tsp) =
5 milliliters (ml)
1 tablespoon (tbsp) =
15 milliliters (ml)
1 fluid ounce (fl oz) =
30 milliliters (ml)
1 cup (c) =
0.24 liter (I)
1 pint (pt) =
0.47 liter (1)
1 quart (qt)=
0.96 liter (I)
1 gallon (gal) =
3.8 lifers (I)
1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3
) =
0.03 cubic meter (m 3
)
1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd 3
) =
0.76 cubic meter (m 3
)
TEMPERATURE (EXACT)
[ (x - 32) (5/9) ] °F = y°C
LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)
1 millimeter (mm) =
0.04 inch (in)
1 centimeter (cm) =
0.4 inch (in)
1 meter (m) =
3.3 feet (ft)
1 meter (m) =1.1 yards (yd)
1 kilometer (km) =
0.6 mile (mi)
AREA (APPROXIMATE)
1 square centimeter (cm 2
) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2
)
1 square meter (m 2
) =1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2
)
1 square kilometer (km 2
) =
0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2
)
1 hectare (he) =
1 0,000 square meters (m 2
) = 2.5 acres
MASS -WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)
1gram(gr)=
0.036 ounce (oz)
1 kilogram (kg) =
2.2 pounds (lb)
1 tonne (t) = 1 ,000 kilograms (kg) =1.1 short tons
VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)
1 milliliter (ml) =
0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)
1 liter (I) =
2.1 pints (pt)
1 liter (I) =
1 .06 quarts (qt)
1 liter (I) =
0.26 gallon (gal)
1 cubic meter (m 3
) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft 3
)
1 cubic meter (m 3
) =1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3
)
TEMPERATURE (EXACT)
[ (9/5) y + 32
] °C
=
x °F
QUICK INCH-CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION
INCHES 0123456789
10
|
l
!
I
I
i
I
l
1
l
CENTIMETERS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21
22
23
24 25
25.40
QUICK FAHRENHEIT-CELCIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION
T
-40°
-22°
-4°
14°
32°
50°
68°
86°
104°
122°
140°
158°
176°
194°
212°
—
f
1
1
1
1
!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
h-
°C
-40°
-30°
-20°
-10°
0°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
70°
80°
90°
100°
For more exact and/or other conversion factors, see NBS Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and
Measures.
Price S2.50. SD Catalog No. C13 10 286.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION
1-1
1.1
SETTING
1-1
1.2
PURPOSE OF STUDY
...
..........
1-1
1.3
PREVIOUS STUDIES
.........
.
1-7
1.4
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS
.......
1-8
1.5
MAJOR STUDY ISSUES
1-8
1.6
STUDY APPROACH
1-9
1.7
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
.........
1-9/10
2.
ST.
THOMAS
2-1
2.1
INTRODUCTION
.
2-1
2.1.1
Land Use
2-1
2.1.2
Socio-Economic Characteristics .....
2-1
2.1.3
Cordon Count Results .....
.
.
2-5
(a)
Peak hour person-movement
.
2-5
(b)
Peak period person-movement
2-5
(c)
Hourly profile
2-9
(d)
Place of entry
2-12
(e)
Comparison of 1988 cordon count with previous
studies ........
...
2-12
(f)
Public transportation implications
.
2-12
2.2
TRANSIT SERVICE ...
.....
2-12
2.2.1
Existing Conditions
2-12
(a)
Coverage
2-15
(b)
Scheduling and service frequency
.
2-17
(c)
Fares .......
........
2-17
(d)
Transit equipment ...
.....
2-17
(e)
Maintenance facilities and equipment
......
2-25
(f)
Maintenance practices
2-31
(g)
Transit management and operations
2-31
(h)
Transit ridership
2-31
(i)
Quality of service
......
2-32
(j)
Operating deficit ................
2-34
(k)
Transit potential ...
........
2-35
2.2.2
Transit Alternatives
.
2-35
(a)
Transit equipment
2-35
(b)
Maintenance facilities and equipment
......
2-36
(c)
Coverage
2-38
(d)
Scheduling and service frequency
2-39
(e)
Fares
2-40
(f)
Transit management and operations ........
2-40
2.2.3
Transit Recommendations
...
2-43
(a)
Transit equipment .....
2-43
(b)
Maintenance facilities and equipment
......
2-44
(c)
Maintenance personnel
2-44
(d)
Coverage
2-46
(e)
Scheduling and service frequency
2-48
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
(f)
Fares
2-49
(g)
Bus turnouts
2-49
(h)
Publicity
2-49
(i)
Transit management and operations
2-49
2.2.4
Implementation Plan
2-50
(a)
Implementation costs
2-50
(B)
Implementation schedule
2-52
2.3
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
2-53
2.3.1
Existing Conditions
2-53
(a)
Street system
2-53
(b)
Traffic signals
2-55
(c)
Traffic volumes
2-59
(d)
Traffic problems and congestion
2-64
2.3.2
Traffic Improvement Plan
2-70
(a)
Context ...........
2-71
(b)
Early action plan
2-71
(c)
Longer
range plan
.........
2-82
2.3.3
Implementation
2-111
(a)
Suggested priorities
2-111
(b)
Planning implications
2-112
(c)
Implementation cost estimates
2-113
(d)
Implementation actions
2-113
2.4
PARKING IN CHARLOTTE AMALIE
2-113
2.4.1
Existing Conditions
2-116
(a)
Parking supply and use
........
2-116
(b)
Problems
2-116
(c)
Efforts to alleviate problems
2-117
2.4.2
Parking Alternatives
2-123
(a)
Charging for on-street parking
.
2-123
(b)
Expanding central area parking .........
2-127
(c)
Park-and-ride ..................
2-129
2.4.3
Recommended Parking Program
2-132
3.
ST.
CROIX
3-1
3.1
INTRODUCTION
3-1
3.1.1
Land Use
3-1
3.1.2
Socio-Economic Characteristics
3-1
3.2
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
3-4
3.2.1
Existing Conditions
........
3-4
(a)
Transit system
3-4
(b)
Taxis
3-6
(c)
Transit demand .................
3-11
3.2.2
Transit Alternatives
.
3-12
(a)
Resumption of bus service
3-12
(b)
Taxivan-based transit system
.....
3-16
3.2.3
Recommendations
.....
3-24
(a)
Transit service concept .............
3-24
(b)
Management and operations
3-25
(c)
Coverage
.
3-26
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
(d)
Service frequency
3-28
(e)
Safety issues
3-28
(f)
Fares
3-29
(g)
Subsidy mechanism
3-29
3.2.4
Implementation Plan
3-29
(a)
Cost estimates
3-29
(b)
Implementation schedule
3-30
3.3
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
3-30
3.3.1
Existing Conditions
3-30
(a)
Street system
3-31
(b)
Traffic signal controls
3-31
(c)
Traffic volumes
3-34
(d)
Traffic problems and congestion
3-39
(e)
Implications
3-40
3.3.2
Traffic Improvement Plan
3-40
(a)
The overall plan
3-43
(b)
Centerline Road corridor:
Ville La Reine
Shopping Center
to Christiansted
3-43
(c)
Centerline Road corridor:
Ville La Reine
Shopping Center
to Frederiksted
3-53
(d)
Other improvements
in outlying areas
3-53
(e)
Christiansted Bypass
3-53
(f)
Christiansted Central Business District traffic
management improvements
3-55
(g)
Frederiksted one-way system
3-59
3.3.3
Implementation Program
3-59
(a)
Cost estimates
3-59
(b)
Recommended construction sequence
3-62
(c)
Implications
3-62
3.4
PARKING IN CENTRAL CHRISTIANSTED
3-64
3.4.1
Background
3-64
3.4.2
Existing Parking Conditions
3-65
(a)
Parking supply
3-65
(b)
Parking rates
3-65
(c)
Peak parking accumulation
3-65
(d)
Existing problems
3-66
3.4.3
Policy Guidelines
3-66
3.4.4
Parking Development Program
3-68
(a)
Stage
I
improvements
3-68
(b)
Stage
II
improvements
3-74
(c)
Parking management improvements
3-74
4.
ST.
JOHN
4-1
4.1
INTRODUCTION
4-1
4.2
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
4-1
4.2.1
Existing Conditions
4-1
4.2.2
Transit Demand
4-5
4.2.3
Transit Alternatives
4-5
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4.3
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
4-5
4.3.1
Existing Conditions
4-5
(a)
Major
roadways
4-7
(b)
Traffic
in Cruz Bay
4-7
(c)
Pedestrian movements
4-7
(d)
Traffic flow implications
4-9
4.3.2
Planned Road Improvements
4-9
4.3.3
Possible Future Traffic Improvements
4-11
4.3.4
Other Improvements
4-13
4.4
FERRY SERVICE
4-18
4.4.1
Existing Conditions
4-18
(a)
Routes and schedule
4-18
(b)
Fares
4-18
(c)
Equipment and maintenance
4-18
(d)
Ridership
4-20
(e)
Quality of service
4-20
4.4.2
Recommendations
4-20
5.
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT
5-1
5.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
5-1
5.2
ALTERNATIVES
5-2
5.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
5-4
6
.
FUNDING
6-1
6.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
6-1
6.2
ALTERNATIVES
6-2
6.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
6-3
7.
LEGISLATION
7-1
7.1
NEW TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION
7-1
7.2
FUNDING .....
7-2
APPENDIX A.
METHODOLOGY FOR CORDON COUNT ESTIMATION
A-l
APPENDIX B.
ONE-WAY CIRCULATION CONCEPTS FOR CHARLOTTE AMALIE ....
B-l
APPENDIX C.
TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION
C-l
APPENDIX D.
TAXI
FARES
D-l
APPENDIX
E.
URBITRAN REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR PARCARD PROGRAM AND
GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT
E-l
APPENDIX
F.
PROJECTED COSTS OF PARCARD PROGRAM AND GOVERNMENT
PARKING LOT
F-l/2
APPENDIX G.
SITE VISITS AND MEETINGS
G-l
APPENDIX H.
REFERENCES
H-l
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1-1.
Location of the U.S. Virgin Islands
.
1-2
Figure
1-2.
Study Area
1-3
Figure
1-3.
Road Nap of
St.
Thomas
1-4
Figure
1-4.
Road map of
St.
Croix
1-5
Figure
1-5.
Road map of
St.
John
1-6
Figure 2-1.
Topography in Charlotte Amalie
2-2
Figure
2-2.
Traffic Generators
in Charlotte Amalie
........
2-3
Figure
2-3.
Population Distribution -
St.
Thomas
.
2-4
Figure 2-4.
Vehicles Entering Charlotte Amalie
.....
2-10
Figure 2-5.
Vehicles Leaving Charlotte Amalie
2-11
Figure 2-6.
People Entering and Leaving Charlotte Amalie Center
.
.
2-13
Figure
2-7.
Existing Transit Routes
-
St.
Thomas
2-16
Figure 2-8.
City Route Schedule - Westbound
.
2-18
Figure
2-9.
City Route Schedule - Eastbound
2-19
Figure
2-10.
Bordeaux Route Nap and Schedule
.
2-20
Figure
2-11.
Donoe Route Nap and Schedule
.....
2-21
Figure 2-12.
Red Hook Route Nap and Schedule
2-22
Figure
2-13.
Bovoni Route Nap and Schedule
2-23
Figure
2-14.
Tutu Route Nap and Schedule
2-24
Figure
2-15.
Flxette Bus
2-26
Figure
2-16.
Thomas Bus
2-26
Figure 2-17.
Administrative Offices
.........
2-27
Figure
2-18.
Naintenance Facilities
.
2-27
Figure
2-19.
Tire Shed and Gas Pump
2-28
Figure
2-20.
Bus Storage Area
2-28
Figure
2-21.
Covered Work Area
2-29
Figure
2-22.
Inspection Pit
2-29
Figure
2-23.
Bench Repair and Equipment Storage Area
.
2-30
Figure
2-24.
Tool and Parts Storage Room
2-30
Figure 2-25.
Typical Bus Shelter
2-33
Figure
2-26.
St.
Croix Buses
2-37
Figure
2-27.
Naintenance Facility Layout -
St.
Thomas
2-45
Figure
2-28.
Recommended Transit Routes -
St.
Thomas ........
2-47
Figure
2-29.
Najor Roadways Around Charlotte Amalie
2-54
Figure
2-30.
Street Directions - Central Charlotte Amalie
.....
2-56
Figure
2-31.
Traffic Signals - Outlying Areas of
St.
Thomas
....
2-57
Figure
2-32.
Traffic Signal - Charlotte Amalie
.
.....
2-58
Figure 2-33.
Daily Traffic Volumes - Charlotte Amalie
.......
2-60
Figure 2-34.
Am Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Charlotte Amalie ....
2-61
Figure
2-35.
Pm Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Charlotte Amalie ....
2-62
Figure
2-36.
Observed Traffic and Parking Problems
2-65
Figure
2-37.
Principal Points of Congestion and Queues
2-68
Figure
2-38.
Early Action Traffic Improvement Plan -
St.
Thomas
.
.
2-72
Figure
2-39.
Intersection Photo and 1988 Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes - Lovers Lane / Veterans Drive / Long
Bay Road / De Beltjen Road
2-75
Figure
2-40.
Recommended early Action Treatment - Lovers Lane /
Veterans Drive / Long Bay Road / De Beltjen Road
Intersection
.
2-76
IX
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Continued)
Figure
2-41.
Intersection photo and 1988 Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes - Long Bay Road / Centerline Road /
Frenchman Bay Road
2-77
Figure
2-42.
Recommended early Action Treatment - Long Bay
Road / Centerline Road / Frenchman Bay Road
Intersection
2-78
Figure
2-43.
Intersection Photo and 1988 Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes
- Weymouth Rhymer Highway / Sugar Estate
Road / Centerline Road
2-80
Figure
2-44.
Recommended Early Action Treatment - Weymouth
Rhymer Highway / Sugar Estate Road / Centerline
Road Intersection
2-81
Figure
2-45.
Generalized Charlotte Amalie Traffic Improvement
Concept
2-83
Figure
2-46.
Traffic Improvement Plan - Charlotte Amalie
2-84
Figure
2-47.
Proposed Traffic Lanes
2-86
Figure 2-48.
Recommended Treatment
- Lovers Lane / Veterans
Drive / Long Bay Road / De Beltjen Road
Intersection
2-87
Figure
2-49.
Recommended Treatment - Long Bay Road / Centerline
Road / Frenchman Bay Road Intersection
2-89
Figure 2-50.
Recommended Treatment - Weymouth Rhymer Highway /
Sugar Estate Road / Centerline Road Intersection
.
.
.
2-91
Figure
2-51.
Intersection Photo and 1988 Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes - Lovers Lane / Sugar Estate Road
2-93
Figure
2-52.
Recommended Treatment
- Lovers Lane / Sugar
Estate Road Intersection
2-94
Figure
2-53.
Alternate Alignments - Veterans Drive Expansion ....
2-96
Figure
2-54.
Inland One-way System - Veterans Drive
2-98
Figure
2-55.
Four-lane Veterans Drive on Existing Alignment
....
2-99
Figure
2-56.
Waterside One-way System - Veterans Drive
2-100
Figure
2-57.
Recommended Treatment - Route
38 / Route
32
Intersection at
Ft.
Mylner Shopping Center
......
2-103
Figure
2-58.
Recommended Treatment - Route
38 / South Entrance
to Four Winds Plaza Intersection
2-104
Figure
2-59.
Intersection Photographs - Smith Bay Road /
Route
384 / Main Entrance
to Four Winds Plaza
2-105
Figure
2-60.
Recommended Treatment - Smith Bay Road /
Route
384 / Main Entrance
to Four Winds Plaza
Intersection
2-106
Figure
2-61.
Traffic Signal Coordination and Improvement Plan
.
.
.
2-108
Figure
2-62.
Generalized Time-space Diagram - Veterans Drive ....
2-109
Figure
2-63.
Urbitran Proposed Parking Plan - Charlotte Amalie
.
.
.
2-118
Figure
2-64.
Parcard Sample
2-121
Figure 2-65.
Modified Traffic Summons
.
2-122
Figure
3-1.
Topography of
St.
Croix
3-2
Figure
3-2.
Population Distribution -
St.
Croix
3-3
Figure
3-3.
Former Bus Routes -
St.
Croix
3-5
Figure
3-4.
Existing Taxivan Route
- Centerline Road
3-9
x
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Continued)
Figure
3-5.
Potential Northside Alternatives and East End Route
.
.
3-20
Figure
3-6.
Shuttle Alternatives
3-22
Figure
3-7.
Recommended Taxivan Routes -
St.
Croix
.
3-27
Figure
3-8.
Street Directions and Major Land Uses in Christiansted
3-32
Figure
3-9.
Traffic Signals -
St.
Croix
3-33
Figure
3-10.
1988 Daily Traffic Volumes -
St.
Croix
3-35
Figure
3-11.
Am Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Central Christiansted
.
3-36
Figure
3-12.
Pm Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Central Christiansted
.
3-37
Figure
3-13.
Traffic Improvement Plan -
St.
Croix
3-44
Figure
3-14.
Recommended Two-way Right Turn Lanes on Centerline
Road
3-47
Figure
3-15.
Recommended Early Action Treatment - Melvin H.
Evans Highway / Centerline Road Intersection
3-49
Figure
3-16.
Recommended Treatment - Centerline Road / Route
81
Intersection
3-50
Figure
3-17.
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Route
75 / Route
70 /
Soboetker Lane / Western Suburb Road Intersection
.
.
.
3-51
Figure
3-18.
Recommended Treatment
- Route 75 / Route 70 /
Soboetker Lane / Western Suburb Road Intersection
.
.
.
3-52
Figure
3-19.
Proposed Christiansted Bypass
3-54
Figure
3-20.
Traffic Management Plan - King and Company Streets
in Christiansted
3-56
Figure
3-21.
Taxivan Unloading on Traffic Side
3-57
Figure
3-22.
Possible Future One-way System in Frederiksted
....
3-60
Figure
3-23.
Estimated Peak Parking Accumulation - Christiansted
.
.
3-67
Figure
3-24.
Parking Development Plan - Downtown Christiansted
.
.
.
3-72
Figure
4-1.
Topography of
St.
John
4-2
Figure
4-2.
Population Distribution -
St.
John
4-3
Figure
4-3.
Safari Vehicle
4-4
Figure
4-4.
Traffic Generators on St.
John
4-6
Figure
4-5.
Street Directions and Traffic Volumes - Central Cruz
Bay
4-8
Figure
4-6.
Planned Road Improvements - Cruz Bay Area .......
4-10
Figure
4-7.
Recommended Treatment - Centerline Road / Southside
Road / North Shore Road Connector Intersection
....
4-12
Figure
4-8.
Existing One-way System - Central Cruz Bay
4-14
Figure
4-9.
1982 One-way Proposal - Central Cruz Bay
4-15
Figure
4-10.
Possible Future Strand and King Streets One-way
System - Central Cruz Bay
4-16
Figure
4-11.
Possible Future Pedestrian Street - Central Cruz Bay
.
4-17
Figure
4-12.
Ferry Schedule
4-19
Figure B-l.
Initial One-way Plan
B-2
Figure B-2.
Modified One-way System
B-3
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1.
Peak Hour Cordon Movements Entering and Leaving
Central Charlotte Amalie
2-6
Table
2-2.
Number of Vehicles and People Entering Charlotte
Amalie by Mode of Travel During Peak Periods
2-7
Table 2-3.
Number of Vehicles and People Leaving Charlotte
Amalie by Mode of Travel During Peak Periods
2-8
Table
2-4.
24-Hour Estimates of Traffic Into and Out of
Charlotte Amalie by Cordon Count Location
2-14
Table 2-5.
Comparison of Traffic Volumes from Previous Studies
.
2-15
Table 2-6.
Typical
1988 Peak Season Daily Transit Ridership
.
.
.
2-31
Table
2-7.
Maintenance Facility and Equipment Costs
2-51
Table
2-8.
Summary of Implementation Costs
2-52
Table
2-9.
AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes on Commutation Routes
.
.
2-63
Table 2-10.
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes on Commutation Routes
.
.
2-63
Table 2-11.
Travel Times,
1988
2-69
Table 2-12.
Estimated Average Time Lost Per Trip Due to Traffic
Congestion
2-70
Table 2-13.
Charlotte Amalie Traffic Improvement Plan
2-85
Table
2-14.
Estimated Costs of Recommended Improvements
....
2-114/115
Table
2-15.
Projected Income from Modified Parcard Program and
Government Parking Lot
2-124
Table 2-16.
Projected Annual Operating Costs of Parcard Program
and Government Parking Lot
2-125
Table
2-17.
Estimated First Year Start-Up
(Capital)
Costs
Parcard Program and Government Parking Lot
2-126
Table
2-18.
Cost - Income Summary Parcard Program and
Government Parking Lot
2-128
Table 2-19.
Financial Analysis - Estimated Capital Cost for
Two-Level Garage with 1,000 Spaces
2-130
Table 2-20.
Financial Analysis for
a 600-Space,
Two-Level Garage
and 200 Surface Spaces
2-131
Table
3-1.
Operating Statistics
for Taxivan System,
7 AM -
7 PM
.
3-8
Table
3-2.
12-Hour System Estimates,
7 AM -
7 PM
3-10
Table
3-3.
Daily Vehicle-Miles and Round Trips by Bus Route
.
.
.
3-11
Table
3-4.
Traffic Signal Controls on St.
Croix
3-34
Table
3-5.
Travel Times and Speeds Between the Junction of
Routes
70 and 75 and Hospital Street
3-41
Table
3-6.
Estimated Time Lost from Congestion,
Junction of
Routes
70 and 75
to Hospital Street
3-42
Table
3-7.
St.
Croix Traffic Improvement Plan
.....
3-45/46
Table
3-8.
Parkers Staying
6 Hours or more on King and Company
Streets
3-58
Table
3-9.
Estimated Costs of Improvements
3-61
Table
3-10.
Suggested Priorities ....
3-63
Table
3-11.
Peak Parking Accumulation in Central Christiansted
.
.
3-66
Table
3-12.
Analysis of
26 Potential Parking Sites
in Downtown
Christiansted
3-69/70/71
Table
3-13.
Parking Development Program for Downtown Christiansted
3-73
Table
6-1.
Transit Financial
Status,
St.
Thomas
6-2
xii
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table A-l.
Number of Vehicles Entering Charlotte Amalie by Mode
of Travel and Cordon Count Location
.
.
A-3
Table A—2 .
Number of People Entering Charlotte Amalie by Mode
of Travel and Cordon Count Location
..........
A-
4
Table A-3.
Number of Vehicles Leaving Charlotte Amalie by Mode
of Travel and Cordon Count Location
A-
5
Table A-4.
Number of People Leaving Charlotte Amalie by Mode
of Travel and Cordon Count Location
A-6
xiii/xiv
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
SETTING
The United States Virgin Islands are
a series of islands
in the vicinity
of the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea
(Figure
1-1).
Only a handful
of the
islands are
inhabited.
The three largest islands are
St.
Thomas,
St.
Croix,
and St.
John
(Figure 1-2).
These
islands are areas of
much scenic beauty.
The warm,
sunny days,
beautiful beaches,
and dramatic
views attract large numbers of tourists to the
islands.
St.
Thomas, with a land area of
32 square miles
(Figure
1-3),
is the
most densely populated of the
U.
S. Virgin Islands, with a population in
excess of 51,000 people.
St.
Thomas
is located approximately 1,100 miles
east-southeast of Miami,
Florida,
1,500 miles southeast of New York City,
and
40 miles east of Puerto Rico.
Charlotte Amalie,
the seat of the Virgin
Islands Government,
is located on St.
Thomas.
Charlotte Amalie
is both the
major population center and the major tourist shopping area on the duty-free
islands.
St.
Croix,
the largest of the three
islands,
has
a land area of approxi-
mately 84 square miles
(Figure
1-4)
and a population of about 57,000 people.
Compared to
St.
Thomas and St.
John, which are very mountainous,
St.
Croix
has the greatest amount of flat land,
although
it,
too,
has hilly terrain in
its eastern and northwestern sections.
There are
two population centers on
the
island,
Christiansted on the north central
coast,
and Frederiksted on the
western coast.
St.
John
is the smallest of the main islands.
(See Figure
1-5.)
Most
of its 2,800 inhabitants
reside
in the vicinity of Cruz Bay,
the only town on
St.
John,
and the terminal
for ferry service to the other islands.
Over
three-quarters of
St.
John's
20
square miles are
reserved as a national park.
1.2
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The Virgin Islands have definite transportation problems.
The steep
terrain presents a natural obstacle
to the building and repair of roadways,
particularly on
St.
Thomas and
St.
John,
and to the maintenance of transit
equipment.
But the highway and transit systems,
both
in need of substantial
improvement,
also suffer from neglect.
1-1
Source:
1976 Virgin Islands Hass Transit Study
Wilbur Smith and Associates
FIGURE
1-1.
LOCATION OF THE
U.S.
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
1-2
y.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
0
Source:
ST. THOMAS
1982 Transit Development Plan Update
Gannett Fleming
FIGURE
1-2.
STUDY AREA
1-3
1-4
FIGURE
1-3.
ROAD
MAP
OF
ST.
THOMAS
1-5
FIGURE
1-4.
ROAD
MAP
OF
ST.
CROIX
orrotv
1-6
FIGURE
1-5.
ROAD
MAP
OF
ST.
JOHN
Resident and visitor alike
recognize the problems of deteriorating bus
service and traffic congestion in Charlotte Amalie and Christiansted.
Over
the last decade,
a series of highway improvements,
traffic engineering
changes,
and transit service proposals have been set forth.
While some of
these proposals have become
a
reality,
such as
the Melvin
H.
Evans Highway in
St.
Croix,
relatively few actions have been taken to expand road capacity,
reduce congestion,
or improve transit services.
The situation is most acute
in St.
Thomas — where the community has been polarized over a waterfront
highway for more than a decade — but the lack of transport improvements to
keep pace with population and economic growth persists
in St.
Croix and St.
John as well.
How best to improve transportation
in the Virgin Islands remains an
important and timely challenge.
There
is need to develop and implement
affordable improvements that
reduce congestion,
increase safety,
and expand
mobility, while minimizing adverse
impacts and attaining community accep-
tance.
These needs underlie the present study.
This study of transportation in the Virgin Islands was initiated in
response to the mandate contained in Section 335 of the Surface Transporta-
tion and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, which directed the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation,
in cooperation with the Virgin Islands Depart-
ment of Public Works,
to study and analyze the mass transportation needs of
the Virgin Islands for the purpose of developing a comprehensive mass
transportation plan.
This study was expanded, upon instruction from the
Office of the Virgin Islands'
Delegate
to the U.S.
Congress,
the Honorable
Ron deLugo,
to include means of reducing traffic congestion in the urban
centers of the islands.
This detailed Technical Report provided the
technical information for
the
report sent to Congress.
1.3
PREVIOUS STUDIES
There have been a number of traffic and transportation studies conducted
in the Virgin Islands over
the past
17 years.
The most significant of these
include:
-
"Virgin Islands Highway Functional Classification and Needs Study,"
by Menasco-McGuinn Associates,
1973;
-
"virgin Islands Mass Transit Study," by Wilbur Smith and Associates,
1976;
-
"Transit Plan Development Update," by Gannett Fleming Engineers and
Planners,
1982;
-
"Report on the Implementation of
a Paid Parking Program in Downtown
Charlotte Amalie," by Urbitran Associates,
1986;
and
"Recommendations to Reduce Traffic Congestion
for Charlotte Amalie,
U.S. Virgin Islands," by the Federal Highway Administration,
1987.
1-7
I
A full listing of these and other transportation-related studies and
reports that provided background information for this study are listed in the
References section at the end of the
report.
1.4
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In spite of all
the studies that have been done over the years,
few
study recommendations have been implemented due to a combination of political
and financial
reasons.
Very recently,
there have been indications of an
awareness that something must be done to improve the bus system on St.
Thomas and the traffic flow in Charlotte Amalie.
Public officials inter-
viewed during this study recognize the seriousness of the transportation
situation and voiced a desire
to improve both the highway and transit
systems.
Already,
plans are underway for signalizing critical intersections
in Charlotte Amalie.
These are merely the first steps
in the improvement
process that
is necessary to effect major improvements
in traffic in the
town.
No transit or parking improvements have been made as yet,
but a paid
parking scheme
in Charlotte Amalie
is being readied for a test implemen-
tation.
1.5
MAJOR STUDY ISSUES
Special attention was given in this study to the following issues.
-
Status of implementation of previous recommendations.
-
Reasons
for lack of implementation.
-
Quality of bus service on St.
Thomas.
-
Need for public transportation on St.
Croix and St.
John.
-
Taxi and taxivan operations on St.
Croix.
-
Bus vehicle condition and maintenance capabilities.
-
Traffic congestion in the urban centers of the three
islands.
-
Parking problems.
-
Organizational structure
for administration of public transportation,
parking and taxi operations.
-
Existing transportation legislation.
-
Transportation funding.
1-8
1.6
STUDY APPROACH
The study was performed
in close cooperation with the Virgin Islands
community by a team consisting of U.S.
DOT/Transportation Systems Center
( TSC )
staff and a traffic engineering consultant.
An initial
field visit was
made to assess the extent of the transportation problems on the islands and
to meet with appropriate public officials,
citizens groups,
and individuals
to obtain their viewpoints on the problems,
possible solutions,
and related
obstacles and constraints.
Reconnaissance surveys were made on each island
to pinpoint problems,
and to identify likely corrective actions.
The study
team reviewed all available information and reports pertaining to roadway and
traffic characteristics,
transit fleet and operations,
and planned develop-
ments .
Subsequent field visits were made to collect the traffic and transit
data needed for forming conclusions and recommendations.
(Basic data were
either lacking or
a minimum of seven years old).
Traffic volumes were
measured on all three islands during peak travel periods.
Parking accumula-
tions and durations were noted.
Driving times to and from the centers of
Charlotte Amalie and Christiansted were
recorded.
These data revealed the
dimensions,
locations,
and causes of the congestion.
Bus
ridership on St.
Thomas and taxivan ridership on St.
Croix were measured by observing
passengers boarding and alighting along their
routes.
A cordon count was
made of the number of people and vehicles entering and leaving the center of
Charlotte Amalie on a typical January 1988 weekday.
This count indicated the
numbers,
modes,
and routes of travelers
to and from the center,
and was most
useful
in assessing the relative importance to island travel of buses,
taxis,
cars and trucks.
The recommendations contained in this
report were reviewed by federal
government staff from TSC,
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA),
and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA),
and by local officials
and interest groups.
Comments have been incorporated,
but the
final
recommendations
remain the responsibility of the authors.
1.7
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The next three chapters deal separately with the three major
islands.
Chapter
2 discusses existing transit,
highway and parking conditions on St.
Thomas,
plus associated problem areas,
alternative solutions,
recommended
improvements,
and cost estimates.
Chapter
3 provides
a comparable discussion
for
St.
Croix,
and Chapter
4,
for
St.
John.
Chapter
5 discusses recommendations
for regulation and oversight of all
transportation operations.
Chapter
6 discusses funding sources.
Chapter
7
discusses regulatory and fiscal legislation needed to carry out the recommen-
dations.
Survey results and other supplementary material,
plus more detailed
discussions of certain issues,
are provided in Appendices.
1-9/10
2.
ST. THOMAS
2.1
INTRODUCTION
2.1.1
Land Use
St.
Thomas'
beauty and attractiveness reflect the sharp contrasts
between water and land.
The hills virtually rise from the sea,
providing
magnificent views of Charlotte Amalie and Magens Bay.
But these same
features have produced a hilly terrain that limits settlement,
inhibits
road
development,
and concentrates travel.
The effects of terrain are most pronounced in central Charlotte Amalie.
(See Figure 2-1.)
A series of hills encircles the central area, which itself
rises to about 100 feet above sea level
a few blocks from the water.
French-
man Hill,
Berg Hill,
Bunker Hill,
Government Hill,
Bluebeard Hill,
and
Raphune Hill circumscribe and penetrate the town.
The town's rugged terrain
has limited commercial development to the flat land that mainly lies just to
the north of its harbor.
Within a short distance of the central city are
located the major travel generators:
the University of the Virgin Islands,
the airport,
and the sub-base to the west;
the docks and malls to the south-
east;
and the high school and hospital
to the northeast.
(See Figure 2-2.)
The combined effects of the terrain and development are to concentrate
most travel
in an east-west direction, mainly along the waterfront.
It
is
these topographic,
development,
and travel patterns that result
in recurrent
congestion in central Charlotte Amalie.
2.1.2
Socio-Economic Characteristics
In 1985 there were approximately 51,000 people living on the island of
St.
Thomas.
The spatial distribution of this population and the major
residential concentrations are shown
in Figure
2-3.
The age distribution of
the population of the
island,
and indeed of the U.S. Virgin Islands as
a
whole,
is lower than that of the United States, with a median age of 23.7
years.
This
is reflected in the high number of persons per household,
3.3,
and the low employee per population
ratio,
41.1 employees per 100 people.
Employment rates among adults are
77 percent
for males and 61 percent
for
females.
2-1
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
2-2
FIGURE
2-1.
TOPOGRAPHY
IN
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
2-3
FIGURE
2=2.
TRAFFIC
GENERATORS
2-4
FIGURE
2-3.
POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
-
ST.
THOMAS
The Government is the largest employer on the
island.
Almost
36 percent
of the labor force works for either the Federal or local Government.
While
this seems high,
it should be noted that
in the Virgin Islands,
unlike the
U.S.
mainland,
the Government operates the public utilities and health
services,
as well as
a variety of air and sea port facilities.
Tourism is by
far the largest industry on the island.
Together the agricultural,
construc-
tion,
and manufacturing industries account for only 12 percent of the total
employment
.
2.1.3
Cordon Count Results
On a typical mid-winter,
high tourist season day,
over 90,000 people
enter and leave Charlotte Amalie by various means — in passenger cars,
trucks,
public and school buses,
ferries, motorcycles and bicycles,
and on
foot.
The distribution of this travel by mode and time of day is discussed
below.
All estimates were obtained from a cordon count around the city
conducted on February 2-3,
1988.
Data on the number of vehicles,
passengers
per vehicle,
and mode of travel were recorded over a 12-hour period in 15-
minute intervals at eight major entry and departure points around the city.
The data then were expanded to produce 24-hour estimates.
(Appendix A
contains a description of the methodology and data.)
2.1.3(a)
Peak hour person-movement
The number of people and vehicles entering central Charlotte Amalie in
the morning peak hour,
and leaving the area in the evening peak hour,
are
summarized in Table
2-1.
The
"car" category includes passenger cars as well
as vans without taxi or commercial designations.
The
"truck" category
includes pick-up and panel trucks as well as tractor trailers and other
heavy-duty trucks.
The
"bus" category includes public transit buses only.
School buses and human service/employer buses are included in the
"other"
category along with motorcycles,
mopeds,
and bicycles.
In the morning peak hour,
from 7-8 am,
around 4,100 vehicles carry
over 8,200 people into the central area.
About 72 percent of all people come
by car,
13 percent by truck,
6 percent by taxi,
5 percent by bus,
and the
remainder on foot or by other means.
In the evening peak hour,
from 4:30-5:30 pm,
just under 4,000 vehicles
carry over 8,200 people out of the central area.
About 64 percent of all
people depart by car,
18 percent by taxi,
9 percent by truck,
4 percent by
bus,
and the remainder on foot or by other means.
2.1.3(b)
Peak period person-movement
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 give breakdowns of people and vehicles entering and
leaving central Charlotte Amalie during the peak morning and evening periods
of the day.
The morning peak period occurs between
7 and 9:30 am when ap-
proximately 8,800 vehicles carrying over 17,200 people enter the central
2-5
TABLE 2-1.
PEAK HOUR CORDON MOVEMENTS
ENTERING AND LEAVING
CENTRAL CHARLOTTE AMALIE
ENTERING - 7:00 TO 8:00 AM PEAK HOUR
MODE
NUMBER
PERCENT
NUMBER
PERCENT
LOAD
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
FACTOR
CAR
3,197
78.6
5,931
72.1
1.9
TAXI
244
6.2
530
6.4
2.2
TRUCK
572
14.1
1,041
12.7
1.8
BUS
20
0.5
405
4.9
20.3
OTHER
33
0.8
61
0.7
1.8
WALK
253
3.0
TOTAL
4,066
100.0
8,221
100.0
LEAVING - 4:30 TO 5:30 PM PEAK HOUR
MODE
NUMBER
PERCENT
NUMBER
PERCENT
LOAD
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
FACTOR
CAR
3,088
77.5
5,248
63.6
1.7
TAXI
390
9.8
1,441
17.5
3.7
TRUCK
459
11.5
743
9.0
1.6
BUS
15
0.4
300
3.6
20.0
OTHER
35
0.9
75
0.9
2.1
WALK
448
5.4
TOTAL
3,987
100.0
8,255
100.0
2-6
TABLE
2-2.
NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND PEOPLE
ENTERING CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY MODE OF TRAVEL DURING PEAK PERIODS
ALL DAY
7
: 00-9
: 30
3:30-6:00
AM PEAK
PM PEAK
PERIOD
PERIOD
VEHICLES
TOTAL
CAR
TAXI
TRUCK
BUS
OTHER
46073
8783
6594
716
1332
49
92
7870
5640
991
1131
40
68
PEOPLE
TOTAL
90089
17262
15580
CAR
11333
8797
TAXI
2109
3524
TRUCK
2143
1860
BUS
791
474
OTHER
185
126
WALK
701
799
LOAD
FACTORS
TOTAL
1.9
1.9
CAR
1.7
1.6
TAXI
2.9
3.6
TRUCK
1.6
1.6
BUS
16.1
11.9
OTHER
2.0
1.9
FERRY
PASSENGERS
(8:15
6
: 15
AM
-
PM)
(8:
9
:
15 AM
-
3 0
AM)
(3:30
-
6:15
PM
2623
54
296
2-7
TABLE
2-3.
NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND PEOPLE
LEAVING CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY MODE OF TRAVEL DURING PEAK PERIODS
ALL DAY
7:00-9:30
AM
PEAK
PERIOD
3
: 30-6
: 00
PM PEAK
PERIOD
VEHICLES
TOTAL
43025
7555
9171
CAR
5626
6691
TAXI
691
1120
TRUCK
1106
1247
BUS
40
34
OTHER
92
79
PEOPLE
TOTAL
89236
13520
19942
CAR
8425
11537
TAXI
1539
4114
TRUCK
1778
2128
BUS
741
833
OTHER
225
196
WALK
812
1134
LOAD
FACTORS
TOTAL
1.7
2.1
CAR
1
.
5
1.7
TAXI
2.2
3.7
TRUCK
1.6
1.7
BUS
18.5
24.5
OTHER
2.4
2
.
5
FERRY
(8:15 AM
-
(8:15 AM
-
(3:30
-
PASSENGERS
6:15
PM)
9:30 AM
)
6:15
PM)
1 755
86
793
2-8
area,
and when about 7,600 vehicles carrying 13,500 people leave the central
area.
The evening peak period occurs between 3:30 and
6 pm, when approxi
mately 9,200 vehicles carry almost 20,000 people out of the area,
and just
under 7,900 vehicles carry nearly 15,600 people into the area.
Load factors
for passenger cars vary between 1.5 and 1.7 persons per car
during the peak periods.
Transit buses entering and leaving Charlotte Amalie
maintain load factors of around 20 passengers per bus during the morning peak
hour, with somewhat lower averages over the entire morning peak period.
During the afternoon peak period,
transit buses leaving the city are quite
heavily loaded with about 24 passengers per bus;
however,
as the net movement
is out of the city in the afternoon,
buses entering the city during this time
average only around 12 passengers per bus.
During the morning peak period,
passenger cars comprise 75 percent of
the vehicular traffic both entering and leaving Charlotte Amalie,
and carry
around 64 percent of the people.
Taxis,
representing about
9 percent of
vehicles on the
road at this time of day,
transport 11-12 percent of the
people into and out of the city.
Transit buses account for fewer than
1
percent of the vehicles on the
roads,
but carry 4-5 percent of the people
traveling in both directions.
During the afternoon peak period,
passenger cars again account
for most
of the traffic,
representing around 73 percent of the vehicles;
however,
the
portion of people they carry drops to about
57 percent.
This most likely
results from the increase
in taxis transporting cruise ship passengers to and
from the docks and the downtown shopping area;
taxis are not only more
numerous in the afternoon,
but also more heavily loaded.
They comprise
13
percent of the traffic and carry around 22 percent of the people into and out
of the city.
Transit buses continue to represent fewer than
1 percent of the
vehicles,
but carry a smaller portion
(3-4 percent)
of the passengers
in the
evening peak period than in the morning.
2.1.3(c)
Hourly profile
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show profiles of hourly variations in vehicle
traffic entering and departing Charlotte Amalie throughout the period of the
cordon count
(7 am -
6 pm).
Vehicles entering the city peak from
7
to
8 am
during the morning rush hour.
After 9:30
am,
traffic into the city levels
off to between 700 and 800 vehicles every 15 minutes,
until
a slight evening
rush hour peak occurs between
5 and
6 pm.
Figure 2-5 shows a distinctly different pattern
for vehicles leaving the
city.
A morning peak period ending around 9:30 am is followed by a short
period of traffic departing the city at a constant
rate.
At
1
pm,
the number
of departing vehicles begins to increase steadily throughout
the afternoon
until the evening rush hour from
5 to
6
pm.
The morning peak in Figure 2-5 and the afternoon peak
in Figure
2-4
likely reflect commuters who must pass through Charlotte Amalie on their way
to and from work.
The steadily increasing stream of vehicles leaving the
2-9
sepjqan jo .laqujnN
2-10
FIGURE
2-4.
VEHICLES
ENTERING
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
sapjijan jo jaquinN
2-11
FIGURE
2-5.
VEHICLES
LEAVING
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
city in the afternoon indicates that,
although most people enter the city
during the morning rush hour, many of them have short-term business
in the
city and begin to leave long before the evening rush hour.
2.1.3(d)
Place of entry
Figure 2-6 and Table 2-4 show where people and vehicles enter and leave
central Charlotte Amalie via the eight cordon count locations.
On a typical
weekday nearly 184,000 people enter,
pass through,
or leave the area.
Almost
half use Veterans Drive, while the remaining travelers use the other six
cordon locations.
Veterans Drive bears the brunt of vehicular traffic every day,
carrying
over 20,000 vehicles in each direction,
and accounting for about half of all
vehicles.
The two-lane easterly approach carries over 10,000 vehicles per
lane, virtually double the volume per lane found at other locations.
2.1.3(e)
Comparison of 1988 cordon count with previous studies
Although previous studies did not perform cordon counts as part of their
data collection activities,
two did obtain traffic counts at several of the
same locations as the 1988 cordon count.
A comparison of available counts
at the various locations
is shown in Table 2-5.
The volume of traffic on Veterans Drive has changed very little since
1981.
On the western side of town,
however,
there was a
33 percent increase
in traffic between 1972 and 1981.
Observations of Veterans Drive indicate
that during the peak periods of the day,
the
road is carrying traffic at
its
capacity limits.
The sharper increases on Solberg,
Mafolie,
and Kronprind-
sens Roads may indicate that they are serving as relief routes
for vehicles
attempting to enter Charlotte Amalie during peak periods when Veterans Drive
has exceeded its capacity.
They also may reflect population growth on the
northerly side of
St.
Thomas.
2.1.3(f)
Public transportation implications
The cordon count indicates that about
5 percent of the travelers
entering Charlotte Amalie during peak hours come by bus
(inbound in the
morning,
outbound in the evening).
Thus,
improved transit,
although
desirable,
is not likely to reduce measurably the congestion problem or the
need for additional
road capacity.
2.2
TRANSIT SERVICE
2.2.1
Existing Conditions
Transit service on St.
Thomas
is operated by Mannassah Bus Line,
Inc.
under an exclusive franchise granted by the Virgin Islands Legislature.
2-12
2-13
FIGURE
2-6.
PEOPLE
ENTERING
AND
LEAVING
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
CENTER
TABLE 2-4.
24-HOUR ESTIMATES OF TRAFFIC
INTO AND OUT OF CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY CORDON COUNT LOCATION
LOCATION
ENTERING
LEAVING
VETERANS DRIVE
-
WINDWARD PASSAGE
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
13,977
26,218
12,651
24
, 291
KRONPRINDSENS GADE
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
4,793
9,208
4 ,797
10,232
SOLBERG ROAD
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
1,118
2,108
1 ,054
1,867
MAFOLIE ROAD
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
5,463
11,801
5,082
12,168
DE BELTJEN ROAD
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
4
, 074
7,740
3,146
5,051
VETERANS DRIVE
-
FEDERAL BUILDING
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
10,998
22,146
9
, 785
20
, 569
SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
5,650
10,868
6,510
15,058
WATERFRONT
FERRIES
PEOPLE
48
2,623
46
1,755
TOTAL
VEHICLES
PEOPLE
46 ,121
92,712
43,071
90,991
2-14
TABLE 2-5.
COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
LOCATION
1988
1981 1
% CHANGE
81-88
1972 2
% CHANGE
72-88
VETERANS DR.
26,487
26,378
+0.4
19,895
+33.1
(WINDWARD)
KRONPRINDSENS
9,590
7,937
+20.8
SOLBERG RD.
2,172
823
+163.9
MAFOLIE RD.
9,215
7,167
+28.6
VETERANS DR.
20,792
20,031
+3.8
(FEDERAL)
SUGAR ESTATE 12,160
11,457
+6.1
1
URS Consultants,
Inc.
2
"Virgin Islands Functional Classification
and Needs Study," Menasco-McGuinn Associates
Mannassah has had this franchise since 1951.
In 1986, Mannassah was granted
an extension of this franchise until
1991.
Mannassah also has the school bus
contract on St.
Thomas.
2.2.1(a)
Coverage
Transit service
is concentrated on the City of Charlotte Amalie and the
residential areas of Donoe, Old and New Tutu, Hidden Valley,
Bovoni,
and Red
Hook to the east.
In addition,
these eastern routes serve the
St.
John Ferry
and several of the hotels along the shore.
There
is also limited service to
Bordeaux on the western end of the
island.
There
is no service to the area
north of Charlotte Amalie.
Figure 2-7
is a composite map showing the transit
route structure.
Bus stops are marked within Charlotte Amalie.
Outside the city,
there
are few formal bus stops,
since these
routes operate primarily on a demand
basis —
i.e.,
passengers flag down the bus.
"Country"
route buses stop at
many of the same stops as the city buses within Charlotte Amalie.
URS Consultants,
Inc.
2
"Virgin Islands Functional Classification and Needs
Study", Menasco-McGuinn Associates.
2-15
CD
2-16
FIGURE
2-7.
EXISTING
TRANSIT
ROUTES
-
ST.
THOMAS
2.2.1(b)
Scheduling and service frequency
Transit service
is divided into two components:
a
"city"
route;
and six
"country"
routes.
The city route
(Figures 2-8 and 2-9)
runs from the
University of the Virgin Islands ,
on the west side of Charlotte Amalie,
to
the new St.
Thomas Hospital area,
on the east
side,
and back to the Univer-
sity.
The schedule calls
for 15-minute headways virtually all day from 6:00
am to 9:00 pm.
Five buses are assigned to this
route,
and they circulate
continuously throughout the day.
In addition,
the bus assigned to the
Bordeaux route
(Figure 2-10)
serves the city route during off-peak hours.
Service on the Bordeaux route
is only provided during the morning and
afternoon peak periods and a single mid-day trip.
One bus
is assigned to each of the Donoe,
Red Hook via Four Winds,
Red
Hook via Nadir,
Bovoni and Tutu routes
(Figures 2-11 through 2-14).
The
Donoe and Red Hook
routes operate in a loop fashion on the outer end.
Scheduled headways on these country routes are generally in the range of 65
to 80 minutes,
although they vary throughout the day depending upon round
trip travel
times,
and can be as low as
50 or as high as 100 minutes at
specific times.
The current method of scheduling buses
is to circulate a bus on the same
route for the entire day.
Given the shortage of buses,
this
is a practical
method of operation.
However,
the actual schedules which the buses are to
follow are mostly fictitious.
Current schedules do not adequately reflect
the traffic delays normally experienced during large portions of the day.
If
a bus
is delayed,
the next trip begins late.
As a consequence, many trips
are over thirty minutes late,
and some trips are skipped entirely since the
delay exceeds the scheduled headway.
If a bus
is disabled,
it may take a
considerable length of time
for a replacement bus to be inserted,
assuming
that a replacement is available.
Very few layovers are scheduled, making
it
virtually impossible
for a bus to get back on schedule once
it falls behind.
2.2.1(c)
Fares
There are four transit fares within St.
Thomas:
50 cents within the
city;
75 cents for travel
to,
from,
and within the country route areas;
and
reductions to 35 cents
in the city and 55 cents in the country for elderly
persons.
There are no free or discounted transfers or student fares.
2.2.1(d)
Transit equipment
The continual deterioration of the fleet
is a major problem.
In April
1988, Mannassah stated the fleet size as
16 buses.
The breakdown of these
vehicles was as follows:
2-17
To
College
of
the
Virgin
Islands
cn
cd
•tHO C/3
(D
CO
cn
(02
oX
"Oc
fS
>.
sa
TJe3
(0
>.
sc
(0
<9
oc©5
spue|S| UjBjjA
aqj io a6a||do
Viodjjv mmmmnmimmmnmmnmmmm
•diuoQ suv
'paiAl
•Amh pooMjen
ajenbs
ia>)Je|/\|
0 aoi.jsnr 'uijJQ
apes leijdsbn 3§ii§gli§li52g||B|||J!2||§?i^22g82m2§SgSS§Sg221fi
I910H U9ABH 1M3BA
PU Aeg Buoi ^s§l^!ls§lsS!|ii|!|2l|||!SiSS2S9S3«§!!S!!§SI!S!!i
spuB|S| UjBjjA
ai|l )o aBaiioo iiimHiiiissiHiiHiiimuiiiiHiiiHii
VJodiiv ^2§l5i8IBs22i§§gIisiiisSS2IS§I3i5§225ISi22I
dwoQ spy
paiAl
Amh POomjeh SSSSSsSS!8SS!lsSSII9SS!SSSSSISiElill!limi
ajenbs lamew imnmmmmmmmmmmmim
0 aojjsnp ’uiuo
apeb jeijdsoH
>.
(0
(3
</>
I
TJCoS
spuB|S| UjBjjA
agi io aBajjdo
hbb
AM.
637
6:51
7.05
7:19
7:33
7:47
001
0:15
0:29
0:43
0:57
9:11
9:25 9
39
9:53
10:07
10:21
10:35
1049
11:03
11:37
11:51
12:05
dwoQ suv
Pa lAI
Amh Poomjeh mmmmmimmn
ajenbs iamB|/\|
3S2i*ES!!§52I25iS8ill|3fi
0 aojisnp 'luuo
apeb jeijdsoH nmmnmitmmm
nmmmnmnmm
2-18
FIGURE
2-8.
CITY
ROUTE
SCHEDULE
-
WESTBOUND
To
Long
Bay
Road
(via
Charlotte
Amalie)
Moriday-Saturday
A.M.
Monday-Saturday
PM,
Sunday
and
Holidays
lajOH uaABH
1M 3BA
•pa >teg 6ucn
AM.
7:05
7:25
7:40
8:00
8:15
8:35
8:50
9:10 8388S8SS28 *S288S82gg8?8l§§8§!8S8gg8§gS
&wv-^^we4w®no4r4r^i«wjiflu
,i©i»©(s;hIf^e>©
fl
'S'H ailBLUv 'O'
PH )pBJ)aoBH
A.M.
6:58
7:18
7:33
7:53
8:08
8:28
8:43
9:03 “85r828388a!S8S38S8g28g8gg283g83g2aS§
ooooo^t-t-nn iLdd^^dddddd^y^^^iKiKdd&dddt^d©
jojjBd ania
apBQ s»apBH 5?8S3S2SS8?l?S?SS8g!2sS55SSg8S§?S28S§S8S?§f28§8
<OKKNN(OOfflO)d)®OOrrrrN
jq s.suBjajaA
u/woiqouajd
A.M.
6:44
7:04
7:19
7:39
7:54
8:14
8:29
8:49 5888382338 3S3J832S88238S3S2338S32838
®0)(?)0)OO^r»-N
a,NwV»-t.wwWWnW^^^^mifllfl»«©ts.'hNd9
|
jaHJEouadns DV
'PH
uiw umojo s8$3S?8S?828S8538?S aS88S38S8S83§28S38?§a8iS58
<tO(ONSNCOCOCDfflO)0)CJ)OO^r-T-Cy| &WNi-»'i-^W«WO«^V^^lHmW©«©NSSN
spuB|S| u;6j!a
aqi jo aBaiioo
59SiQiG98‘0 !£9 0 !Gl29!££89!£ *®op®®oow>®o®®©o®®o©i«®oo®»fto
<(0(ONNMD®(Dmcno)0)OOT-T-7-r
Qlddd^^^w&dddd4»^4fiHw(!HeH©<i>d^di^
^W^'^^^NW«NW«OOO^^«^lfliniflWlfl®i«®NNN«®OOffi6»«0l
S'H 8IIBUJV 0
PH >|OBJiaoeu
jojJBd 9n|g
apBO swapBfcj
JO s.suBjajeA
UMomouajj
ia>jjBUJjadns OV
'PU 'UJW UMOJQ
JrttnNp|fllO®«Sflftai«NfWO»WNrl2«nNplfl©e9W®©'!f®NI005
l^b^nwme^n^orN^inrwnioowrtto^wviflNvjifl^Nwifloiww
^NO«aN0ttO«9N»OtaN(OO^0N0Q^(OM!deonNi-lAa»^i-tA
MnanNf»-mo»«3K^intonN*-M)o»nNfW®«Npm^«9Wjoo2fflwjpo
NN^^^^^NpjNNpjn cid d4rd*^ddu>iH«S©®d£»iN§
,'»i*'-©®©®©»®'
2
IL N N
aass5a8§82s3a?s8agassgssss?saigas52sg55s
o[^ji^pp^^NNNNNnnnn^tttwiflifl(Hm«®ibNN^ha®fl9©©o*
JnrlflanNNrlflO»nNflft®nNr'in»WSr^aWh-r0'tffflNiflO^®Wg
2^^irowwrtuJOrn^o^NvWr*wnwoNrt^Oynor-w^in^Nnmo
Q!NWWr^rr^NN^NOOOff)«^«^^WM>lflm®d®hNNNf*0®0©©
laioj-i uaABH JLjoba
PH Asg Buoi
=S8888S?S? 83328388882588885
<(b«bfflNNSN©®®©iido)6)6i6i666»"»-T-»-c\icNj('i
S'H eilBLUV ‘0
PH >|OBJiaoBU
22838263888658283 5283253826
<cbtb<btbr^Nr^r^cd®cbd6d)d>aicT)dd6»-’-^-^-7-c\jCNj
,
joJJBd snia
apBQ suapeu 228685233828382388885868852
<(b<boiNNNNfflcb®ooo)m6)6)ddd^ t-^-t-cmcnj
JO s.suBjajaA
UMOUjouajj 228338263888658283523825382
<a®®®©NNNNfflfflcb®6)flioi(3)ddo<-i-rT-^CM
jaHJEouadns OV
PH
ujw umojo
282835368852338283823828353
<(b<b(b(b®NNSNcb®o6cbwffl^cTiaidddv-t-^v-w
2828538265 88885323 6 58332538
<(0®®®(b(ONNNN®©ffl®®®®®000'r»-7‘7’7*
2-19
FIGURE
2-9.
CITY
ROUTE
SCHEDULE
-
EASTBOUNO
3
-o
Vho
PQ
CN
—
<0
> e
o <
- ®
* *=
5 °
rtj “n
®
TO
^ C.
O O -
CD c?
C* O !
£ £ I
JS |
W r* £
S * £
.9 ow
©O
E©
C/5
©*
•Oc
I Z
§
j. i
5
a's
1 3
E «
2 °?
«- £
<-I “g
cn c
o O
IBjjdsoH
SBUioqi
;s
AM 8
00
10:00
P.M.
7:10
8:50
apeo siapEey
AM
7:34
9:44
P.M.
7:04
8:44
u/woigouajj
AM. 7
29
9:39
P.M.
6:59
8:39
py
uilAI umojq
AM.
7:24
9:34
P.M.
6:54
8:34
)
I’A'O
^
•
05
* in in in
2 j- oj 2 c* n «
<
*
oioioittoi
IIIIAI 1UEJU00
^oojoino
2NCN|SnnN
< Noa|ci«®
* A
U|BJUnO|/\J UMOJQ
^ in 05
• m o m
^ r: t « t: r? T!
ado|-| aiBisg ™00
‘OlflO
2
T-
2 V- C4 v-
<
r>* b) q] c< ® ®
HIM eunpoj
^ 05 05
* in o m
2 o o 2 o w ©
<
O) q| w © ®
xnBapjog
~qo joino
2 o o Z o r- o
<
oi q[ c* <b ©
g
©o
E©
05
©*DC3
05
5*
«E
X 2
2 «
S 9
1 «
ffi c
fii
xnsapjog
AM.
9:00
P.M.
2:00
6:15
8:00
|I!H eurujoj
AM.
0:55
P.M.
1:55
6:10
7:54
adoy aiejsg
AM.
8:50
P.M.
1:50
6:05
7:49
u|Ejuno|/\| u/wojq
AM.
8:45
P.M.
1:45
6:00
7:44
IIIIAI JUEJUOQ
AM.
8:43
P.M.
1:43
5:58
7:42
TAD
O)
2 co
• a> © m
2 <o in co
< ®
IAN
suv leojpaw
2 «N
< 00
• CO ® ®
SEncon
apEO |Ei|dsoH
AM.
8.11
<D «-
py Asg Buoi
AM.
8:04
P.M.
1:04
5:19
7:14
|E);dsOH
sS
SEiuopi
is
< ®
oif MN
P—It “*«*A
2-20
FIGURE
2-10.
BORDEAUX
ROUTE
MAP
AND
SCHEDULE
c
5o
£.2 5
®
ra g
U- Eq
o<
.5 ©
»aoi
lOgc
g c ||
7 0 02
^
K TJ
3 O ^ C
CL T3 C/3
CO
03o
co
m
6
o
c
Aa||BA uappiH
-lOlAOlAlOlA-'QIAIAlAOeiA
Pb ssed-Ag
^momooo JiAoooiflwo
SNNCT^oolonvin^N^r
joalojb aouoa
^OlAOininiA'plAIAlAOOlA
<©N®aO^^^^«'?t©N©
Pb aouoa
<(ON®®6r-Q|NNn^®N»
|ei;dsoH
SBUJOLJ J_
JS
<vr ^ Q) O ® O) O) _? V » O) o> o> ^ o>
<ONdb6io^Q[mcin«iHhia
NrOtf)
OU> v-N
<»NflD®b^Q,'wcio^ii)Na
apBO sjajjno
^ifiomooo'OwininNiflo
<ONo6>6^a|NMnfrinN0
-omoimnin'iAOOoinoin
2qif)o^ooS«o^N«o^
<(b<b®wo»-^wwn^iHN®
c
o
e
§
u.
©
«T
=m
<0
£
m
19c3
(0
uMOjqouajj
_:&nptnom°(AeoomiAom
Sif3O^-CsiC0Sr>^r^CI«U)O^
<(ba66>o^^M^r>^rin<ba>©»
Buipiing |Bjapa-)
<--<2)-*TO)T?'Q-°'&OiTS‘rr*&&>Oir3
>
i^^inqwlwwioo^nvo
Pb Asg 6uot
^lAOWOO.'OIAOOOlAlAO
S^^inowlNNino^ovo
Aa|jBai|M
^WNNSN^NWNSNMNN
<cbt^cbdj^-Qjc^^rir>urj«©r^®
Pb aouoa
J3U|A|/M
jj
<(bsopr-^N^wnin(fiNS
spuj/\A Jnoj
^gcoo«ocD-©waffi®Rn®
2ooj^^o2o^ovi<)no^
<<br^dda>T-Q^f,iv-f4«^r<ar^©
Aa||BA uappiH
-OiflOlAlflJlAOlAIAIOOOlC
Snw^^oSoFnvwwrt^
<®N®di^iw^NOV«N®
•PH
2-21
FIGURE
2-11.
DONOE
ROUTE
MAP
AND
SCHEDULE
I8
tc
9
>>
03
•0
S3
CO
<8
T3C
CO
>100H P3d
5Slfi in £!2^ ooo oooi0
^ c?
c!?'“ c0 9!.T!Tt
<r?9!T,!^‘n
<©N©OWCL^WVIft«SB
Aeg miius
2cV9r9®«oou)^p)nin
<9NOlO
II! H 1SSB0
S-
SRSSpco^wocooococo
5 wwoNinJonwroo^r
<®N6io^o|^ciniH(bs®
spui/w jnoj
r ® to©©
iwwoNinSonift^rtnn
<(DNOid'-^WRIfi«^09
J3U|A[/\J
jj
^^NONinainN^roNw^
<tbsoio^Q|ciwoio®N®
py eouoa
5 r woNU)Siftw^oww5f
<<or^aio-;eJc^«e>
1nasr^c3
|B)|dsoH
SELUOMl -JS
^rrf’r^f'liwvoNwn
^(bsfflOr^ciNwiiiisa
punojg lejjdsoH
•©towiniftom
<«Na30^^NN«V»N»
speo siaung
,moinwN-tNSNSMno
<<si^dbo^Qjcioin«a>is:eB
uMojipuajj
^P^^ioo-inoooQoin
iOONWOiOONVOrN
<(bh-.c66)^@Je4^^^®§^®
UMOJipuaJJ
^.LommLD'inooooooo
io wui r-jo^rwt or-r>n
<r^cbo>T--Q^oi^r>^di^dd
6u|p||ng |EJ3pay
^coooio •«« w»o««
iinr-nuijNnoN^roo^
<©c66ioQ|N^nvi«N®oJ
py AEg 6uon
<<baDdjdo]«^nvifi©NoJ
AaiJBapM
^(0»3^
•^(eaoioxoiDf
2^i/>niA2MNU)^miAIA^
<(bN6i6o|N^e«fru)0N6i
py aouog
<(bNoid(LN^fi«Ma>N6i
jau|A[/y
jy
<dr^dda[c*^£i*tA&£a>
«
1
13
I
CO
<8o
— e
© 3
h (O
JCo
•c
£
S cor)cnc'?‘coa>GocooocDCD<*>
<dr^ddQ]tt^N^i/>tbr^6>
J!PEN
-CO-'-«-*-*V°<0<0<0<O'0(0*-
<(bN©d^w^wvii)©N«
fopuapAjy
n co © co _*
ffl © f) c*) rt W W O
^ f!
<©N6idfl|cirwiru)®N®
-ominu} 'iflooooobiA
<dr^dda|c4^-ci^fui»i^d
2-22
FIGURE
2-12.
RED
HOOK
ROUTE
MAP
AND
SCHEDULE
• f«4G
!
PQ
in
c
o
8.2
£ «
u- E
o><
.5 ®
>
ts
®S
10
1
6
m c
St
n $
P °
Cl ‘o
<dc
.E
</>
S
O
tr
X
O
*-T m
“-•6 =
<o >
<o
:
<0
a ^
ra
o. w- e
« ® o
5 cr
X
<J) t—
«0 T5
(0
,«> r
E g>§
J
Q. C
t ao
55 a5i§
CD
CD
CD
Q.<
©
caQ
©>
©
3=
LLI
©
CJ
co
©
E
o
c
ailjAseujom
-iniAinOOlA'IAOlOlAlAOO
2NCNinv^ipIiftNnwoT-n
<br^»o>b^-: Qj&e«c95roi^®
Sinsnog juoAog
^cgojc\jr^r^c\j*c<ir^cMMCif^N.
2NNnnnif)Su)^nnooci
J !PBN
xoaio^jai •otafflav^f
<»Sffl6j6^Q|wwn^ii)N«
<(Of^coa>o^Q|oicir>
<9iAi^<
a*
m
CO
Eo
>.
(9O
a
(/>
iau|A|/y
ij
^ TT T: 9*
™T. 5*r©«*ru>in^
<<bNoao^tww«^>fluioB
PU aouoa
<cor^eocDb^^o*wb^i/>«>®
lejidsog
seujom
is
vl-q><7)a>iTrTcn’G>*r*T<irQi'iT'V
Spo^cNCvjcoSoo^wco®^
<br^®bb^&N&r)*rin®®
punojg lepdsoH
_lDWWOOlfi-inNNNNN»-
Spo^wwoSniflOwnv^
^cof^coojb’-gJc^T-b'^uri©®
apeg sjaunQ
_inmtninino 'oooomoa
Sopo^3-p§r>«o®evic<i^o
<(b(bffl®d’-o|N^n«a>«ba
w 9 n T. ^
<(b(od6<7>o^-^e4^oi^ruf)®€s
UMOjipuajj
<(ONO)Ot-Q1 NfNVm«ON«
-MDCDcnn-cooonoscown
2 ^^if)oqS^^«in^NniA
^ 55 ^ 0)01
o»®
S^^pppstr-i-qin^oiWBr
<<©N®ao^w^w«tH®N®
A3IIB3MM
<(bN«6i6Q|«^pin(ijoNi#
xcQaxoonjcoiDo^osnn
<<br^coo>oa!™^™nur><bi^aE>
<(ONCOO»Oa,NrN«lfl®N«
ueiu>|oojg
I o-OnOCDCD^RWttWrtWCD#
| Snr. vv^SooNno^^w
Sont'rtSooNVO^^w
<br^bbb&M^ttbin®K®
<(ONCDO)Oi-q,WNOV®N<
<(Of^aocnO’--Q.cMN(Mn« 0 N 0
8BW$@©ag
2-23
FIGURE
2-13.
BOVONI
ROUTE
MAP
AND
SCHEDULE
8
I
is
CO0
CD>
1
3=
UJ
Aoiiba njni
<*9&
>£ 0 '£« IA0IA 0tAinG
•o
t1 u '
,‘^ 5 oviflr-wp)o
<©NCDO«-ai^WWli)®N®
n]nj_ /WON
iwnuiOTrJooinoNwin
<^^®o^CL^wrjur>«or^oo
n)ri± pio
2wwTronSift«vo»-wio
<®n©6i-£^ww»w«n«
s
3S
h*
© 3
H W
I
MM
-T-<otO»-tD*«©*-<D*=<©<0^»
SH iNN^OnlinnvOrNIfl
JR
JSU|A|/\| -JJ
Pb aouoa ^NNWNN^NSnMUHN
^^-;c\i7»:u7cr>aEu»e<^r>o»— o»^
|Bl|dSD^
SBUJOlli -JS
JNNNNIOWV
<G(^c6a>^o|oiMc>^rwi^«
<tf>^<ba>^o;&cic£'£'ni^®
pp^rfpSttpoiO'Vpm
<cbr^a66>^Q;e^eii^>^r«AisIoD
UMOjqouajj
~inininino<iAou>oioQiA
SiTiinOOJOl NO^rt wo«
<^®®<^^CLW©ir>4fii>h;©
. ”,
.-
v.'
r”
*“
_
(0
1°
©
UMOJL| 3 U 3JJ
-loiomintf) 'lAinoinooo
2if)Ow^wl^r»-nno^«
<<bcDcndci(L^n«iANoa
apBO pubjjs
_;c\JOOONJNor)Nnp)in
SinoNn^SnoNniAOCt
<©isd)6NQi^n«iO0oai
6 u!p|mg |Bjapaj
~ o)
** g> 3
® ^ © n Tf ©
2 V«^NOyNU)rN’|riO^
<©N©6NQ|^M«lfl0Na)
Pb ABg Buo"i
^mooiAO'oifloiooow
5 vinr-woiNifiT«N^inv-
<(bN®OWa'rW»IO«N6i
AapeaijM
-:c\jr^r^cNirv«Kwr^w^^«
S't’T OOJl^2f»lflONOt;r
<(bN©6^o|^Nirio©N«
py aouoQ
,©TrTr©«*^©^©^^©
<(br^d)o^Q[^oi^rtf><bi^o>
j 9 U|Aiaj -jj
__ CO
CD
® = <0 ”
(D
<©N©6^Q|^ci^W»N©
A«h JaiuA^b «Tr©©^©' ©^©^©©<9
5 now^vSo^r
|ov-woo
<®n06^q|^w«u)©n©
{3
CO
>*
«go©
0)
<tOSCDOr- ftiT. W C)in»M
Aa||BA njni
<©N©OT-Q>r c«nio«Na
2-24
FIGURE
2-14.
TUTU
ROUTE
MAP
AND
SCHEDULE
Seating
Manufacturer
Number
Year
Capacity
Flxette
3
1982
31
Thomas
4
1983
21
Thomas
1
1973
51
Ford
6
1985
17
Superior
2
1980
23
However,
many of the buses were not available
for service each day due
to mechanical or structural defects.
Because of their poor condition,
these
buses spent considerable time
in maintenance.
Mannassah felt fortunate
if
it had 10 of the buses available
for service on a given day.
During April
1988,
the service normally was operated with only nine buses.
This
43
percent out-of-service
rate
is extremely high.
A 10 to 15 percent spare
ratio
is normal.
The best of the vehicles were the six new small Ford buses purchased
from Mahogany Run,
a condominium development in bankruptcy.
However,
Mannassah claims that these buses are not appropriate
for the rugged terrain
of the country routes and,
thus,
are
restricted to the city route.
Eight
Flxettes
(Figure 2-15)
and four Thomas buses
(Figure 2-16) were received in
1982 and 1983.
The Flxette buses were supposedly designed for the
St.
Thomas
terrain.
However,
they have experienced severe structural problems due to
the alleged poor design of their body structures and their interface with the
GMC chassis.
Only three of the eight six-year old Flxettes were still
operable
in April.
2.2.1(e)
Maintenance facilities and equipment
Mannassah Bus Lines operates both school bus and transit service from
the
same facility, which is located on Harwood Highway to the west of the
downtown area of Charlotte Amalie.
Most of the approximately one acre site
is unpaved.
On this property are located the administrative offices
(Figure
2-17), maintenance area
(Figure 2-18),
gas pumps and a tire shed
(Figure 2-
19),
and active and dead bus storage areas
(Figure 2-20).
The maintenance
area consists of a covered,
open-air work area capable of handling
4 buses at
a time
(Figure
2-21),
an uncovered,
narrow inspection pit
(Figure 2-22),
a
covered,
open-air bench repair and equipment storage area
(Figure 2-23),
and
an enclosed tool and parts storage room (Figure 2-24).
Repairs are accomplished under cover when possible.
However,
repairs
often have
to be made out in the open due
to the unavailability of covered
work space.
In either case,
the
repair work
is subject to moisture and dust
or other foreign substances.
Neither drainage nor lighting
is provided in
the inspection pit.
Maintenance tools and equipment are generally old.
Overall,
the maintenance facilities are
small,
dirty,
cluttered,
and
generally inadequate
for carrying out
a good maintenance operation.
2-25
FIGURE
2-15.
FLXETTE BUS
FIGURE
2-16.
THOMAS
BUS
2-26
FIGURE
2-17.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
2-27
FIGURE
2-19.
TIRE SHED AND GAS PUMP
FIGURE
2-20.
BUS STORAGE AREA
2-28
FIGURE
2-22.
INSPECTION
PIT
2-29
FIGURE
2-23.
BENCH
REPAIR AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREA
FIGURE
2-24.
TOOL AND PARTS STORAGE ROOM
2-30
2.2.1(f)
Maintenance practices
The maintenance performed on the bus fleet
is very often only that
needed to keep the buses
running.
Although preventive maintenance procedures
are outlined in an operations manual,
they are rarely followed due to a
shortage of spare buses and the need to get
10 buses out on the street each
day.
Proper maintenance also
is inhibited by inadequate facilities,
old
tools and equipment,
and a limited spare parts inventory.
2.2.1(g)
Transit management and operations
There has been much local criticism of the transit system.
A great deal
of this criticism has been directed at management.
Mannassah Bus Line upper
management staff consists of
four salaried persons:
president;
treasurer;
head bus driver supervisor;
and an accountant.
Remaining office and
management personnel are on an hourly wage schedule,
and include three bus
driver supervisors,
a head mechanic supervisor,
a bookkeeper,
and a secre-
tary.
This staff oversees a total employee
roster of
42 drivers,
14
mechanics,
and
8 utility personnel.
Fourteen of the bus drivers and all of
the management staff,
mechanics,
and utility personnel
split their time
between the school bus and the transit services.
Transit service has been run by the current president's family since
its
inception in 1951.
The operator claims that a lack of adequate funding for
transit and the poor condition of the transit fleet have significantly
hampered the company in its efforts to provide good transit service.
2.2.1(h)
Transit ridership
A count of transit ridership was conducted for this study.
The count
was taken over a several day period during February and March of 1988.
Ridership by route
is shown in Table
2-6.
Over 6,300 passengers are carried
on a typical peak season weekday.
Approximately 56 percent of all transit
TABLE 2-6.
TYPICAL 1988 PEAK SEASON DAILY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
Route
Passengers
Percent
City
3,561
56.1
Tutu
442
7.0
Red Hook
654
10.3
Red Hook
(Nadir)
462
7.3
Bovoni
544
8.5
Donoe
528
8.3
Bordeaux
158
2.5
TOTAL
6,349
100.0
2-31
riders are carried on city route buses.
In addition, many of the
riders of
country route buses board and alight within the city route service area.
Ridership on the city route
is fairly heavy throughout the day.
Loads
during the 7:00-9:30 am and 1:00-5:00 pm periods average 70-90 passengers per
round trip, while mid-day trips average 40-60 passengers.
Ridership on the
country routes
is more sharply peaked, with the heaviest ridership occurring
between the hours of 6:00-7:00 am and 3:00-5:00
pm.
Also,
the Donoe and Tutu
routes experience
a surge between 11:00 am and noon.
Most bus trips carry more passengers than the seated capacity.
On the
city
route,
15 percent of
the counted trips carried a passenger volume
(boardings)
of over three times the seated capacity on at least one leg of
the
round trip.
However,
passenger turnover
is high,
and a passenger volume
of as much as twice the seated capacity can sometimes be accommodated without
standees.
Nevertheless,
some buses become severely overcrowded,
and pas-
sengers have been observed to be unable
to get on a bus because of over-
crowded conditions.
The Gannett Fleming Transit Development Plan Up-Date stated that
Saturday,
Sunday,
and holiday ridership averaged 90 percent,
38 percent and
20 percent,
respectively,
of weekday ridership.
Using these percentages to
expand the weekday total counted during this study would result
in an annual
total
of over 1,937,400 passengers.
It
is hard to judge the validity of this
figure,
since there are no
other detailed ridership data available.
Revenue figures are available,
but
these are difficult to convert to passenger totals without data on the
number of elderly and country route
riders.
Using reported passenger
revenue
data from 1985
to 1987,
and assuming an average fare of $0.50,
ridership
would have declined from 2,027,400
in 1985 to 1,548,000
in 1987.
In order
for the 1987 passenger figure
to equal
the 1988 expanded sample count,
the
average
fare would have to have been $0.40,
an unlikely situation.
It
is
possible that peak season ridership
is higher than during the
rest of the
year.
The transit operator claims this to be the case,
but very few tourists
were observed riding the buses.
Also,
monthly revenue data from 1985 and
1986 do not conclusively support this claim.
Consequently,
the count of
transit ridership conducted for this study will have to stand only as a
picture of 1988 peak season ridership.
2.2.1(i)
Quality of service
Transit service on St.
Thomas
is perceived to be poor,
although the new
Mahogany Run vehicles have improved its image somewhat.
The Mahogany Run
vehicles have only longitudinal wooden slat type seating,
making the
ride
over
rough roads uncomfortable.
These buses are air-conditioned,
however,
a
feature lacking on the
rest of the
fleet.
The older buses generally present
a poor appearance.
No transit route information
is provided at marked bus stops.
There are
a limited number of bus shelters located on the
island.
A typical bus
shelter
is shown in Figure
2-25.
2-32
FIGURE
2-25.
TYPICAL BUS SHELTER
2-33
On-time performance
is poor.
A schedule adherence check,
conducted as
part of this study's data collection effort,
revealed a large number of
country route buses
(58 percent)
more than 10 minutes early or late.
Nearly
40 percent of the buses were either more than 25 minutes ahead or behind
schedule,
or did not
run at all.
A major
reason for this
is that the
schedules do not properly take into account the traffic congestion occurring
during much of the day in the downtown area.
However, many patrons are
probably unaware of the poor schedule adherence,
since bus schedules have
been published only recently and are not widely distributed.
What both city
and country route
riders are aware of
is
the amount of variation in wait
times.
This situation
is most acute on the country routes, where a single
bus
is assigned to a
route.
In the city,
the ability of some passengers to
use the country route buses on the portion of these
routes within the city
helps to mitigate the effect of the lack of schedule or headway adherence.
Another contributing factor
to poor schedule adherence
is the frequency
of bus malfunctions on the
road.
During the study's ridership counting
effort,
amounting to the equivalent of one day's
runs,
three country and four
city buses had to return to the maintenance facility because of mechanical
problems or
flat tires.
If a bus breaks down on one of the country routes,
as
is fairly common,
patrons
in that area can wait hours
for another bus.
None of the buses are equipped with radios,
a factor which causes added
delays in responding to breakdowns or service interruptions.
Due
to the
assignment of a single bus
to the country routes,
once a bus gets behind
schedule,
it is difficult to get back on schedule.
What often happens
is
that a bus becomes
so far behind schedule that a full headway is exceeded and
a complete
round trip
is not operated.
When significant delays occur,
passenger loads on the first bus to come
along become excessive.
This currently happens on a much too frequent basis.
Considering the existing level
of service,
it
is surprising that the system
carries as many riders as
it does.
This
is undoubtedly an indication of a
large transit dependent population
(despite the high auto ownership rate on
the
island)
A 1986 marketing study,
conducted for the DPW by Wilbur Smith and As-
sociates,
covered several user information aids and promotional
recommenda-
tions.
Recommendations regarding a name
for the transit system,
a new paint
scheme
for the buses,
the production of
route schedules,
and installation of
bus stop signs have been or are
in the process of being implemented.
Other
recommendations are being held in abeyance pending the improvement of transit
service.
2.2.1( j )
Operating deficit
As will be shown more fully in Chapter
6,
transit deficits have been
increasing steadily since
1984.
The percent of operating costs recovered
from farebox revenues dropped from 78 percent
in 1984
to
51 percent
in 1987.
The service contract between Mannassah and the Department of Public Works
requires the Department to pay to Mannassah a sum not more than the dif-
ference between gross transit revenues and the cost of providing transit
2-34
I
service
(called the
"operating subsidy").
A six percent bonus on gross
revenues
is to be paid in addition to the operating subsidy.
During Fiscal
Year 1987,
the operating deficit exceeded $758,000.
Using an operating deficit of $758,000 and an annual
ridership of
1,937,000,
the subsidy per passenger would be just under $0.40.
This
is
probably a conservative
figure.
2.2.1(k)
Transit potential
A greater market exists
for transit patronage on St.
Thomas than
is
currently being tapped.
The ridership potential
is not being reached due
to
the poor quality of service currently offered.
An improved level of service
would appear to have an excellent chance of recapturing former
riders and
attracting new ones.
2.2.2
Transit Alternatives
There are three basic options
for transit service on St.
Thomas:
elimination of transit service;
continuation of present service;
and service
and equipment improvements.
The elimination of transit service does not
appear to be
a viable political choice considering that the transit system
carries over 1.5 million,
and perhaps close
to
2 million,
passengers a year.
Similarly,
continuation of the existing situation also does not appear to be
a feasible option,
as
its selection would have the same
result - an eventual
cessation of transit service.
Consequently,
for purposes of this
report,
it
is assumed that improvement to the transit system will be the chosen option.
The alternatives
for improving the transit operation are discussed in the
following sections.
2.2.2(a)
Transit equipment
Replacements are urgently needed for a large percentage of the existing
transit fleet.
The most obvious solution
is to purchase new buses ,
and
specifications
for new buses are currently being prepared by a contractor
(Lea
& Elliott)
for the DFW.
These specifications have to be finalized,
and
a grant request submitted to UMTA for funding of the purchase.
The bus
purchase then would have
to be approved by UMTA,
advertised for bids,
a
manufacturer selected,
and the buses fabricated.
This process
is estimated
to take
a minimum of eighteen months,
but very likely would take longer.
This would not solve
the immediate problem of insufficient equipment to
provide even the minimum level of service now scheduled.
Short term solutions to the bus shortage problem do exist,
however.
One
is to purchase used buses from other U.S.
transit systems.
Used buses could
be purchased quickly if local
funds are used.
This option would be feasible
only if UMTA agreed to reimburse the V.I.
Government
for this purchase.
Any
used buses purchased would have to be modified for left side boarding.
This
2-35
would delay the introduction of the acquired buses into revenue service,
which reduces the desirability of this option.
Another potential
short term solution
is to restore unused St.
Croix
transit buses to operating condition and bring them to St.
Thomas.
These
buses would require reconditioning,
as they have been parked
in a field since
1984.
(Weeds have been growing up through the engine compartments and into
the buses as shown in Figure 2-26).
Nevertheless,
Lea
& Elliott feels that
this could be done relatively quickly and cheaply.
Three obstacles to this last option exist.
First,
there
is considerable
political
resistance
to removing the buses from St.
Croix.
This would be
publicly viewed as a final abandonment of transit service on St. Croix.
Secondly,
the Department of Human Services wishes to use these buses on St.
Croix to transport their clientele.
Thirdly, Abramson Enterprises, Inc.
,
the
former transit operator,
is not willing to relinquish the buses until:
(1)
it
is paid for their storage
for over
four years;
and
(2)
the dispute
is
resolved concerning the transit operator's claimed expenses to prepare the
buses
for service
in 1985
(although service was never
reinstituted).
At this
time,
the transit operator
is claiming storage
fees owed of $13,860.
Claimed
preparation expenses are
in the vicinity of $70,000.
As of April
1988,
negotiations were
in progress over these
issues.
2.2.2(b)
Maintenance facilities and equipment
Existing maintenance facilities and equipment are inadequate
to properly
maintain the existing fleet, much less an expanded fleet comprised of used or
new buses.
Alternatives
for the provision of adequate maintenance are
basically two-fold:
improvement of the existing facilities on the existing
site;
or the construction of new facilities on another site.
Improvement of existing facilities to the extent necessary to provide
for
the proper maintenance of an expanded fleet of new buses might be
difficult.
The current site
is limited
in size,
and
is shared with the
school bus operation.
Nevertheless,
Lea and Elliott believes that the
current site could accommodate an expanded fleet.
Gannett Fleming believed
that the site should be expanded.
Although the V.I. Government owns most of the land used in the transit
and school bus maintenance and storage activity,
a portion of the property is
leased from another landowner.
A further complication
is that the transit
operator owns the maintenance facilities and the building which houses the
administrative offices.
Major improvements would require substantial construction activity.
Continued utilization of the maintenance facilities while these major
modifications are
in progress would be awkward.
Also,
if UMTA were
to award
a grant for improvements to the existing facilities,
usage of the facilities
by the school bus operation would be an
issue.
UMTA would only contribute to
the share of the improvements used for transit.
2-36
FIGURE
2-26.
ST. CROIX BUSES
2-37
Construction of new maintenance facilities on a new site would be more
costly and would take longer than improvement of existing facilities.
A site
would have to be
found that would be suitable
for
a transit maintenance
facility and close to the City bus
route.
A location between the sub-base
area and the airport would be
ideal.
Regardless of the location,
unless
Government-owned land could be utilized,
land would have
to be purchased.
The DRW claims that there are extremely few suitable sites
in the city of
Charlotte Amalie.
At a site utilized only for transit,
the transit operation no longer
would be competing with school bus services
for maintenance attention,
and
better transit bus maintenance should result.
Proper maintenance
is an
absolute necessity in order
to avoid another fleet deterioration situation.
A new building layout also would be more efficient than the present opera-
tion.
Another advantage to a new facility at a separate site
is the flexi-
bility to consider other managerial and operational options than are now
possible.
Also,
the Government would have
full ownership and control over
the maintenance
facilities.
A disadvantage
is that costs such as maintenance
facilities,
administrative offices,
and some personnel,
now shared with the
school bus service, would have
to be borne entirely by the transit operation.
Regardless of the means of providing essential
long term maintenance
facilities,
several
improvements are needed immediately.
These include:
(1)
more paved surface area and adequate drainage;
(2)
additional maintenance
bays;
and
(3)
enclosure of all work areas,
including the inspection pit,
to
prevent the entry of dirt and moisture.
2.2.2(c)
Coverage
Opportunities
for service changes or expansion are severely restricted
given the current condition of the transit fleet and the frequent inability
to meet the present schedule
requirement.
However, when additional,
reliable
equipment
is obtained,
service changes and new service could be implemented.
The easiest and potentially most useful
service enhancement would be
service
to the sub-base area.
This could be accomplished with a simple
diversion of trips from the city route
to the sub-base area.
Buses on this
route would continue along Route
304
to Lindbergh Bay,
serve the airport,
and
then rejoin Route
30
(Moravian Highway)
and operate the remainder of the
city route
to the University of the Virgin Islands.
This routing would serve
visitors from an increasing cruise ship business at the Crown Bay docks as
well as providing useful
service
to the airport.
This diversion to the sub-
base and airport would operate
in both directions,
as opposed to current
airport service which exists only on outbound trips.
It would increase
the
travel
time
for this alternate city route service,
but
it has the potential
for significant added patronage.
It would serve one new and one poorly
served market, while bypassing only a few sparingly used bus stops on Route
30.
If this
routing were operated without added buses,
headways on the city
route would increase.
2-38
The Bordeaux area
is currently provided with a limited service operating
two trips
in the morning,
one trip during mid-afternoon,
and two trips
in
the evening.
Questions have been raised concerning the desirability of this
service.
The transit ridership counts conducted
for this study found
32
persons traveling outbound just on the Bordeaux segment of the
route,
and
52
persons traveling inbound,
primarily in the morning.
Total
ridership is
relatively low,
averaging 16 persons on the
round trip segment beginning and
ending at the intersection of Route
30 and Crown Mountain Road.
This
ridership
is comparable
to ridership at certain periods of the day on other
routes,
but much lower than during peak periods.
However,
it does not
require much transit equipment to operate.
Buses used
for Bordeaux trips
are utilized on the city route when not operating to and from Bordeaux.
Service to Bovoni
is currently provided via
a routing along Routes
38,
32,
and
30.
Route
30
(Frenchman's Bay Road and Bovoni Road)
between Route
315 and Bovoni
is avoided presently because of steep grades and the poor
condition of the
roadway.
However,
Route
30
is under design for improvement
at this time.
When improvements are completed,
Route
30 service along the
south shore would be relatively easy to provide.
This route would allow
service to be offered to previously unserved areas,
and would provide
a
faster trip to the downtown area for Bovoni
residents due to avoidance of the
congested Weymouth Rhymer Highway.
Additional buses would not necessarily be
needed for this
route.
The third potential area
for service expansion would be more difficult,
and would require additional equipment.
Service to the north side of the
island between Mandal and Santa Maria
is not provided.
Access to the area
is difficult, with Route
33
(Crown Mountain Road)
and Route
35
(Mafolie Road)
being the only feasible access
roads.
Both are
steep,
and contain sharp
curves.
Furthermore,
since this area has not been served previously,
the
potential transit market
is uncertain.
A recent initiative from one of the Legislators from Charlotte Amalie
requested that transit service through the Frenchtown area be operated.
The
one-way street patterns
in Frenchtown would require the buses to make a
clockwise loop through the area.
Eastbound buses would have
to retrace the
segment of the
route which traverses Veterans Drive.
Such service would add
several minutes to the trip time of each bus to serve what
is expected to be
limited additional patronage.
In addition,
most of the populated area of
Frenchtown
is less than 1000
feet from Veterans Drive,
or not much more than
the 800-foot recommended distance between transit stops.
A large portion of
the heavily populated area of Charlotte Amalie
is much more distant from a
transit
route than are the
residents of Frenchtown.
2.2.2(d)
Scheduling and service frequency
The current method of scheduling buses
is
to circulate
a bus on the
same
route
for
the entire day.
When additional buses are obtained,
other
operational schemes can be considered.
Interlining of buses between routes
may be possible.
Interlining
is
a procedure
in which a bus finishing one
route
is assigned to operate on a different
route.
This
is particularly
2-39
effective when schedules are staggered and running times are fairly consis-
tent.
Layover times can be minimized with this technique.
Interlining
would provide the opportunity to have buses begin a
route on schedule even if
the previous bus on that
route
is late.
Combined with appropriate layovers
and more accurate running times,
schedule adherence could be dramatically
improved.
Interlining does not work as well when running times are highly
variable,
as delays can have
a
ripple effect throughout the schedule.
Another option is
to continue the current form of operation but
revise
the schedules to incorporate realistic running times and to include layover
times for recovery from traffic delays.
Such schedules will
result in
higher headways unless more buses are deployed on the
routes.
A third option, which has been considered by the transit operator,
is to
terminate
the country routes at the Grand Union shopping center and St. Thomas
Hospital area.
This would save a substantial amount of running time for the
country route buses,
allowing a 60 to 100 percent increase
in service
in the
outer areas with the same number of buses.
However,
it would require many
country route passengers to transfer between city and country buses to
continue their trip into or out of the city,
and would place an even greater
load on already crowded city route buses.
Transfers
reduce
the appeal of
transit,
and would result
in lower
ridership than a comparable service
without transfers.
Service frequencies are inadequate during much of
the day.
Load factors
of more than twice
the seated capacity are common.
Except for the option
just discussed,
there
is little chance
to increase the amount of service
provided with the existing fleet.
Virtually every available bus
is utilized
all day long.
In fact,
on some days there are insufficient buses to operate
all
the
routes.
Until additional buses are acquired,
service frequency
increases would not seem possible.
2.2.2(e)
Fares
The current fare structure levels are
in line with those typically
charged in the U.S.
There are inequities
in the existing structure,
however.
For example,
the same length trip costs 25 cents more outside of Charlotte
Amalie than
it does
inside.
Students do not have the benefit of reduced
fares
in either location.
A fare increase would be helpful
in reducing the transit deficit,
but
also would reduce transit ridership.
Lower income people, who make up the
majority of transit
riders, would bear the brunt of a fare increase.
This
is the segment of the population least able
to afford an increase
in trans-
portation costs.
2.2.2(f)
Transit management and operations
Under the current environment,
it does not appear desirable
to change
the management and operations structure of the transit system.
Once any
2-40
long term maintenance facility improvement or new construction is completed,
consideration of changes in the transit management and operations structure
becomes practical.
Alternatives include:
(1)
continuation of the existing
structure;
(2) management and operation by the V.I.
Government;
and
(3)
solicitation of bids
for management and operation
(either as a package or
separately)
.
Some local officials have been very critical of Mannassah's management
of the transit operation, while others have praised the company's efforts to
keep the service running despite the bus and maintenance facility deficien-
cies.
Considering the poor structural and mechanical condition of the buses
and the inadequacy of the maintenance facilities,
it
is difficult to judge
the management performance of the current transit operator.
Nor can a
reliable assessment be made of the ability of the current operator to perform
satisfactorily in a new environment.
Consequently,
it
is uncertain whether
the selection of the option to continue the existing structure would lead to
the introduction of new or innovative transit operations and maintenance pro-
cedures which would be expected to result
in better transit service.
Management and operation by the V.I.
Government would put the Government
in total control of the transit operation,
a condition which does not
presently exist.
On occasion,
the transit operator has changed service
without the approval or even the knowledge of the Government.
Government
control would have the advantage of requiring a financial commitment to
transit commensurate with the level of service desired,
as opposed to the
current situation wherein the operator
is not fully paid for
the amount of
service provided.
To make up for
the deficiency in subsidy payments,
the
operator does not pay certain fees and taxes owed to the Government.
This
results
in the operator deciding how much service can be provided based on
anticipated operating revenues,
subsidy payments,
and tax relief.
Government control also has disadvantages,
however.
Transit management
expertise does not currently exist in the Government,
and
it likely would be
difficult to attract fully qualified individuals to run the transit system
under the V.I.
Government's salary structure.
On the other hand,
lower level
transit employees also would be civil
servants,
and their salaries almost
certainly would be higher than those of the contractor's employees.
It is
unlikely that Government operation would be more efficient or productive;
when all costs are considered,
this option likely would be more costly than a
contract operation.
Also,
this option
is counter to current Federal
policies, which encourage increased competition and private sector involve-
ment to achieve productivity and efficiency gains.
The option of soliciting bids
for the management and/or operation of the
transit system provides the greatest flexibility to the Government.
When new
buses are purchased,
and new or substantially improved maintenance facilities
are provided,
the opportunity will exist — perhaps the only opportunity that
will be available
for
the foreseeable future — to change the
image of
transit on St.
Thomas.
This option would provide the chance to get the best
possible management team.
It also
is consistent with UMTA requirements
concerning contracting for transit services.
2-41
Within this option,
three major alternatives exist
for the amount of
service
to be provided by a single contractor.
Bids could be solicited:
(1)
for each
route;
(2)
for
two segments — country service and city service plus
Bordeaux;
and
(3)
for
the entire service.
Transit vehicles,
maintenance
facilities,
dispatching and overall management could be furnished either by
a contractor or by the Government.
(1)
Soliciting bids
for each
route would maximize the number of
potential bidders.
In theory,
this competition might
result
in the
lowest operating cost.
However,
in practice,
this arrangement
would limit the flexibility of system operations and inhibit the
ability to introduce operational efficiencies,
and might make
maintenance more difficult due
to the conflicting demands of
several contractors.
Since each route would be operated indepen-
dently,
each contractor would have
to employ spare bus drivers.
At a minimum,
this arrangement would require a high degree of
Governmental monitoring,
as each route would have
to be carefully
observed.
At the other extreme,
the Government might perform
management and maintenance functions.
In addition to the limita-
tions on efficient operations,
this option would be expected to
result
in a higher,
rather than lower,
cost of operations.
(2)
The alternative of separating the service into two components
alleviates,
but does not eliminate,
some of the negative aspects of
the individual
route alternative.
A separate contract for main-
tenance,
dispatching,
and overall management also would be neces-
sary,
unless these services are provided by the Government.
Allowing one of the service contractors to provide these ancillary
services could result
in favoritism towards the
routes this
contractor operates.
Excess spare bus drivers still would be
employed,
and operational flexibility still would be
restricted,
although to a lesser degree than in the previous alternative.
(3)
The solicitation of bids
for operation of the entire system
provides
the most flexibility and the opportunity to implement
efficient operational practices.
This alternative would result in
the fewest number of spare bus drivers and the least amount of
Governmental monitoring.
It also should result
in the lowest
system operating cost.
Any contract awarded under this procedure should contain performance
clauses that would permit removal of the contractor
for non-performance.
The
current franchise arrangement and operating contract has no provision for
penalizing the operator
for poor performance.
The current franchise agreement will expire
in 1991.
The solicitation
of bids and selection of a contractor
for system operation should be timed to
coincide with the availability of new buses and an improved maintenance
capability.
It
is anticipated that this would occur after the expiration of
the existing franchise.
Consequently,
the existing franchise agreement
is
not expected to be an obstacle to selection of a service provider.
2-42
2.2.3
Transit Recommendations
Viable transit service cannot be continued very long under present
conditions.
Improvements are
required with respect to buses, maintenance
facilities,
and operations.
The following sections contain recommended
changes and improvements.
2.2.3(a)
Transit equipment
As a near term solution,
refurbish seven 28-foot Flxettes currently on
St.
Croix for use on St.
Thomas .
There
is a desperate need for more buses on
St.
Thomas, where patronage currently is
in the
range of 6,300
riders per day
and undoubtedly would be higher
if service were more dependable and attrac-
tive.
If no replacement buses were purchased for eighteen months or more,
there would be few of the current fleet still capable of operating,
and
transit service could very well cease.
The cheapest and quickest method of
obtaining replacement buses
is to refurbish the unused buses from St.
Croix
and use them on St.
Thomas.
According to the Lea
& Elliott
report,
these
buses will perform better on St.
Thomas than the buses previously ordered
specifically for
St.
Thomas,
because the latter were improperly designed for
the terrain.
Therefore,
it
is recommended that all seven of the 28-foot Flxettes on
St. Croix be refurbished and used as an interim measure to alleviate the
critical bus shortage that presently exists on St.
Thomas.
The
St.
Croix
transit buses,
purchased with UMTA funds,
could not be transferred to the
Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) without
UMTA*' s consent.
Presumably, UMTA would prefer that these buses be used in transit service,
if
possible.
It is recommended that the two longer Flxettes still operable be
left on St.
Croix
for use by HHS.
The suitability of these two buses for the
St.
Thomas terrain
is poor;
they are much better suited for the terrain on
St.
Croix.
It
is anticipated that UMTA would agree to this arrangement.
(Since this
report was drafted,
the DFW has settled the claim with
Abramson Enterprises and six of the buses have been transferred to St.
Thomas.
Only five of these buses are operable;
the sixth
is
to be used for
parts.
The remaining buses are being prepared for use by HHS.)
For the longer term,
purchase additional buses .
Any buses obtained as a
short term solution to the bus shortage situation will have a limited
remaining life on St.
Thomas,
due
in large measure
to the condition of the
roads over which they must travel.
It
is estimated that the Mahogany Run and
the refurbished St.
Croix buses will have a useful life of only two to three
more years.
Consequently,
new buses will be
required within a short period
of time.
Buses
in the 30-foot
range, with seating for about
30 persons,
would seem to be the best choice
for
St.
Thomas.
However,
the capability of
the maintenance operation to handle new buses
is a major consideration with
regard to their purchase.
Until an improved maintenance capability is
provided,
it does not seem prudent to acquire new equipment.
Therefore,
the
recommendation
is to acquire new buses,
properly designed for the
St. Thomas
2-43
terrain,
but only if an adequate capability to maintain them will be
available.
2.2.3(b)
Maintenance facilities and equipment
Implement short term improvements to the current maintenance facility .
Since major improvements to maintenance facilities are a few years away,
it
is desirable to implement certain interim improvements.
It
is recommended
that a large portion of the land used for active bus storage and movement be
paved,
and that adequate drainage of the entire area be provided.
All areas
used for working on buses should be covered.
Both of these improvements
would reduce the amount of dirt and moisture entering the maintenance work
areas.
Limited observation of the maintenance operation indicated a
considerable amount of maintenance activity in open areas.
It
is recommended
that two more covered work bays be provided in addition to covering and
lighting the inspection pit.
For the longer term,
build a new maintenance facility .
The recommended
long term solution
is the construction of
a new maintenance facility at a
site
to be selected.
A location between the sub-base area and the airport
would be best,
if available.
An added advantage to a new facility at a new
site
is that the Virgin Islands Government would have
full control over
it.
This contrasts with the existing situation wherein the transit operator owns
the building which rests on Government owned-land.
Gannett Fleming,
in their 1982 Transit Development Plan Update,
proposed
a layout for a new maintenance facility.
This basic layout still appears to
be appropriate.
It has been modified slightly to accommodate one additional
maintenance bay,
although the overall building dimensions have not been
changed.
Figure 2-27 depicts
the recommended layout.
2.2.3(c)
Maintenance personnel
The recommended staffing of the maintenance activity
(for transit buses
only) would be the equivalent of the following number of full time employees:
1 maintenance supervisor
6 vehicle maintenance and inspection personnel
2 vehicle maintenance support personnel
Vehicle maintenance and inspection personnel would perform minor
repairs
to bus components,
make
road calls,
rebuild or overhaul
repairable com-
ponents,
and perform inspections and preventive maintenance.
Maintenance
support personnel would perform servicing functions
(cleaning,
washing,
fueling,
oiling,
etc.),
repair damage to buses resulting from accidents or
vandalism,
and assist the maintenance and inspection personnel when needed.
The
recommended maintenance staffing level
is about 1.3
full
time
equivalents less than are currently employed in transit bus maintenance
according to data supplied by Mannassah.
However,
the new buses to be
2-44
149
'
CMm
GEN. MGR.
SEC./
RECEPTION
70
'
ACCOUNT.
PLANNER
CONFERENCE/
TRAINING
9>
ASST. MGR.
TRANSP.
FOREMAN
MEN
WOMEN
—
T
1
OPERATORS
'
1
'
COPY /FILES
LUNCH/
VENDING
BATTERY
VAULT ——
BOOKKEEPER/
CLERK /CASHIER
i
cr>
en
to
in
CM
LUBE/OIL
"i
45
'
K
PARTS STORAGE
I
REPAIR & INSPECTION BAYS
j
I
_____
_____!
MAINT.
SUPER
TIRE REPAIR
& STORAGE
PAINT & BODY REPAIR BAY
50
"
MACHINE SHOP
& REPAIR AREA
20
"
m
m
m
<*»
SCALE
0
20
'
r '"janH
wm
FIGURE
2-27.
MAINTENANCE FACILITY LAYOUT
-
ST. THOMAS
2-45
purchased should require
far less maintenance than the existing run-down
fleet.
The
recommended staffing level also
is consistent with that of
similar sized transit systems on the U.S.
mainland.
2.2.3(d)
Coverage
Two
route changes are desirable once the transit bus shortage
is solved
with the procurement of reliable equipment.
These changes are described
below and are shown
in Figure
2-28.
Expand service to the sub-base and the airport
.
The current level of
activity at the sub-base and the potential market at the airport warrant
transit service
to these areas.
It
is recommended that the existing city
route be split into two circuits.
One circuit would serve the sub-base area
and the airport,
but would not divert to Moravian Highway in the vicinity of
Mannassah's bus depot.
The second circuit would use Moravian Highway,
but
would not serve the sub-base and the airport.
The
remainder of the route
would remain as
is.
Each circuit would receive every other bus.
Re-route
the Bovoni
route .
When Route
30 has been improved,
it
is
recommended that the Bovoni Route be operated along Route
30 between
Frenchtown and the Route
32 junction in Nadir.
This will open up a new
transit market along the south shore as well as providing a faster travel
time to the downtown area.
Passengers wishing to go from Bovoni
to the Fort
Mylner area would transfer to the Red Hook via Four Winds Route at the Route
32
junction.
Bovoni passengers desiring to go to the Grand Union shopping
center and
St.
Thomas Hospital area could either transfer to the Red Hook via
Four Winds Route at
the Route
32 junction or to the city route at Centerline
Road.
Maintain service
to Bordeaux .
Service to Bordeaux
is offered on a
limited basis.
Ridership
is comparable
to that of off-peak ridership on
other country routes.
Since the service
is provided with buses that also
travel
the City Route,
and the
route does not require extra buses,
it
is
recommended that this service be maintained.
Conduct
a market analysis
for northside service
.
The need for service
to the northside of
the island
is unclear.
This area does not have the high
dwelling unit density that characterizes
the transit coverage areas on the
east end of the
island.
However,
the type of detailed information needed to
forecast transit ridership for
this area was not available
for
this study.
Therefore,
it
is
recommended that a market analysis of this area be conducted
to determine whether this area warrants transit service.
Transit service
to Frenchtown does not appear warranted .
Service to
Frenchtown would appear
to add few transit
riders while penalizing other
riders with extra travel
time.
Since
the majority of Frenchtown residents
live within 1,000
feet of Veterans Drive, which is served by the city route
buses,
it
is not recommended that buses be diverted through this area.
2-46
©a
2-47
FIGURE
2=28.
RECOMMENDED
TRANSIT
ROUTES
=
ST.
THOMAS
2.2.3(e)
Scheduling and service frequency
Allocate ten buses to the country routes east of Charlotte Amalie .
Existing bus dispatching methods are dictated by the bus shortage.
The
situation wherein one bus circulates continuously on a
route, with no back-up
bus available,
has severe service consequences when a bus breaks down or
is
delayed due
to traffic congestion.
Large gaps
in service often result.
The
procurement of additional,
reliable equipment
is the only means by which the
service
reliability problem can be
solved.
Once added buses are available,
they can be used to provide
the additional service that
is needed.
It
is recommended that
10 buses be used to operate
the country routes to
the east of Charlotte Amalie,
providing 45-minute headways from 6:00 am to
7:00
pm, with one last
run at about 8:30 pm.
Existing running times on the
country routes average between 60 and 90 minutes over much of the day.
Therefore,
two buses assigned to each of the
routes would be able
to supply
the desired 45-minute
service,
except for infrequent instances of excessive
delay.
Even then,
service should be able
to get back on schedule very
quickly.
This level of service would be considerably higher than currently
offered.
However,
the increased reliability and relief of peak period
overcrowding
is expected to increase ridership sufficiently to warrant the
increase
in service.
Stagger country bus departures .
The schedule
for the country routes
should be staggered somewhat so that all country buses are not beginning
their
run out of
the city at the same
time.
Coordinate Bovoni and Red Hook service .
Coordination of service between
the Bovoni
route and the Red Hook
routes should be accomplished at the
junction of Routes
30 and
32
in Nadir
to accommodate transfers.
The Red Hook
routes also should be coordinated,
to the extent possible, with the ferry
schedule
.
Interlining of buses on the country routes
is not recommended at this
time .
Although interlining might permit the country routes to be operated
with less than ten buses,
it would be difficult to accurately schedule these
buses,
given the differing running time patterns on each route and the daily
variability in these times.
Furthermore, under this scheme,
a delay on one
route could affect schedule reliability on other
routes.
Schedule
reliabil-
ity would be much easier to control under the
recommended scheme.
However,
once
the new schedules are
in place,
and ridership and running time patterns
are established,
the interlining option could be
re-examined.
Any buses
saved through interlining could be either used as spares or to provide
additional service,
either to the northside area or on the city route.
Use eight buses
to operate the city route circuits and the Bordeaux
service
.
With city route
running times ranging from 65 to 90 minutes over
most of the day,
eight buses would permit 12-minute or less headways through
downtown, with a maximum of 24-minute headways
to the sub-base and the
airport.
The method of dispatching buses on this route might have to change,
depending on the extra travel time the sub-base/airport circuit may take.
It
is possible that buses may not be able
to circulate all day on the same
2-48
circuit of the city route.
Approximately the same amount of Bordeaux service
as presently offered could be provided with these buses.
Purchase
four buses as spares .
The
recommended service
(city plus
country routes) would require
18 buses.
A 20 percent spare
ratio increases
the requirement to
22 buses.
This
is an increase of six buses over the
present theoretical
fleet size of
16 buses,
but a virtual doubling of the
actual number of regularly available buses.
2.2.3(f)
Fares
It
is recommended that the basic fare structure be continued .
While a
25-cent fare increase would be likely to increase annual
revenues by over
$200,000,
the ridership decline experienced over
the past two years would be
accelerated.
A fare increase would impact most heavily on low income,
cap-
tive transit
riders,
the segment of the population least able to afford
it.
Increasing fares at the present time also seems unwarranted in light of the
existing state of transit service.
Provide free transfers
.
With the
restructuring of transit service to
the Bovoni
area,
transfers will be
required for trips
to some destinations.
These transfers should be
free.
Reduce student fares
to the level of those charged for elderly pass-
engers .
2.2.3(g)
Bus turnouts
Provide bus turnouts at all bus stops located on Veterans Drive and at
key locations on other major highways .
Presently,
buses often must stop in a
travel
lane to board or alight passengers.
This has both safety and traffic
congestion impacts.
2.2.3(h)
Publicity
Implement a marketing program .
Once sufficient buses are acquired and
the new schedules developed,
appropriate elements of the marketing program
developed by Wilbur Smith and Associates should be implemented.
Thorough
distribution and publication of information concerning the new equipment and
schedules are
a necessity.
Put schedule information on bus stop signs .
Schedule information should
be included on bus stop signs
in busy patronage areas outside as well as
inside Charlotte Amalie.
2.2.3(i)
Transit management and operations
Solicit bids
for the management and operation of
the transit system as
a
single entity .
A competitive procurement
is consistent with the requirements
2-49
of UMTA Circular
C 4220. IB,
"Third Party Contracting Guidelines," which
requires
full and open competition for all procurements undertaken in support
of mass transportation operations by grantees receiving UMTA operating
assistance grants.
A competitive procurement also
is consistent with the
goal
of obtaining the best transit service possible
for
St.
Thomas.
A
contract for operation of the entire system by a single contractor should
result in the most efficient and reliable service.
The advertisement
for and selection of transit management and operations
services should be executed to coincide with the availability of new buses
and new or substantially improved maintenance facilities.
A contract should
be awarded for a two or three year period, with a continuation option.
The
contract also should contain performance clauses that penalize performance
that fails to meet specified standards.
Government management and operation of the transit system is not
recommended due
to a lack of transit operating expertise within the Govern-
ment and the expectation that this option would result
in lower productivity
and higher costs.
2.2.4
Implementation Plan
2.2.4(a)
Implementation costs
There are three major transit costs associated with the
recommendations:
buses; maintenance facilities and equipment;
and additional service.
There
are two distinct bus costs:
overhaul of the
St.
Croix buses;
and purchase of
new buses.
It
is the opinion of Lea
& Elliott that the overhaul of the
St. Croix buses would not be very costly.
It
is estimated that a figure of
$1,500 per bus likely would cover restoration of the buses and their shipment
to
St.
Thomas.
It should be noted,
however,
that this estimate was made
without the benefit of an engineering assessment of the condition of the
buses.
Twenty-two new buses are recommended for purchase
for
St.
Thomas.
Recent bids on buses of the type needed in St.
Thomas have been in the
range
of $125,000
to $140,000.
Transportation to the Virgin Islands could add up
to $5,500 to the cost per bus,
depending upon the manufacturing location.
In
three years,
it
is estimated that a bus delivered to
St.
Thomas would cost
$150,800.
Wheelchair lifts would add another $10,500 per bus.
UMTA could
fund 75 percent of the capital
cost,
leaving the V.I. Government with a local
share of $829,400 plus $57,750
for wheelchair lifts,
if desired.
The 1982 Transit Development Plan
(TDP) Update estimated that existing
site improvements and paving would cost $391,700.
Those improvements were
more extensive than the recommendations of this study, which considered the
site improvements as an interim step.
A figure
in the vicinity of $300,000
appears reasonable
for the
type of interim improvements
recommended.
However,
if the construction of
a new maintenance facility
is postponed for
several years,
more comprehensive improvements would be required at a cost
probably higher than the Gannett Fleming estimates.
2-50
The costs of a new maintenance facility and associated equipment were
estimated in the 1982 TDP Update.
The maintenance facility was estimated at
$926,000
for
the building and architectural and engineering expenses.
The
estimated cost,
in 1991 dollars,
of this new building and necessary mainten-
ance equipment
is contained in Table
2-7.
These costs were derived by
factoring Gannett Fleming's 1982 cost estimates
to account
for a three
percent annual
increase
in construction and equipment costs between 1982 and
1991.
Site acquisition,
site preparation,
and paving costs are not included
in these cost estimates,
since they are very much site dependent.
Land,
site
improvements,
and paving easily could add $1 million to the cost estimate
unless Government owned land could be utilized.
TABLE 2-7.
MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT COSTS
1982
1991
Administrative Offices
213,800
278,900
Employee Facilities
90,300
117,800
Maintenance Areas
351,700
458,900
Service Area
60,000
78,300
Subtotal
Architectural/Engineering
Services
715,800
933,900
Design
113,200
147,700
Construction
48,500
63,300
Construction Inspection
48,500
63,300
Total
926,000
1,208,200
Maintenance Equipment
362,000
472,100
The 1982 Gannett Fleming estimate of equipment cost was $362,000.
Extrapolating this figure to 1991 would yield a value of $472,300.
UMTA
could fund 75 percent of the facility and equipment costs.
The local
share
required then would be $420,200,
exclusive of site acquisition and prepara-
tion costs.
Transit expenses for 1986 and 1987 were between $1.5 and $1.6 million.
The
recommended service would increase the annual vehicle miles by approx-
imately one-third.
Weighing the counterbalancing factors of inflation and
more efficient operation,
the estimated annual operating costs for 1991
likely would be
in the
range of $2,730,000.
Passenger
revenues would be
expected to cover only 40
to
50 percent of this cost.
The remainder would
have
to be
raised through local sources and limited UMTA grant program
funding.
The implementation costs are summarized in Table 2-8,
together with
the potential UMTA funding level and the resulting local funding require-
ment.
2-51
TABLE 2-8.
SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
(1991 Dollars)
Total Cost
Potential
UMTA Share
Local Funds
CAPITAL COST ITEMS:
Bus Manufacturing
3,185,600
2,389,200
796,400
Transportation
132,000
99,000
33,000
Subtotal
3,317,600
2,488,200
829,400
Maintenance Building
1,208,200
906,100
302,100
Maintenance Equipment
472,300
354,200
118,100
Subtotal
1,680,500
1,260,300
420,200
Existing Site
Improvements
300,000
225,000
75,000
TOTAL CAPITAL
5,298,100
3,973,500
1,324,600
Potential Additional
Wheelchair Lifts
Items:
231,000
173,250
57,750
New Site Improvements
1,000,000
750,000
250,000
ANNUAL OPERATING DEFICIT 1,365,000
125,000
1,240,000
Other recommendations also will have some cost impacts.
The construc-
tion of bus turnouts on Veterans Drive would cost an estimated $20,000 each,
and possibly some small amount of land-taking.
A fare
reduction for students
will lower transit revenues.
However,
these costs will be minor
in compari-
son with the capital and operating costs described above.
2.2.4(b)
Implementation schedule
Recommendations are grouped into three
stages,
representing immediate
action,
short
range,
and longer
range activities.
Stage
I;
first year
(1)
Recovery and renovation of seven transit buses from St.
Croix and
transfer to
St.
Thomas.
(2)
Reconfiguration of city route into two routings:
one serving the
existing bus depot;
the other serving the sub-base area and the
airport.
(3)
Interim improvements to the existing maintenance facilities.
(4)
Selection of site
for new maintenance facility.
(5)
Submission of grant applications
for new buses and a new main-
tenance
facility.
2-52
( 6 )
Passage of legislation to create
a new governmental transportation
organization to oversee and regulate transit,
ferries,
parking and
taxis.
(7)
Passage of legislation to secure additional
funding for transit and
highways.
Stage
II:
second and third years
(8)
Implementation of the new governmental transportation organization.
(9)
Delivery of new buses.
(10)
Initiation of construction of
a new maintenance facility.
(11)
Construction of bus turnouts at all bus stops on Veterans Drive and
at key locations along other
roadways.
(12)
Selection of a contractor
for management and operation of the
transit system.
Stage III:
fourth year and beyond
(13)
Additional service on existing routes.
(14)
Switch of Bovoni
service to Route
30.
(15)
Implementation of marketing program and erection of bus stop signs
containing schedule information.
(16)
Service and scheduling adjustments as ridership patterns emerge.
(17)
Service
to areas north of Charlotte Amalie
(contingent upon
ridership estimates justifying service).
2.3
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
2.3.1
Existing Conditions
The transportation facilities,
travel patterns,
and traffic problems
in
urban St.
Thomas reflect the island's rugged terrain,
the limited areas
suitable
for development,
and the historic concentrations of activity along
the Charlotte Amalie waterfront.
This section analyzes these
factors and
their interactions,
and provides a basis
for the
recommendations that follow.
2.3.1(a)
Street system
The streets and roadways in Charlotte Amalie and its environs have been
strongly influenced by the terrain.
The town
is essentially rectangular in
shape,
and lies along an east-west axis.
There are
six gateways into the
town,
and five major
routes within
it.
Of the streets within the
town,
only
Veterans Drive
(west of Fort Christian)
is more than two lanes wide,
and many
are less than 20-feet
in width.
Figure 2-29 shows the major
roadways,
entering,
leaving,
and traversing
the town.
The
six gateways into the town are: Moravian Highway and Crown
Mountain Road on the west;
Solberg Road and Mafolie Road on the north;
and
2-53
2-54
FIGURE
2-29.
MAJOR
ROADWAYS
AROUND
CHARLOTTE
Weymouth Rhymer Highway and Frenchman Bay Road on the east.
Of
these,
Solberg and Crown Mountain Roads are lightly used and do not directly enter
the
town.
The principal streets and routes within Charlotte Amalie are as
follows.
-
Veterans Drive,
running along the waterfront,
is the only truly
continuous east-west route through town.
It connects Moravian
Highway on the west with Long Bay Road and Frenchman Bay Road on the
east.
-
Main Street and De Beltjen Road form a second east-west
route.
However,
both roadways are narrow.
Main Street
is one-way through
the center of town.
-
Mafolie Road cuts across the mountains,
to connect with Hospital
Gade,
the main north-south street in central Charlotte Amalie.
-
Sugar Estate Road
(formerly Race Track Road)
connects the town with
the Raphune Hill-Weymouth Rhymer Highway route to Tutu on the east.
Centerline Road and Lovers Lane serve as connecting links between
this
route and Veterans Drive/Long Bay Road along the waterfront.
The downtown area of Charlotte Amalie
is bounded by the
St.
Thomas
Harbor on the south,
Back Street and Kongens Gade on the north,
Nye Tvaer
Gade on the west,
and Bjerge Gade on the east.
Veterans Drive,
the principal
east-west artery,
is
a four-lane highway west of Tolbod Gade,
but from Forts
Pladsen eastward it
is only a two-lane
facility.
The other downtown streets
vary in width from 15 feet
to
24
feet except
for Tolbod Gade and Tolbod
Pladsen.
The area
is built to a pedestrian scale.
Within central Charlotte Amalie,
street continuity is limited by the
terrain.
It
is difficult to provide easy and convenient around-the-block
circulation.
Most of the streets
in the central area are one-way because of the
narrow width and curb parking
(one side only)
that restricts traffic flow to
a single lane.
The one-way street system is shown in Figure 2-30.
It
includes one-way circulation in the Emancipation Park area,
a Main Street-
Back Street one-way couplet,
and one-way routings on Kongens,
Dronningens,
and Prindsens Gades.
Bunker Hill Road operates as a reversible one way
street — southbound
in the morning and northbound in the evening.
Thus,
it
serves as a commuter
route between Garden Street and Mafolie Road.
2.3.1(b)
Traffic signals
Traffic signals control movements at
23 intersections on St.
Thomas.
(See Figures 2-31 and 2-32).
Most of the signals are located along Moravian
Highway, Veterans Drive,
Main Street, Weymouth Rhymer Highway and Route
38.
Both pre-timed and traffic-actuated controllers are used;
some units are
modern,
while others are obsolete.
Modern mast-arm units with dual
2-55
<D
r—
i
<0o
to
o
4J
Jj
§
w
2-56
FIGURE
2-30.
STREET
DIRECTIONS
-
CENTRAL
CHARLOTTE
Nelt)b«rg
Hay
2-57
|)
FIGURE
2-31.
TRAFFIC
SIGNALS
-
OUTLYING
AREAS
OF
ST.
THOMAS
2-58
FIGURE
2-32.
TRAFFIC
SIGNALS
-
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
indicators are found along Veterans Drive,
Moravian Highway, Weymouth Rhymer
Highway,
and Route
38.
In contrast,
the traffic signal displays
in the
center of town generally are non-standard and do not conform to the criteria
set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices .
Signal timing
is
reasonably well
related to traffic demands.
Cycle
lengths
range from 50
to 60 seconds on streets within town to about
80
seconds on the major highways.
However,
adjacent signals are not coordinated
with each other,
thereby precluding effective
"progression"
or movement of
traffic.
2.3.1(c)
Traffic volumes
The daily,
am peak hour,
and pm peak hour traffic volumes on the major
streets
in Charlotte Amalie are shown in Figures 2-33,
2-34,
and 2-35
respec-
tively.
These flows
reflect the town's linkages with surrounding areas,
its
land use patterns,
and the configuration of
its streets.
They were derived
from a variety of sources:
the 1972 volumes were
reported in the Virgin
Islands Functional Classification and Needs Study (Menasco-McGuinn As-
sociates);
the 1981-1982 volumes were obtained by URS-Dalton as part of
their Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed waterfront highway and
Raphune Hill Bypass;
and the 1988 volumes were based on counts taken January
to March 1988 as part of this
study.
The three sets of data identify the growths
in daily and peak hour
traffic by location.
Daily volumes .
The heaviest traffic flows
in Charlotte Amalie are
found along Veterans Drive/Long Bay Road between Windward Passage and
Centerline Road
(Figure
33).
Flows along these
roadways
range from 20,000
to
26,000 vehicles per day.
Flows of almost 20,000 vehicles per day are
found
on Weymouth Rhymer Highway,
and volumes of 10,000
to 15,000 vehicles per day
are found on Mafolie Road,
Kronprindsens Gade,
Nor re Gade,
Sugar Estate Road,
and Centerline Road.
On a per lane basis, Veterans Drive east of Fort Christian and Long Bay
Road carry over 10,000 vehicles per day, while most other
roads carry 5,000
to 7,500 vehicles per lane per day.
AM peak hour volumes .
The am peak hour volumes
(about 7:30-8:30
am)
are oriented into Charlotte Amalie from Weymouth Rhymer Highway,
Mafolie
Road,
and Veterans Drive
(Figure 2-34).
Hovrever,
volumes on Veterans Drive
in the center of town,
Sugar Estate Road,
and Long Bay Road are balanced in
magnitude.
The heaviest volumes
(1988)
are shown in Table
2-9.
2-59
2-60
FIGURE
2-33.
DAILY
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
-
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
2-61
FIGURE
2-34.
AM
PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
-
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
840
2-62
FIGURE
2-35.
PM
PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
-
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
TABLE 2-9.
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES CM COMMUTATION BOOTES
Street
EB/NB
WB/SB
Total
Veterans Drive at
1,140
1,090
2,230
Windward Passage
(4
lanes)
Veterans Drive at
870
810
1,680
Lovers Lane
(2 lanes)
Long Bay Road
800
820
1,620
Mafolie Road
315
770
1,145
Weymouth Rhymer Highway
420
700
1,120
Sugar Estate Road
470
530
1,000
Centerline Road
400
520
920
PM peak hour volumes .
The pm peak hour volumes are heaviest outbound
from Charlotte Amalie on Mafolie Road and Weymouth Rhymer Highway (Figure 2-
35).
However, volumes on other
roadways are generally balanced by direction,
reflecting the major traffic generators to the east and west of the
town.
The heaviest 1988 volumes are shown in Table 2-10.
TABLE 2-10.
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES CM COMMUTATION ROUTES
Street
EB/NB
WB/SB
Total
Veterans Drive at
1,000
1,100
2,100
Windward Passage
(4
lanes)
Veterans Drive at
920
610
1,630
Lovers Lane
(2 lanes)
Long Bay Road
810
930
1,740
Mafolie Road
840
400
1,240
Weymouth Rhymer Highway
870
580
1,450
Sugar Estate Road
760
560
1,320
Centerline Road
600
570
1,170
Volume trends .
Peak hour traffic volumes have changed relatively
little on most roadways since 1981.
This
reflects:
(1) modest population
and employment growth;
and
(2)
capacity limitations on the
roadways.
Major
east-west roads reached their capacity limits a decade ago,
and there
is
little capacity available to accommodate additional peak hour traffic.
Traffic did grow,
however,
on Frenchman Bay Road as a result of
development
in the Havensight area.
It also grew on Mafolie Road,
reflecting
2-63
a population growth on the north side of the island as well
as
the use of
Mafolie Road as
a bypass of Raphune Hill.
2.3.1(d)
Traffic problems and congestion
The heavy traffic volumes on Charlotte Amalie streets
result
in
congested movements throughout peak periods,
and
in some cases — as along
Veterans Drive — throughout most of the day.
Special
field observations and
travel
time studies were made to identify the locations,
causes,
and amounts
of traffic congestion and other operational problems.
Observed problems .
The observed traffic and parking problems
in
Charlotte Amalie and its environs are delineated in Figure
2-36.
( 1
)
Veterans Drive Lane Reduction at Fort Christian and Legislature .
The
most serious and pervasive problem is the narrowing of Veterans Drive
from four to two lanes east of Tolbod Gade
in order that
it fit in the
narrow right-of-way between Fort Christian and the Legislature Building.
This lane
reduction cuts the eastbound capacity in half,
produces
eastbound queues of almost a mile,
and causes some drivers
to use Nor re
Gade as an alternate
route
.
(2)
Nor re Gade Congestion .
The
right turn from the Government parking lot
onto Norre Gade creates
a
"spillback" condition that results
in "grid-
lock" between Tolbod and Hospital Gades during the pm peak hours.
(3)
Main and Garden Street Congestion .
The complex junction of Tolbod Gade,
Main Street,
Garden Street,
and Kongens Gade
results
in several
conflicting movements and contributes
to congestion.
All traffic from
Tolbod Gade must turn west onto Main Street,
"double loading"
the
westbound movement.
(4)
Taxis on Main Street .
Cruising and waiting taxis block moving traffic
along Main Street in the shopping area,
further contributing to
congestion along Main Street.
(5)
Congested Intersections .
Heavy traffic volumes together with poor
intersection geometry result in peak-hour congestion in the eastern part
of town.
-
At Lovers Lane and Veterans Drive,
heavy turning movements must
negotiate awkward alignments, with major conflicts.
-
At Long Bay Road and Centerline Road,
eastbound traffic
is diverted
around a pole that
is located in the middle of the intersection.
There
is no separation of turning traffic from through traffic.
-
At Weymouth Rhymer Highway near Centerline Road,
a grass island with
a tree
in the center of the intersection results
in three closely
2-64
2-65
FIGURE
2-36.
OBSERVED
TRAFFIC
AND
PARKING
PROBLEMS
spaced junctions.
Single-lane westbound traffic coming down Raphune
Hill
is further impeded by traffic entering and leaving the Wheatley
Shopping Center.
-
At Sugar Estate Road and Lovers Lane,
there are no bypass oppor-
tunities around right turning vehicles.
-
In the
Ft.
Mylner and Four Winds Plaza area,
key intersections along
Route
38 do not adequately separate through and turning traffic.
During the evening peak hours queues
result.
It
is these junctions,
rather than Raphune Hill,
that limit
the eastbound capacity along
Weymouth Rhymer Highway.
(6)
Raphune Hill Grade .
The steep grades
(up to 15 percent)
and sharp
curves on Raphune Hill slow traffic
in both directions.
When coupled
with peak-hour intersection delays at both ends of the grade,
queues on
the grade
result.
(7)
Delays at Charlotte Amalie High School
.
Pedestrian-car conflicts
result
at the Charlotte Amalie High School when drivers
receive or discharge
students
in the main travel
lanes.
In addition,
crossing guards
("pink
ladies")
stop traffic to enable students to cross Sugar Estate Road.
(8)
One-way Dronningens Gade .
The narrow road width on Dronningens Gade
between Bjerge and Hospital Gades,
and the need to allow parking on one
side of the street,
precludes two-way traffic
flow.
The street operates
one-way eastbound,
requiring westbound traffic desiring to reach
Hospital Gade to turn right or left at Bjerge Gade.
This increases
conflicts during the peak travel periods.
(9)
Limited Downtown Circulation .
Around-the-block circulation in the
retail area
is limited by narrow streets and alleys and the hilly
terrain.
Consequently,
cruising taxis and vehicles searching for
parking tend to circulate on Veterans Drive,
Tolbod Gade, Main Street,
and Raadet's Gade.
(10) Veterans Drive at Frenchtown .
Right turns from the through traffic
lanes limit the capacity and effectiveness of these lanes.
(11)
Free Parking in the Business Center .
This policy encourages motorists
to park on-street.
(12) All-Day Parking .
These parkers preempt parking spaces adjacent to
Veterans Drive shops, where high turnover parking
is desired.
(13)
Insufficient Parking Spaces Downtown .
The downtown parking supply is
not adequate
to meet the demand.
2-66
Delays and congestion .
The recurrent traffic congestion along the
Charlotte Amalie waterfront and the major gateways into the town result
primarily from:
-
the lane-drop and imbalanced lane use eastbound on Veterans Drive;
-
ineffective intersection treatments;
-
cruising vehicles;
and
-
illegally parked vehicles and ineffective enforcement.
The traffic congestion on the major
roadways approaches major propor-
tions.
The locations and extent of this congestion are shown in Figure 2-37.
During the peak hours,
the congestion extends over much of the area from
Windward Passage on the west to beyond Raphune Hill and Havensight on the
east.
Congestion and queues occur mainly westbound in the morning peak hours
(7-9
am)
and eastbound in the evening peak hours
(4-6 pm).
However,
the
eastbound congestion along Veterans Drive,
from Windward Passage to Fort
Christian,
occurs
in both periods,
as well as throughout the day;
it reflects
the lane reduction just west of the Fort,
and the resulting imbalanced use of
the eastbound lanes.
In the westbound direction,
the Weymouth Rhymer Highway-Centerline Road,
Centerline Road-Long Bay Road,
and Long Bay Road-Lovers Lane junctions meter
the traffic entering Veterans Drive.
Eastbound traffic
is metered,
first by
the Veterans Drive lane-reduction,
and second by the Long Bay Road-Centerline
Road intersection.
Table 2-11 shows the travel times during the morning and evening peak
hours.
Eastbound travel through town averages about 20 minutes
in the
morning peak hours
(7-9
am)
and about
35 minutes
in the evening peak hours
(4-6 pm).
Westbound travel times average about 20 minutes during both
periods.
However,
there
is considerable variation in the amount of time
required; westbound travel times of over
35 minutes,
and eastbound times as
high as
30 minutes
in the morning and
50 minutes
in the evening were
observed.
In comparison,
the travel time without congestion approximates
9
to 12 minutes.
As can be
seen,
a considerable amount of travel time
is lost due
to
traffic congestion.
Eastbound motorists lose almost
10 minutes
in the
morning and over
20 minutes in the evening.
Westbound motorists lose about
8
minutes during both peaks.
Detailed estimates of the time lost are given in
Table 2-12
for
the trips between Veterans Drive at the pedestrian overpass
near the Wayne Aspinall School
and:
(1) Weymouth Rhymer Highway and Route
39
junction;
and
(2)
Frenchman Bay Road and the Route
315 junction.
As
described by traffic engineers,
the
road system operates at Level of Service
"F" during peak traffic periods.
2-67
2-68
FIGURE
2-37.
PRINCIPAL
POINTS
OF
CONGESTION
AND
QUEUES
TABLE 2-11.
TRAVEL TIMES,
1988
(minutes)
ROAD SEGMENT — WESTBOUND
A.
Route
39 - Centerline
& Long Bay
via Weymouth Rhymer Highway
B.
Route
315 - Centerline
& Long Bay
via Frenchman Bay Road
C.
Centerline - Tobold
D.
Tobold - Overpass
TOTAL via Weymouth Rhymer Highway
TOTAL via Frenchman Bay Road
ROAD SEGMENT — EASTBOUND
M.
Overpass - Tobold
N.
Tobold - Centerline
& Long Bay
O.
Centerline
& Long Bay - Rt.
315
via Frenchman Bay Road
P.
Centerline
& Long Bay - Rt.
30
via Weymouth Rhymer Highway
TOTAL via Weymouth Rhymer Highway
TOTAL via Frenchman Bay Road
AM
Range
Peak
Avg
PM
Range
Peak
Avg
7-16
10.0
5-11
8.0
2-27
10.3
4-8
6.3
4-6
4.5
4-8
6.6
3-4
3.3
4-6
4.8
14-26
17.8
13-25
19.4
9-37
18.1
12-22
17.7
3-11
7.3
11-30
19.2
4-10
7.7
7-10
8.8
2-3
2.3
3-3
3
7-8
7.7
11-11
11
14-29
22.7
21-51
39
9-24
17.4
21-43
31
Source:
TSC Studies.
TABLE 2-12.
ESTIMATED AVERAGE TIME LOST PER TRIP DUE TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION1
MINUTES LOST DURING:
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hours
Hours
Veterans Drive at Pedestrian
Overpass to Weymouth Rhymer
Highway at Route
39 Junction
Eastbound
n 7
27
Westbound
6 2
7
Veterans Drive at Pedestrian
Overpass to Frenchman Bay Road
at Route
315 Junction
Eastbound
8
22
Westbound
9
9
It
is clear that the most serious and recurrent congestion occurs east-
bound along Veterans Drive as
it approaches Tolbod Gade.
The congestion
breaks down the town's entire access system,
and
it must be alleviated if
mobility is
to be maintained and economic growth
is to continue.
Implications .
The traffic congestion in Charlotte Amalie — especially
along Veterans Drive — has reached alarming levels.
It
is
far beyond what
normally occurs
in a community of 50,000 persons.
It has become a major
concern to the entire
island,
and its elimination ranks high on the Govern-
ment's agenda.
The discussions that follow suggest how this congestion can
be alleviated.
2.3.2
Traffic Improvement Plan
This section sets forth a strategic traffic improvement plan for urban
St.
Thomas.
The plan
is based on an analysis of existing conditions,
a
review of previous proposals,
and discussions with the Virgin Islands public
and private sectors.
It contains both early
(immediate)
action and longer
term proposals.
These proposals complement the public transport and parking
recommendations,
as well as the transportation system management actions
suggested in the FHWA report.
^"Assumed base travel
time without congestion:
9 minutes
to Route
315;
12 minutes
to Route
39.
2Based on Table
2-11.
A more likely value
in the height of the peak
period
is about 10+ minutes.
2-70
2.3.2(a)
Context
There
is general consensus within the Charlotte Amalie community
regarding the need to alleviate congestion,
and to do so
in a cost-effective
way that preserves the character of the waterfront and town center.
But the
community has been divided over how to achieve these objectives.
The
resulting inaction has been both costly and counterproductive.
Accordingly,
the plan sets forth several options to deal with this issue.
The plan calls for an integrated system of improvements that increase
traffic capacities along Veterans Drive and on roadways entering downtown
Charlotte Amalie from the east.
These capacity gains are essential
if
traffic congestion
is
to be
reduced.
They are achieved in an affordable,
implementable and environmentally acceptable manner.
The systems approach is
necessary to avoid merely transferring problems from one place to another.
The general structure of the plan's proposals has been recognized since
1972; moreover,
many of the
recommended treatments improve the high-hazard
intersections cited a decade ago.
Most proposals are straightforward and
reflect the specific physical and traffic conditions at each location.
However,
some of the details of earlier proposals have been changed to obtain
better traffic performance,
reduce costs,
and/or minimize environmental
impacts,
and better preserve the waterfront.
Better traffic engineering and transportation system management actions
will help reduce congestion in several areas.
By alleviating recurrent
congestion,
they will permit more productive and reliable public transport
service.
They are designed to benefit both residents and tourists,
and to
preserve the character of downtown Charlotte Amalie.
However,
these actions,
in themselves, will not alleviate the Veterans Drive problem.
Expansion of
road capacity and physical changes will be
required.
The early action
changes,
therefore,
should be viewed as interim measures until plans can be
prepared,
funding obtained,
and construction completed on the more costly
proposals.
2.3.2(b)
Early action plan
The
recommended early action traffic improvement plan for Charlotte
Amalie
is shown in Figure 2-38.
The various proposals are accomplished
within the available rights-of-way and require little physical construction.
They can and should be implemented within a two-year time
frame.
Principal features .
Principal
features of the plan are described below.
The numbers correspond to the numbered locations shown
in Figure
2-38.
(1)
Change Mafolie Road Traffic Controls .
The present
"stop"
for southbound
Mafolie Road
is eliminated to enable
the heavy southbound traffic
to
move continuously.
To assure safe operation,
an overhead flasher should
be
installed;
it should display yellow for Mafolie Road and
red
for
other approaches.
2-71
2-72
FIGURE
2-38.
EARLY
ACTION
TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
-
ST.
THOMAS
(2)
Improved Veterans Drive Access to Norre Gade
.
Make Forts Pladsen
(alongside the
fire station),
Tolbod Pladsen,
and Fortet Strade two-way
streets to provide
a direct connection from eastbound Veterans Drive to
Norre Gade.
The intersection of Fortet Strade with Norre Gade should be
signalized to assure safe entry of traffic onto Norre Gade.
However,
eastbound right turns from Norre Gade
into Fortet Strade should be
restricted during the peak hours as needed.
(3)
Provide Government Parking Lot Access to Veterans Drive .
Provide left
turn entry and exit
for eastbound traffic between Veterans Drive and the
Government parking lot.
This access will
reduce the concentration of
parking lot traffic on Norre Gade,
and afford direct,
convenient
connection to Veterans Drive
for eastbound traffic.
Right turn entry
and exit for westbound traffic should not be permitted.
( 4
)
Prohibit Peak Period Right Turns Between Norre Gade and the Government
Parking Lot .
Right turns into and out of the Government parking lot
should be prohibited at Norre Gade during peak travel periods
(7-9 am
and 4-6 pm)
.
These turn restrictions will
reduce the spillback which
causes gridlock along Norre Gade;
these turns largely will be obviated
by the proposed left turn access on Veterans Drive.
(5)
Increase Eastbound Lanes on Norre Gade .
Provide two eastbound lanes by
taking advantage of the extra pavement width between Torvet and Hospital
Gades.
This increased capacity will
reduce the spillback,
and accom-
modate additional traffic.
One
lane would be reserved for vehicles
turning left onto Hospital Gade,
and the other
for through and right
turning traffic.
(6)
Make Guttets Gade One-Way Northbound .
Guttets Gade should operate one-
way northbound from Veterans Drive to Main Street once
the current
construction project
is completed.
This will
reduce intersection
conflicts at Veterans Drive.
(7,8,9)
Channelize Key Intersections .
Three key intersections
in the
eastern part of Charlotte Amalie should be channelized to provide more
orderly traffic flow and better protection for
right turning vehicles:
(7)
Veterans Drive,
Long Bay Road,
and Lovers Lane;
(8)
Long Bay Road
and Centerline Road;
and
(9)
Sugar Estate Road, Weymouth Rhymer Highway,
and Centerline Road.
The improvements can be located within existing
rights of way;
they will
reduce,
but not eliminate,
peak hour conges-
tion.
(As a short-term measure
to alleviate the traffic bottleneck
in the Fort
area,
the DFW currently is considering the routing of two lanes of eastbound
traffic from Veterans Drive via Forts Pladsen,
Tolbod Pladsen,
and Fortet
Strade
to Norre Gade,
along Norre Gade
to Hospital Gade,
and along Hospital
Gade back to Veterans Drive.
This routing would force a heavy vehicular
flow through the Emancipation Gardens Park area and concentrate traffic at
the already congested Norre Gade-Hospital Gade intersection.)
2-73
Specific intersection improvements .
Further descriptions of the early
action intersection improvements
follow.
(1)
Veterans Drive-Lovers Lane-Long Bay Road
[7],
About 2,400 vehicles
enter
the intersection each peak hour,
of which almost half travel
between Veterans Drive and Long Bay Road
(Figure 2-39).
The recommended early action treatment for
the intersection is shown in
Figure
2-40.
It
is designed to
reduce the peak-hour traffic conflicts
at
the heavily-traveled oblique-crossing intersection.
The recommended
treatment calls
for eliminating all crossing conflicts during weekday
evening peak hours
(4-6
pm) when warranted by traffic flows and/queues.
This
is accomplished by the police placing cones or moveable barriers
in
the intersection to direct Veteran Drive traffic onto Long Bay Road and
De Beltjen Road traffic onto Lovers
lane.
This type of traffic diversion
is
a logical extension of the current
police controls that often prohibit the southbound movement from Lovers
Lane
into Veterans Drive,
the eastbound movement from De Beltjen Road
onto Long Bay Road,
and the westbound right turns from Long Bay Road
onto Lovers Lane during the evening peak hours.
Under the proposed
treatment,
the southbound left turns from Lovers Lane into Long Bay Road
would be permitted, while all other conflicting flows would be prohib-
ited.
It also
is desirable
to widen the north side of Long Bay Road to provide
an additional westbound lane
for
right turns.
This
8 to 10 foot
widening can be done within the existing right of way without impacting
the posts and fence separating the
road from the Lucinda Millin Home.
It will
require
a gradual transition to the existing cross section,
including the possible
removal of the
island separating Long Bay Road
from the westbound passenger drop-off
lane.
The present signal displays and traffic signal controller need updating.
However,
in modernizing the signal controls and phasing,
care should be
exercised to avoid unduly complex phasing and long cycle lengths.
(2)
Long Bay Road-Centerline Road-Frenchman Bay Road
[8].
During each peak
hour,
almost 2,000 vehicles enter
the intersection,
essentially on
single lane approaches
(Figure 2-41).
These movements are impeded by
the existing light pole
in the middle of the intersection which requires
eastbound traffic to divert around
it.
The recommended early action treatment for this intersection
is shown in
Figure
2-42.
It
is designed to reduce travel
frictions,
and to produce
more direct alignments at this heavily traveled intersection, which
currently is a major point of congestion.
The recommended treatment
can be accomplished within the existing curb lines.
The necessary
actions are:
-
Removal of the pole
in the middle of
the
intersection.
2-74
FIGURE
2-39.
INTERSECTION PHOTO AND 1988 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES-
LOYERS LANE
/ VETERANS DRIVE
/ LONG BAY ROAD
/ DE BELTJEN ROAD
2-75
SIGNALS
2-76
FIGURE
2-40.
RECOMMENDED
EARLY
ACTION
TREATMENT
-
LOVERS
LANE
/
VETERANS
DRIVE
/
LONG
BAY
ROAD
/
DE
BELTJEN
ROAD
INTERSECTION
FIGURE
2-41.
INTERSECTION PHOTO AND
1988 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
-
LONG BAY ROAD
/ CENTERLINE ROAD
/ FRENCHMAN BAY ROAD
2-77
FIGURE
2-42.
RECOMMENDED EARLY ACTION TREATMENT
- LONG BAY ROAD
/
CENTERLINE ROAD
/ FRENCHMAN BAY ROAD INTERSECTION
2-78
-
Signalization of the intersection.
A simple two-phase signal
operation should suffice.
Since the traffic flows entering Long Bay
Road from Frenchman Bay Road and Centerline Road are about equal,
and
the distance from the Lovers Lane traffic actuated signal
is about
1,500
feet,
traffic actuated controls should be considered here.
-
Provision of three travel lanes — two through lanes and an eastbound
right turn lane — from the Frenchman Bay Road entry direction.
The
right turn lane will provide storage
for about three vehicles,
thereby removing most of the
right turning vehicles from the through
travel
lanes.
The
right turn lane
is necessary because the westbound
traffic from Frenchman Bay Road
is too heavy to be carried in a
single lane.
(3)
Sugar Estate Road-Weymouth Rhymer Highway-Centerline Road
[9].
This
intersection,
located at the western end of Raphune Hill and adjacent to
the Wheatley Shopping Center,
is the cause of extensive congestion
during the morning peak hour.
The recommended treatment
is designed to
reduce the stoppage of the heavy westbound traffic flows
(more than 700
vehicles per hour
in the morning peak as shown in Figure 2-43)
by
separating westbound Weymouth Rhymer Highway-Sugar Estate Road traffic
from Weymouth Rhymer Highway-Centerline Road left turn traffic and by
reducing side frictions.
These objectives can be accomplished within the existing right of way by
replacing the
"Y"
junction with a
"T"
junction,
installing traffic
signals,
and some minor
road widening to ease the westbound left turn
onto Centerline Road
(Figure 2-44).
Specific proposals include the
following:
-
Remove
the tree and grass island in the center of Weymouth Rhymer
Highway.
-
Replace the three
"Y"
intersections with a single
"T"
junction that
concentrates conflicting movements
in a single area.
-
Provide painted islands to separate the lanes
for westbound left
turns from Weymouth Rhymer Highway into Centerline Road,
and south-
bound left turns from Sugar Estate Road into Weymouth Rhymer Highway.
The westbound left turn lane would extend as far as possible.
-
Widen the westbound left turn roadway slightly
(within the existing
right-of-way)
to provide a wider,
easier movement from Weymouth
Rhymer Highway onto Centerline Road.
-
Signalize
the intersection to control conflicts better.
One phase
would provide
for east-west traffic,
and the other
for north-south
traffic.
To accommodate the heavy north-to-east right turning
traffic in the evening,
an advance or leading green should be
provided for Centerline Road traffic.
Southbound left turns from
Weymouth Rhymer Highway and westbound left turns from Centerline
Road would operate at all
times.
Fully actuated signal controls are
2-79
FIGURE
2-43.
INTERSECTION PHOTO AND 1988 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES-
WEYMOUTH RHYMER HIGHWAY
/ SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
/ CENTERLINE
ROAD
2-80
Weymouth
Rhymer
Hwy
oo
o
o
2-81
FIGURE
2-44.
RECOMMENDED
EARLY
ACTION
TREATMENT
-
WEYMOUTH
RHYMER
HIGHWAY
/
SUGAR
ESTATE
ROAD
/
CENTERLINE
ROAD
INTERSECTION
recommended, with at least two distinct timing patterns — one
for
the morning and the other
for the evening peak periods.
-
Reduce interruptions to the heavy westbound left turns by closing
Centerline Road access to the Wheatley Shopping Center from 7-9 am
on weekdays.
In order
for traffic to flow most smoothly through
this intersection,
it would be desirable to close this access
permanently and require traffic to use other access points.
The early action plan provides a framework
for future widening at this
intersection to increase capacity further.
The traffic signals are placed to
accommodate this widening.
2.3.2(c)
Longer range plan
The recommended overall traffic improvement plan for urban St. Thomas/
Charlotte Amalie
is shown in Figures 2-45 and 2-46.
Figure 2-45 shows the
general improvement concept, while Figure 2-46 identifies the specific
improvements.
While the short range proposals will provide
relief
in certain
areas,
implementation of these longer
range proposals
is essential
to relieve
traffic congestion in Charlotte Amalie.
The recommended plan calls for the following major improvements:
-
Intersection expansion and channelization at key junctions along
Long Bay Road,
Sugar Estate Road, Weymouth Rhymer Highway,
and along
Veterans Drive
to the west of the center of town.
-
Widening of Sugar Estate and Centerline Roads.
-
A four-lane Veterans Drive-Long Bay Road from Windward Passage to
the Havensight area.
-
Coordination of traffic signals along Veterans Drive.
-
Improvement of Weymouth Rhymer Highway
(or construction of a Raphune
Hill Bypass)
.
The following specific proposals are identified in Figure 2-46 and Table
2-13.
Figure 2-47 shows the number of travel lanes that will be available
for moving traffic.
This system of improvements
is necessary to provide con-
tinuity of capacity and to avoid transferring problems from one area to
another.
These proposals are described below.
Lovers Lane-Veterans Drive-Long Bay Road-De Beltjen Road
[ 1
]
.
The
recommended treatment for this intersection
(shown in Figure 2-48)
is based
upon the URS-Dalton Plan for the Veterans Drive-Lovers Lane Expansion.
It
modifies the plan to increase capacity,
improve certain road alignments,
and
reduce costs.
2-82
2-83
FIGURE
2-45.
GENERALIZED
CHARLOTTE
AMALIE
TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENT
CONCEPT
w
2-84
FIGURE
2-46.
TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
-
CHARLOTTE
TABLE 2-13.
CHARLOTTE AMALIE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A - Early actions
Street direction and access changes.
See Figure 2-38.
B - Longer
range actions
(1)
Four lane operation at Fort/Legislature via one-way couplet
(a) Along water
(b) North of Fort
(c)
Existing alignment
( impacts Legislature)
(2)
Widen Veterans Drive
to
4 thru lanes to Lovers Lane
(3)
Expand/channelize/signalize Veterans Drive-Lovers Lane junction
(4)
Widen Long Bay Road to
4 lanes
(5)
Expand/channelize/signalize Long Bay Road-Centerline Road Junction
(6)
Widen Frenchman Bay Road to
4
lanes;
expand/channelize Havensite
junction
(7)
Widen Centerline Road to
3 lanes
(8)
Expand/channelize/signalize Weymouth Rhymer Highway-Sugar Estate
Road-Centerline Road junction; widen Weymouth Rhymer Hwy.
to
4 lanes
at base of hill
(9)
Expand/channelize/signalize Lovers Lane-Sugar Estate Road junction
(10)
Widen Sugar Estate Road to
3 lanes
(11)
Improve/expand Weymouth Rhymer Highway junctions - Ft.
Mylner,
Four
Winds Shopping Center
(12)
Provide dual
right turn lanes on northbound exit from Sub-base
(13)
Install
right turn lanes
(14)
Coordinate Veterans Drive traffic signals
C - Future actions
(101)
Widen Lovers Lane
(102)
Weymouth Rhymer Hwy.
improvement
(or Raphune Hill Bypass)
2-85
2-86
FIGURE
2-47.
PROPOSED
TRAFFIC
LANES
N
FIGURE
2-48.
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
- LOVERS LANE
/ VETERANS DRIVE
/
LONG BAY ROAD
/ DE BELTJEN ROAD INTERSECTION
2-87
The treatment will match the
road capacities to the east and west that
will
result from the widening of Veterans Drive and Long Bay Road.
It
is
designed to facilitate
the heavy east-west flow between Veterans Drive and
Lovers Lane — about 1,200 vehicles during each peak hour.
Specific recom-
mendations are as
follows.
-
Provision of three lanes on the Veterans Drive approach:
two for the
heavy right turn into Long Bay Road,
and one
for Lovers Lane traffic.
-
Widening of De Beltjen Road
(on the north side)
to provide two
eastbound lanes into the intersection.
Because of the steep hill
to
the immediate north,
some additional
retaining walls may be needed.
-
Provision of five lanes on the Lovers Lane approach:
three south-
bound and two northbound.
In contrast
to the URS design,
a transi-
tion
is made to the existing roadway about 250 feet north of the
intersection.
Several structures along the west side of Lovers Lane
are acquired,
as
in the URS design,
to achieve the needed right-of-
way.
-
Provision of five lanes on the Long Bay Road approach:
three
into
the intersection and two out.
One of these lanes permits continuous
left turns from Long Bay Road onto Veterans Drive.
-
A three phase traffic signal cycle with the following phasing:
1.
All northbound traffic; westbound left turns.
2.
Northbound through and all southbound traffic; westbound left
turns
.
3.
All eastbound and westbound traffic.
Long Bay Road widening (Lovers Lane to Centerline Road)
[ 2 ]
.
The Plan
calls
for widening Long Bay Road to four lanes between Lovers Lane and
Centerline Road.
At each of these junctions,
a fifth lane would be provided
for
right turns.
The widening has been incorporated into the DFW's ongoing
road program.
It
is essential
to:
(1)
serve the heavy traffic flows — over
800 vehicles per hour — in the heavy directions during peak hours;
and
(2)
complement the Veterans Drive improvement.
Long Bay Road-Centerline Road-Frenchman Bay Road intersection
[ 3
]
.
The
recommended treatment
for this intersection
is shown in Figure 2-49.
It
is
designed to serve the 2,000 vehicles that enter the intersection during each
peak hour plus the additional traffic that will be generated by further
commercial development of
the West Indian Company property.
It
is an
enlargement of the plan initially developed by Alton Adams Associates,
August
1,
1982.
The recommended treatment
is as follows.
-
Three lanes into the intersection and two out of the intersection on
the Long Bay Road and Frenchman Bay Road approaches:
two lanes on
2-88
&i®m
2-89
FIGURE
2-49.
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
-
LONG
BAY
ROAD
/
CENTERLINE
ROAD
/
FRENCHMAN
BAY
ROAD
INTERSECTION
each approach are
for through traffic and one lane
is
for
right
turns
.
-
A new three-lane extension of Centerline Road to the south connecting
with the West Indian Company development area,
and serving as a main
access point to this planned development.
-
Three lanes are provided on the Centerline Road approach:
two for
through
(West Indian Company)
and right turning traffic,
and one
for
left turns onto Frenchman Bay Road.
-
A new continuous left turn lane from Long Bay Road into Centerline
Road
(provided by acquiring some of the property on the northwest
corner of the intersection).
The specific design will depend upon
the amount of property acquired.
-
A three-phase traffic signal operation in which the east-west traffic
moves on the first phase,
the southbound traffic on the second phase,
and the northbound traffic on the third phase.
Eastbound and
northbound left turns move continuously.
The separate phases for
northbound and southbound traffic make
it possible
to operate double
right turn lanes from Centerline Road into Long Bay Road.
These dual
lanes are desirable
to serve the heavy right turns — over
300
vehicles during the peak-hour.
This turn volume would be heavier
if
not constrained by capacity.
Frenchman Bay Road widening (Centerline Road to Havensight)
[ 4 ]
.
The
recommended treatment calls
for widening Frenchman Bay Road east of
its
intersection with Centerline Road.
The proposed widenings are as follows.
-
At Centerline Road junction —
5 lanes.
-
Centerline Road to North Access Havensight —
4
lanes.
-
North access Havensight to South Access —
3
lanes.
The widening would be accomplished on the southeast side of the
road,
and would require taking some trees on the West Indian Company land.
It
provides capacity consistent with travel demands
(up to half of all traffic
along Frenchman Bay Road
is
to or from Havensight),
and
it separates through
and right turning traffic.
Centerline Road widening (Long Bay Road to Weymouth Rhymer Highway)
[ 5]
.
The recommended treatment calls
for widening Centerline Road to
33
feet
(the
widening initially set forth in the Alton Adams Associates designs of 1982-
1983),
thus making
it possible
to provide protected right turn lanes at
First Avenue and other intersecting streets.
Weymouth Rhymer Highway-Sugar Estate Road-Centerline Road intersection
[6].
The recommended treatment
for this intersection
is shown
in Figure
2-50.
The overall geometry and traffic signal placement/phasing are similar
2-90
2-91
to those
for
the early action treatment and to those developed by Alton Adams
Associates.
However,
additional lanes are provided on Centerline Road and
Weymouth Rhymer Highway to better separate movements.
-
Four lanes on Weymouth Rhymer Highway approaching the intersection.
The added width makes
it possible
to more effectively separate
right
and left turn movements.
Providing these lanes will
impact the
parking area near
the Pizza Hut.
-
Four lanes on Centerline Road south of the
intersection.
The
northbound right turns and through movements each have
a separate
lane;
the westbound left turn from Weymouth Rhymer Highway merges
into a separate lane on Centerline Road.
-
Transition to a three-lane Centerline Road would take place about
300 feet south of Weymouth Rhymer Highway.
Lovers Lane-Sugar Estate Road intersection
[7].
During peak hours 1,100
to 1,300 vehicles enter the intersection,
and one-way flows on Sugar Estate
Road range from 500
to 700 vph
(Figure 2-51).
The recommended treatment
for
this intersection
(Figure 2-52)
is based upon the Alton Adams Associates July
1982 plans.
It
is designed to better segregate
right turns from other
traffic,
especially along Sugar Estate Road.
The principal features of the recommended plan are as
follows.
-
Widening of Sugar Estate Road to
33 feet to provide
a protected right
turn lane
for both directions.
-
Turning radii
for left turns to and from Lovers Lane are increased to
at least
50
feet.
The channelized northbound left turn lane
is shown
as suggested
in the Adams'
Plan;
however,
a tighter,
more space-
saving design could be provided.
-
A simple two-phase traffic signal.
Semi-actuated controls may be
desirable
in which Lovers Lane traffic
is on call.
The plan also shows how Lovers Lane might be widened and extended to
connect with a possible future Raphune Hill Bypass.
The future design would
provide five north-south lanes at the junction;
one of these lanes would be
for
right turns and four would be
for through traffic.
Sugar Estate Road widening (Lovers Lane to Centerline Road)
[ 8
]
The
plan calls for widening Sugar Estate Road to
33
feet west of Lovers Lane to
the point where the
road widens adjacent to the Hospital.
The widening would
provide
a through travel
lane
in each direction plus a shared right turn
lane.
It would provide more
road space at the Charlotte Amalie High School,
thereby reducing the congestion that occurs when standing or waiting vehicles
block the through travel
lanes.
2-92
FIGURE
2-51.
INTERSECTION PHOTO AND 1988 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES-
LOVERS LANE
/ SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
2-93
Possible
Future
Extension
-
Raphune
Hill
Bypass
2-94
FIGURE
2-52.
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
-
LOVERS
LANE
/
SUGAR
ESTATE
ROAD
INTERSECTION
Veterans Drive in the vicinity of Fort Christian
[9,10].
The provision
of additional east-west capacity through the center of Charlotte Amalie
is
the key to untangling the gridlock.
However,
differing views on how the
increased capacity best could be provided has led to inaction for more than a
decade.
The proposed solutions have varied widely in terms of their nature,
design,
costs,
impacts,
and effectiveness.
These past proposals have
included:
(1)
The four-lane waterfront highway .
This was proposed initially in the
1972 Highway Needs Study,
supported by the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works,
and thoroughly analyzed in an environmental
impact state-
ment.
This four lane highway would extend on reclaimed waterfront land
from Windward Passage to Lovers Lane;
it would serve through traffic,
while traffic to/from the central business district
(CBD)
of Charlotte
Amalie would utilize the existing
road.
It provides sufficient capacity
for future growth,
and
is operationally viable,
even though it creates
several new major intersections that could impede traffic flow along the
waterfront.
It also adds a lineal park to the city center.
It
is a costly highway,
however,
and serious questions arise concerning
the Government's ability to finance
its construction.
It would cause
serious disruption to the central area during its construction,
and it
could create a barrier between the town and the waterfront.
(2)
The
"one way loop"
scheme .
Proposed by the League of Women Voters,
this
concept pairs Nor re Gade and De Beltjen Road with Veterans Drive,
as a
one-way east-west pair.
To permit the free flow of traffic,
a one-way
loop is created in the eastern part of town by operating Lovers Lane
one-way northbound;
Sugar Estate Road one-way eastbound;
Centerline Road
one-way Southbound;
and Long Bay Road one-way westbound.
This concept
avoids impacting the Charlotte Amalie waterfront.
However,
it does not
increase the number of east-west traffic lanes.
Furthermore,
it:
(1)
places undue pressure on Norre Gade at Hospital Gade;
(2)
increases
travel distances;
(3)
requires trucks to traverse relatively steep
grades on De Beltjen Road;
and
(4)
routes the heavy eastbound traffic
through the Emancipation Gardens Park area.
It
is not a practical way
to add capacity.
(See Appendix B for details.)
(3)
An inland bypass .
Initially proposed in 1972,
this bypass would circum-
scribe the town on the north.
It
is not a viable option because of
its
impact on development,
indirect travel,
steep grades,
and costs.
More
importantly,
it would create capacity problems where it intersects
Mafolie Road.
Because of the various problems associated with the
initial concepts,
alternative proposals were developed.
These options,
as shown in Figure
2-53,
include:
an "inland one-way system" proposed by the Federal Highway
Administration;
a widened two-way Veterans Drive on its present alignment
(requires taking part of the Legislature Building);
a waterside one-way
system
(a scaled down version of the
1974 deJongh proposal);
and a waterside
two-way system
(the deJongh proposal).
Each concept provides the needed
2-95
2-96
FIGURE
2-53.
ALTERNATE
ALIGNMENTS
-
VETERANS
DRIVE
EXPANSION
capacity,
and would relieve the waterfront gridlock.
The concepts differ
mainly in their environmental and land use impacts.
The three concepts are similar from east of Hospital Gade to Lovers
Lane.
They provide
four travel
lanes between these points on land created by
filling in a portion of the Harbor.
(The precise alignment would depend upon
whether
it
is more economical
to bypass or
relocate
the pumping station.)
Each concept extends a widened Hospital Gade to connect with both directions
of the widened Veterans Drive at a traffic signal controlled intersection.
A.
The inland one-way scheme
.
This option develops a new two-to-three
lane eastbound one-way road around the north side of Fort Christian
starting from Tolbod Gade to a point west of Hospital Gade
(Figure
2-54).
The existing Veterans Drive would provide two westbound
lanes to Forts Pladsen,
and three westbound lanes to Tolbod Gade.
Tolbod Gade would operate one-way northbound,
and a new one-way
southbound street would be developed just east of the
Fort.
Thus,
a
clockwise one-way loop is provided around the Fort.
The new eastbound road follows an elliptical alignment to minimize
the impact on Emancipation Park,
the landscaped areas north of the
Fort,
and existing commercial buildings east of Fortet Strade.
However,
to maintain at least a 200-foot
radius of curvature,
it
requires taking a portion of the existing Government parking lot,
and possibly one building.
This option minimizes the impact on the waterfront,
and its one-way
operation facilitates right turns.
However,
it has a sharp align-
ment,
impacts the Government parking lot,
separates the Fort from
Main Street,
and cuts through a historic district and an area
considered for commercial development.
B.
Widened two-way Veterans Drive on existing alignment .
This concept
develops a four lane,
two-way Veterans Drive on the existing
alignment
(Figure 2-55).
The sharp curve at Tolbod Gade
is eased by
extending the widened Veterans Drive almost due west.
This
is ac-
complished by filling in a very small part of the Harbor.
It makes
it possible
to remove the existing Veterans Drive
roadway between
Tolbod Gade and Forts Pladsen.
The widened and relocated Veterans
Drive intersects with Tolbod Gade,
Forts Pladsen and Hospital Gade.
This concept provides the best alignment for Veterans Drive,
permits
the Emancipation Park area to be expanded southerly,
has minimum
impact on the waterfront,
and probably costs the least to develop.
However,
it requires removing a section of the Legislature Building,
or requires relocating the entire building.
C.
Waterside one-way system .
This option develops a new two-to-three
lane westbound one-way road around the south side of the Legislature
Building from a point west of Tolbod Gade to a point east of
Hospital Gade
(Figure 2-56).
The existing Veterans Drive provides
two eastbound lanes
in this area.
Full intersections are provided
2-97
Main
St.
-
Norre
Gade
2-98
FIGURE
2-54.
INLAND
ONE-WAY
SYSTEM
-
VETERANS
DRIVE
Main
St.
(Norre
Gade)
2-99
FIGURE
2-55.
FOUR-LANE
VETERANS
DRIVE
ON
EXISTING
ALIGNMENT
2-100
FIGURE
2-56.
WATERSIDE
ONE-WAY
SYSTEM
-
VETERANS
DRIVE
at Hospital and Tolbod Gades.
A clockwise one-way circulation
pattern is provided around the Legislature Building.
The new one-way westbound road is obtained by filling in the
waterfront in this area.
A 25-foot pedestrian promenade along the
road affords pedestrian access to the waterfront.
The access west
of the Legislature Building-Coast Guard "peninsula" would be
developed as a park,
thereby enabling Emancipation Park to be
extended to the water.
The area east of the
"peninsula" could be
used for parking or
a park.
This concept provides direct access into the shopping area between
Tolbod and Hospital Gades,
and its design can permit continuous
westbound travel.
It doubles eastbound capacity on the approach to
Tolbod Gade,
and allows direct access to and from the Government
parking lot.
It provides an easier
road alignment than the inland
scheme
(option A);
it does not impact either the Government parking
lot,
the Emancipation Park area,
or the Legislature Building;
and it
makes more land available
for park or parking purposes.
However,
the concept does impact the waterfront,
and
is probably
more costly than options A and B.
It requires relocating the Coast
Guard Pier.
D.
Waterside two-way system .
A fourth alternative
is to develop a
two-way road along the waterfront close to the alignment of Option
C.
This option was initially suggested in the deJongh Associates
Main Street Plan.
It eliminates Veterans Drive between Tolbod and
Hospital Gades,
thereby allowing the entire area between the
Legislative Building and the Fort
to be pedestrianized.
It does,
however,
require
reverse curves in two-directions and more land
fill.
Its cost and waterfront impacts would be the greatest.
Each of the options analyzed will provide the needed increase
in
traffic capacity and are roughly equivalent in terms of their traffic
service.
All appear to be affordable,
and cost substantially less than the
initially proposed four-lane waterfront highway.
The choice will be based
mainly on land-use,
cost,
and environmental considerations .
-
If
it
is desired to preserve both the Legislature Building and the
waterfront,
the FHWA "inland" one-way system (Option A)
is prefer-
able.
-
if cost
is the main consideration,
Option B
is preferable
(assuming
that the Legislature Building can be modified or
relocated).
-
If
it
is desirable to add parkland and parking space, Option
C,
the
waterside one-way system,
is preferable.
-
If
it
is desirable to preserve both the Legislature Building and the
parking lot,
and to create
a pedestrian zone between the Fort and the
Legislature Building, Option D is preferable.
2-101
The Federal Highway Administration,
U.S.
Department of Transportation,
recommended Option A.
Regardless of the alternative chosen,
the most
important point
is to select an option and move ahead with it .
Route 38 (Weymouth Rhymer Highway)
at Ft. Mylner
[11].
The recommended
treatment
(shown in Figure 2-57)
is based upon road changes previously
proposed by the Department of Public Works.
-
Widening of Weymouth Rhymer Highway to provide a northbound right
turn lane into Route
32.
-
Widening of Route
32 to provide separate westbound right and left
turn lanes approaching Weymouth Rhymer Highway.
-
A channelized southbound left turn lane with a minimum 35 foot radius
(requires the purchase of a portion of the vacant property in the
eastern quadrant of the intersection).
Although the specific design
and radius will depend upon the property available,
the
radius must
be at least 20 to 25
feet.
-
A simple two-phase actuated traffic signal control with minimum entry
periods
for Route
32 traffic.
Route 38 at south entrance to Four Winds Plaza
[11].
The
recommended
treatment
(shown in Figure 2-58)
provides a northbound right turn lane on
Route
38.
This
is achieved by removing an existing island,
and by converting
the existing left turn lane into a combined left turn and through lane.
Route
38
is widened slightly on its west side north of the intersection to
improve the northbound alignment.
Several changes in the placement of
traffic signals are made because of the changed roadway configuration.
Smith Bay Road-Route 384-Four Winds Plaza
[11].
(See Figure 2-59.)
The
recommended treatment,
shown in Figure
2-60,
is designed to reduce the delays
that occur at this junction throughout much of the day.
It includes two
stages of improvements.
-
Immediate Action .
The existing signal sequence should be revised to
allow various movements on the same approach to move together as much
as possible.
The proposed "lead-lag" overlapping phase sequence
reduces
the likelihood of north-south through and right turns
blocking each other.
It
is recommended that westbound through and
right turns move on Phase A-l,
east-west through traffic on Phase A-
2,
and eastbound through and right turn traffic on Phase A-3.
Phases
B-l and B-2 would operate as they do now.
-
Subsequent Development .
The long range treatment widens Smith Bay
Road to three lanes on its approach to the intersection from the
east.
The widening makes
it possible
to separate fully westbound
2-102
SIGNALS
PHASING
1
,
2,3
HZa
SH<a
asH
aaQZa
aaHZau
0z
aaC1
C/3
aaza>
Ha
H
2-103
SIGNALS
PHASING
2-104
PLAZA
INTERSECTION
FIGURE
2-59.
INTERSECTION PHOTOGRAPHS
- SMITH BAY ROAD
/ ROUTE
384
/
MAIN ENTRANCE TO FOUR WINDS PLAZA
2-105
oo
rn
a3O
FIGURE
2-60.
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
-
SMITH
BAY
ROAD
/
ROUTE
384
MAIN
ENTRANCE
TO
FOUR
WINDS
PLAZA
INTERSECTION
right turns from the heavy westbound left turns.
It is accomplished
on the north side of Smith Bay Road since the existing retaining wall
on the south side makes widening there impractical.
Some relocation
of existing storm drains will be necessary.
Sub-Base access to Veterans Drive
[12].
Dual northbound right turn
lanes should be provided on the Route
304
junction with Veterans Drive
in the
sub-base area.
These lanes will increase the northbound capacity and reduce
congestion during peak periods.
Minor curb adjustments and widening will be
requi red
.
Right turn lanes on Veterans Drive
[13].
East-west right turn lanes
should be provided on Veterans Drive
in the Frenchtown area.
These lanes can
be developed by removing the median island and restriping the
roadway.
Some
minor widening also may be needed.
Traffic signal coordination
[14].
Effective traffic signal coordination
along Veterans Drive, Main Street/Nor re Gade and Hospital Gade
is desirable
to minimize delays.
The Veterans Drive coordination should be done
in
concert with the widening of the roadway between Fort Christian and Lovers
Lane.
The recommended traffic signal coordination plan
is shown in Figure
2-61.
-
The pre-timed and actuated signals along Veterans Drive should be
coordinated to operate on a 70 to 80 second cycle.
Time-based
coordination units should be installed at each intersection,
and
keyed to a new "master" control unit.
-
Pre-timed signals along Main Street/Nor re Gade should be coordinated
on a 60 second cycle by physical interconnection and/or controller
modifications.
-
Signals on Norre Gade and Hospital Gade should be coordinated on a
50
second cycle by physical interconnections and/or controller modifica-
tions.
-
Traffic responsive actuated signals should control movements at Sugar
Estate Road and Lovers Lane,
Long Bay Road at Lovers Lane and
Centerline Road,
and along Weymouth Rhymer Highway/Route
38 to the
Four Winds Plaza,
Because of the heavy turning movements at most of
these intersections,
the traffic responsive feature of the actuated
type signal
is more important than coordination between adjacent
intersections.
-
A generalized time-space diagram for Veterans Drive
is shown in
Figure 2-62.
Progression or
"green wave"
speeds would range from
29.4 mph with an 80-second cycle to 33.6 mph with a 70-second cycle.
The green band would approximate
40 percent of the cycle.
2-107
SIGNALS
2-108
2-61.
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
COORDINATION
AND
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
o
8*o
vO
g*o
VO
g«o
VO
g*o
VO
s
Cl,
VO
I
VO
VO
VO
VO
o
VO
-C
CL
£
T3
gvO'sf^f
Cl m
<—
i
ov
« m m n
O
SO'
3 ^
CJ
r-
O
B>
g ^
!z
sc &
Ov
OO
<D
o
^ O’O
5oS
OcoO
&>H
oc
<Do
>%z
<0
h3
c3o
£
>
C/5
S3O
Oo
r-
<D
bo
C3Co
S3U
<D
T3
<L>3
DC
-
punoqjsBg
o
>o
o
>0
o
>0
u
o
U
U-iO
o
10
o
>0
2-109
FIGURE
2-62.
GENERALIZED
TIME-SPACE
DIAGRAM
-
VETERANS
DRIVE
New signals are recommended on Veterans Drive at Hospital Gade.
Because
these signals do not
"fit"
into the time-space pattern,
they should operate
on two distinct offsets:
one from 10 am to
6 pm which would favor eastbound
traffic;
and the other,
from 6 pm to
10 am, which would favor westbound
traffic.
With the "waterside one-way loop"
scheme, westbound traffic would
move at all
times,
and the offsets should be set for eastbound traffic
flow.
Inproving Raphune Hill traffic flow .
Much of the traffic congestion
along Weymouth Rhymer Highway/Route
38
results from the intersection delays
at Centerline Road and in the Fort Mylner and Four Winds Plaza areas.
These
conflicts,
and the
"shock waves"
that they create, will be reduced by the
recommended intersection improvements.
However,
the long,
steep grade on
Raphune Hill will
still pose a problem,
especially for trucks.
The need to improve traffic flow across Raphune Hill will
remain.
Con-
tinued growth in the area,
and the development of a new Government Center
between Charlotte Amalie and Ft.
Mylner, will
increase traffic pressures
along this
route.
Accordingly,
plans have evolved over the years
for a new
four-lane Raphune Hill Bypass.
This Bypass would commence at a widened
Lovers Lane and follow a new alignment north of the existing highway.
It
would join Weymouth Rhymer Highway to the west of Route
39.
The Bypass
initially was developed as a four-lane
road at a cost of about $30
to $40
million at 1988 levels.
Because of these costs,
a two lane Bypass with
passing lanes
is now being considered — at a probable cost of about $20
to
$25 million.
The Bypass would solve the Raphune Hill traffic problem.
But it would
place increased pressures on Weymouth Rhymer Highway/Route
38 between Route
39 and Four Winds Plaza.
To avoid transferring the congestion problem,
it
would be necessary to widen Weymouth Rhymer Highway/Route
38
to four lanes
between its junction with the Bypass and Four Winds Plaza,
further adding to
the costs.
A more attainable option
is to improve the existing Weymouth Rhymer
Highway by selectively reducing grades and curves,
and by adding passing
lanes.
This concept appears
to be more realistic from a cost standpoint,
and
it would maintain a better continuity of road capacity.
It would require
careful study to maintain traffic flow during construction.
Further
engineering study of this potentially cost-effective option is recommended.
Main Street Pedestrian Mall .
A pedestrian-only mall on Main Street was
proposed
in 1974.
The mall would extend from Garden Street to Market Square
integrating Emancipation Park,
the
retail district,
and the Square.
At present,
Main Street
is used by taxis carrying tourists to or from
the shops,
circulating traffic searching
for a parking space,
and as an
alternative
route through town.
In view of
the limited space
for traffic
circulation and taxi-waiting areas,
it
is believed that Main Street should
remain open to traffic at present.
However,
after Veterans Drive
is
revamped,
traffic circulation
is improved,
and suitable taxi loading and
2-110
discharge areas are provided,
implementation of the Mall should be
re-
evaluated.
2.3.3
Implementation
2.3.3(a)
Suggested priorities
Ideally,
the various improvements should be scheduled
to:
(1)
alleviate
the critical waterfront congestion as soon as possible;
(2)
avoid transfer-
ring problems to other locations;
and
(3)
achieve relatively uniform annual
expenditures.
Achieving these objectives would call
for improving the
Veterans Drive-Long Bay Road-Frenchman Bay Road route
first,
followed by
improvements to other
roads.
This idealized sequence,
however, would be difficult to achieve
in
practice.
First,
it will take time to get agreement on the Veterans Drive
improvement,
to develop updated plans,
and to initiate construction.
Second,
there
is an important need to follow-through on currently programmed
activities.
Getting improvements implemented will enhance the credibility of
the DRW,
and help build consensus for the more costly treatments.
Accordingly,
first priority should be given to the immediate action
improvements,
followed by the scheduled widening of Sugar Estate/Centerline
Roads,
and related intersection treatments.
Next,
attention should be turned
to widening the waterfront highway system.
Finally,
improvements to allevi-
ate the Raphune Hill grades and curves should be implemented.
Necessary
planning for a scaled down waterfront highway system should start at once.
The suggested construction sequence
is as follows:
Stage
I:
(years 0-1) — The early action intersection improvements along
Centerline Road at Weymouth Rhymer Highway and Frenchman Bay Road
junctions,
and the Long Bay Road-Lovers Lane junctions should be imple-
mented.
Total costs would approximate $250,000.
Planning should be
started on the Veterans Drive improvement.
Stage
II:
(years 2-4) — The second stage calls for the widening of
Centerline and Sugar Estate Roads;
intersection improvements at the
Centerline Road/Long Bay Road,
Centerline Road/Weymouth Rhymer Highway/
Sugar Estate Road,
Sugar Estate Road/Lovers Lane,
Route 38/Route
32
(Ft.
Mylner area),
Route 38/Four Winds Shopping Center junctions,
and on
Veterans Drive, west of Charlotte Amalie.
Construction costs are
estimated at $2,955,000.
These improvements would produce an improved route into Charlotte Amalie
from Four Winds Plaza via Weymouth Rhymer Highway and Sugar Estate Road.
Stage III:
(years 5-10) — Roadway improvements along Veterans Drive,
Long Bay Road,
and Frenchman Bay Road should be implemented in this
stage,
along with expansion of the Lovers Lane/Veterans Drive intersec-
2-111
tion.
This will dramatically improve movement along the waterfront.
Costs are estimated at about $19,275,000
to $24,275,000.
Stage
IV:
(years 11-12) — Improvement of the existing Weymouth Rhymer
Highway
(or alternatively,
developing the Raphune Hill Bypass) would be
done after the other improvements have been implemented.
This improve-
ment has been deferred because:
(1)
other improvements along Weymouth
Rhymer Highway will help alleviate many of the current problems;
(2)
it
is not basic
to alleviating congestion in central Charlotte Amalie;
and
(3) very high costs are involved.
From a cost standpoint,
improving the
existing road appears preferable,
provided that traffic can be main-
tained durin
construction.
2.3.3(b)
Planning implications
The
recommended improvement program reflects many of the Virgin Islands
Government's objectives and proposals.
However,
by reducing the scale of the
Charlotte Amalie waterfront improvements,
it produces a more affordable
program.
The current funds received from FHWA for the three islands approximates
$5 million per year.
The Virgin Islands Government,
through a 13-cent/gallon
gas tax and other
road fund revenues,
generates about $6 million per year.
The recommended 10-year program would average about $2.3
to $2.8 million
annually.
As the benefits accruing from its implementation become visible,
the local gas
tax could be
increased.
Such increases also will be desirable
to keep pace with inflation.
The suggested sequence of improvements
is generally consistent with the
DPW's current
road program.
However,
an improved Raphune Hill Bypass
is
deferred because of costs,
complexity,
and relative
importance;
here again
the feasibility of less costly improvements should be explored.
Discussions with DRW Roads and Highway Engineering staff
in March,
1988,
indicated that the Government
is considering building the Raphune Hill Bypass
before widening and/or relocating Veterans Drive.
This poses two major
problems
relative to its desirability:
(1)
special
funding for the $20 to
$30 million improvement would be needed;
and
(2)
the project would introduce
a new westbound bottleneck at the Lovers Lane-Veterans Drive junction.
The DPW plans to improve Bolongo Bay Road/Bovoni Road between 1990 and
1992.
This
is a desired project,
since
it would provide a viable alternate
route to Weymouth Rhymer Highway to eastern parts of
St.
Thomas,
and it would
enable bus service to be provided along this
road.
However,
in view of the pressing needs to allocate funds to relieve
traffic congestion
in Charlotte Amalie,
it may be desirable to defer the
planned improvements of Mandal and Black Point Roads,
also planned for 1990-
1992.
2-112
2.3.3(c)
Implementation cost estimates
Order of magnitude estimates of construction costs
for the
recommended
roadway and traffic improvements
(1988 dollars)
are given in Table 2-14.
These estimates are based upon the DPW's cost estimates
for specific
projects,
and on unit values suggested by this agency.
In some cases,
it was
necessary to adjust certain estimates based upon expected project changes.
The overall program would cost about $28
to $38 million,
assuming
reconstruction of the existing Weymouth Rhymer Highway.
These costs would
escalate
to about $43
to $48 million with a two-lane Raphune Hill Bypass.
-
The early action improvements would cost about $250,000; most of
these costs would be
for traffic signals.
-
The
recommended improvements
(excluding Raphune Hill) would cost
about $23
to $28 million depending upon the specific option chosen
for widening Veterans Drive
in the vicinity of Fort Christian.
-
A two-lane Raphune Hill Bypass would cost another $20 million,
whereas improving the existing road might be done
for between $5 and
$10 million.
2.3.3(d)
Implementation actions
The logical next step
is to translate the proposals into reality.
This
calls for obtaining community consensus,
securing needed funding,
acquiring
needed rights of way,
and preparing detailed engineering plans.
(The Virgin
Islands Government's resources should be focused on implementing the specific
traffic improvement projects which would relieve Charlotte Amalie's traffic
congestion)
.
Discussion and dialogue on these proposals
is both desirable and
necessary.
But
it
is even more important to act quickly and decisively to
improve mobility in Charlotte Amalie
in the years ahead.
2.4
PARKING IN CHARLOTTE AMALIE
This section contains an updated parking plan and program for downtown
Charlotte Amalie.
The plan integrates downtown and park-and-ride parking
actions into an overall program that complements the traffic and transit
improvements.
The parking program and its associated policy addresses these basic
questions.
What are the present parking problems and needs,
and how best can
they be resolved?
How much additional parking should be provided and where
should
it be located?
What parking rates should be
set
for on- and off-
street parking?
How should parking management and enforcement be improved?
2-113
TABLE 2-14.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
( PRELIMINARY ) CONSTRUCTION COST
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ROADWAYS
SIGNALS
TOTAL
SOURCE
Stage
I - Early Action
1-4
Street direction changes
$75,000
$75,000
(1)
7
Long Bay Rd/Lovers Lane
(2)
8
Channelize Long Bay Rd
75,000
75,000
(1)
9
Channelize Weymouth
5,000
75,000
80,000
(1)
Rhymer Hwy at Centerline Rd
10
Mafolie Rd flasher
20,000
20,000
Subtotal
5,000
245,000
250,000
Stage
II - Short tern
5
Expand Long Bay Rd/
Centerline Rd jet
150,000
(4)
150,000
(1)
7,9,10
Widen Centerline Rd
&
Sugar Estate Rd to
3
lanes;
expand Lovers
Lane
jet
2,000,000
2,000,000
(3)
8
Expand Weymouth Rhymer
Hwy/Centerline Rd jet
11
Expand Weymouth Rhymer
Highway jets
50,000
(4)
150,000
(1)
Ft.
Mylner
100,000
75,000
175,000
(1)
Four Winds-South
20,000
-
20,000
Four Winds-Main
150,000
-
150,000
12
Dual
right lane at
Sub-base
100,000
—
100,000
(1)
13
Right turn lane on
Veterans Drive
50,000
—
50,000
(1)
14
Signal coordination -
16 intersections
160,000
160,000
(1)
Subtotal
Stage III - Short tern
2,620,000
235,000
2,855,000
1,2
4-Lane Veterans Dr:
10,000,000/
10,000,000/
(2)
Tobold - Lovers Lane
3
Expand Veterans Dr/
15,000,000
15,000,000
(2)
Lovers Lane jet
200,000
75,000
275,000
4
Widen Long Bay Rd
5,000,000
-
5,000,000
(3)
6
Widen Frenchman Bay Rd
to 3&4 lanes
4,000,000
—
4,000,000
(2)
Subtotal
19,200,000/
24,200,000
75,000 19,275,000/
24,275,000
2-114
TABLE 2-14.
(Continued)
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
KBIMYS
SIGNALS
TOTAL
SOURCE
Stage IV - Future
101/102 Raphune Hill Bypass/
Lovers Lane improvement
(2+ lane bypass)
102 Alt Improve existing
Weymouth Rhymer Hwy
Subtotal
20 , 000,000
5,000,000/
10,000,000
5,000,000/
20 , 000,000
20,000,000
(3)
5,000,000/
(5)
10 , 000,000
5,000,000/
20 , 000,000
Estimated Grand Total
(With
2 lane Raphune Hill
Bypass)
41,825,000/
555,000 42,380,000/
46,825,000
47,380,000
(With Improved Weymouth
Rhymer Hwy)
26,825,000/
36,825,000
555,000 27,380,000/
37,380,000
Sources and notes;
(1)
H.
S.
Levinson and TSC based upon $75,000 traffic signal and $100,000
channelization costs per intersection.
DRW estimates about $200,000
per intersection for channelization and signal ization.
(2)
Estimated based upon $30,000,000 construction cost for Waterfront
Highway
(50% of $60,000,000)
estimate
for improvement from Windward
Passage to Raphune Hill
(east).
(3)
DPW or URS estimate.
(4)
Included in Early Action Proposals
(5)
The $5,0Q0,0QQ/$10,000,000
is a "target" estimate.
Detailed
engineering analyses of alternative investment levels
is needed.
2-115
Findings and recommendations are based upon site observations and a
thorough review of previous parking studies.
These include:
(1)
The Charlotte Amalie Parking Study prepared by the Virgin Islands
Planning Office,
July 1974.
(2)
The Gannett Fleming Parking and Traffic Management Program Technical
Report ,
November
1982.
(3)
The Urbitran Associates Report on the Implementation of a Paid Parking
Program in Downtown Charlotte Amalie ,
October 1986.
Data and analysis contained in these documents were reviewed and assessed
based on field observations conducted during early 1988.
2.4.1
Existing Conditions
Downtown Charlotte Amalie's parking problems and potentials reflect its
development pattern,
street system,
and current parking practices.
Develop-
ment
is dense,
space
for parking
is limited,
and traffic
is constrained.
Collectively,
these factors result in both traffic and parking congestion.
2.4.1(a)
Parking supply and use
For parking analysis purposes, downtown Charlotte Amalie includes the
area bounded by Bjerge Gade on the east,
the Windward Passage Hotel on the
west,
Back Street on the north,
and Veterans Drive on the south.
The 1986
Urbitran study found 875 legal on-street spaces and 570 off-street spaces
(450 at the Fort Christian parking lot,
and 120 at the Emile Griffith Park
parking lot)
in this area.
The 1974 study found about 1,750 legal spaces
in
a slightly larger area, with a peak parking accumulation of about 1,600
(91
percent)
from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm.
Most legal curb spaces have neither parking charges nor time restric-
tions.
The Government parking lot at Fort Christian charges $.50 per hour;
consequently,
the curb spaces are occupied by early arriving,
all-day
parkers,
and the Fort Christian parking lot
is used by short-term parkers at
about 70-80 percent of its capacity.
Illegal curb parking is common along
many streets.
2.4.1(b)
Problems
The existing parking problems can be summarized as follows:
(1)
The present parking supply is inadequate to meet the needs of workers,
shoppers,
and visitors.
(2)
The demand for
free, unrestricted curb parking space vastly exceeds the
supply.
Curb spaces are preferred by all motorists.
These spaces are
2-116
quickly occupied by workers parking as close
to their place of employ-
ment as possible,
leaving little,
if any,
curb space
for shoppers,
visitors,
and people with business
in town.
Consequently,
there
is a
prolonged search for curb parking that results
in excessive cruising
along Main Street,
Back Street,
and Veterans Drive.
This cruising adds
to the already serious downtown traffic congestion.
A situation in which parkers use on-street spaces for long-term parking
and the main off-street lot
for short-term parking
is not desirable,
because
it forces shoppers to park in peripheral
locations.
The
free
on-street parking,
therefore,
limits the attractiveness and utility of
the well-located Fort Christian parking lot.
(3)
Inadequate enforcement results
in illegal
or double parking that further
adds to traffic congestion.
(4)
Parking detracts from the environment in the Emancipation Park area.
When this area
is improved,
parking spaces will be
lost,
and parking
deficiencies will
increase.
2.4.1(c)
Efforts to alleviate problems
Alleviating these problems calls
for cooperative public and private
sector actions
that:
better rationalize the management of existing spaces in
terms of time-limit regulations,
parking rates,
and enforcement;
selectively
upgrade and expand the downtown parking space supply;
and progressively
develop peripheral park-and-ride facilities.
The importance of paid parking,
both on- and off-street,
is fully
recognized by both the public and private sectors.
The Charlotte Amalie
Traffic Committee indicates that paid parking
is the single most important
treatment
for improving conditions
in downtown Charlotte Amalie.
Urbitran parking study .
In an effort to address the parking problems,
the Department of Public Works sponsored the 1986 Urbitran parking study.
This study recommended:
(1)
changes in the existing parking arrangement;
(2)
establishment of a paid parking zone
in downtown Charlotte Amalie;
(3) use of
PARCARDS as a means of paying for parking;
and
(4)
a one-hour time limit for
on-street parking.
These recommendations were designed to increase the
supply of short-term space along curbs and encourage long-term parking at the
Fort Christian and Emile Griffith Park parking lots.
Urbitran estimated the
program would generate annual
revenues of $1.5 million, with an annual cost
of about $700,000.
The overall plan
is shown in Figure 2-63.
Parking supply .
The specific Urbitran proposals included the following
changes to the existing parking arrangements.
(1)
Convert the three taxi
spaces at the bay in front of Sebastians and
Barclays Bank
(between Tolbod Gade and Raadet's Gade)
to passenger
vehicle
spaces.
2-117
CO
a
0)ou
3o
CO
w
2-118
FIGURE
2-63.
URBITRAN
PROPOSED
PARKING
PLAN
-
CHARLOTTE
(2)
Replace nine passenger vehicle spaces at the south end of Raadet's Gade
with approximately six taxi
spaces.
(3)
Replace the taxi
stand and drop-off area on the west side of Raadet's
Gade and Veterans Drive with a commercial loading and unloading zone.
(4)
Remove approximately 18 vehicle spaces on Main Street between Guttets
Gade and Raadet's Gade to allow easier vehicle flow on Main Street.
The
taxi parking spaces on Main Street may be removed by the Department of
Public Works
to further alleviate traffic congestion.
If this occurs,
20 spaces should be removed from the Emancipation Garden parking lot
(between Tolbod Gade and the fire station)
to allow space
for
12
taxis.
(5)
Restripe the Fort Christian parking lot
to accommodate
500 vehicles,
and
install ticket dispensing machines
(spitters).
(6)
Redesign and pave the parking lot behind Emile Griffith Park to accom-
modate
120 long-term parkers.
(This lot will be part of the paid
parking system utilizing a ticket spitter to distribute tickets and a
lot attendant to collect
fees).
The proposed revisions provide approximately 50 additional off-street
all-day parking spaces and 45 fewer on-street spaces
for a total of 1,450
spaces
(620 off-street and 830 on-street spaces).
Parking in downtown
Charlotte Amalie would be allowed only on designated streets and in the two
paid parking lots.
Parking in other areas would be prohibited,
and would
constitute
a violation.
Within the PARCARD zone,
on-street parking would be
limited to one-hour intervals;
off-street parking at the Emile Griffith Park
and Fort Christian parking lots would be allowed between the hours of 8:00 am
and 6:00 pm on weekdays,
for a maximum duration of
10 hours.
Parking rates .
The Urbitran plan recommends an on-street parking charge
of $0.50 per hour with vehicles limited to one hour at any location,
a charge
comparable to the
rate at
the Fort Christian parking lot.
Thus,
parking on
the street for an entire day would cost between $4.00-$5.00
(for
8
to 10
hours)
and would require moving
th<= car and purchasing a new PARCARD every
hour to avoid a parking violation.
Long-term parking would be encouraged at the
two off-street lots by
offering reduced rates for
regular long-term parkers.
Rates would be set at
$44.00 per month for an all-day parking pass.
Individuals not purchasing
monthly tickets would pay $0.50 per hour.
Therefore,
all-day parking for
monthly ticket holders would cost only $2.00,
as compared with $4.00-$5.00
per day for those who park on-street or pay on a daily basis for off-street
i
If the Department of Public Works determines that on-street parking
time limits should be increased to two or three hours,
the appropriate number
of one hour cards at $0.50 per car could be used to accommodate this
revision.
If two hours are allowed,
an all day parker would have to move the
car and purchase a new card every two hours.
2-119
parking.
(To encourage monthly users,
parkers purchasing a $44.00 monthly
ticket should be assured a parking place at the lot of their choice.)
Signage .
The plan recommends a series of signs that would conform to
the guidelines
in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
These signs
would inform motorists that they have entered a paid parking area,
assist
in
the proper use of PARCARDS,
define appropriate parking restrictions,
and
identify vendors of PARCARDS.
PARCARDS .
The Virgin Island PARCARD,
patterned after PARCARDS used in
Singapore and Tel Aviv, would be designed as a
3" by
8"
ticket as shown in
Figure 2-64.
It would contain three major items of printed information:
month of the year; day of the month;
and a series of space-time indicators,
showing successive expiration times.
The PARCARD also would include a serial
number on the bottom of the
card,
boxes to fill
in the user's license plate
number,
and a one-hour parking designation.
Writing in the license plate number on the front of
the card would
discourage the stealing of PARCARDS.
Only the car bearing the plate number
written on the PARCARD would be able to use
it legally.
In addition,
the
serial and license plate numbers would be used for enforcement purposes.
Upon issuing a parking summons,
the enforcement agent would record the time,
date,
and license plate number,
and the serial number of the PARCARD used.
This procedure would minimize
the possibility of violations being dismissed
in court.
The serial number would identify the PARCARD involved in the
violation and the date of violation,
and would have to be produced as proof
by a parker claiming he was not guilty.
The back of the card would provide
necessary instructions
for proper use and the user's address.
The unused
space on the back of the card would be used for advertisements.
Tickets .
As part of the PARCARD plan,
the existing traffic summons
ticket would be revised as shown in Figure
2-65.
The key changes are:
(1)
adding a parking violation box that identifies the time,
date,
specific
parking violations,
and PARCARD number;
and
(2)
removing the address of the
court.
Contemplated Department of Public Works actions .
The Department of
Public Works
is hoping to implement the first phase of the Urbitran PARCARD
program by late
1988.
The PARCARD is preferable
to parking meters,
since the
Historic District
in central Charlotte Amalie precludes meters
(which were
proposed in 1974 and 1982).
The Department of Public Works
is proposing a $25 to $50
fine
for
violators; violators would be unable to re-register their cars until tickets
were paid.
The Department would like to have the first violation for each
driver tried in the traffic court,
and the second as a writ arrest.
The
Department supports,
in principle,
the Denver Boot,
but there are no definite
plans
to implement
it.
The Department of Public Works has suggested that fringe parking be
developed at the hospital parking lot
to the east of Charlotte Amalie center,
2-120
V.
p<
a
1.
ircaird
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
1 1 :00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
|
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
|
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
|
6:00
Month
1 Hour Parking
1
JAN
1
FEB
|
j MAR ||.p»
|| MY
|
j
JUN
j
|
1
JUL
ll AUG
SEP Ilocrll,slOV
DEC
I
Date
/"p
®(
®<s
®(
PL
)@®®®®©
i
D®®@©®®
|
§)®@@@@® §
AT6N0
I MINI
|
Source: URBITRAN ASSOCIATES
FIGURE
2-64.
PARCARD SAMPLE
2-121
Source
:
TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Di viiion
of:
TRAFFIC
1
I Si. Uiomai
ft
St
Jofin
[
I Si.
Croix
CASE NO
Mq
A TH E-UNDERSIGN ED SOLEMNLY
STATES THAT
( )u
the
day
of
19
.
. ...
al
M
.
Name
Address
(Please Print
t
Birth Dale
Sac
Driver's
License No
Did unlawfully
(park)
(operate)
Motor Vehicle (Reg.
No.
)
State
Make
Yr
Body Type
Color
I'pon
a
public highway, namely
at
(location)
Ihd
then and
there commit
lite following
offcaistfs):
M't-.EPI N'G
.
in.p.lt.
in
in p h
zone
n K IX :K
I . CSS
N KGU C ENT
(DRIVING:
l
( >'11 IKK VIOLATIONS:
PARKING:
AM
Tune
ru
Dale e* 0«e*ae
*«c«
at Occurrence
D No Parking
Overtime
0 No Card
Parcard +:
Ynit arc notified that the nnder.tKned will file j
i timjiluiiii m tlii\ Conn
liurxuiK 'on with the offeme set forth alnne
WITNESSES:
ISignature ami nlenlifii alion of officer
nr other eiiniiilaiiiaiil)
Sworn
lo
Itrforr me
lliis
flay
of
19...
NOTICE TO VIOLATOR:
Read the back cf this Summon*
carefully
Bring Summons with
you.
Court appearance
.
.
. day
of
19. ....
at
M.
?
Road Q Dry
Surface D Wet
1
1 Business
f l industrial
........
Clear
VuibiUty
O
s
Q
Li({ht
Area O School
r—
j Property
Damage
c
(3
Traffic Q Medium
Residential
Damage
—
1
Personal
U Irxjury
Heavy
fl Rural
SUMMONS
URBITRAN ASSOCIATES
FIGURE
2-65.
MODIFIED TRAFFIC SUMMONS
2-122
and at the Emile Griffith Park environs
to the west.
The lots would be
linked to the center by shuttle buses and vans;
however,
the details of this
decade-old proposal
remain to be
resolved.
2.4.2
Parking Alternatives
The parking choices facing the Charlotte Amalie community include:
(1)
charging for on-street parking in the central area;
(2)
expanding the
downtown parking supply by building a deck or garage on the Fort Christian
parking lot site;
(3) developing fringe park-and-ride areas on the east and
west sides of town;
and
(4) providing shuttle van or bus services to the
park-and-ride lots.
Each of these parking improvement options has been
analyzed in terms of its costs,
community and user acceptance,
and effects on
traffic and parking conditions.
2.4.2(a)
Charging for on-street parking
There
is general acceptance by public agencies and many private sector
groups of the need to charge
for on-street parking to better ration the use
of scarce street space in downtown Charlotte Amalie.
The parking charges,
depending on the
fee structure chosen,
could make
it more costly for workers
to park on-street than to park
in the Fort Christian parking lot,
thus
encouraging the use of the lot by all-day parkers and freeing curb space
for
visitors and shoppers.
This,
in turn, would result
in less cruising.
Workers also would have the option of using improved bus services.
A PARCARD zone was suggested to the Department of Public Works
in 1987,
and,
reportedly,
is
in the process of implementation.
The financial
impacts
of this zone were analyzed, with two modifications to the original assump-
tions:
(1)
excluding the spaces
in the Emile Griffith Park parking lot from
the zone because of their distance from the center of town;
and
(2)
assuming
a 75 percent
revenue realization factor
for on-street parking revenues
(versus the 100 percent figure used by Urbitran)
to reflect possible
revenue
losses.
The results are summarized in Tables 2-15 through 2-18.
The
detailed income and cost assumptions are contained in Appendices D and E.
Highlights of the parking analyses are indicated below.
-
Total annual
revenue
is estimated at $1,086,000
(Table 2-15).
-
The monthly revenue at the Fort Christian parking lot would ap-
proximate $24,000 as compared to $18,000 at present.
-
Anticipated annual operating costs would approximate $552,020
(Table
2-16).
About $419,340 would be
for
the PARCARD program,
and $132,680
for the
lot operation.
-
Estimated first year start-up or capital costs would approximate
$105,000
(Table 2-17).
About $25,000 would be
for the PARCARD
program,
and $80,000
for upgrading the Fort Christian parking lot.
Subsequent annual capital costs would approximate $2,000.
2-123
TABLE 2-15.
PROJECTED INCOME FROM MODIFIED PARCARD
PROGRAM AND GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT
PARCARD
ON-STREET
PARKING LOT
OFF-STREET
TOTAL
Number of spaces
830
500 1
1,330
Annual Parking Revenue
$796, 000 2
$289,000
$1,086,000
Per Space
$960
$578
$816
Source:
Adapted from Urbitran Associates,
Inc.
Report,
Table
1,
[Reference 24].
See Appendix
E.
1 Excludes 120 spaces at Emile Griffith Park parking lot.
Adjusted for 75%
realization
2-124
TABLE 2-16.
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF
PARCARD PROGRAM AND GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT
1. Personnel
A.
Enforcement
$
B.
Benefits
(30%)
$
Subtotal
$
2. Administrative
A.
Professional Services
$
(Monitoring,
Evaluation,
Education,
Distribution)
B. Materials and Supplies
PARCARDS,
Tickets
$
Fuel
, Maintenance
$
Uniforms,
etc.
$
Subtotal
$
TOTAL
$
PARCARD
Parking Lot
On-Street
Off-Street
Total
330
500
1,330
Spaces
Spaces
Spaces
118,000
$
93,000
$
211,000
45,000
$
35,400
$
80,400
163,000
$ 128,400
$
291,400
103,100
$ 103,100
148, 740 1
$
2,28c
1
$
151, Q2Q 2
3,000
$
1,000
$
4,000
1,500
$
1,000
$
2,500
256,340
$
4,280
$
175,020
419,340
$ 132,680
$
552,020
Source:
Second year breakdown estimated from Urbitran Associates report
analysis,
[Reference
23].
See Appendix
E.
See Appendix
F.
2-125
TABLE 2-17
.
ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR START-UP
(CAPITAL)
COSTS'*
PARCARD PROGRAM AND GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT
PARCARD
PARKING LOT
On-Street
Off-Street
Total
EQUIPMENT
Tri-Wheel Scooter
$ 12,000
$ 12,000
Two-Way Radio
$
7,500
$
7,500
Ticket Spitter Assembly
$
25,000
$ 25,000
Toll Booth Assembly
$
20,000
$ 20,000
IMPROVEMENTS
Parking Lot Equipment
$
25,000
$ 25,000
Installation
General Site Preparation
$
5,000
$
5,000;
Signage and Striping
$
5,000
$
5,000
$
5,000
Total
$ 24,500
$
80,000
$104,500
Source:
Breakdown estimated from Urbitran Associates
report,
[Reference
23].
See Appendix
E.
4 $500
in second year.
5 $1,500
in second year.
2-126
-
The overall program would produce a net operating income of about
$ 531,980
(Table
2-18 ).
The PARCARDS would generate about
$ 377 , 460 ,
and the Fort Christian parking lot,
about
$ 154
, 520 .
These financial
returns from the PARCARD program in conjunction with the
improved Fort Christian parking lot would occur only if the program were
vigorously enforced.
Unless a high level of enforcement were
realized,
the
program actually could result
in a deficit.
An alternative to PARCARDS
is a vehicle licensing scheme
for central
Charlotte Amalie,
in which only vehicles with special license plates would be
allowed to enter the area.
Such a scheme would apply within the same general
limits as the PARCARD,
but
it would exclude Veterans Drive,
and Veterans
Drive access to the Fort Christian parking lot.
Its strength
is
its apparent
simplicity to install and enforce;
but
it has a major weakness:
it fails to
shift long-term parkers from the curb to off-street.
An alternative similar to the licensing scheme would be to permit only
those vehicles with special stickers to park in central Charlotte Amalie
in
the same general area where
the PARCARD would apply.
The stickers could be
sold on a periodic basis
for a high
fee.
This system would generate parking
revenues and would be easy to enforce;
however,
its weakness,
like the
licensing scheme, would be that
it would not shift the long-term parkers to
the fringe areas and would not free the limited parking spaces
in downtown
Charlotte Amalie
for shoppers and visitors.
Thus,
the
two options above
should only be considered if
it
is not possible to implement the PARCARD
plan.
2.4.2(b)
Expanding central area parking
There
is a need to provide more off-street parking in the center of
Charlotte Amalie.
The additional parking would reduce pressures on curb
space,
serve business and employment growth,
and replace
the 100 spaces lost
when development occurs
in the Emancipation Park environs.
But space
for additional parking
is limited
in the city center.
The
only available space
is the Fort Christian parking lot where a structure
might be built,
or south of Veterans Drive as part of a landfill
for a new
waterfront highway.
The Fort Christian parking lot
is well located in terms of street access
and proximity to employment,
especially if a four-lane Veterans Drive
is
developed east of Forts Pladsen.
Consequently,
plans have been proposed
periodically to build a parking structure on this
site,
possibly as part of
an integrated commercial development.
Doubling the capacity of the present
For example,
correspondence of Dale Greblick,
Brian Murphy,
and Jay
Greblick, dated July 15 ,
1983 ,
to Verne Callwood of the DFW,
and dated July
21 ,
1987
,
to Senator Cain Magrass.
2-127
TABLE 2-18.
COST - INCOME SUMMARY
PARCARD PROGRAM AND GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT
ITEM
PARCARD
ON-STREET
PARKING LOT
OFF-STREET
TOTAL
Gross Revenue
$796,800
$289,200
$1 ,086,000
Operating Costs
(Typical Year)
$419,340
$132,680
$
552,020
Net Operating
Income
$377,460
$154,520
$
531,980
Start Up Costs
First year
$ 24,500
$ 80,000
$
104,500
Net Revenue
First Year
$352,960
$ 74,520
$
427,480
Maintenance Costs
Subsequent Years
$
1,000
$
1,000
$
1,500
Net Revenue
Second Year
$376,460
$153,520
$
530,480
Source:
Computed from Tables 2-15,
2-16,
2-17.
2-128
facility would increase
the downtown parking supply by a third,
from about
1,500
to 2,000 parking spaces.
Accordingly,
preliminary financial analyses were made
for the parking
expansion scenarios:
(1)
adding a 500-space parking deck;
and
(2)
adding a
300-space parking deck.
The analyses were based on the following assump-
tions.
-
Development cost of a parking deck at $12,500 per
space.
(The V.I.
Department of Public Works and V.I.
Planning Offices have used
$14,400 as the development cost of
a garage
space;
U.S.
experience
suggests $10,000 to $12,000 per space).
This cost would apply to
spaces on both levels of the deck
(i.e.,
the ground level
spaces and
the spaces on the raised deck).
-
Revenue bond financing with bond issue costs of about 25 percent of
development costs
(current U.S.
experience).
-
30-year debt service period at
8 percent interest.
-
The additional
spaces would generate an annual net revenue of about
$320 per
space.
This
is based upon the anticipated productivity of
the existing spaces with the PARCARD program in effect.
The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 2-19 and 2-20.
Neither
garage development option would be financially feasible at the existing
parking rate charges,
even when revenues from PARCARDS are available.
The
1,000 space lot and deck would have an shortfall of $1,064,000.
When offset
by PARCARD revenues,
the shortfall of $636,000 still would be
a significant
amount.
The 800
space lot and deck would produce an annual shortfall of
$567,600;
this would be reduced to $140,000 when offset by PARCARD revenues.
Both garages are more costly to develop than the Government can afford at
present.
Therefore,
the Virgin Islands Government should not develop these
facilities unless private sector or general community support
is obtained.
One possibility for shared public and private development would be
to
establish a benefit assessment district
in the central area.
An annual
assessment of $150,000
to $250,000 would offset deficits
for
a smaller
facility,
and provide
a small
reserve.
Because
revenue bonds
require
a 1.3
to 1.5 coverage
ratio,
the Government would have
to pledge support of the
bonds.
Alternatively,
a parking deck or garage could be built entirely by
the private sector as part of
a multi-use development.
If additional
surface parking space were incorporated in the Veterans
Drive expansion,
the need
for a garage would be obviated.
2.4.2(c)
Park-and-ride
Park-and-ride proposals have been discussed
for over
a decade.
The goal
has been to intercept motorists on the eastern and western perimeters of
2-129
TABLE 2-19 .
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
FOR TWO-LEVEL GARAGE WITH 1,000 SPACES
(PARKING DECK OVER GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT)
COST
Per
SPACE
1,000
SPACES
1. Development Cost
$ 12,500
$ 12,500,000
2.
Bond Issue Costs
(.25 of
1.)
$
3,125
$
3,125,000
3.
Total Bond Issue
$ 15,625
$ 15,625,000
4. Approximate Annual
Debt Service
(30 Years
@
8%)
(Capital Recovery
Factor =
.088827)
$
1,388
$
1,387,922
5. Annual Net Revenue
Existing Lot Spaces
Additional
500 Spaces
$
$
162,000
162,000
$
324,000
6.
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
0.23
7.
Estimated Annual Shortfall
$
1,063,922
8.
Shortfall with PARCARD revenues accounted for
$
635,922
2-130
TABLE 2-20.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR A 600—SPACE, TWO-LEVEL GARAGE AND 200 SURFACE SPACES
COST
PER
SPACE
600
SPACES
1.
Development Cost
$12,500
$7 ,500,000
2.
Bond Issue Costs
( .25 of
1.
)
$
3,125
$1 ,875,000
3.
Total Bond Issue
$15,625
$9 ,375,000
4. Annual Debt
Service
(30 Years
@
8%)
$ 1,388
$
826,753
5. Annual Net Revenue
Existing Lot Spaces
Additional
300 Spaces
$
$
162,000
97,200
6.
Debt Service Coverage
Ratio
$
259,200
0.31
7.
Estimated Annual
Shortfall
$
567,553
8.
Shortfall with PARCARD revenue accounted for
$
139,553
2-131
central Charlotte Amalie and transport them via bus or van to the center.
Recent Department of Public Works proposals call
for a 240 space lot
in the
Emile Griffith Park environs and another 200 spaces
in the hospital parking
area.
Van service would be provided between these areas and the town center.
Park-and-ride works best
in large metropolitan areas with intensive
downtown office development,
high downtown parking costs,
and fast transit
service to the city center.
These prerequisites do not exist in Charlotte
Amalie.
The central area employment density is
low,
parking
is
free or
inexpensive,
and transit service must pass over congested city streets.
Moreover,
the scale of the proposed park-and-ride
lots
is too small
to
support additional transit service.
However,
there are benefits
to be achieved by expanding and upgrading
peripheral parking facilities,
and encouraging commuters to ride existing
transit service or walk
to their destinations.
2 . 4.3
Recommended Parking Program
The following specific actions should be taken to improve parking in
central Charlotte Amalie.
They are described in their general order of
implementation
.
-
A two-hour maximum time limit
for on-street parking in central
Charlotte Amalie should be implemented immediately.
Parking duration
at some locations could be limited to one hour or less.
The
imposition of time limits should be accompanied by intensified
enforcement,
and improved ticket adjudication procedures.
-
The PARCARD plan proposed by Urbitran should be fully implemented by
1990.
However,
it should exclude the Emile Griffith Park parking
lot.
The program should produce an annual surplus of about $600,000.
This surplus should be used to upgrade existing facilities,
to offset
the transit operating deficit,
and to provide a reserve
for possible
future parking facility expansion.
Parking time limits should be
enforced to ensure parking turnover.
Back-to-back parking segments
by the same car should be prohibited.
-
The Emile Griffith Park parking lot should be resurfaced and expanded
to about 240 spaces by 1990.
It should permit free parking to
encourage usage,
and to enable parkers to balance proximity versus
cost.
Estimated costs of upgrading and expanding the lot would be
about $420,000
(based upon $1,750 per space improvement costs).
-
About 200 spaces
in the hospital parking lot nearest to Sugar Estate
Road should be designated for commuter parking by 1990.
These spaces
should be clearly striped and located near Sugar Estate Road so that
they are close
to the bus
stop.
-
Parking in the environs of Emancipation Park should not be converted
2-132
to commercial development until after the Emile Griffith Park parking
lot
is expanded.
The Government should not develop a parking deck or garage on the
Fort Christian parking lot at this
time.
However,
cooperative
development of structured parking with the private sector could be
considered after
the traffic capacity of Veterans Drive
is increased
and if the Veterans Drive improvement does not incorporate additional
parking.
Any parking structure on this site should be integrated
with commercial development on the Fort Christian and Veterans Drive
sides at minimum,
should be subject to stringent design controls,
and
should not require Government subsidy.
A new parking organization should be established to implement the
parking development and management program (discussed in Chapter
5).
2-133/134
3.
ST. CROIX
3.1
INTRODUCTION
3.1.1
Land Use
St.
Croix
is the largest of the three main U.S. Virgin Islands, with an
area of 84 square miles.
The northwestern and eastern parts of the island
are mountainous, with relatively little development
(Figure
3-1).
The
central part of the island
is fairly flat and provides
a favorable terrain
for agricultural purposes.
Figure
3-2 shows the locations of the major
residential developments on St.
Croix.
Superimposed are 1985 population
estimates calculated by expanding the 1980 U.S.
Census data
for
the sub-
districts of the
island.
Most people live
in Christiansted,
Frederiksted,
and the central suburban area between the two towns.
The Alexander Hamilton
Airport and the Hess Oil Refinery are located on the southern side of St.
Croix,
just south of the Ville La Reine and Sunny Isle commercial areas.
Most of the transportation facilities,
travel,
and traffic problems occur
in
the two towns,
and in the area between them.
The East End
is sparsely
populated and is the location of several of the island's largest tourist
resorts.
3.1.2
Socio-Economic Characteristics
In 1985,
there were about 57,000 people living on the island of
St..
Croix.
Compared to St.
Thomas,
the age distribution is slightly lower, with
a median age of 21.0.
It has a large household size,
3.51 people per house-
hold,
and a low employee
to population ratio,
32.7 employees
for every 100
people.
These
ratios are
a consequence of the low median age on the
island.
St.
Croix suffers a high poverty rate, with 36.5 percent of the population
below the poverty level,
compared to 30.5 percent on St.
Thomas.
Reflecting
the
59 percent growth
in population since
1970,
almost
42 percent of the
housing units have been built since 1970.
Although the public sector employs almost
32 percent of the
St.
Croix
workforce,
agriculture,
manufacturing,
and construction also account
for over
30 percent of
the workforce,
compared to
36 percent and 12 percent,
respec-
tively,
for
St.
Thomas.
St.
Croix
is not as dependent on tourism as
St.
Thomas, with about 29 percent of the workforce employed in the tourist
industry.
3-1
3-2
FIGURE
3-1.
TOPOGRAPHY
OF
ST.
CROIX
3-3
FIGURE
3-2.
POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
-
ST.
CROIX
3.2
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Since 1984
there has been no public transportation system on the island
of St.
Croix.
Instead,
private taxivan operators provide an informal
"bus"
service along the principal
route between Christiansted and Frederiksted.
This service appears
to satisfy the bulk of transit demand.
3.2.1
Existing Conditions
3.2.1(a)
Transit system
History .
From 1958 to 1984, Abramson Enterprises,
Inc.
provided the bus
service on St.
Croix.
In 1958,
the Virgin Islands Legislature granted
Abramson's Taxi Service an exclusive franchise
to operate bus service on the
island except within the city limits of Christiansted.
By 1973, Abramson was
carrying 2,000 daily passengers on four
routes, Monday through Saturday.
There was no Sunday service.
In 1974,
coincidental with a bus
fare increase,
the taxivans began to
compete heavily with the buses along the City Route on Centerline Road.
With
20-minute headways and a capacity of only 60 passengers per hour,
buses lost
business
to taxivans cruising the
route with 2-minute headways and offering
500 seats per hour.
By 1981, Abramson had eliminated the Northside Route.
In 1982,
it discontinued all
service
for about four months,
resuming only the
City and Princess Routes initially.
Abramson Enterprises,
Inc.
showed a net
profit only because the profit from the contract school bus portion of the
business was greater than the loss from the transit operation.
Finally,
in 1984, Abramson Enterprises discontinued bus service
permanently,
citing several
reasons.
The biggest factor was economic.
They
claimed that the Department of Public Works was habitually late
in paying the
subsidy,
and frequently did not pay the amount specified in the service
contract.
Abramson felt that the DPW was not committed to public transit,
and complained that the Government did nothing about "unfair" competition
from the taxivans, which were charging the same fares as the buses,
operating
in front of and just behind buses,
and picking up passengers at bus stops.
The taxivans'
competition with the buses was motivated by the lack of
sufficient business from hotels and cruise ships to support the large number
of taxis on the island.
Before buses ceased operations,
taxivan drivers were
charging a 50-cent fare on the City Route,
the same as the bus
fare.
Afterwards,
taxivan drivers tripled the
fare
to $1.50
for trips from
Christiansted to Frederiksted,
and doubled the
fare
to $1.00
for anything in
between.
The increased revenue potential brought a number of additional
taxivans into the market.
Coverage .
Figure
3-3 delineates the former bus
routes:
(1)
the City
Route from Christiansted to Frederiksted along Centerline Road;
(2)
the
Princess Route from Christiansted along Northside,
Midland,
and Centerline
Roads to Frederiksted;
(3)
the Northside Route from Christiansted along
3-4
I
3-5
FIGURE
3-3.
FORMER
BUS
ROUTES
-
ST.
CROIX
Northside and Centerline Roads to Frederiksted;
and
(4)
the East End Route
from Christiansted to the East End and back.
In 1976, when the buses were
running on all of
the
routes,
it was estimated that the service area covered
about
40 percent of the population on the
island.
Just before the buses
stopped running in 1984,
only the City,
Princess and East End Routes were
being served.
Service frequency .
In 1984,
the Princess Route was
run only once a day
(during the morning rush hour),
and the East End Route was
run only twice a
day
(during the morning and afternoon rush hours).
The greatest demand was
on the City Route,
along which the main shopping centers on the island are
located.
Buses operated with 20 minute headways from 6:30 am to 5:30 pm
daily.
No Sunday service was offered on any of the
routes.
Fares .
In 1984,
the fares were the same on all
routes —
50 cents.
There were no special
fares offered to transferring passengers,
elderly and
handicapped persons,
students,
or children.
Passengers deposited their fares
directly into fare boxes.
Ridership .
Transit ridership had been eroded by taxivans competing for
business on Centerline Road.
The 2,000 bus passengers per day in 1973 had
decreased to 1,000 passengers per day in 1984.
Load factors for Centerline
Road service were low,
but buses running on the Princess and East End Routes
experienced load factors of over 100 percent.
Quality of service .
The bus service on St.
Croix was more reliable than
that on St.
Thomas because the buses were not subjected to the same traffic
congestion,
rough terrain,
or poor
road conditions.
Preventive maintenance
practiced by Abramson resulted in fewer bus breakdowns and better schedule
adherence.
The buses were in fair
to good condition because of the relative-
ly flat terrain on the island and better
roads.
However,
the quality of bus service could not compare to that of the
taxivans on Centerline Road.
The taxivans
ran with more frequent headways,
and the
fare was same
for most trips.
The taxivans had more comfortable,
cushioned seats,
and some had air-conditioning.
The taxivans also operated
on Sundays.
3.2.1(b)
Taxis
As on St.
Thomas,
the taxis on St.
Croix are regulated by the Taxi
Commission.
A taxi operator's license can be obtained by any qualified
driver,
but to operate as a taxi
requires possession of a medallion.
At
present,
there are approximately 470 medallions on St.
Croix.
These can be
sold
(current market value of about $6,000)
or leased to taxi operators by
their owners.
Taxis on the island include cars,
station wagons,
vans,
and
safari
buses,
but about 95% of them are said to be vans.
3-6
Most taxi drivers belong to taxi associations to which members pay
initiation fees and monthly dues.
These organizations provide benefits
for
members such as group medical
insurance,
and they set up service agreements
with cruise lines and tour groups.
One taxi association,
the
St.
Croix
Taxicab Association,
has an exclusive franchise to provide service from the
airport to all points on the
island.
Any taxi
can carry passengers to the
airport.
Taxis may operate continually or alternately,
at their option,
in one of
two ways:
as public vehicles,
picking up and discharging passengers along a
route;
or as a vehicle
for hire,
exclusively transporting a contracting
person or group from one point to another, without stops
for other soliciting
persons that may be encountered en route.
(See Appendix C for legislation
regarding taxis.)
Exclusive ride .
Most taxis operate as cars
for hire,
providing point-
to-point transportation to their passengers.
They respond to telephone
calls,
as well as to people hailing them from the
roadside.
They also pick
up passengers at designated taxistands
in the towns and at bus stops
if they
are hailed.
Coverage —
-
Taxis can operate as cars for hire on all parts of St.
Croix.
Fares —
The Virgin Islands Legislature has set maximum point-to-point
fares
for the island.
No minimum fares have been
set.
Tourists are
generally charged the maximum fares,
but the drivers usually charge local
residents fares which are
far below the maximums set by the Legislature.
A table of the legislated fares can be found in Appendix D.
They range
from $1.25 per person for a
ride from Christiansted to Pueblo Shopping
Center,
to $13.50
for a
ride from Frederiksted to Davis Bay.
The legislated
fare schedule also describes several standard tours of the
island,
specifying
the tour stops,
duration of tour, minimum charge,
and charge per person.
Taxivan system .
The taxi associations and drivers have set up an
informal transit service on the City Route between Christiansted and
Frederiksted,
taking advantage of their charter
to operate as public
vehicles.
It is informal,
because participation
is voluntary and the
associations have no authority for enforcing the practices agreed on at
association meetings.
Generally,
about 95 vans consistently operate as
taxivans,
70 on any particular day.
It
is up to the individual driver to determine the hours and days of the
week he works,
the
route he takes,
and the
stops he makes.
If,
for example,
a cruise ship is in Frederiksted,
a driver can abandon the City Route to
carry ship passengers on tours of the
island.
Fortunately,
the high local
demand for transportation usually guarantees that some taxivans
remain on the
route to offer service at a minimal level even when cruise ships are
in port.
3-7
The taxivan City Route begins at
the waterfront
in each of the towns
(Figure
3-4).
It exits Christiansted along Company Street.
At the intersec-
tion of Routes 70 and 75,
it either goes north to the Pueblo Shopping Center
or south onto Contentment Road, meeting at Centerline Road.
It deviates from
Centerline Road to serve Sunny Isle Shopping Center and Grove Place,
a
residential area.
It ends on King Street at Fort Frederik Park
in Frederik-
sted.
The taxivans stop anywhere along the
route when hailed.
Many
passengers board at the former bus stops.
Service frequency —
In the absence of any published data,
estimates of
the operating characteristics of the taxivan system were calculated based on
field data collected on March 28-30,
1988.
Information on the frequency of
service,
load factors,
and length of trip were gathered both from on-board
taxivan observations and from observing the taxivan system from roadside
vantage points.
Results are shown in Table
3-1.
TABLE 3-1.
OPERATING STATISTICS FOR TAXIVAN SYSTEM,
7 AM - 7 PM
PEAK HOURS
OFF-PEAK HOURS
HEADWAYS
1.1-1. 8 min.
1.5-2. 7 min.
1-WAY TRIP LENGTH
43-53 min.
36-46 min.
1-WAY LOAD FACTORS
14-16 people
10-12 people
In practice,
it
is claimed that taxivans are available from around
5 am
until midnight.
During the morning and afternoon rush hours,
taxivans
run
along the City Route every 1.5 minutes on average,
but sometimes as often as
every 1.1 minutes.
During off-peak hours,
taxivans pass by less frequently,
at an average
rate of one every 2.1 minutes.
A one-way trip between
Christiansted and Frederiksted takes about
45 minutes on average,
a little
longer during the
rush hours,
and a little less during off-peak hours.
Fares —
The
fare structure along the City Route
is as follows:
$1.50
for trips between Christiansted and Frederiksted;
$1.00
for trips anywhere
in
between;
and $0.75 for elderly,
handicapped,
students,
and children.
After
7
pm,
50 cents
is added to each of the
fares.
Ridership —
Typically,
a taxivan will pick up and discharge
14
to 16
passengers while traveling in one direction along the City Route during rush
hours,
and 10
to 12 passengers during off-peak hours.
Approximately 30
percent of
the
riders during the morning and afternoon peak periods are high
school
students.
Fewer than
2 percent of the
riders travel all
the way from
one end of the City Route to the other.
3-8
3-9
FIGURE
3-4.
EXISTING
TAXIVAN
ROUTE
-
CENTERLINE
ROAD
Based on the sample observations,
some
rough estimates of system-wide
performance were calculated
(Table
3-2).
Taxivans were estimated to make
about 430
round trips on the City Route each day from 7 am to
7 pm,
carrying
around 6,000 passengers
in each direction,
and collecting about $11,500
in
fares.
If 70 taxivans were operating,
each driver would make about $165
in
gross revenues,
averaging over $20 per hour
for an 8-hour day.
TABLE 3-2.
12-HOUR SYSTEM ESTIMATES,
7 AM - 7 PM
430 Taxivan Round Trips
6,000 Passengers
in Each Direction
$11,500
in Gross Fares
Quality of service:
comfort —
In some aspects,
the taxivan system is
able
to provide a higher quality service to its users than a traditional
public transit system.
The vans are comfortable, with seating capacities of
up to
14 passengers,
some are air-conditioned,
and most have stereo systems.
Users are pleased with the frequency of service along Centerline Road.
The
system is profitable,
unlike most public transit systems.
It
is an example
of the
free enterprise system working with a minimum of governmental inter-
vention.
Quality of service:
safety —
There are,
however,
some less than ideal
aspects of the system in the area of safety.
The vans,
purchased mainly from
the United States,
are left-hand drive vehicles with the passenger entry
doors on the
right side.
Since vehicles travel on the left-hand side of the
road
in the Virgin Islands,
this forces customers to enter and exit from the
traffic side of the van.
This practice
is quite dangerous,
since other
drivers rarely stop while a van
is loading or unloading,
but pass the van on
the
right at high speeds,
especially on the
rural portions of the
route.
Also,
elderly passengers experience difficulty in boarding;
as a running
board is not standard on all vans,
the first step into the vehicle
is quite
high,
and the headroom is relatively low.
Quality of service:
coverage —
Although the City Route provides
service to the commercial and educational centers of
the
island,
its coverage
of most of the residential areas
is weak.
It bypasses several low-income
housing developments where many transit-dependent people
live, while
it
serves only the housing projects on Soboetker Road and King Street
in
Christiansted,
and the residents of Grove Place.
Many of the other
residen-
tial areas are located nearly a mile from Centerline Road,
requiring
passengers from these areas to walk a long distance
to reach the taxivan
service.
The taxivan drivers decline to cover these areas because they do
not think
the detours required from Centerline Road would be cost-effective,
and some drivers fear
for their own and their vehicle's safety in some of the
housing project areas.
3-10
3.2.1(c)
Transit demand
The current demand
for transit service
is difficult to gauge accurately
because of the lapse
in operations
for the last four years.
Even when buses
were operating,
information on ridership as a whole was scarce,
and by bus
route,
non-existent.
However, vehicle-miles by route were available
for 1976
and 1983
(Table
3-3).
Using these as a proxy for demand
(under
the assump-
tion that the two are roughly correlated),
some limited inferences about
relative demand on the three
routes can be made.
TABLE 3-3.
DAILY VEHICLE-MILES AND ROUND TRIPS BY BUS ROUTE
1976
1983
Route
Miles
(%)
Trips
Miles
(%)
Trips
CITY
713
(87)
24
704
(63)
18
PRINCESS
88 (ID
3
360
(32)
9
EAST END
20
(2)
1
47
(5)
2
TOTAL
821
28
1111
29
Service on the Princess Route, which covered several major residential
areas including Mon Bijou and Grove Place,
grew considerably from 1976 to
1983.
It
is assumed that there was increasing demand to support the
increased service.
In contrast,
service on the City Route
remained about
constant,
since the taxivans were competing for and capturing any increased
demand on that
route.
The taxivan operators evidently did not feel
then,
as
now,
that there was sufficient ridership on the Princess Route to warrant its
coverage.
Service to the sparsely populated East End provided transportation
mainly to employees commuting to and from the hotels,
and did not signif-
icantly increase over the time period.
Again,
the taxivans avoided this
route.
It can be concluded from examining these data that,
although the City
Route generated the bulk of the transit market,
the Princess Route contri-
buted an increasing,
but limited,
portion of the transit ridership.
It has been suggested that several of the residential areas,
such as
Paradise and Mon Bijou, would generate sufficient ridership to warrant
service,
either in the form of
a shuttle to a trunk line or a diversion of
a
service
route.
A 1984 study conducted jointly by the V.I.
Housing Authority
and the DFW estimated that combined bus and taxivan ridership to and from
Paradise would be approximately 740 one-way trips per weekday.
Subsequent to
the
study,
bus service was discontinued,
fares were
increased,
and many
people undoubtedly found alternative means of transportation.
Consequently,
it
is uncertain how this estimate would relate
to a current estimate of
demand.
Similarly, without further study it
is difficult
to predict the
3-11
potential
ridership for any proposed service
to other areas.
What
is
certain
is that residents of these areas that do use taxivans would benefit
from more convenient access to them.
3.2.2
Transit Alternatives
The crucial transit decision on St.
Croix
is whether or not to reinstate
bus service.
Alternatives for management,
operations,
regulation,
equipment,
maintenance standards,
fares,
and coverage follow from the outcome of this
decision.
The following discussion treats separately the alternatives to be
considered given a decision for reinstating bus service and given a decision
against
it.
3.2.2(a)
Resumption of bus service
Advantages and disadvantages .
Support exists for the resumption of bus
service on St.
Croix
for a number of
reasons.
Many people feel
that:
residents living on former bus routes no longer covered by the taxivans
deserve access to public transportation;
taxivan fares are too high,
and bus
service would be more affordable to the people who need public transportation
the most;
resumption of bus service
is the only way to assure
reliable
service,
since the Government does not regulate the operation of the
taxivans;
taxivan drivers,
not obligated to provide service on the City
Route,
abandon it at will when cruise ships are in Frederiksted;
senior
citizens have great difficulty boarding taxivans because of the high step,
and would much prefer buses;
and finally,
buses with left-side doors would
provide an extra degree of safety over the taxivans, whose doors open on the
right,
or traffic
side.
Two groups of people have strong sentiment against bus
resumption:
taxivan operators,
and taxivan riders.
The operators
feel their livelihoods
would be threatened,
and the
riders, who have become accustomed to the
frequent service of the taxivans, would not like
to return to the less
frequent,
less comfortable buses.
Reinstating bus service would be an expensive proposition for the V.I.
Government.
Equipment,
maintenance facilities,
and salaries are costly
items.
If bus service were
resumed,
the Government would have to take steps
to eliminate competition from taxis.
This would require new legislation to
restrict taxivan competition with bus operations on Centerline Road.
It also
would require increased patrolling by the police to enforce any regulations
enacted.
This would represent another cost to the V.I.
Government of
resuming bus service.
Taxivan service,
on the other hand,
already provides
transit service at no cost to the Government.
Many people,
including some
elected officials,
feel that the taxivans should be allowed to continue to
operate the Centerline Road service.
Resumption of bus service on St.
Croix might mean that the buses
previously used in transit service and currently parked on Abramson's
property would remain on St.
Croix rather than be moved to
St.
Thomas
(see
3-12
below).
After being refurbished,
it
is expected that these buses would be
operable
for a few more years, during which time new buses could be designed
and built.
While they would provide
St.
Croix with a short-term solution for
its transit system,
St.
Thomas then would have
to look elsewhere
for buses
to
meet its critical short-term needs.
The other alternative
is
to move
the
buses to St.
Thomas and purchase new buses for
St.
Croix.
Equipment .
The ten buses formerly used in transit service have been
parked on the Abramson lot since
1984.
The study recently performed by Lea
&
Elliott,
indicates that nine of the buses could be
refurbished at reasonable
expense and would be serviceable
for several years.
However,
it
is being
recommended that seven buses with the smaller chassis be transported to St.
Thomas to satisfy their critical need for replacement equipment for their
aging bus fleet until new buses can be purchased.
If this happens,
only two buses would remain on St.
Croix
for transit
service,
and additional buses would have to be obtained to provide service at
the 1984
level.
The only feasible source
in the short term would be used
buses purchased from other U.S.
transit systems,
and the same funding and bus
modification constraints would be encountered as on St.
Thomas.
It
is
possible that modifying the used buses would take almost as long as purchas-
ing new ones.
If service were reinstated at a reduced level and limited to
using the two remaining buses,
the equipment would be sufficient
for serving
only the East End Route.
In the long term,
regardless of the level of service
resumed,
new buses
would have to be purchased to replace both the current and used buses.
For
this to occur,
a number of steps would have to be taken.
Specifications
would need to be developed for
St.
Croix buses.
Currently,
Lea
& Elliott are
preparing specifications for buses suitable
for
St.
Thomas.
Given the
differences in terrain between the two islands,
it must be determined whether
these specifications would be appropriate
for
St.
Croix
'
needs.
If not,
new
specifications would have to be developed.
A grant request would have to be
submitted and approved by UMTA.
The bus purchase would have to be advertised
for bids,
a manufacturer chosen,
and the buses manufactured.
This process
would take at least two years.
Maintenance facilities .
Prior
to the cessation of bus service
in 1984,
the maintenance facilities and the land on which they were located were
owned by the bus operator, Abramson Enterprises,
Inc.,
and shared with the
school buses, which also were operated by Abramson.
Costs associated with
the facilities were apportioned between transit and school buses based on a
factor developed by Abramson,
reflecting the relative usage by the two types
of service.
The 1982 Gannett Fleming report outlined a number of deficiencies with
the existing Abramson maintenance facilities and recommended a new facility
on a site nearer
to Christiansted.
Many of the deficiencies noted still
exist.
Consequently,
it would appear that the previous recommendation
is
still valid.
3-13
Another
reason
for
a new maintenance facility
is that
it
is not certain
that Abramson would be the operator
if bus operations were to resume.
Abram-
son has claimed not to be interested in resuming service unless competing
taxivan service were eliminated and major improvements were made
in the
res-
ponsiveness of the DFW to transit needs.
Furthermore,
if transit service
were
to be advertised for bids,
it
is not assured that Abramson would be
selected as the operator.
Therefore,
it does not make sense
for UMTA or
the
V. I .
Government to fund new maintenance facilities on Abramson property.
In
fact,
funding a new facility on any operator-held property would restrict
the Government's flexibility in dismissing an operator
for unsatisfactory
performance.
Rather,
it would seem reasonable
for a new facility to be built
on land belonging to the V.I. Government and leased to the transit operator.
Gannett Fleming recommended a site close
to Christiansted,
but the availabi-
lity of that particular property at this time
is not known.
A new maintenance facility would be costly,
and would take at least
three years to design,
fund,
and build.
In the
interim,
an existing facility
would have
to be used.
The only one known at this time on the island
is that
belonging to Abramson.
If bus service were
to
resume,
an arrangement would
have
to be made
for the use of this facility until
a new one could be
completed.
If such an arrangement could not be consummated,
the reinstitu-
tion of bus service would have to be postponed until
a new facility was
built.
Coverage and service frequency .
These aspects of a transit system must
be considered in conjunction with each other.
With a fleet size of seven
buses,
the three-route system operated by Abramson in 1984 could be served
with the
same frequency as before.
However, without any changes to the way
taxivans are permitted to operate along Centerline Road,
ridership,
especial-
ly on the Centerline Road
route, would be minimal.
It would consist prin-
cipally of the elderly, who would find buses easier to board,
and the poor,
who had no other options.
If the bus fleet size were increased,
enabling the
headways along Centerline Road to be
reduced,
then bus ridership would likely
experience
some expansion.
However,
purchasing and operating more buses
is a
very expensive proposition to undertake with no assurances that the bulk of
the
riders would choose them over the taxivans.
If taxivans were regulated to limit their ability to compete with the
buses,
a greater bus ridership would be guaranteed.
For instance,
if taxi-
vans were prohibited from charging less than one dollar,
and the bus fare
were sixty cents,
more people would patronize the buses.
If taxivans were
prevented from picking up people at bus stops and from cruising Centerline
Road,
then all City Route
riders would be forced to use the buses
for public
transportation.
The subject of regulating the taxivans
is very controversial,
and there
exists strong public sentiment both for and against
it.
Politically,
the
taxi organizations comprise a strong constituency with powerful influence on
elected officials.
Their emergence as
a source of transportation for the
general public on St.
Croix has enabled them to carve
a niche
for themselves
in the island economy which cannot easily be eliminated or substantially
3-14
altered.
However, unless regulations are imposed and strictly enforced,
taxivans would compete with the buses and erode bus ridership.
Another option would be
to offer bus service only on the
routes that the
taxivans have no interest in covering.
This would eliminate
the possibility
of direct competition between buses and taxivans while still providing some
service to residents of areas that are currently excluded from public trans-
portation.
Service on these
routes could be partially covered with the two
longer chassis transit buses being left on St.
Croix,
once
refurbished.
For
example,
the two buses could be dedicated to running on Northside Road from
Christiansted to Centerline Road and back again,
perhaps with some form of
transfer arrangement with the taxivan operators for bus riders whose final
destination
is another location on Centerline Road.
However,
this would
leave no back-up for the buses
in case of mechanical trouble or other
emergency situation.
Various arguments have been made over the years that service should be
expanded to include some of the high-density residential areas that are just
beyond the normal coverage area of potential bus
routes.
These areas include
Paradise, Williams Delight,
Clifton Hill,
and the area south of Centerline
Road near Frederiksted.
Two residential areas were served in the former
system:
Grove Place by the City Route;
and Mon Bijou by the Princess Route.
A study performed by the V.I.
DPW and the V.I.
Housing Authority in 1984
examined both the possibility of diverting the City Route to go through
Paradise and the possibility of dedicated service to the area.
At that time,
it was estimated there would be enough ridership to eliminate
the need for
a
subsidy from the Housing Authority.
The most cost-effective of the two
possibilities would have been to divert some of the City Route buses to
Paradise; however,
this would have affected the schedule,
adding at least ten
minutes to the trip between Christiansted and Frederiksted.
This undoubtedly
would result
in the loss of some passengers to the faster taxivans.
If,
in
addition,
the buses were
to be diverted to some of the other housing develop-
ments,
the schedule and patronage would have been even more adversely
affected.
City Route buses are not the only means of providing residential areas
with service.
A shuttle service could be established between the areas and
Centerline Road, where the passengers could transfer to the City Route
buses.
The shuttle could be in the form of a taxivan contracted to provide
this service,
or a government-owned vehicle driven by a paid employee.
The
shuttle could probably serve several housing developments in proximity of
each other.
Fares .
As previously mentioned,
the fare structure
for bus service was
50 cents for trips between Christiansted and Frederiksted and between
Christiansted and the East End.
For any service between the East End and
west of Christiansted,
the
fare was one dollar.
There were no special
fares
for students or
for the elderly.
This type of flat
rate
fare structure
discouraged short trips.
3-15
Now that
four years have passed since the above
fares were used,
an
increase would seem warranted.
It would not appear desirable to
raise them
to the level of the taxivan fares, which many people
feel are too high for
the low-income passengers who comprise the bulk of the transit-dependent
population.
On St.
Croix, where the populace has been accustomed to one
dollar taxivan fares,
a limited bus fare increase would still
represent a
savings to users over the taxivans.
Provisions also should be made
for
students and for elderly and handicapped persons to
ride at reduced fares.
Transit management and operations .
The transit management and opera-
tions alternatives
for
St.
Thomas also apply to St.
Croix.
The options
include:
(1)
transit management by the V.I. Government and operation by a
private contractor;
(2)
both management and operation by the V.I.
Government;
and
(3)
both management and operation by a private contractor,
either as a
package or separately.
For a thorough discussion of the merits and disadvan-
tages of these options,
refer
to Chapter
2.
3.2.2(b)
Taxivan-based transit system
Advantages and disadvantages .
An alternative
to the more traditional
bus-based transit system on
St.
Croix
is utilization of the taxivan-based
transportation system that
is operating on the island today.
In such a
system,
taxivans would substitute for buses.
The taxivans would be privately
owned,
operated,
and maintained,
relieving the Government of these
respon-
sibilities.
The Government would perform the function of oversight,
of
regulating and monitoring taxivan service and safety,
and of paying for any
operating subsidies that would be required on non-prof i table
routes.
One advantage of this arrangement would be
its low cost to the V.I.
Government.
Many of the governmental expenses of a traditional transit
system,
such as vehicle ownership and maintenance, would be covered by the
taxivan owners.
The Government would avoid the considerable expense of
purchasing transit vehicles and building maintenance facilities.
Even if
UMTA covered a large percentage of these expenses,
the local share still
would represent
a major expenditure
for the V.I.
Government.
Other advantages
to the taxivan-based transit system would be
its
superior performance characteristics to those of the bus system.
As noted
previously,
the average service frequency of the taxivans along Centerline
Road
is 1.5 minutes during the morning rush hour and one taxivan every 2.5
minutes during off-peak hours.
Most riders find the vans more comfortable
than the buses.
In addition,
the taxivan-based system would encourage
private enterprise and keep government intervention to a minimum,
in line
with the Federal Government's private sector initiative.
The main drawback
to the taxivans
is
in the area of safety.
The
taxivans must pick up and discharge passengers from the
right or traffic side
of the vehicle.
This
results
in passengers having to incur undue
risks
to
their safety to ride the taxivans.
Mothers with small children,
as well as
elderly people,
are particularly at
risk.
Cars are not required to stop for
3-16
boarding and alighting passengers,
and rarely do.
Even when taxivans use
the
bus stop pull-offs,
there
is often not enough room for passengers to avoid
walking into the
roadway to board and exit
the taxivans.
The cost of
modifying the taxivans
to open on the left side would be prohibitive
to most
owners.
Another problem with taxivans
is
the difficulty they pose to elderly
people
in boarding because of the high step.
The low headroom inside the
vehicle also
is
a problem.
Centerline Road service .
The discussion below deals with alternatives
for service along Centerline Road in the areas of management and operations,
service
frequency,
and fares.
Management and operations —
The current taxivan system along Center-
line Road operates with no formal management structure.
The drivers,
through their associations,
have voluntarily agreed to charge fares that are
significantly lower than the maximum fares allowed by law,
but they have
developed no other guidelines
for levels and hours of service.
The
reason
the system works so well with no other governmental
or voluntary controls
is
that the demand for service
is high enough to offer many drivers
the
opportunity to make
a reasonable
income.
One option for a taxivan-based transit service along Centerline Road
would be
to allow the current system to continue as
it is today — an
informal system that works on the simple demand and supply principle with no
governmental
involvement whatsoever.
This option would cost the Government
nothing,
and as long as conditions did not change, would probably continue to
provide acceptable service.
The disadvantage of this option is that
in the
absence of any controls,
the operators could change the service at any time.
For example,
drivers could desert Centerline Road when cruise
ships are
in
Frederiksted and reduce the level of service significantly.
(St.
Croix
is
trying to increase
the level of cruise ship activity.)
Also,
given a captive
market,
the operators could legally raise the fares without seriously
endangering the profitability of their business,
but creating hardships
for
many of their low-income
riders.
An alternative approach
is to formalize the system with a contract which
would be negotiated between the V.I. Government and the taxivan drivers
to
provide specific transit services on Centerline Road.
The incentive
for
the
taxivan operators
to agree to formalize
the system would be a commitment by
the V.I.
Government not to reinstitute bus service and accompanying controls
over taxivan operations on Centerline Road.
If
the Government were
to make
a
commitment not to reinstate bus service,
it would need assurances from the
taxivan community that an adequate transit service would be provided to the
residents of the
island.
The Government would want guarantees that taxivans
would cover specific
routes with specified frequencies,
fares,
and hours of
service.
Currently,
there
is no single organization that represents all taxivan
drivers.
Most drivers belong to a taxi association,
but they do not all
belong to the same one.
Before
a contract could be established,
the taxivan
operators would have to organize
into some legal entity — either
a taxi
or
3-17
route association exclusively for taxivan operators or a corporation — with
the authority to represent the taxivan operators
in contract negotiations.
In addition,
the organization could perform the administrative and super-
visory functions associated with managing and operating the service.
It
would have
to be able to assure acceptable levels of performance by its
members and take disciplinary actions when necessary.
The advantage to a system of this type would be that service at accept-
able frequency,
hours,
and fares would be assured to the residents of St.
Croix.
Government involvement would be limited,
and the system would remain
basically a free enterprise.
However,
it would not be entirely cost-free
to
the Government.
There would be some legal and administrative expenses
involved to set up the system initially,
and some costs associated with
monitoring its performance.
In addition,
the Government likely would have to
cover some of the expenses of the taxivan organization.
Another possibility is
for the Government itself to assume the
respon-
sibilities of the taxivan organization described above.
The taxivan drivers
wishing to participate
in the Centerline Road transit service would sign in-
dividual contracts with the Government,
agreeing to abide by the established
regulations.
The advantage
to this option would be that the Government would
have more control over system performance.
It also would cost more because
extra personnel would have to be hired to carry out the administrative and
supervisory functions.
Service frequency —
If the system were allowed to continue operating
as
it currently does,
then the service frequency and hours of operation would
be determined by forces of
the marketplace.
As demand intensified or
decreased,
drivers would be attracted to or discouraged from participating in
the service,
and service frequency and service hours would be self-adjusting
to the demand.
If the government were to sign a contract with a newly established
taxivan organization to provide transit service,
the hours of operation and
service frequency would have
to be specified in the contract.
These specifi-
cations could be
in the form of maximum headways at various times of the day.
The taxivan organization would have to ensure that these specifications were
met.
It may be that the system would operate to specification with very few
new controls imposed on the drivers.
If not,
the taxivan organization might
have to translate the specifications into shifts that the drivers would sign
up for,
so that the appropriate number of vans were operating throughout the
day.
Initial headways specified in the contract would be based on current
performance of the
system.
The contract would have to allow for maximum
headway modifications
if initial specifications proved unworkable.
Fares —
The current structure could be continued,
but
it contains some
inherent inequities.
For
instance,
it costs the same to ride from downtown
Christiansted to the Pueblo shopping center,
a distance of less than 1.5
miles,
as
it does
to go 10 miles
further.
The
fares,
in general,
are higher
than those charged by most transit systems
in the U.S.
and than those
charged on St.
Thomas.
Some transit-dependent riders undoubtedly find them a
financial burden.
3-18
The fares could be lowered to make them comparable
to transit services
in other localities and more affordable
to the lower income residents of St.
Croix.
Lower fares ,
however, would be unacceptable to the taxivan drivers,
who feel that the current structure
is appropriate
for covering their costs
and enabling them to make a reasonable profit.
Subsidizing the drivers would
be difficult and expensive to implement,
as discussed below.
If the Govern-
ment desired to make the service more affordable
to lower income
residents,
one possibility would be to subsidize
the
riders directly through a Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services program or a user-side subsidy program.
Other areas .
The discussion below deals with alternatives
for service
to other areas of St.
Croix besides those served by the Centerline Road
taxivans.
Routes —
A number of areas on the
island would be prospects
for
subsidized taxivan service.
Unfortunately,
there
is insufficient information
to indicate the volume of demand these areas would generate.
Any service
would best be initiated on a trial basis until
its feasibility could be
determined.
Candidates include:
the residential areas of Princess and Mon
Bijou along Northside Road;
the residential housing project at Paradise;
the
residential areas of Williams Delight,
Clifton Hill,
Hope, Whim,
Hannahs
Rest,
and Smithfield;
the Martin Marietta and Hess Refinery industrial areas;
and the airport.
Given its viability as a bus route when buses were
running, Northside
Road would have to be considered as a possible
route for subsidized service.
One alternative
for this
route would be to
run along the former Northside
Route from Christiansted via Northside Road to the Ville La Reine Shopping
Center,
thence following Centerline Road to Frederiksted.
However,
this
routing would conflict with the non-subsidized Centerline Road Service and
might cause problems among the drivers.
Another alternative would be to
operate the
route only from Christiansted to Ville La Reine via Northside
Road.
This would eliminate any conflict between the two
routes.
Another
possibility would be to extend the
route
from Ville La Reine to Sunny Isle to
make
it unnecessary for passengers wishing to go to Sunny Isle to pay two
fares or
to transfer.
The three possibilities for this
route are shown in
Figure
3-5.
Another
route worthy of consideration would be
the former East End
Route,
an 18-mile loop beginning and ending in Christiansted and following
East End,
Southside,
and Lowry Hill Roads
(see Figure
3-5).
This route was
patronized mostly by hotel employees and domestics working in that part of
the
island.
Service to some of the
residential areas along Centerline Road could be
accomplished by diverting some of the Centerline Road taxivans into those
areas.
This would increase taxivan travel time between Christiansted and
Frederiksted.
It also would complicate the administration of the subsidy in
that the participating taxivans would be operating both on subsidized and on
non-subsidized
routes.
3-19
T3
(C
d)
J
4->
d)
10
(—
1
d)
10
H
-H
H
«—
1
P
•H
(U
>1
>
T3
d)
G
i
P
Uj
</>
dJ
TJ
44
d)
O
o
P
-P
-P
4-4
O
ioG
c
G
T3
fO
o
O
•rH
•H
•rH
G
-P
(/)
10
Cd
io
c
c
-H
di
d)
4->
U
4->
4->
10
s:
X
X
fO
u
w
w
Id
•
: <
•
3-20
FIGURE
3-5.
POTENTIAL
NORTHSIDE
ALTERNATIVES
AND
EAST
END
ROUTE
Another way to offer service
to some of the residential areas would be
by subsidized shuttles carrying riders only between the
residential areas and
Centerline Road.
There would be many possible
routings
for these shuttles.
Three examples are described below and pictured in Figure
3-6.
-
Airport Shuttle — beginning at the junction of Centerline Road and
Rt.
64,
proceeding on Rt.
64
to the airport,
over
to the Hess Oil
Refinery,
through the Clifton Hill area to Rt.
663,
and returning to
Centerline Road;
round trip distance:
8 miles.
-
Paradise Shuttle — from the Paradise
residential area out to
Centerline Road,
along Centerline Road,
and into Williams Delight;
one-way distance:
3.6 miles.
-
Hope Shuttle — from Centerline Road down Rt.
703
into the Hope and
Carlton residential areas,
following Routes 701,
63,
632,
and 701
out to Centerline Road,
into the Stony Ground and Smithfield areas,
into Frederiksted,
and returning to Rt.
703 via Centerline Road;
round trip distance:
7.6 miles.
Management and operations —
Taxivan drivers do not perform the same
type of service on other former bus
routes as they do on Centerline Road,
because they feel
the demand
is too light and too disperse
to make
it
worthwhile.
The drivers do not serve high-density residential areas
for
similar
reasons.
In a taxivan-based transit system,
providing residents and
businesses along these
routes with service probably would require the
Government to contract with the taxivan operators
to perform this service on
a subsidized basis,
unless providing subsidies
to potential low-income riders
would generate sufficient revenues to entice operators to offer adequate
service without a Government contract.
If a subsidy contract proves necessary,
the Government could contract
either with an organization representing the taxivan drivers or with the
drivers themselves on an individual basis.
Contracting with a taxivan
organization would relieve the Government of the responsibility for managing,
operating,
and administering the system.
The Government
1
' s
role would be
limited to one of oversight.
However,
contracting directly with the drivers
would enable
the Government to exert more control over their performance.
The management of a subsidized taxivan system would be composed of many
activities.
Payment of a subsidy would require record-keeping on the part of
the organization and/or the drivers depending on the mechanism chosen for
determining the subsidy payment.
Administrative duties would consist of
scheduling the drivers,
supervising them,
and monitoring their performance.
Government oversight would require constant monitoring of market circumstan-
ces that might affect the service,
such as increased or decreased demand and
changes
in major destinations,
as well as taxivan adherence
to contract
terms.
Service frequency —
Service frequency and hours of operation ideally
should be determined by demand.
In the absence of information on demand,
3-21
3-22
FIGURE
3-6.
SHUTTLE
ALTERNATIVES
initial schedules and hours of operation would be determined by past activity
and other available
information.
One option would be to provide subsidized service on all other
routes to
coincide with the hours of operation on Centerline Road.
This certainly
would satisfy demand and facilitate transfers between routes.
However,
considering the expense of subsidized service,
it would be more cost-
effective
to limit
it as much as possible to the hours of the most urgent
need on each route.
Similarly,
if service were offered at the same frequency as on Center-
line Road, many taxivans would be running empty.
Rather,
frequency should be
tailored to the demand on each route,
based initially on the best available
information,
and subsequently adjusted as more experience with operating the
service
is gained.
Subsidy mechanism —
A subsidy would be necessary to induce drivers to
serve
routes which they feel are not profitable enough to
run without
assistance.
There are three possibilities
for implementing a subsidy:
(1)
the drivers could be paid an hourly amount which would cover their equipment
and operating costs and salaries,
and fares would be turned over to the
Government;
(2)
the drivers could be paid a lesser amount
that, when
combined with the fares they collected on their
routes, would be equivalent
to the
fiist option;
or
(3)
subsidies could be paid to the users of the
service
rather than the taxivan operators.
Under the first option,
an appropriate hourly rate would be easier to
determine since
it would not depend on the amount of fares collected.
Revenues are a function of ridership,
and at present there are insufficient
data to estimate ridership by route.
However,
after service
is established
and ridership stabilizes,
expected fare revenues could be predicted reasonab-
ly accurately.
Appropriate subsidies then could be calculated to supplement
the fares kept by the drivers under the second option.
The main drawback to the first option
is that
it would be difficult to
verify that drivers were surrendering all
the fare money they collected to
the Government.
Fare boxes could be
installed,
but these would be expensive,
difficult to locate conveniently in the vans,
and would require special
procedures for emptying them and handling the cash.
A method of circumvent-
ing this problem would be to implement a transit pass/ticket system in which
passengers would have to purchase tickets or passes ahead of time at
designated points of
sale.
This would eliminate the need for drivers
to
handle money,
and also make
it possible to develop accurate demand statis-
tics.
Although such a system would present no difficulty to regular users of
the service,
infrequent users who could not anticipate their transit needs
might not have access
to a ticket sales office nearby and open when they
needed
it.
The third option,
user-side subsidies, would require
the establishment
of a governmental office to review applications
for transportation fare
assistance,
register the legitimate applicants,
sell or distribute the
subsidy medium (usually coupons referred to as scrip),
and redeem the scrip
3-23
for
its dollar value when turned
in by the
taxi drivers or the taxi organiza-
tion.
This option would require passengers
to purchase the scrip in advance
of their
trip.
This approach has the advantage of eliminating direct
subsidies
to the
taxi drivers,
as well as providing financial transportation
assistance
to people who need
it.
However,
the user-side subsidy strategy
does not guarantee taxivan drivers any revenue.
As
such,
it poses a
risk
that initial
ridership will not be sufficient to induce drivers to continue
the service
in anticipation that ridership will ultimately increase
to
profitable levels.
Consequently,
service could be terminated abruptly
without a fair test of
the demand for the service.
Fares and transfers —
The
fare issue
is complicated because many
riders would use subsidized routes as feeders
to the City Route,
necessitat-
ing a transfer between subsidized and non-subsidized systems.
One alterna-
tive
for dealing with transferring passengers would be
to charge all
passengers
full
fare,
forcing transferring passengers
to pay the full
fare on
each taxivan.
Another alternative would be
to charge all passengers the same
fare on the
first taxivan,
but issue transferring passengers a slip to give
them free or discounted passage on the second taxivan.
Charging transferring passengers
full
fares would generate more
revenues,
but would impose a financial burden on transit-dependent residents.
The short-distance shuttles,
designed to give people living just outside the
transit service area access to the system, would not be used
if the fares
were too high.
However,
a transfer
fare system would be difficult to
implement and control.
Any transfer mechanism has the potential
for abuse.
A transfer fare system also would require
the cooperation of taxivan
operators along Centerline Road,
and possibly their acceptance of
reduced
fares from passengers transferring from a subsidized
route.
Their current
willingness to charge students and elderly people reduced fares,
however, may
predispose them to go along with this scheme.
The subsidized system might,
in
fact,
generate new business along Centerline Road which they would not
otherwise have.
Regardless of the transfer system adopted,
fares
for subsidized routes
should bear some
relation to the length of the
route.
Shuttle
fares,
for
example,
should be less than the fares for
the Northside Route, which in turn
should be less than the Christiansted to Frederiksted fare.
If a user-side subsidy mechanism is eventually adopted,
it should
encompass all
routes,
including Centerline Road.
3.2.3
Recommendations
3.2.3(a)
Transit service concept
Reinstating bus service on St.
Croix would be
a very expensive proposi-
tion
for the Virgin Islands,
almost as expensive as
if buses had never been
operated there.
Not only would new maintenance facilities have to be built
and new equipment purchased,
but very possibly a new contractor would have
to
be found or the DFW itself would have
to develop the necessary skills
to
3-24
operate the
system.
New legislation would have
to be enacted to prevent the
taxivans from competing unfairly with the buses.
Without a considerable
increase
in the size of the police
force,
the taxivan restrictions could not
be consistently enforced.
Therefore,
it
is recommended that the Virgin Islands Government develop
a public transit system for the island of
St.
Croix based on the taxivan
system operating there at present.
It
is recommended that Centerline Road
service be left as
is ,
as long as adequate service and reasonable fare levels
are maintained.
However,
the Government should closely monitor this service.
If service deteriorates or fares escalate unreasonably,
the Government should
attempt to negotiate better arrangements with the taxivan operators.
If
cooperation
is not obtained,
the Government should attempt to contract
directly with taxivan operators and impose legislative
restrictions on other
taxivan operators who might try to compete
for the same patronage market.
If
both of these efforts
fail,
Government regulation of the taxivan service
should be pursued.
If the Legislature fails
to enact such regulations,
a
reinstitution of bus transit service would be
recommended.
For other
routes,
the Government should contract for service with the
taxivan operators through a taxivan organization which would be
responsible
for representing the taxivan drivers
in contract negotiations and for
administering the terms of the contract.
The contract will have
to offer
terms that make taxivan operators feel
it
is
to their advantage to par-
ticipate
in the
system.
These recommendations
for implementing a transit system on St.
Croix
will be the least costly to the V.I.
Government,
and,
thus, most amenable
to
the Legislature.
They will keep governmental
involvement to a minimum,
make
use of an existing transportation resource — the taxivans — and continue to
offer Centerline Road taxivan patrons the high frequency of service to which
they have become accustomed, while offering previously excluded residents
public transportation at a reasonable charge.
3.2.3(b)
Management and operations
Taxivan organization .
The taxivan operators should form an organiza-
tion with membership consisting exclusively of taxivan drivers participating
in subsidized transit type service
.
This organization could take the form of
a taxi
route association or corporation.
Its two main roles would be
to
represent the drivers in contract negotiations with the Virgin Islands
Government,
and to perform the administrative functions associated with the
operation of the transit service.
These functions would follow from the
nature of the contract agreement signed with the Government,
but most likely
would include enrolling members,
issuing transit identification placards,
ensuring adequate service frequency and hours of service,
scheduling and
tracking working hours of drivers on the subsidized routes,
and distributing
payments
to the drivers.
The organization would incur costs
in performing
its administrative
duties,
and in hiring attorneys
to handle legal matters.
Some of the costs
3-25
could be offset by membership dues,
as are
required by most taxi associa-
tions.
The balance would have to be negotiated in the contract with the
Government.
Government role .
Once operational standards are established,
the
Governments
role
in the transit system would be primarily that of monitoring
the system's performance .
One government employee would be needed full time
on St.
Croix to observe
the taxivan system in action on an ongoing basis.
He
would be
responsible
for confirming that the taxivans were starting and
quitting on time,
that the correct number of vans were operating,
and that
the correct headways were being offered.
Discrepancies from specifications
in the contract would have
to be documented and brought to the attention of
the taxivan organization.
He also would be
responsible
for estimating
passenger volumes by route,
and for determining the need to adjust route- and
time-specific subsidy rates.
The importance of the Government's
role cannot be overemphasized
in
assuring the success of the taxivan-based transit system.
It
is only through
constant monitoring by the Government and the threat of withholding the
subsidy that any control can be exerted over the performance of the taxivan
system.
A strong Government monitoring role will make the taxivan system
work with a minimum of regulation and bureaucracy.
If user-side subsidy is eventually adopted,
a new Governmental organiza-
tion would be needed to establish and operate the user-side subsidy program.
Nature of contract .
The contract between the Virgin Islands Government
and the taxivan organization should specify the duties of both parties,
and
the consequences of failing to perform them .
It should specify the fares
to
be charged on each route and the desired service characteristics .
Service
on subsidized routes should be initiated on a trial basis
for a period of
six months.
If during that time
it
is determined there are not enough
passengers to justify continuing service on a particular
route,
the
route
should be discontinued.
The contract should be granted initially for
a period of six months.
If
this mechanism proves to be an effective means of providing public transpor-
tation to the
island,
then the contract should be
renewed,
possibly in longer
increments,
or
replaced by a user-side subsidy arrangement.
3.2.3(c)
Coverage
It
is recommended that service be allowed to continue as
is on the City
Route along Centerline Road and that new service be initiated on two
subsidized routes:
the Northside Route;
and the Paradise Route
.
The
recom-
mended routings are shown in Figure
3-7.
If the service on the subsidized
routes proves successful during the six-month trial period,
and as both the
V. I
. Government and the taxivan organization acquire experience with managing
3-26
3-27
FIGURE
3-7.
RECOMMENDED
TAXI
VAN
ROUTES
-
ST.
CROIX
and operating the
system,
additional
routes may be considered for implementa-
tion.
3.2.3(d)
Service frequency
The following service frequencies and hours are
recommended to begin
with on the transit
routes.
-
Centerline Road-City Route — Since this
route will not be sub-
sidized,
it will operate on the demand and supply principle.
No
controls need be implemented as long as service
is being offered on
the
route between the hours of
6 am and
11 pm with headways of:
no
more than
3 minutes during rush hours;
5 minutes during off-peak
times up to
7 pm;
and about
10 minutes from
7 pm to
11 pm .
If
service levels drop,
then the Government should pursue other means to
assure that service
is maintained.
-
Northside Road Route — Service should be offered from
6 am to
7 pm,
Monday through Saturday .
Headways should be a maximum of 20 minutes
in each direction .
This could be accomplished by two taxivans
running in opposite directions along the
route throughout the day.
Two six-and-one-half-hour shifts would cover the service hours.
-
Paradise Shuttle — This service should be offered from 6; 30 am to
6:30
pm, Monday through Saturday, with 20-minute headways throughout
the day .
This could be accomplished with one taxivan on each six-
hour
shift.
3.2.3(e)
Safety issues
It
is recognized that taxivans with doors opening on the
right side
present a safety hazard to boarding and alighting passengers.
Both the cost
of modifying existing vans and the cost of purchasing specially designed new
vans would be prohibitively high to taxivan owners.
It
is unlikely that the
Virgin Islands will change
its practice of driving on the left side of the
road in the near
future.
Thus,
to minimize passenger exposure
to hazards
with existing equipment,
it
is recommended that the Government provide
taxivan turnoffs at high usage stops and that taxivans operating in transit
service make an effort to pick up and discharge passengers where there are
places to pull off the
road
(such as parking lots and bus stops where
turnoffs have been established).
On one-way streets,
taxivans should be
required to pick up and discharge passengers on the
right side of the
road ,
directly adjacent to the sidewalks.
Recent legislation requires that taxis have safety inspections twice
a
year instead of once a year.
This establishes
taxi
inspections at
the same
frequency as bus inspections.
As soon as inspectors can be hired,
probably
within the year,
the
regulation will take effect.
No additional safety
requirements are
recommended.
3-28
3.2.3(f)
Fares
It
is recommended that the
fare structure
for the City Route continue as
is:
$1.50
for travel between Christiansted and Frederiksted;
$1.00
for any
distance
in between;
$0.75 for elderly and handicapped passengers ,
students,
and children;
and nighttime fares should be $.50 higher than daytime fares .
The recommended fares
for the Northside Route are $1.00
for
regular
passengers and $0.75
for elderly and handicapped passengers,
students,
and
children .
The recommended fare structure
for the Paradise Shuttle
is $0.25 for all
passengers .
During the trial period,
it is recommended that transferring passengers
not be given any special treatment .
The low shuttle fare reflects this
policy.
The proposed Northside Route to the Sunny Isle Shopping Center will
lessen the need for many riders
to transfer to a second taxivan.
3.2.3(g)
Subsidy mechanism
The recommended subsidy mechanism is
to pay the drivers on the sub-
sidized routes a
rate
that,
in combination with the fares collected , will
amount to a reasonable profit .
This option will
require a minimum of
administrative activity,
since the drivers will simply keep whatever they
collect in fares and will not have to report the amount or turn it in to a
collection agent.
The advantage of this approach
is that it would encourage
good performance on the part of driver-owners.
Good performance should
equate to higher profits.
However,
this approach will
require the Government
to reassess the guaranteed subsidies periodically based on observations of
taxivan passenger loads and estimates of fares collected during the period.
In order to preserve driver incentives,
the subsidies should not be reduced
in direct proportion to the increased fare
revenues.
If the service proves successful during its six-month test period,
other
options may be possible.
The most desirable occurrence would be
for the
service to be so popular that subsidies could be dropped.
The next most
desirable option would be a user-side subsidy program.
If neither prove
feasible,
the initial subsidy mechanism could be continued.
3.2.4
Implementation Plan
3.2.4(a)
Cost estimates
The major cost associated with the recommendations
is the transit
subsidy.
For the Northside Route,
this
is estimated to be approximately
$82,000 annually,
or $41,000
for the six-month trial period
(based upon an
assumed average hourly subsidy of $10 per hour).
For the Paradise Shuttle,
the cost
is estimated to be approximately $68,000 annually,
or $34,000
for
3-29
the six-month trial period
(based upon an assumed average hourly subsidy of
$18 per hour).
These total $150,000 annually,
or $75,000
for six months.
Other expenses associated with the recommendations would be
the salary of
a full-time Government employee on St.
Croix to monitor the performance of
the taxivan-based transit system,
administrative and legal costs to draw up
and negotiate the contract with the taxivan organization,
any expenses of the
taxivan organization covered by the contract,
public relations costs to
advertise the implementation of the new service,
and expenses incurred in
creating turnoffs at high density transit stops.
3.2.4(b)
implementation schedule
The following implementation schedule allows one year to establish the
structure
for operating the subsidized routes.
Because the recommended
transit system is a new concept requiring the resolution of issues not
considered before,
seemingly simple tasks may take longer than anticipated.
Stage
I:
first year
1.
Obtain legislative approval and funding for the recommended transit
program.
2.
Form organization of taxivan operators.
3.
Negotiate contract between the Government and taxivan organization to
provide transit service on the two subsidized routes
recommended.
4.
Hire a full-time Government employee
to monitor the transit operation
on St.
Croix.
5.
Conduct
a public relations campaign to publicize the new routes,
fares,
and schedules.
Stage
II:
second year
6.
Implement the new system on the two subsidized routes.
7.
After six months,
evaluate the performance of the system and
determine whether to continue; make any necessary adjustments.
Stage III:
third year
8.
If patronage on the subsidized routes
is high and the system is
working well,
consider establishing service on additional
routes
according to expected demand.
3.3
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
3.3.1
Existing Conditions
This section describes and analyzes existing roadways,
traffic patterns,
and operating conditions,
and provides the context
for the recommendations
that
follow.
3-30
3.3.1(a)
Street system
The St.
Croix street system reflects both its terrain and development
patterns.
There
is a basic grid of north-south and east-west roads in the
central suburban belt,
irregular
road patterns
in the hilly areas,
and
historic street grids
in Christiansted and Frederiksted.
The principal
roadways and routes on St.
Croix are as follows:
-
Centerline Road
(Route
70)
is the main east-west route between the
two towns.
It
is a straight two-lane road from Frederiksted to a
point midway between the Vi lie La Reine and Sunny Isle Shopping
Centers;
then it meanders through the escarpments until
it reaches
Christiansted.
-
The Melvin H.
Evans Highway
(Route
66) parallels Centerline Road
between the Sunny Isle Shopping Center and Frederiksted,
about
1 mile
south of Centerline Road.
It
is a four-lane divided highway with
turning lanes,
signalized intersections,
and controlled access from
adjacent areas;
it serves the airport,
the Hess oil
refinery,
and
nearby residential developments.
-
Northside Road
(Route
75)
links Christiansted with the suburban areas
along the water to the northwest.
It provides two through lanes plus
right turning lanes at key intersections.
-
Routes 70 and 75 meet on the western edge of Christiansted.
All
traffic entering the town from the west
is required to pass through
this single gateway.
Streets in the historic center of Christiansted are narrow,
have
virtually no corner turning radii,
and usually are lined with parked cars.
Traffic concentrates on King,
Company,
and Hospital Streets,
since the other
streets generally have steep grades and circuitous routings.
King and
Company Streets and sections of other streets have been converted to one-way
flow.
The one-way street pattern, which was developed to reduce conflicts
and expedite traffic movement,
is shown in Figure 3-8 together with the major
land uses in the waterfront area.
3.3.1(b)
Traffic signal controls
Traffic signals control movements at 15 intersections on St.
Croix.
Figure
3-9 shows the locations of these signalized intersections,
and Table
3-4 gives further details about their operations.
Among the signalized
intersections are key intersections along Northside Road,
Centerline Road,
and the Melvin H.
Evans Highway.
One junction in the Mon Bijou area
is
signalized.
The signal installations are
recent — most have been installed within
the past five years.
The traffic signals along the Melvin H.
Evans Highway
3-31
3-32
FIGURE
3-8.
STREET
DIRECTIONS
AND
MAJOR
LAND
USES
IN
CHRISTIANSTED
T5
0)
JJ
<0C
-H
uOOo
<uu
(0
w
r—
H
(0
&
•H
03
>i
•&
•H
DC
UJ
s
£]
DC
C
•H
>
»—
i
0)s
3-33
FIGURE
3-9.
TRAFFIC
SIGNALS
-
ST.
CROIX
TABLE 3-4.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLS ON ST. CROIX
SIGNAL
TYPE
CYCLE
DATE
CONTROL
(sec.
)
INSTALLED
1
Pre-timed
60
NA
2
Pre-timed
NA
1986
3
Pre-timed
50
NA
4
Fully-actuated
110**
1986
5
Semi-actuated*
80
1982
6
Pre-timed
55
1987
7
Semi-actuated*
80
1981
8
Semi-actuated*
80
1986
9
Semi-actuated*
80
1984
10
Semi-actuated*
80
1986
11
Semi-actuated*
80
Post 1986
12
Semi-actuated*
80
Post 1986
13
Semi-actuated*
80
Post 1986
14
Semi-actuated
80
Post 1986
15
NA
NA
NA
* Background Cycle
** Maximum
Source: Virgin Islands Department of Public Works
are semi-actuated and coordinated to provide progressive
55 mph speeds.
The
signals along Northside and Centerline Roads are pre-timed.
The signal at
the Sunny Isle intersection
is fully actuated.
3.3.1(c)
Traffic volumes
The daily,
and morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes on the
major
roadways
in
St.
Croix are shown in Figures
3-10,
3-11,
and 3-12,
respectively.
The
1988 volumes were obtained from special counts conducted
from January to March,
1988.
The 1972 average daily traffic figures reported
in the Highway Needs Study are shown
for comparative purposes.
Daily volumes .
The heaviest traffic volumes on St.
Croix are found on
Centerline Road east of
the Sunny Isle Shopping Center,
and on Northside Road
east of
the junction with Route
74.
Twelve-hour volumes on these two
3-34
o
•H
4-1
4-1
<0u
>—o
-
H
'-I — fN
-* VO
C\|
HrtN
|
c»W
s
t=jo>
©
p=l
I
fO
u3DO
mn
3-35
S
98§
DAILY
TRAFFIC
3-36
FIGURE
3-11.
AM
PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
-
CENTRAL
CHRISTIAN
STED
3-37
FIGURE
3-12.
PM
PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
-
CENTRAL
CHRISTIANSTED
sections of roadway are estimated to exceed 20,000 vehicles.
The following
12-hour volumes were recorded at other locations.
-
Northside Road
(Route
75) west of Route 74 — 17,000 vehicles.
-
Centerline Road
(Route
70)
east of Route
75 — 14,000 vehicles.
-
Melvin H.
Evans Highway
(Route
66) west of Sunny Isle intersection —
12,000 vehicles.
-
Route 75 east of Christiansted — 8,000 vehicles.
-
Centerline Road
(Route
70) west of Route
63 — 3,500 vehicles.
Trucks comprised about 15 to 20 percent of the total 12-hour flow on
these
roads.
Morning peak hour volumes .
The morning peak hour traffic volumes
in the
Christiansted area are highest between 7:30 and 8:30 am.
Traffic
is oriented
toward central Christiansted from all directions.
Peak directional volumes
approach 1,100 vehicles per hour eastbound on Centerline Road
(west of Route
83),
1,000 vehicles per hour eastbound on Western Suburb Road
(east of the
junction between Routes 70 and 75),
and 850 vehicles per hour eastbound on
Northside Road
(west of Route 753).
These are heavy volumes
for a single
traffic lane to carry.
The volumes outbound from Christiansted are also heavy.
They approxi-
mate 850 vehicles per hour on Western Suburb Road
(east of its junction
between Routes 70 and 75),
800 vehicles per hour on Centerline Road
(west of
Route
83),
and 600 vehicles per hour on Northside Road
(west of Route 753).
These
flows also exceed desirable capacities.
Afternoon peak hour volumes .
The afternoon peak hour volumes
in the
Christiansted area are highest from
5 to
6
pm.
Although traffic
is heaviest
outbound from the town center,
inbound flows are also quite heavy.
The peak westbound directional volumes approximate 1,000 vehicles per
hour on Centerline Road
(west of Route
83),
and on Western Suburb Road
(east
of the junction between Routes 70 and 75).
Westbound volumes on Northside
Road approximate 700 vehicles per hour.
Eastbound volumes on East End Road
(at Route
85)
approach 600 vehicles per hour.
These volumes exceed the
desirable capacity of a single
lane.
Eastbound volumes approximate 800 vehicles per hour on Centerline Road
(west of Route
83)
and on Western Suburb Road
(east of the junction between
Routes 70 and 75).
Eastbound volumes approach 600 vehicles per hour on
Northside Road.
Westbound volumes on East End Road range from 350
to 450
vehicles per hour.
3-38
3.3.1(d)
Traffic problems and congestion
Traffic congestion occurs during busy traffic periods
in the Sunny Isle
Shopping Center area,
on the western approaches to Christiansted,
and within
Christiansted center.
No traffic congestion was observed in Frederiksted and
its environs.
Much of the existing congestion results
from:
the convergence of all
traffic from the west onto Centerline Road near
the Sunny Isle Shopping
Center;
the convergence of Centerline Road traffic with flows from the north
at the junction of Routes 70 and 75;
and the concentration of traffic on King
and Company Streets
in Christiansted.
Specific problem areas include the following.
-
Right turns block through traffic along Centerline Road,
especially
between the Ville La Reine and Sunny Isle Shopping Centers.
-
Heavy traffic flows converge on Centerline Road at the Sunny Isle
intersection.
The complex signal phasing results in cycles up to 110
seconds, with delays to traffic in the single northbound lane common
during the afternoon peak hour.
Eastbound,
the Melvin H.
Evans
Highway and Centerline Road traffic join and proceed in a single
lane.
-
Recurrent congestion occurs on Centerline Road at its junction with
Route
81.
This
is the maximum-load-point section of Centerline Road,
and the delays resulting from police control
in a school area cause a
spillback of traffic
in both directions during peak traffic periods.
Operations are further complicated by the existing offset alignment
of Route
81
for north-south traffic.
-
All Centerline Road and Northside Road traffic going to and from
central Christiansted crosses at a single gateway point,
the
intersection of Contentment,
Soboetker,
Northside,
and Western Suburb
Roads
(the intersection of Routes 70 and 75).
Turning lanes are
provided on all approaches except Soboetker Road, which backs up
during the evening peak hour.
-
Traffic moves slowly on King and Company Streets in Christiansted.
There are conflicts with traffic crossing at intersecting streets and
with parked cars.
Taxi parking activity on King Street near Hospital
Street often blocks King Street.
Other vehicles parking and un-
parking also block moving traffic.
Speeds are further constrained by
the narrow corner turning radii and the lack of adequate sight
distances at intersections
(parking
is allowed to within 10 feet of
intersections)
.
-
There
is considerable cruising and circulating by vehicles in search
of curb-side parking space
in central Christiansted.
These vehicles
add to the traffic flow and congestion.
3-39
-
Illegal curb-side parking,
such as the parking adjacent
to the
District Court on King and Company Streets,
has a negative impact on
traffic
flow.
Enforcement of no-parking regulations appears ineffec-
tive.
Special
travel
time studies were conducted to quantify the extent of
traffic congestion
in central Christiansted between the junction of Routes
70
and 75 and Hospital Street.
The
results are shown in Tables
3-5 and 3-6 and
are highlighted below.
-
Eastbound travel
times via Western Suburb Road and King Street
averaged about
4 minutes during the morning and evening peak hours.
However, when a cruise ship was docked in Frederiksted,
they exceeded
15 minutes.
-
Westbound travel times via Company Street and Western Suburb Road
approximated
3 minutes during the morning peak hour and
4 minutes
during the evening peak hour.
-
Travel
times via Watergut Street were slightly longer,
except
outbound in the morning peak hour.
-
Approximately two minutes are lost per trip each way as
a result of
normal traffic friction and congestion.
However, when a cruise ship
is docked in Frederiksted,
taxi activity at the waterfront and on
Hospital Street increases dramatically.
This backs up traffic on
King Street through town,
sometimes up to the gateway junction west
of town.
Under these conditions,
twelve minutes of time
is lost per
trip on average.
3.3.1(e)
Implications
Traffic congestion in Christiansted and central
St.
Croix has not
reached crisis proportions.
But there are several problems that should be
corrected to improve operating conditions.
Traffic management and engineer-
ing changes will be needed in the short
run to improve flow through the
Centerline Road corridor and downtown Christiansted.
Over the longer term,
construction of the Christiansted Bypass will be needed to increase east-west
capacity,
to separate through and downtown Christiansted traffic,
and to
better balance the distribution of traffic entering Christiansted from the
eastern and western approaches.
3.3.2
Traffic Improvement Plan
This section sets forth a strategic traffic improvement plan for
central
St.
Croix.
The plan is based on an analysis of existing conditions,
a review of ongoing proposals and programs,
and discussions with the public
and private sectors.
3-40
TABLE 3-5.
TRAVEL TIMES AND SPEEDS BETWEEN THE JUNCTION OF
ROUTES 70 AND 75 AND HOSPITAL STREET
(MARCH 1988)
ROUTE AND DIRECTION
EASTBOUND
Via Western Suburb-King
AM Peak
PM Peak
Mid-morning
(cruise ship
in)
Via Watergut-King Cross-
Western Suburb
AM Peak
PM Peak
WESTBOUND
Via Company-Western Suburb
AM Peak
PM Peak
Via Company-Market-Soboetker
AM Peak
PM Peak
TRAVEL TIMES
SPEED
(minutes: seconds)
(mph)
RANGE
AVERAGE
2:35-5:02
3:40
11.5
4:30
9.3
*
15:45
2.7
*
4:39
10.3
4:10
11.5
2:41-3:19
2:59
11.0
3:15-4:40
3:49
11.0
4:08-5:10
3:37
13.3
6:30
7.4*
*
1 test run
Source:
Test
runs,
March,
1988
3-41
TABLE 3-6
ESTIMATED TIME LOST FROM CONGESTION
JUNCTION OF ROUTES 70 AND 75 TO HOSPITAL STREET
(0.7 miles)
EASTBOUND
TIME LOST
( minutes : seconds
)
Via Western Suburb-King
AM Peak
PM Peak
Mid-morning
(cruise ship
in)
1:10
2:00
12:15
Via Watergut-Kings Cross-
Western Suburb
AM Peak
PM Peak
WESTBOUND
2:09
1:40
Via Company-Western Suburb
AM Peak
PM Peak
0:29
1:19
Via Company-Market-Soboetker
AM Peak
PM Peak
1:07
4:00
Source:
Table
3-5
"Non-congested"
flow assumed as 2:30 minutes via King and Company
Streets at
17 and 19 mph,
respectively.
3-42
3.3.2(a)
The overall plan
The
recommended traffic improvement plan
is shown in Figure
3-13 and
Table
3-7.
This plan incorporates proposals of the Department of Public
Works as well as some additional
improvements.
It
is designed to improve
traffic flow and reduce congestion in the Centerline Road corridor,
on the
approaches to Christiansted,
and within the
town.
It includes improvements
to the high-hazard locations identified by the Department of Public Works.
The plan recommends
the
following.
-
Provision of right turn lanes at key junctions along Centerline Road
from Frederiksted to the Ville La Reine Shopping Center.
-
Provision of two-way right turn lanes on Centerline Road in the Ville
La Reine and Sunny Isle Shopping Center area.
-
Expansion of three strategic intersections:
Centerline Road at Sunny
Isle Shopping Center;
Centerline Road and Route
81;
and Route
70,
Route
75,
and Soboetker Road.
-
Construction of the Christiansted Bypass.
-
Changes
in curb-use
regulations along King and Company Streets
in the
center of Christiansted.
-
Development of a one-way street system in central Frederiksted in
anticipation of future need.
3.3.2(b)
Centerline Road corridor:
Ville La Reine Shopping Center to
Christiansted
Several
improvements are essential along Centerline Road in the Ville La
Reine and Sunny Isle Shopping Center area,
and on its approach to Chris-
tiansted,
in order
to increase capacity and reduce traffic friction.
The
numbers
in parentheses below correspond to the numbers
in Figure
3-13.
Two-way right turn lane
(1).
The plan calls
for providing a two-way
right turn lane on Centerline Road between the Ville La Reine and Sunny Isle
Shopping Centers.
The lane would be provided by restriping the roadway for
three lanes whenever
it
is 30-32
feet or more
in width.
The center lane
would be used only by traffic turning right in each direction.
(See Figure
3-14).
Overhead signs are desirable to reinforce the pavement markings.
Two-way center turning lanes,
such as these,
have proven successful through-
out the United States
in reducing delays and accidents.
Similar benefits are
anticipated in St.
Croix.
Sunny Isle intersection expansion
(2).
The intersection at the Sunny
Isle Shopping Center has been effectively channelized and signalized by the
3-43
3-44
FIGURE
3-13.
TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
-
ST.
CROIX
TABLE 3-7.
ST. CROIX TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A.
Centerline Road Corridor - villa La Reine Shopping Center to Christiansted
1.
Provide two-way right turn lane where width permits from the junction
at Route 663
to the junction at Route
81.
2.
Provide additional northbound lane at the Sunny Isle intersection.
3.
Realign Route^81 at Centerline Road.
Expand and signalize the
intersection.
4.
Provide additional southbound right turn lane on Soeboetker Road at
the intersection of Routes 70 and 75.
B.
Centerline Road Corridor - Frederiksted to Ville La Reine Shopping Center
5.
Widen Centerline Road to provide
right turn lanes at the junctions at
Routes 661,
703,
69 ,
663,
and 75.
C.
Other Outlying Improvements
6.
Extend Route
69 to the Melvin H.
Evans Highway and signalize the
junction.
7.
Expand the junction of Routes 72 and 73 at Mon Bijou and upgrade
the traffic signals.
4
8.
Connect Routes
79 and 81 near the hospital.
D.
Christiansted Bypass
9.
Develop Christiansted fSypass west of the Sunny Isles intersection to
east of Christiansted.
Under design by the Department of Public Works.
^ Programmed for FY 1988.
3 Mainly programmed for FY 1988.
4 Programmed for 1991.
5 Christiansted to Orange Grove programmed for 1990.
Western part of
bypass programmed for
1994.
3-45
TABLE 3-7 .
( Continued
)
E.
Christiansted Central Business District
10.
Transpose parking restrictions and taxivan stops on King and Company
Streets to the opposite side of the street.
11.
Restrict curb-side parking on King and Company Streets to two hours.
12.
Create taxi
loading zone on the south side of King Street from Church
to Hospital Streets.
F.
Frederiksted
13.
Develop north-south one-way street system.
3-46
3-47
FIGURE
3-14.
RECOMMENDED
TWO-WAY
RIGHT
TURN
LANES
ON
CENTERLINE
ROAD
Department of Public Works.
There are turning lanes on three of the
four
approaches.
However,
the northbound approach operates
in a single
lane,
and
backs up during the homebound commute of Hess Oil Company employees.
Accordingly,
the plan recommends widening the northbound approach to
provide one additional
lane.
(See Figure 3-15).
The added lane will make
it possible
to separate northbound,
through,
and turning traffic,
and to
improve the traffic signal sequence.
It can be provided without taking any
buildings.
The existing fully-actuated signal controller would be
retained.
Centerline Road and Route 81 intersection improvement
(3).
The
recom-
mended treatment for this intersection,
shown in Figure
3-16,
reflects the
Department of Public Works'
proposals to increase capacity and reduce
delays.
At present,
the offset alignment of Route
81 as
it crosses Center-
line Road,
and police control of traffic
(due to a large school crossing
pedestrian traffic),
result
in excessive delays to heavy east-west Centerline
Road flow.
Traffic backs up in each direction during peak commuter and
traffic hours,
sometimes extending as
far back as the Sunny Isle intersection
in the western direction.
The recommended treatment corrects these conditions,
and features the
following modifications.
-
Route
81 would be realigned to cross Centerline Road at right angles.
The existing Route
81
roadway to the south of Centerline Road would
be
retained for westbound left turns only.
-
Centerline Road should be widened to
36
feet.
The widening makes
it
possible to provide protected right-turn lanes,
thereby removing
turning traffic from through traffic.
-
Two-phase
semi-actuated traffic signals would control movements.
Route
81 would be
"on call,"
receiving the green signal only upon
demand
.
-
Signals should be interconnected with those at the Sunny Isle
intersection,
so that the Route
81 traffic moves at the same time as
the north-south traffic at the Sunny Isle intersection.
Routes 75-Route 70-Soboetker Lane-Western Suburb Road intersection
(4)
.
The am and pm peak hour traffic volumes
for this gateway into Christiansted
are shown
in Figure
3-17.
The recommended treatment
(Figure
3-18)
is
designed to accommodate the heavy traffic volumes that pass through this
intersection — over 2,400 vehicles during each peak hour.
The intersection presently is signalized with a two-phase pre-timed
control.
The Department of Public Works has provided turning lanes on three
of
the
four approaches.
The single southbound lane on the Soboetker Road
approach backs up during the afternoon peak hour.
3-48
Centerline
Rd
oo
©Q©
3-49
FIGURE
3-15.
RECOMMENDED
EARLY
ACTION
TREATMENT
-
MELVIN
H.
EVANS
HIGHWAY
/
CENTERLINE
ROAD
INTERSECTION
School
3-50
FIGURE
3-16.
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
-
CENTERLINE
ROAD
/
ROUTE
81
INTERSECTION
FIGURE
1-17.
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
- ROUTE 75
/ ROUTE
70
/ SOBOETKER
LANE
/ WESTERN SUBURB ROAD INTERSECTION
3-51
Existing
Roadway
3-18.
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
-
ROUTE
75
/
ROUTE
70
/
SOBOETKER
LANE
/
WESTERN
SUBURB
ROAD
INTERSECTION
The recommended plan calls for widening the west side of Soboetker Road
to provide an additional lane
for southbound right turns.
A three-phase
traffic signal would separate conflicting Soboetker Road and Route 75
movements.
The added capacity on Soboetker Road would make the Watergut
Street-Soboetker Road route a more attractive alternative
to and from the
center of Christiansted.
It would complement an expanded seaplane parking
lot and Watergut Street access to and from the existing Government parking
lot.
3.3.2(c)
Centerline Road corridor;
Ville La Heine Shopping Center to
Frederiksted
(5)
The plan calls for protected right turn lanes at key intersections.
These lanes would minimize conflicts between through and turning traffic at
the high-accident locations identified by the Department of Public Works.
The
right turn lanes would be provided at the following locations:
-
Route
661;
-
Route
703;
-
Route
69;
-
Route 663;
and
-
Route
75.
3.3.2(d)
Other improvements in outlying areas
Several traffic and road improvements
in outlying areas complement the
Centerline Road corridor treatments.
These improvements were identified by
the Department of Public Works and the study team.
Route 72 and Route 73 intersection expansion
( 6 )
.
The widening of the
approaches to the intersection of Routes 72 and 73 near Mon Bijou is
desirable to provide protected right turn lanes at this high-hazard location.
Fully-actuated traffic signal controls should be installed to minimize
traffic delays.
Route 79 and Route 81 connector road
(7).
A direct east-west connector
between Routes 79 and 81
is desirable to improve access to the hospital from
Route
81.
This connection also would reduce traffic pressures at the
junction of Routes 70 and 81.
(This proposal has been suggested by the
Department of Public Works).
3.3.2(e)
Christiansted Bypass
(8)
The Christiansted Bypass proposed by the Department of Public Works,
is
an integral part of the plan.
The bypass,
shown in Figure
3-19, would
connect the Melvin H.
Evans Highway to the west of Christiansted with
3-53
3-54
FIGURE
3-19.
PROPOSED
CHRISTIANSTED
BYPASS
Hospital Street on the east side of town.
In between,
it would generally
parallel Centerline and Contentment Roads
(sometimes following a common
sector),
and then proceed south of Christiansted to meet Hospital Street.
A
spur would follow Route 753
to connect with Northside Road at Orange Grove.
The bypass initially would be developed from Hospital Street to Content-
ment Road as a two-lane highway.
Subsequently,
four lanes would be developed
from Contentment Road to the Melvin H.
Evans Highway.
At the Sunny Isle
Shopping Center,
it
is essential
to locate the bypass on a new alignment
south of Route 70 to avoid placing excessive traffic pressures on the Sunny
Isle intersection.
The bypass has several
important traffic and development benefits:
it
more than doubles the
road capacity along the Centerline Road corridor;
it
provides an alternative to the Hospital-King-Company Streets
route;
it
provides direct access to Christiansted from the south;
it enables traffic
going to or from the eastern parts of
St.
Croix to bypass Christiansted;
and
it improves the attractiveness of eastern Christiansted for development.
It
also has received the support of the Christiansted community.
Consequently,
its development should be encouraged.
3.3.2(f)
Christiansted Central Business District traffic management
improvements
(9,10,11)
The recommended traffic management plan for
the Christiansted Central
Business District
is shown in Figure
3-20.
Highlights are listed below.
-
The existing one-way street system operates satisfactorily and should
be
retained.
-
The parking restrictions on King and Company Streets
(and the 50-foot
taxivan stops)
should be transposed to the
right sides of the streets
(9).
Thus,
the north side of King Street and the south side of
Company Street would become
"No Stopping"
areas.
The change will
enable the taxivans to load and unload passengers along the curb
side,
rather than into the street as
is presently the case.
(See
Figure
3-21 .
)
-
Parking on King and Company Streets east of Prince Street should be
limited to two hours
(10).
This regulation and its effective
enforcement will make curb-side parking spaces more readily available
for shopper and visitor parking.
Field observations indicated that
about half of the parkers along these curbs
remain for
6 hours or
more
(Table
3-8).
The expansion of parking at the Government parking
lot and the seaplane terminal would make more space available
for
workers and other long-term parkers.
(See Section 3.4).
-
Taxi
loading areas along King Street between Queen Cross and Hospital
Streets should be eliminated to free traffic flow through this
bottleneck area
(10).
New taxi
zones are provided along the south
3-55
3-56
FIGURE
3-20.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
-
KING
AND
COMPANY
STREETS
IN
CHRISTIANSTED
TABLE 3-8.
PARKERS STAYING 6 HOURS OR MORE ON KING AND COMPANY STREETS
(Typical March,
1988 day)
NO.
PARKERS
NO. REMAINING
%
8:45 AM
2:45 PM
Kings Cross - Queen Cross
17
9
Queen Cross - Hospital
8
4
53
50
Company
1
Hospital - Church
4
1
0
Church - Queen Cross
16
7
Queen Cross - Kings Cross
7
5
Kings Cross - Prince
13
6
0
44
71
46
TOTAL
65
31
Source:
Field survey, March
30,
1988.
All
illegally parked.
51%
of illegal parkers are excluded.
3-58
side of King Street between Church and Hospital Streets,
and within
the National Park Service parking lot on the waterfront
(11).
-
The turning radius on Watergut Street where
it joins King Cross
Street should be increased to facilitate traffic
flow.
These changes will
improve the effectiveness of the existing curb
parking supply,
improve taxivan passenger
safety,
and facilitate vehicular
flow on King Street.
3.3.2(g)
Frederiksted one-way system (12)
At present,
traffic volumes are light
in the center of Frederiksted,
and
there
is no peak hour congestion.
However,
the Virgin Islands Government
plans to encourage tourism in Frederiksted as a complement to expanded
cruise ship activity.
As the number of shops,
visitors,
and workers
increases,
there will be
a corresponding increase
in traffic
flow.
It then
may become necessary to reduce travel friction and increase traffic capacity.
The one-way street system shown in Figure
3-22 achieves these objec-
tives.
It develops Strand and Queen Streets as one-way northbound streets,
and King and Prince Streets as one-way southbound streets between Fisher and
Custom House Streets.
This system should be considered for possible future
implementation when required by traffic conditions.
3.3.3
Implementation Program
This section sets forth an implementation program for
the
recommended
roadway and traffic improvements.
It contains order of magnitude cost
estimates,
presents priorities,
and identifies implications to ongoing
activities.
3.3.3(a)
Cost estimates
Order-of-magnitude estimates of construction and traffic control costs
of the recommended improvements are given in Table
3-9.
These estimates are
in 1988 dollars and are based on the Department of Public Works'
cost assump-
tions
for the Christiansted Bypass and the connector between Routes
81 and
79,
and on unit values suggested by Department of Public Works personnel.
However,
in some cases adjustments were made based upon the likely extent of
construction.
The total program cost
is estimated at $12.9 million.
About $10.5
million of this total would be needed to build the Christiansted Bypass,
and
another $1.0 million for
the connector between Routes
79 and 81.
The
remain-
ing $1.4 million would be spread among eleven traffic engineering and manage-
ment projects.
3-59
FIGURE
3-22.
POSSIBLE FUTURE ONE-WAY SYSTEM
IN FREDERIKSTED
3-60
TABLE 3-9.
ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION
SIGmLS
TOTAL
SOURCE
1
Two-way right turn
lane on Centerline Rd.-
Ville La Reine
to Sunny
Isle
(3)
2
Additional northbound
lane at Sunny Isle
junction
70,000
—
70,000
(1)
3
Centerline Rd.
at Rt.81
improvement
300,000
75,000
375,000
(1)
4
Routes 70
&
75 junction
improvement
100,000
50,000
150,000
(1)
5
Improvement of
6
intersections
along Centerline Rd.
600,000
75,000
675,000
(1)
6
Route 69 extension
200,000
75,000
275,000
(1)
7
Routes 72
&
73 junction
improvement
100,000
50,000
150,000
(1)
8
Connector of Routes
79
&
81
1,000,000
-
1,000,000
(2)
9
Christiansted Bypass
10,500,000
10,500,000
(2)
10-12
Traffic management
downtown Christiansted
-
-
-
(3)
13
Frederiksted one-way
system
-
-
-
(3)
TOTAL
12,870,000
325,000 13,195,000
Sources and Notes:
1.
H.
S.
Levinson and TSC based upon $75,000 traffic signal
costs and
$100,000 typical channelization costs per
intersection.
Adjusted upward
or downward in specific cases.
2.
Department of Public Works estimate.
3. Negligible costs.
4.
Right-of-way costs not included.
3-61
3.3.3(b)
Recommended construction sequence
The desired sequence of program development is shown in Table
3-10.
This sequence gives first priority to very low-cost transportation system
management actions,
second priority to intersection and signalization
improvements,
and third and fourth priorities
to new road construction.
It
also attempts to distribute program costs over a twelve-year period.
Stage
I -
(Years 0-1)
.
The two-way right-turn lanes on Centerline
Road and the curb-side parking changes in downtown Christiansted should be
implemented.
Costs are minimal.
Stage
II -
(Years 2-4) .
Land should be acquired for the Christiansted
Bypass and the connector between Routes 79 and 81.
Improvements at the
intersection of Routes 70 and 753 and at the intersection of Routes 72 and 73
should be
implemented.
Estimated costs are $1,420,000.
Stage III - (Years 5-8)
.
The Christiansted Bypass should be built
from Mt. Welcome east of Christiansted to Orange Grove.
The connector
between Routes 79 and 81 should also be built
in this
stage.
Estimated costs
are $5,500,000.
Stage IV -
(Years 9 - 12)
.
The Christiansted Bypass should be completed
from Route 753 west to the Melvin H.
Evans Highway.
During this period,
it
also may be necessary to implement the Frederiksted one-way system.
3.3.3(c)
Implications
The
recommended improvement program reflects the ongoing activities and
priorities of the Department of Public Works.
It focuses on the urban
elements of the program with an emphasis on those strategic actions that add
capacity and alleviate congestion.
Obviously, many other
road improvements
will be needed throughout
St.
Croix — extensions of
roads to developing
resort areas,
resurfacing and realigning existing highways,
lighting and
guard
rail
improvements.
The extension of Route 75 south from Centerline Road to the Melvin H.
Evans Highway has not been included in the program.
This
link, which would
provide a further bypass of
the Sunny Isle Shopping Center area,
would
become meaningful only after the Christiansted Bypass
is extended west to
meet the Melvin H.
Evans Highway.
The recommended program for
St.
Croix would cost about $1.2 million per
year over
a 12-year period.
This compares with $5.0 million received annual-
ly by the Virgin Islands Government from the Federal Highway Administration.
3-62
TABLE 3-10.
SUGGESTED PRIORITIES
Improvement Number
Description
(from Table 3-9)
Years 0-1
Negligible Cost
1
Two-way right turn lanes on Centerline Road
9-11
Traffic management improvements in downtown Christiansted
Years 2-4
$1,420,000
(1)
Acquire
rights of way for Christiansted Bypass and
connector between Rts.
79
&
81
2
Additional northbound lane at Sunny Isle intersection
3
Centerline Road
& Route 81 intersection improvement
4
Improvement of junction of Routes 70
&
75
5
Improvements at
6 Centerline Road intersections
6
Improvements at junction of Routes 72
&
73
Years 5-8
$5,500,000
(1)
7
Connector between Routes 79
&
81
8
Christiansted Bypass
(Mt. Welcome to Orange Grove)
Years 9-12
$6,000,000
(1)
8
Complete Christiansted Bypass
12
Frederiksted one-way system
(if necessary)
(1) Excludes acquisition of right of way costs.
3-63
3.4
PARKING IN CENTRAL CHRISTIANSTED
This section analyzes existing parking conditions
in downtown Chris-
tiansted,
and sets forth a suggested parking program.
3.4.1
Background
The parking problem in the center of Christiansted has become a major
concern of workers,
shoppers,
visitors,
government,
private business,
and the
general community.
The lack of attractive and conveniently located off-
street parking results
in extensive competition for curb space,
and frequent
illegal parking activity.
The consequences are excessive traffic cruising in
search of curb-side parking spaces,
frequent traffic conflicts,
and,
in a
broader
sense,
reduced attractiveness of the central area as a place
for
shopping and business.
These problems,
of course,
are not unique
to Christiansted.
They are
found
in central business districts of every size.
However,
unlike Chris-
tiansted,
most communities have adopted parking plans,
and have worked toward
expanding and rationing their downtown parking supply.
Many ideas have been set forth over the last
15 years on how best to
improve parking
in downtown Christiansted.
These have
ranged from expanding
"postage stamp" parking lots within the commercial core
to developing a
multi-level parking garage on the Government parking site.
Within this same
period,
the National Park Service proposed to eliminate
its two parking lots
as part of a plan to upgrade the Fort Christiansvaern Historic Site;
it
is
understood that this proposal was withdrawn over the last year.
Despite the many proposals,
relatively few actions have been taken on
improving parking conditions.
The Government parking lot has been expanded,
and small lots have developed on vacant lots.
However,
an overall parking
program and policy remains to be developed.
Improving the present parking situation
is no easy task.
It
is
compounded by the many narrow streets,
the historic character of the town
center,
the high land costs,
and the divided jurisdiction between the
National Park Service and the Virgin Islands Government.
In developing a parking program many basic questions should be answered.
What are the existing parking patterns and problems and how are they likely
to change?
Where should additional parking be developed and how should
it be
designed?
Who should pay for
it?
What policies should be established
regarding the use of curb-side parking space?
How can,
and should,
parking
be coordinated with urban development?
And how should
it fit into the fabric
of downtown Christiansted?
To address these questions,
the study team held meetings with represe-
ntatives of
the public and private sectors.
Groups queried included the
Department of Public Works,
National Park Service,
and Chamber of Commerce.
The 1974 and 1982 parking studies were
reviewed in depth.
Field observations
3-64
were made of peak parking accumulations.
These meetings and investigations
provided an objective basis
for developing a parking program.
3=4.2
Existing Parking Conditions
The 1988 field observations served to update the 1974 and 1982 parking
studies.
The salient findings and comparisons are discussed below.
3.4.2(a)
Parking supply
It
is estimated that there are approximately 1,300 parking spaces
in
downtown Christiansted.
(The downtown area extends from the harbor to Market
Street and from Fisher Street to Watergut Street).
There were about 1,100
spaces
in the same area in 1982.
About half of
the spaces are located along
curbs,
and half are off-street.
The curb-side spaces have no time limits,
except for Church Street
between King and Company Streets, where a one-hour time limit applies.
Curb-
side parking on King and Company Streets and other streets in the commercial
core
is limited to one side of the street.
The off-street parking spaces are concentrated along the waterfront and
in the block bounded by Watergut,
Strand,
King Cross,
and Prince Streets.
This area contains about 70% of the off-street supply.
The remaining spaces
are dispersed throughout the central area
in small
facilities,
usually
accommodating fewer than
50 cars.
Some of these lots are temporary,
and many
are inefficient and contribute
to traffic congestion.
The three major facilities are:
-
the National Park Service lot on the waterfront
(85 spaces);
-
the National Park Service lot on Hospital Street
(51 spaces);
and
-
the Government parking lot
(150
spaces).
3.4.2(b)
Parking rates
Parking
is
free along the curb and in the National Park Service parking
lots.
The Government parking lot charges $.50 per hour,
$4.00 per day,
and
$40 per month.
3.4.2(c)
Peak parking accumulation
The peak parking accumulation occurs between 11 am and noon.
It was
estimated at 1,140,
as compared to a supply of 1,200.
Thus,
most of the
facilities within the parking study area are
full.
The comparative data
for
3-65
1982 and 1988 are shown in Table
3-11 below. ^
(About 80 of the
570 curb-side
vehicles
(14%)
in 1982 were parked illegally).
PEAK
TABLE
PARKING ACCUMULATION
3-11.
IN CENTRAL CHRISTIANSTED
YEAR
CURB-SIDE
OFF-STREET
TOTAL
1982
570
380
950
1988
560
580
1,140
Block by block peak parking accumulations are shown in Figure
3-23.
These accumulation patterns largely reflect the availability of spaces.
They
clearly indicate that the elimination of waterfront parking,
as initially
suggested by the National Park Service, would seriously overload the existing
parking system.
3.4.2(d)
Existing problems
The present parking situation
is characterized by:
a shortage of space
in the commercial area;
all-day parkers pre-empting curb-side space; parking
and environmental conflicts along the waterfront;
high land costs;
and
limited sites
for expanding the existing off-street parking supply.
Allevi-
ating these problems calls
for better use of existing parking space,
selec-
tive expansion of parking in perimeter areas,
and careful coordination of
parking and development along the Christiansted waterfront.
3.4.3
Policy Guidelines
The following policy principles should underlie a parking development
program for downtown Christiansted.
-
Curb-side parking space
is
a valuable
resource.
It should be
rationed by time-limit restrictions
in the short
run,
and eventually
by pricing.
-
Effective enforcement of curb-side parking limitations
is essential.
-
Further development of parking lots fronting King and Company Streets
should be discouraged,
since they contribute to street congestion,
and break up the continuity of pedestrian circulation.
The peak parking accumulation in 1979 was estimated at 1,100 vehicles
for a slightly smaller study area.
See:
Rollings and Neilson,
Downtown
Christiansted Parking Study ,
1974.
3-66
3-67
FIGURE
3-23.
ESTIMATED
PEAK
PARKING
ACCUMULATION
-
CHRISTIANSTED
-
Large,
consolidated surface parking lots,
such as the Government
parking
lot,
are preferable
to small,
scattered,
"postage
stamp"
sites.
Many of the
26 potential parking sites identified in the 1982
Gannett Fleming Transit Development Program Update - Parking and
Traffic Management Plan are
too small
for meaningful parking
development.
(See Table
3-12).
-
Surface parking
is preferable
to structural parking
in terms of costs
and compatibility with the scale of central Christiansted.
Parking
facility developments should place
a minimum financial drain on the
Virgin Islands Government.
Therefore,
parking garage development
either should be deferred,
or done by the private sector,
possibly
as part of a joint or multi-use commercial project.
-
The National Park Service parking lots on the waterfront and on
Hospital Street should be
retained until suitable replacement parking
is provided.
-
Off-street parking should be an integral part of future developments
along the Christiansted waterfront.
3.4.4
Parking Development Program
The recommended parking development plan,
shown in Figure
3-24,
reflects
the preceding policy guidelines.
It calls
for better management of curb-side
parking,
and the staged provision of off-street parking space.
Table 3-13
sets forth the suggested staging of these proposals.
Stage
I
improvements
should be completed within the next few years
(i.e.,
1988-1992);
Stage
II
improvements should be completed as part of waterfront development plans.
3.4.4(a)
Stage
I improvements
1.
A two-hour parking time limit should be placed into effect on King and
Company Streets east of Prince Street.
As suggested in the traffic
improvement plan,
the curb-side parking should be
relocated on the south
side of King Street and the north side of Company Street to allow
curbside taxivan passenger boarding and alighting.
2.
There should be no stopping or parking along King Street between Queen
Cross and Church Streets.
The
taxi
zone should be
relocated
(a)
adjacent
to the Post Office on the south side of King Street between
Church and Hospital Streets,
and
(b)
in the parking lot at
the wharves.
These changes are essential
to minimize
the likelihood of waiting or
maneuvering taxis blocking King Street traffic.
3.
Additional
ingress and egress to the Government parking lot should be
provided from Watergut Street.
This will better enable the lot to
intercept traffic coming from and going to the west without requiring
vehicles to pass through the junction of Strand and King Cross Streets.
A gate-controlled entrance on Watergut Street should be open at all
3-68
TABLE 3-12.
ANALYSIS OF 26 POTENTIAL PARKING SITES IN IXM3TOWN CHRISTIANSTED
(IDENTIFIED IN 1982 STUDY)
Site Description
Approximate
Status
Remarks
No.
1
Vacant lot next to the
Community Agency on
Prince
St.
2
Drainage area at inter-
section of Market St.,
North St.
and Waterfront Dr.
3
Vacant land between North
and Strand Sts.
and
between Market and Smith Sts.
4
Vacant lot between King and
Company Sts.
behind the
theatre
5
Parking lot opposite
St.
John's Episcopal Church on
King St.
6
Parking lot next to
Itennemann Ice Company
7
Small vacant lot north of
Company Street between Prince
and King Cross Sts.
8
Delapidated building south of
Company St.
between Prince and
King Cross Sts.
9
Vacant lot north of Company
St.
between Queen Cross and
Church Sts.
of Spaces
10
in-use
needs paving
25
in-use
existing streets
55
available
remote,
sloping
site on hill
20
in-use
20
in-use
remote
10
too small
15
in-use
10
too small
10
too small
10 Vacant lot south of Queen St.
155
adjacent to the
fort on the
waterfront
develop as
part of water-
front renewal
11
Vacant lot east of Hospital
50
St.
north of Oster Gade
develop as
part of water-
front renewal
3-69
TABLE 3-12.
(Continued)
Site Description
Approximate
Status
Remarks
No.
of Spaces
12 Vacant property adjacent to
offices of Dept,
of Property
and Procurement and Dept,
of
Social Welfare
90
develop as
part of water-
front renewal
13 Vacant lot south of Queen St.
between Church and Queen
Cross
Sts.
15
inaccessible,
too small
14 Vacant lot north of Queen St.
between Church and Queen
Cross Sts.
13
inaccessible,
too small
15 Vacant lot and adjacent
abandoned residence southeast
of the intersection of Queen
and Queen Cross Sts.
20
marginal, would
serve market
16 Vacant lot northwest of the
intersection of Hill and
King Cross Sts.
15
marginal, would
serve market
17 Several old buildings southeast
of the intersection of Queen
and Prince Sts.
25
available,
but
questionable
18 Vacant lot south of King St.
east of Market
St.
20
in-use
19 Private parking area behind
the old Town Wheel Restaurant
20
in-use
20 Old warehouse east of the
Holger Danske Hotel
40
in-use
21 Vacant lot south of Strand St.
between King Cross and
Prince
Sts.
40
in-use
22 Vacant lot south of Strand St.
east of an alley
20
too small
23 Vacant lot north of the
intersection of Strand and
Prince Sts.
15
in-use
3-70
TABLE 3-12
(Continued)
Site Description
Approximate
No.
of Spaces
Status
Remarks
24 Undeveloped land west of the
existing paid parking lot
40
develop as
pari
of expanded
Government lot
25 Existing unpaved lot south of
the existing paid parking lot
55
in-use
26 Existing unpaved lot south of
Waterfront Dr.
opposite the
entrance to the seaplane base
75
in-use
Source:
Field observations,
March,
1988.
3-71
J 2
3-72
FIGURE
3-24.
PARKING
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
-
DOWNTOWN
CHRISTIANSTED
TABLE 3-13.
PARKING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DOWNTOWN CHRISTIANSTED
Stage
1
1
Limit parking to two hours on King and Company Streets.
Transpose parking from one
side of these streets to the other.
2
Relocate taxi-zone
to area south of King Street and east of
Church Street,
and in waterfront parking area.
Prohibit all
stopping on King Street east of Queen Cross Street.
3
Provide entrance and exit from Government parking lot onto
Watergut Street.
4
Expand Government parking lot. Add
30 to
50 parking spaces.)
5
Surface,
illuminate and expand seaplane base parking lot.
Increase capacity from about 100 to 200 spaces.
Stage
II
6
Incorporate 150 to 200 spaces into an integrated waterfront
development plan.
100 spaces would replace waterfront parking
area.
7
Convert waterfront parking lot to park and taxivan
loading zones.
Remove parking only after replacement parking
is
provided.
8
Retain and improve National Park Service Hospital Street lot.
9
Defer construction of 150 to 200 space deck with ground floor
commercial development along King Cross,
until after additional
surface parking
is provided at the seaplane base and in the
existing Government parking lot.
Parking and Management Improvements
10
Improve enforcement.
11
Consider parcards,
but only after they have proven successful
in
Charlotte Amalie.
12
Increase monthly rates
in Government parking lot from $40 to
$75,
but only after additional parking
is available
in seaplane
parking lot.
3-73
times;
the Watergut exit should be open during the afternoon peak
period, 3-6
pm.
4.
The Government parking lot should be expanded.
An additional
50 or more
spaces can be provided by acquiring the vacant property just to the west
of
the existing
lot.
Ideally,
the scattered parking lots in the block
bounded by Prince, Watergut,
King Cross,
and Strand Streets should be
consolidated into the Government parking lot.
5.
The seaplane terminal parking lot should be expanded and improved.
The
lot should be expanded from about 100 to 200 spaces;
it should be paved
and illuminated.
(The DPW is considering a shuttle bus service from the Government
parking lot to the business and tourist areas of Christiansted.
It would
seem that the need for a shuttle bus service would be questionable due to the
relatively short distance
from the lot to the waterfront and the small number
of parking spaces involved.
However,
an experimental shuttle service could
be tried to assess the demand for such a system.
)
3.4.4(b)
Stage
II improvements
6.
Off-street parking space should be incorporated into an integrated
development plan for the Christiansted waterfront.
There
is need for an
overall plan that preserves space along the waterfront
for pedestrians,
realizes the commercial development potential of the area,
and provides
needed parking capacity.
7.
About 50-100 parking spaces should be provided for the currently
proposed waterfront developments, utilizing as appropriate available
Government-owned land.
An additional
100 spaces should be provided as a
replacement for the National Park Service parking lot on the waterfront.
This would enable
the lot to be converted to a taxi and car loading
area,
and a waterfront park.
The existing National Park Service parking
lot on Hospital Street should be retained and improved.
Construction of a 150-200 space parking deck over the existing Govern-
ment parking lot should be deferred until after additional surface parking
is
provided in the existing Government parking lot and at the seaplane terminal.
At that time,
its need and financial feasibility should be analyzed.
This
site
is well-located and of suitable
size
for a parking garage or deck tied
to commercial development along King Cross Street.
However,
issues of scale
(impacts on the Holger Danske Hotel),
costs,
and financial feasibility would
have
to be resolved before such a facility could be built.
3.4.4(c)
Parking management improvements
8.
Effective enforcement of on-street parking regulations
in central
Christiansted
is essential.
It
is
a prerequisite
for a successful
parking program.
3-74
9.
The use of PARCARDS
for on-street parking in Christiansted should be
considered,
but only if they prove successful
in Charlotte Amalie from
the standpoints of enforcement,
revenue,
and cost.
10.
The monthly parking rates
in the Government parking lot should be
increased to $75,
but only after additional parking
is provided at the
seaplane terminal.
A fee of $30 per month could be
set for parking at
the seaplane terminal.
3-75/76
4.
ST. JOHN
4.1
INTRODUCTION
St.
John
is the smallest of the three Virgin Islands
in area,
popula-
tion,
and land available for development.
Consequently,
its transportation
needs and problems are less pressing than those of St.
Thomas and St.
Croix.
It covers 20 square miles,
of which about two thirds
is occupied by the
Virgin Islands National Park.
Its terrain is quite
rugged, with very little
flat land available
for development.
Figure
4-1
shows the terrain of the
island.
The island's 1986 population of 2,940 people accounted for less than
3%
of the 110,000 people living on the three principal Virgin Islands.
(This
figure
is up 50% 'since 1970).
The vast majority of people live
in the
vicinity of Cruz Bay on the western end of
St.
John.
A small enclave exists
in the community of Coral Bay on the eastern side of the
island,
surrounded
by the National Park.
Figure
4-2 shows the locations of the major
residen-
tial concentrations on the island,
together with the 1985 subdistrict
population estimates.
Cruz Bay,
on the west side of the island,
is where most people
live,
work,
and shop.
It
is where the National Park Service dock and the
St.
Thomas-St.
John ferry docks are located,
and where most tourist accommoda-
tions and services are located.
The
town, which dates back several cen-
turies,
has its own character,
and is viewed as an historic district.
The
streets are narrow,
often less than 20 feet wide in the town's center,
and
often lack sidewalks.
Most of the streets
in the center of town have been
converted to one-way traffic
flow.
4.2
PUBLIC Tj^SFORTATIGN
4.2.1
Existing Conditions
There
is no public transit system on the
island of
St.
John.
People who
do not have their own means obtain transportation through ridesharing and
via safari vehicles and taxis
for hire.
There has not been an urgent need
for public transportation,
because most of the island's small population
lives
in proximity to the main community,
Cruz Bay.
There are approximately
50 taxis on the
island, mostly
in the form of
safari vehicles
(Figure
4-3)
and vans.
They operate under
the same medallion
4-1
I
l
1
QJ C
*£ *S)
ffl
.t:
O >
4-2
FIGURE
4-1.
TOPOGRAPHY
OF
ST.
JOHN
4-3
FIGURE
4-2.
POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
-
ST.
JOHN
4-4
FIGURE
4-3.
SAFARI
VEHICLE
system as the other two islands.
Unlike the operations on the other
islands,
however,
taxis on St.
John may not charge any more or less than the published
rates set by the Legislature.
Appendix B contains the
fare schedule
for
St.
John.
The limited number of elderly and handicapped persons
(about
30 elderly
persons and
5 handicapped students)
are served by several cars sponsored by
the Departments of Health and Human Services,
and Education.
Ferries have a greater
role
in public transportation on St.
John,
because
St.
John
is more dependent on off-island services than are the other
islands.
St.
John has no high school;
high school students must commute to
St.
Thomas every day.
Many residents work off-island and must commute daily
or weekly to their places of employment.
4.2.2
Transit Demand
Some Government officials have suggested that enough demand exists to
warrant public transportation service between the towns of Coral Bay and Cruz
Bay during the morning and evening rush hours,
and perhaps at midday.
How-
ever,
there were no data available on potential demand for
this service.
The
limited observations by the study team indicated that there did not appear to
be sufficient demand to warrant transit service at this
time.
4.2.3
Transit Alternatives
Although transit
is not now an urgent need on the
island,
it
is conceiv-
able that the demand for service may emerge
in the
future.
If this should
occur,
it would be desirable
to develop a transit service that was in keeping
with the character of the island and that made use of existing resources.
The
rough terrain,
poor
road conditions,
and light demand on St.
John would
point
to the use of vans as potential transit service vehicles.
Transit service could be implemented initially on a trial basis at rush
hours and at midday between Cruz Bay and Coral Bay, with options to expand
service hours
if warranted by demand or
to discontinue the service
if
ridership were
low.
The Government could contract with van operators to
perform this service on a subsidized basis, which should be cost-effective
for the Government since
it would eliminate the expense of purchasing and
maintaining vehicles.
Unless conditions on St.
John changed drastically,
a
small-scale system would satisfy transit needs on the island for the
foreseeable
future.
4.3
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
4.3.1
Existing Conditions
The development and
road pattern
is shown in Figure
4-4.
The island's
center
is hilly throughout,
limiting development to the coastal areas.
Most
4-5
4-6
FIGURE
4-4.
TRAFFIC
GENERATORS
ON
ST.
JOHN
activity occurs
in the 3-mile westernmost part of the coast,
extending from
the Caneel Bay Plantation on the north,
through the town of Cruz Bay to the
Virgin Grand Beach Hotel on the
south.
Most car,
taxi,
and safari-vehicle
travel
takes place among these points.
4.3.1(a)
Major roadways
The major island roadways converge on Cruz Bay and Coral Bay.
Center-
line Road
(Route
10),
the main east-west
road,
connects Cruz Bay and Coral
Bay.
North Shore Road
(Route
20)
connects Cruz Bay with Caneel Bay,
Cinnamon
Bay,
and Maho Bay.
Southside Road
(Route
104)
links Cruz Bay with Great Cruz
Bay,
Chocolate Hole,
and Rendezvous Bay.
Routes 107 and 108 link Coral Bay
with the southeast part of the
island.
The major
roads are surfaced,
two-
lane facilities.
In several locations,
such as sections of Centerline Road,
the pavements are
in poor condition and need resurfacing.
All of the high-
ways on St.
John are lightly traveled, with average daily traffic under 2,500
vehicles per day.
4.3.1(b)
Traffic in Cruz Bay
The existing street pattern and peak-hour traffic flows
(March 1988)
are
shown in Figure
4-5.
King Street operates one-way northbound from Bay Street
to Henry Samuel Street.
Centerline Road operates one way westbound from King
Street to Strand Street.
Strand Street operates one way southbound from Cen-
terline Road to Bay Street.
Bay Street operates one-way eastbound between
Strand and King Streets.
The other street segments
in the town are two-way.
The peak-hour traffic volumes generally average less than 250 vehicles
per hour
in the heaviest direction.
Thus,
the
roads and streets are operat-
ing at less than
50 per cent of their capacity.
-
During the morning peak hour,
about
450 vehicles enter the center of
Cruz Bay.
Approximately 220 come from Southside Road,
90 from North
Shore Road,
and 140 from Centerline Road.
-
During the evening peak hour,
about 460 vehicles leave the area.
Approximately 230 depart via North Shore Road,
110 via Centerline
Road,
and 120 via Southside Road.
-
About 180 vehicles pass through the ferry dock area
in the morning
peak hour and 220 vehicles
in the evening.
4.3.1(c)
Pedestrian movements
Tourists and residents congregate
in Cruz Bay Park.
They add a dimen-
sion to street life that should be preserved.
Pedestrians intermingle with
traffic on Centerline Road between King and Strand Streets,
especially when
ferries arrive and depart.
This
results from the absence of a continuous
sidewalk.
However,
it presently poses no
real problem.
4-7
T3
vc
4-8
FIGURE
4-5.
STREET
DIRECTIONS
AND
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
-
CENTRAL
CRUZ
BAY
4.3.1(d)
Traffic flow implications
Cruz Bay traffic problems are not of serious proportions at present.
The traffic volumes are light,
and well below the capacity of the streets in
the center of
town.
Even during busy times of the week,
such as Friday
evenings,
capacity generally is more than adequate.
There
is,
of course,
increased activity during peak hours,
especially at
the dock area when ferries arrive and depart.
Traffic flow is
the heaviest
on days when cruise ships drop off passengers at
St.
John on their way to St.
Thomas.
(These passengers take the ferry to St.
Thomas to rejoin their
ship).
The flow of traffic through the town is impaired during this period,
when safari vehicles and taxivans line up in the street to take the heavy
influx of tourists on tours of the island.
This type of flow impairment
is
normally of short duration,
however.
To avoid overcrowding St.
John,
the
number of visitors from cruise ships
is limited to 750 people per day.
Stag-
gering the days and hours of cruise ship arrivals would help alleviate these
problems
.
Traffic flow also
is affected by other factors:
(1)
a street system
that does not provide the necessary connectivity;
(2)
narrow streets with
circulation patterns that favor access to ferries rather than minimizing
conflicts;
(3)
illegal parking activity on streets;
and
(4)
a tendency for
drivers to stop and socialize on streets.
Traffic flow impairment in Cruz Bay has not reached the level that would
warrant changes in traffic circulation or physical
roadway configuration at
this time.
The demands
for improved transportation facilities and services
will increase as development increases,
however.
Moderate and low-income
homes are being built to the east of Cruz Bay.
Plans have been developed
(although they currently are being held up)
for
a new marina and cargo
facility in the Large Pond area of Cruz Bay.
In each case,
needed changes in
the street system should become an integral part of the proposals.
The
building of new cargo docks,
and the provision of new access to them,
actu-
ally could reduce traffic friction in Cruz Bay.
Nevertheless,
it
is conceiv-
able that in the
future,
traffic could increase to the point where changes
would become necessary.
4.3.2
Planned Road Improvements
There are three major
road improvements planned by the Department of
Public Works
for
St.
John.
These are shown in Figure
4-6.
-
The Department of Public Works plans to spend $2.5 million to
rehabilitate
4.4 miles of Centerline Road from Cruz Bay to Bordeaux
Mountain Road.
Although not essential
from a traffic volume stand-
point,
this project would eliminate the many potholes on Centerline
Road and prevent further pavement deterioration.
4-9
4-10
FIGURE
4-6.
PLANNED
ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS
-
CRUZ
BAY
-
The Department of Public Works also plans to relocate and rehabili-
tate Southside Road in FY 1990-1992.
The Department of Public Works
estimates $400,000
in property acquisition costs
in 1990,
and $1.5
million in construction costs
in 1992.
As part of this project,
a
link would be created from the North Shore Connector 1
to a relocated
South Side Road along the east side of Large Pond.
The existing
road
would be abandoned.
It also would connect with the existing road
system along the North Side of Large Pond.
Both of these changes are
desirable to improve circulation in Cruz Bay.
They also would serve
a proposed Government Center
a short distance to the east of the
town.
From a traffic standpoint,
these projects should be given
priority over
the Centerline Road rehabilitation.
-
An improvement to the intersection of Centerline Road and Southside
Road would be part of the Department of Public Work's plan to realign
Southside Road.
This improvement
is especially desirable to provide
more orderly traffic
flow,
reduce delays,
better link the northern
and southern sides of
St.
John,
and eliminate illegal maneuvers.
(During the morning peak hour,
some 20 vehicles were observed taking
a short cut through the Texaco service station property,
rather than
following the correct path, which
is awkward and difficult to
negotiate)
.
A schematic plan of the recommended treatment
is shown
in Figure
4-7.
This treatment creates a direct crossing of Centerline Road in which
Southside Road connects with the North Shore Connector.
The
road
leading south from Southside Road
is redirected to enter Southside
Road at a 90 degree angle to the south of the new Centerline -
Southside junction.
Three lanes are provided along Centerline Road — two for through
traffic and one
for right turns.
Three turn lanes are provided on
the relocated Southside Road — one for northbound left turns,
and
two for through traffic.
In order to implement the plan,
it
is necessary to acquire the Texaco
Station.
However,
the benefits will
far exceed the costs and
impacts.
There will be more capacity and less chance
for queuing.
Access to and from NorthA Shore Road will be more convenient.
And it
will
remove some traffic from the center of Cruz Bay.
4.3.3
Possible Future Traffic Improvements
Traffic conditions could be improved by better traffic management and
selective physical changes.
However,
the difficulties
inherent
in widening
Cruz Bay's narrow streets,
and the need to preserve
the historic character of
the town center,
limit the opportunities
to expand street and parking
A name chosen
for
this street
for use
in this
report.
The study team
was unable
to learn the true name of this street.
4-11
Center^
4-12
FIGURE
4-7.
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
-
CENTERLINE
ROAD
/
SOUTHSIDE
ROAD
/
NORTH
SHORE
ROAD
CONNECTOR
INTERSECTION
capacity.
The long term approach,
therefore,
should be
to "manage demand."
Traffic circulation changes would be the easiest alternative
to implement.
Traffic movement conflicts are
a major cause of congestion.
The
existing one-way system (Figure
4-8)
produces six intersection conflicts:
three at the junction of King Street and Centerline Road;
and one each at the
junctions of King and Henry Samuel
Streets,
Strand Street and Centerline
Road,
and Strand and Bay Streets.
There are two viable options
for reducing these conflicts:
(1)
the
1982
option recommended by Gannett Fleming
(Figure
4-9) which maintains two-way
traffic on Strand and Henry Samuel Streets and results
in only two intersec-
tion conflicts;
and
(2) making Strand and Henry Samuel Streets one-way
eastbound and southbound eliminates all but one conflict point
(Figure 4-10).
However,
this second option increases travel distances to the ferry dock and
the parking areas.
Both options
reverse the directions of Strand and King
Streets and Centerline Road.
A third option converts Centerline Road between King and Strand Streets
to a pedestrian-only way
(Figure
4-11).
This option eliminates all vehicular
conflicts,
and improves pedestrian
flow.
It
is identified
for possible
future implementation.
If traffic management improvements become necessary,
it
is recommended
that the Gannett Fleming one-way proposal be implemented.
The other options
represent further developments of this concept,
and should be considered as
needs warrant.
The traffic management approach should be taken in conjunc-
tion with a program to manage demand;
i.e.,
to limit the
number of visitors,
hotel
rooms,
and/or motor vehicles on St.
John.
4.3.4
Other Improvements
Centerline Road sidewalk —
A sidewalk should be built along the
northern side of Centerline Road between King and Strand Streets.
This
sidewalk will provide access
for people walking to and from the park and
ferry dock.
Field observations indicated that there
is space available
for
its construction.
Parking time limit —
On- and off-street parking space
is limited in
Cruz Bay.
Accordingly,
it may be desirable
to limit available curb side
parking space to one hour,
and off-street space to four hours
if conditions
warrant.
Public transport —
The taxis and safari vehicles provide a valuable
public transportation service
for
residents and visitors.
These operations
should be encouraged,
to reduce
the demand for the limited parking and road
space
in Cruz Bay.
4-13
4-14
FIGURE
4-8.
EXISTING
ONE-WAY
SYSTEM
-
CENTRAL
CRUZ
BAY
4-15
FIGURE
4-9.
1982
ONE-WAY
PROPOSAL
-
CENTRAL
CRUZ
BAY
4-16
FIGURE
4-10.
POSSIBLE
FUTURE
STRAND
AND
KING
STREETS
ONE-WAY
SYSTEM-
CENTRAL
CRUZ
BAY
T3
t
X
0)
s
-C
4-17
FIGURE
4-11.
POSSIBLE
FUTURE
PEDESTRIAN
STREET
-
CENTRAL
CRUZ
BAY
4 . 4
FERRY SERVICE
4.4.1
Existing Conditions
Two ferry companies operate into and out of St.
John — Transportation
Services of St.
John,
Inc.
and Varlack Ventures — offering service to St.
Thomas and Tortola,
British Virgin Islands.
The companies share a ten-year
franchise for Red Hook
service, which was up for renewal
in 1987.
They
alternate their
routes and schedules periodically,
so that each performs the
same kinds and amounts of service over the course of a year.
4.4.1(a)
Routes and schedule
Ferry service
is offered to both Red Hook and Charlotte Amalie on St.
Thomas and to the West End on Tortola.
The ferry schedule
is shown in Figure
4-12.
Service
is offered once an hour to Red Hook from 8:00 am to 11:00 pm
daily and five times a day to Charlotte Amalie.
Two runs a day are offered
to Tortola.
4.4.1(b)
Fares
The
fare structure to Red Hook
in 1987 was:
Adult — $2.00
Commuter,
Senior Citizen — $1.25
Group Rate — $1.50 per person
Children — $1.00
Students — free
(ferry operators subsidized by Dept,
of Education)
In their application for renewing the franchise,
the ferry operators
requested a fare
increase.
It
is not known
if the Legislature granted the
increase at this
time.
An adult fare
to Charlotte Amalie costs $5.00.
This fare
is higher for
two
reasons:
the trip is longer;
and the
route
is not regulated by a
Governmental
franchise.
4.4.1(c)
Equipment and maintenance
Between the two companies there are eleven ferries in operating
condition.
A well-maintained ferry vessel will provide about
25 years of
service
.
Maintenance facilities
for ferries are very limited.
The ferry
companies use the main docks
in Cruz Bay for
routine maintenance,
but must
take
the ferries to either Puerto Rico,
St.
Croix,
or Tortola for major
repairs and haulouts.
Consequently,
one operator keeps $60,000
to $80,000
in
spare parts on St.
John,
and
rents
two full-time slips on Tortola
for
emergency repairs.
4-18
ST. THOMAS / ST. JOHN FERRY SCHEDULE
Red Hook Dock to Cruz Bay Dock
Every hour on the hour:
8 :00 am to 11 :00 pm daily
6:30 am
and
7:30 am Monday
thru
Friday
Cruz Bay Dock to Red Hook Dock
Every hour on the hour:
7:00 am to 10:00 pm daily
Between Downtown Charlotte Amalie and Cruz Bay
Leaving Charlotte Amalie:
9:00 am,
1
1 :00 am, 3:00 pm, 5:30 pm, and 7:00 pm
Leaving Cruz Bay:
7:15 am, 9:15 am, 1:15 pm, 3:45 pm and 5:15 pm
Every day including Sundays and Holidays.
This is approximately a 45 minute ride.
TORTOLA / ST. THOMAS / ST. JOHN FERRY SCHEDULE
St. Thomas / St. John to West End, Tortola
Leaving Red Hook Dock:
8:00 am and 3:00 pm Monday thru Saturday
Leaving Cruz Bay Dock:
8:30 am and 3:30 pm Monday thru Saturday
5:00 pm Friday and Sunday only
West End, Tortola to St. Thomas / St. John
Leaving West End Dock:
9:15 am and 4:15 pm Monday thru Saturday,
5:30 pm Friday and Sunday (to Cruz Bay only)
Source:
1988 Here's How,
St.
Thomas
&
St.
John
FIGURE
4-12.
FERRY SCHEDULE
4.4.1(d)
Ridership
Ridership was estimated based on revenue data obtained from Transporta-
tion Services of
St.
John,
representing about half of the total ferry
revenues
(since the two operators share the franchise equally).
In 1986,
approximately 709,000 passengers
rode
the Cruz Bay - Red Hook ferry route,
averaging about 1,950 passengers
a day.
By 1987,
these figures had increased
to 900,000 and 2,500,
respectively,
an increase of over
25 percent.
Com-
muters and daily passengers represented the bulk of the
riders — about 82
percent.
The remainder of the
riders were students,
nighttime travelers,
and
passengers using vouchers.
Data on ridership on the Red Hook-Charlotte Amalie ferry route were also
available
for
1987.
About 110,000 passengers traveled this
route,
averaging
about
320 passengers per day.
It appears that this ferry route did not
operate on 22 days scattered throughout the year.
4.4.1(e)
Quality of service
The ferry service seems
to be adequately serving the needs of the
islanders.
The ferries adhere to their schedules well and are dependable
except when impaired by inclement weather conditions.
The operators are able
to make a profit from their business,
and are responsive to demand.
4.4.2
Recommendations
No changes are recommended in ferry service at this
time.
It would be
desirable,
as recommended in Chapter
2,
that transit service to Red Hook from
Charlotte Amalie be coordinated with ferry service
to the extent possible.
4-20
5.
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT
5.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Executive Order No.
244-1981,
signed by Governor Juan Luis on December
31,
1980,
established the Virgin Islands Office of Transportation within the
Department of Public Works
(DPW) with full power and authority to:
-
conduct transportation planning for projects
to be implemented by
the Department of Public Works;
-
prepare a program for transit development;
-
implement the Wilbur Smith "Virgin Islands Mass Transit Study;"
-
recommend contracts with qualified private firms
for operation of
transportation services
in the Virgin Islands;
-
prepare applications,
in conjunction with the Office of Federal
Programs Coordinator,
for Federal transit assistance;
and
-
recommend and formulate policies,
legislation,
and programs for
improving and supporting transportation systems in the Virgin
Islands
in order
to insure mass transit service development.
Under the Executive Order,
the DFW's Office of Transportation
(OT) was
required to prepare a budget — to be included with the Departmental budget
—
for staffing the Office,
for construction of needed transportation
facilities and other improvements,
and for the staff training needed to carry
out the approved programs.
The OT budget used to be an appropriation from
the Department of Public Works'
Road Fund.
This has recently been changed,
and it
is now a separate appropriation line
item.
The concept of the OT did not appear to be enthusiastically supported by
the DPW.
A Director of the Office was named,
but was given few resources
to
carry out the mission of the Office.
The Office had no work plans which
would identify project priorities and staffing requirements.
A lack of funds
was the stated reason for the inability to hire
the staff needed to prepare
such plans.
It was not until
1982 that a Transit Planner was added to the
staff.
A Technical Services Officer
(Inspector of Facilities and Equipment)
was hired in 1983.
From 1984
to early 1987,
the Office was without an acting
head,
as the Director was assigned to develop and implement
a parking program
for
the Territory.
5-1
Transit oversight by the DFW appears deficient.
The transit operator
has made significant service modification decisions which the DFW has
discovered only after they were implemented.
Transit ridership and revenue
have been inadequately monitored.
Prior
to the data collected as part of
this study,
no information was available concerning transit
ridership.
The
last audit of Mannassah occurred in 1983.
The last audit of Abramson
Enterprises occurred in 1980,
four years prior to service cessation.
One of
the
reasons cited by Abramson
for transit termination was the late subsidy
payments by the Government.
A 1987 audit of the OT by the Office of Inspector General,
U.S.
Depart-
ment of Interior,
concluded that
"Public Works had not
(1)
provided adequate
management or work plan priorities
for
its Transportation Office,
(2)
issued
official policies or procedures,
(3)
enforced or complied with contracts
it
had with public bus carriers,
or
(4)
complied with applicable Federal grant
terms and conditions."
Even the transit operator has criticized the lack of
oversight and participation by the DPW in major transit policy and management
decisions.
The OT claims that proposals
for organization and staffing,
in general
accordance with recommendations of the 1982 Transit Development Plan Update,
were rejected by previous DPW Commissioners.
As a
result,
the OT staff of
2
professionals and
1 para-professional have not been able to adequately over-
see the planning studies,
capital programs,
operating assistance contracts,
transit services,
and two parking lots.
In 1987,
the new administration began an effort to rectify the problems
in the OT.
The Director of the Office reassumed that responsibility,
and has
been named a Deputy Commissioner of
the DPW.
A transit planner
in the OT has
been given the responsibility of developing official transit policies and
procedures.
An Initial Public Transportation Policy statement and a Fiscal
Year
1988 Work Plan was drafted but had not been acted upon as of mid-1988.
The DPW is also working to correct other deficiencies noted in the Federal
Audit Report.
Two additional
staff recently have been added to assist with
transit program elements.
The mass transit program
is supposed to be
the most important activity
within the OT.
Unfortunately,
over the years a relatively small amount of
staff resources have been devoted to managing this program.
It
is critical
that oversight of
the transit system be
improved.
The failing of the DPW in
this
regard has contributed to the deterioration in public transportation on
St.
Thomas and the cessation of transit service on St.
Croix.
Without an
increased commitment to public transit from the Virgin Islands Government,
transit service could cease on St.
Thomas as well.
5.2
ALTERNATIVES
Options
for governmental oversight of
the transit operation include:
-
continuation of DPW oversight;
5-2
-
governmental management and operation of the transit system;
and
-
integration of the transit oversight function with other non-highway
related transportation functions under a separate governmental body.
If DFW oversight were to continue,
the deficiencies noted in the audit
report of the Department of the Interior's Inspector General must be
corrected,
and a much more active involvement
in transit operations must be
achieved.
However, without increases
in the OT's staffing and funding
levels,
this turnaround does not appear likely.
(Note:
The DFW,
after reviewing a draft of this
report,
commented that
they could address the problems concerning prior monitoring of the transit
system operation,
and that the "...present administration is working to
expand the
role of the Office of Transportation.")
The governmental management and operation option would put transit under
direct government control,
the ultimate oversight position.
The advantages
and disadvantages of this option have been discussed under the transit
management and operation section.
The option of removing the transit oversight function from the DFW and
combining it with other non-highway transportation functions such as parking
and taxi
regulation is a major departure from the current situation.
This
option has appeal particularly for considering comprehensive proposals
for
possible solutions to the traffic and parking problems in Charlotte Amalie.
Previous work has recommended fringe parking lots and shuttle service from
these lots to the downtown area.
Taxis have been suggested as providers of
the shuttle services.
On St.
Croix,
taxi-vans operate as a form of transit
between the towns of Christiansted and Frederiksted.
(This informal system
was another reason cited by Abramson for terminating transit service).
Taxis
also are potential providers
if some form of transit service
is reinstituted.
Fringe parking and taxi shuttle service previously has been proposed as a
solution for the parking problem in Christiansted.
With the solutions
to the transit,
parking,
and traffic congestion
problems
so closely intertwined,
close cooperation between the bodies
regu-
lating these activities
is essential.
Placing these activities under the
same organizational body would facilitate this coordination.
In the DFW,
the
transit oversight function is only a minor piece of the total operation.
As
such,
it has tended to receive less attention than other,
larger programs.
Commitment,
funding,
and staffing have been problems from the beginning.
In
its current position,
it
is largely obscured from public and legislative
scrutiny.
Removing it from the DFW and establishing it as a major function
in a new governmental body would make
it much more visible.
If this
governmental body is under the control of the Legislature,
the Legislature
would have to deal with
it directly,
rather than as a small piece of a large
organization.
The chances of obtaining needed funding as well as the staff
necessary to perform its function should be improved under this option.
In
addition,
revenues from the parking activity could be used to reduce the
amount of transit subsidies
required.
5-3
Several
types of instrumentalities could serve as the umbrella organiza-
tion
for
a combined mass transportation,
parking,
and taxi
regulatory body.
A department,
bureau,
independent board,
agency,
authority,
or commission are
potential candidates
for such an organization.
An organization with the
power to raise
its own revenues would definitely have an advantage compared
to one which does not.
If transit
is to become a more useful segment of the
transportation system,
funding sufficient to provide
a reasonable level of
service
is
a
requirement.
5.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
It
is
recommended that a new governmental
instrumentality be created to
oversee and regulate mass transportation services,
parking,
and taxis.
All
three elements are integral pieces of proposed means of reducing traffic
congestion in the urban centers.
Since coordination of these activities is
critical
for
the
recommended transportation system to function smoothly,
a
unified governmental structure would appear to be the most appropriate means
of accomplishing this.
The selection of the appropriate governmental instrumentality to perform
the oversight and regulation function is an issue
for the political process
to
resolve.
There are existing legislative
restrictions on the number of
Departments or Authorities allowed.
However,
this can be changed by
legislative action.
It would be preferable
if the chosen instrumentality had
the ability to raise
its own revenues,
subject to legislative approval,
either through taxing or bonding authority.
It
is recommended that this new transportation instrumentality be headed
by an Executive Director
(or Commissioner), with separate Directors for mass
transportation,
parking,
taxi
functions,
and administration.
It would also
appear desirable
to include oversight and regulation of ferry services under
mass transportation.
Each of the
four divisions should be staffed with the
needed management,
planning,
marketing,
financial,
and public relations
capability to execute
its responsibilities
in an exemplary manner.
Staffing
must not be short-changed lest the DFW transit experience be
repeated.
Particularly in light of
recent problems,
it
is not recommended that the
DFW transit and parking staff members be moved en masse to similar positions
in this new organization.
Rather,
it
is suggested that applications be
encouraged from all qualified individuals
(including but not limited to
current DPW staff),
and that the experience and capabilities of all appli-
cants should be examined carefully for evidence that they could competently
carry out the required duties and responsibilities.
It
is especially
critical that top level positions be filled by individuals with proven
management abilities.
The following qualifications
for the Executive Director and Division
Director positions are suggested:
5-4
Executive Director
Applicants should have
a Bachelor's Degree
in public administration,
political
science,
engineering or transportation and 10 years of
experience
in transportation planning,
transit operations,
or public
administration;
at least
4 years of
required experience must have been
in high level management positions.
A Graduate Degree
in a qualifying
field may be substituted on a year
for year basis for lower level
experience
.
Director of Mass Transportation
Applicants should have a Bachelor's Degree
in public administration,
political
science,
engineering or transportation and
5 years of
experience
in transportation planning,
transit operations,
or public ad-
ministration;
at least
2 years of required experience must have been in
high level management positions.
Two years of transit operating
experience
is desirable.
A Graduate Degree
in a qualifying field may be
substituted for up to one year of lower level experience.
Director of Parking
Applicants should have
a Bachelor's Degree
in public administration,
political science,
engineering or transportation and
5 years of
experience
in transportation planning,
parking operations,
parking
administration or public administration;
at least
2 years of required
experience must have been in high level management positions.
Two years
of parking operations or parking administration experience
is desirable.
A Graduate Degree
in a qualifying field may be substituted for up to one
year of lower level experience.
Director of Taxi Services
Applicants should have a Bachelor's Degree
in public administration,
business administration,
political
science,
or transportation and
5
years of experience
in transportation planning,
taxi operations,
taxi
service administration or public administration;
at least
2 years of
required experience must have been in high level management positions.
A Graduate Degree
in a qualifying field may be substituted for up to one
year of lower level experience.
Director of Administration
Applicants should have a Bachelor's Degree
in public administration or
business administration,
and
5 years of experience
in business or public
administration;
at least
2 years of required experience must have been
in high level management positions.
A Graduate Degree
in a qualifying
field may be substituted for up to one year of lower level experience.
5-5/6
6.
FUNDING
This chapter
is concerned principally with transit funding.
Although
this report also deals with roadway and traffic engineering improvements
necessary for congestion relief in the islands' urban centers,
and although
rough cost estimates for these improvements are provided,
the additional
funding needs for the DFW as a whole are not addressed.
However,
the
discussions of alternatives for additional
revenue generation in many
instances are relevant to highway as well as transit systems and services.
6.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Department of Public Works receives Federal
funds under four UMTA
Grant Programs:
Section
3
(Discretionary Capital Assistance);
Section
8
(Planning and Technical Assistance);
Section 16(b)(2)
(Capital Assistance to
Private Non-Profit Organizations
for Elderly and Handicapped Transportation);
and Section 18
(Capital and Operating Assistance
in Rural Areas).
The Department presently has active grants under each of these programs.
A Section
3 grant was used to purchase buses,
service vehicles,
and mainten-
ance equipment.
Section
9 grants have been used for the Transit Development
Plan Update,
a handicapped and elderly transportation plan,
a parking study,
and a transit marketing study.
From FY 1985 until
recently, UMTA withheld
action on Section 18 and Section 16(b)(2)
grant applications due to non-
compliance with DOT and UMTA reporting requirements on active grants.
Sect-
ion 18
funds, which increased to $125,000 in FY 1988 from the previous
range
of $75,000 - $85,000,
are used by the Virgin Islands to supplement local
funds available for transit operating subsidies.
Since 1983,
the Legislature has appropriated funds to support the
private transit operators.
However,
this funding has not been at a level
sufficient to cover operating deficits, much less to improve transit
services.
Table 6-1
shows the financial situation for Fiscal Years 1983
to
1987.
From October 1982 through September
1987,
transit operating losses
totaled $2,581,475.
Since the DPW Office of Transportation's subsidies to
Mannassah Bus Lines during this period totaled $1,573,800,
Mannassah
is owed
$1,007,675 by the V.I. Government under the contract agreement.
The
full
subsidy amount will not be paid until an official audit has been performed
for years beginning in 1984.
The deficiency in subsidy payments
is claimed
to be a major factor
in the poor quality of transit services on
St.
Thomas.
However, Mannassah owes an amount
in the
same
range
to the V.I.
Government
in
unpaid taxes, unemployment insurance,
rent,
and license
fees.
This would
6-1
seem to negate
the argument that the lack of subsidy payment has been
responsible
in large part for poor transit service.
TABLE 6-1.
TRANSIT FINANCIAL STATUS,
ST. THOMAS
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Operating Expense
1,372,441
1,306,355
1,507,651
1,581,849
1,546,266
Revenue
999,003
1,016,345
1,013,687
916,547
787,485
Operating Loss
373,438
289,990
493,964
665,302
758,781
Subsidy
180,000
221,464
222,336
400,000
550,000
Deficit
193,438
68,526
271,628
265,302
208,781
The total proposed DPW Road Fund budget for the District of St.
Thomas
and St.
John was $4,890,929
for FY 1988.
The Office of Transportation was to
be
allocated $1,125,731,
or
23 percent of the total.
Of this amount,
$800,000 was allocated for mass transit assistance.
The remainder was split
between personnel
($250,903),
fringe benefits
($24,685),
and operating
expenses
($41,199).
If the $800,000
is actually appropriated,
there could be
sufficient funds available to cover payment of the
full subsidy for the first
time since subsidy payments were initiated in 1983.
6.2
ALTERNATIVES
If transit system oversight remains within the DPW,
prospects for
sufficient funding for new buses, maintenance facilities,
and service
expansion would appear dim.
Substantial amounts of local money will have to
be made available
in order to improve transit service to even a minimal level
of performance.
Since funds
for the entire V.I. Government are very tight,
it would appear that new funding sources are needed.
There are potential sources for additional
funds.
Added highway user
fees could be imposed.
A recent survey by the Advisory Commission on Inter-
governmental Relations
(ACIR)
found that user charges were the second most
favored way of raising state government revenues.
An increase
in gasoline
and diesel
fuel taxes would be the easiest to implement,
as the administra-
tive mechanism to collect them are already in place.
A $0.05 increase per
gallon would raise approximately $2.5 million.
Automobile excise taxes,
either on a one-time or annual basis,
established according to the value of
the automobile,
could be
imposed.
User charges would be expected to be
opposed by automobile owners and operators,
and some may complain about the
use of highway user charges for transit.
It
is likely that there would be
strong competition between highway and transit interests
for
funds derived
through such a
tax.
Funds
for highway improvements are
in short supply as
well.
Recent Road Fund budgets have been insufficient
to fund badly needed
roadway improvements.
6-2
Another possible source of revenue would be the imposition of taxes on
such items as
retail
sales,
meals,
alcohol,
and cigarettes.
Alcohol and
cigarette taxes were found by the ACIR survey to be the most favored way of
raising state
revenue.
Sales and meals taxes are common in the U.S.,
but are
not levied in the Virgin Islands.
In fact, Virgin Islands'
residents are
among the least taxed of Americans, with no meals,
sales,
or local
income
taxes,
and low property taxes.
A one percent
retail
sales tax would raise
over $6.5 million.
Nevertheless,
any taxes of this nature would bear heavily
upon a population with a relatively low per capita income.
The local
impact could be lessened by exempting items of necessity,
such
as food and clothing.
It also would be possible
to institute the taxes only
within Charlotte Amalie,
thereby allowing residents
to avoid them by shopping
and eating outside of town.
This might have an adverse effect on some store
and restaurant owners
in that some business would shift from Charlotte Amalie
to other parts of the
island.
Store owners and restaurateurs also would be
expected to oppose the imposition of sales,
meals,
or alcohol and cigarette
taxes,
since they would be viewed as a potential deterrent to tourism.
Expenditures by tourists constitute a large portion of the Virgin Islands
economy.
Property taxes generate over $20 million per year.
A 10 percent in-
crease would bring in more than $2 million.
A relatively generous
residen-
tial exemption could soften the impact on low income
residents.
Any amelior-
ation measures on this or any other tax imposed would reduce the revenues
generated,
however,
unless the percentage tax to be levied
is increased.
Another potential
revenue source
is the sale of Government backed
revenue bonds to secure funds
for capital expenditures.
This approach
is
attractive
in that
it minimizes the amount of local money that has
to be put
up for the initiation of a project,
but debt service will increase subsequent
required outlays.
Highway projects,
new bus purchases,
and the construction
of a new maintenance facility all could be funded through this mechanism.
The most appealing revenue generation mechanism would be one which would
generate substantial
revenues while minimizing the impact on V.I.
residents,
especially those with low incomes.
This could be accomplished by deriving
revenues from tourists.
The type and extent of revenues extracted from
visitors must be weighed carefully,
lest the taxes imposed reduce visitor
expenditures.
The Virgin Islands are
in an advantageous position to impose
such taxes,
however,
due to prices which are very competitive with those of
other islands and the favorable treatment accorded U.S.
citizens bringing
purchases back into the U.S.
6.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Added revenues
for transit are necessary if transit
is
to become
a
viable mode of transportation in the Virgin Islands.
Without an infusion of
new facilities and equipment,
transit probably will
soon cease
to exist on
St.
Thomas,
as has happened already on
St.
Croix.
It
is perilously close
to
that stage now.
Stop-gap measures,
such as the Mahogany Run vehicles,
are
6-3
l'
1
II
not the ultimate solution.
The definitive test of the Virgin Islands
Government's commitment to transit will
be whether or not sufficient funds
will be provided to run a decent transit system on a continuing basis.
An increase
in funding
for highways also
is needed to help reduce
traffic congestion and to keep the highway infrastructure from further
deterioration.
Large amounts of local money will be needed
if new roadways
are
to be constructed along the waterfront or around Raphune Hill.
No attempt
is made here
to recommend the type of revenue generation
mechanisms that ought to be implemented.
This decision should be made
through the political process.
Such a decision should be made only after
careful consideration of
the
impacts on individuals and on the economy as a
whole.
An analysis of this nature was beyond the scope of this study.
6-4
7 .
LEGISLATION
In order
to implement the recommendations contained in this
report,
two
major legislative actions are
required:
(1)
creation of a governmental
instrumentality to oversee and regulate mass transportation,
parking,
and
taxi
services;
and
(2)
funding legislation.
7.1
NEW TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION
The new governmental transportation instrumentality created should be
given broad powers
to plan,
implement,
coordinate,
and regulate non-highway
transportation functions,
and to receive and dispense Federal
funds.
Any
revenues generated by one division could be used to offset expenses of the
other divisions.
If
this organization had taxing or bonding authority,
separate funding legislation might not be necessary.
The transportation organization should have three technical divisions or
units,
plus an administrative division.
(1)
A mass transportation division — This division should oversee
transit and ferry services.
Its responsibilities should include:
establishing routes and schedules; overseeing and coordinating
transit and ferry services;
estimating funding requirements;
authorizing the payment of subsidies
to contract providers;
and
recommending changes in fare structure
to the legislature.
(2)
A parking division — This division should oversee both on-street
and off-street parking,
paid as well as
free.
It should have the
responsibility for recommending the location and construction of
additional lots and parking structures.
It should have the
ability to impose time limits on parking,
and set the fine
structures for parking violations.
Giving this division the
responsibility for enforcement of parking regulations would permit
the police department to better use their limited personnel.
Park-
and-ride service should be
a joint effort with the mass transporta-
tion division and the taxi division.
(3)
A taxi division — This division would have the
same basic author-
ity as the existing taxi
commission.
However,
in order
to imple-
ment the
recommendations
for use of taxis
to provide limited
transit-type
service,
this division should have
the authority to
negotiate service agreements with taxi associations or operators.
7-1
This activity would be conducted in close cooperation with the mass
transportation division.
(4)
An administrative unit — This unit would be responsible
for
personnel,
clerical,
financial,
and contractual
functions.
7.2
FUNDING
Unless the new transportation organization has
its own taxing or bonding
authority,
or produces sufficient revenue
to fund its own functions and
adequate transportation services,
new funding legislation will be
required.
It
is doubtful that sufficient revenues could be generated internally to
cover operational expenses and needed capital expenditures.
Revenues could
come from a number of sources,
as discussed in Chapter
6.
Funding mechanisms
should be chosen in close cooperation with the legislature and the adminis-
tration.
Funding should be adequate
to cover highway needs as well.
7-2
APPENDIX A.
METHODOLOGY FOR CORDON COUNT ESTIMATION
A cordon count around the center of Charlotte Amalie was performed to
obtain information on the number of vehicles and people traveling to and from
the center each day.
This information is valuable for any major traffic
study because
it shows the baseline,
relative demands,
and importance of the
various modes of transportation.
A.l
SAMPLE DESIGN
The cordon count was conducted on a sample basis.
The count took place
over a period of two days:
February
2 and
3,
1988.
These days were chosen
because they represented typical high-season, mid-week days when demands
for
transportation services would be at a maximum.
On February
2,
nine cruise
ships were
in the harbor,
and on February
3,
seven ships were in port,
contributing thousands of visitors to the city.
Eight major arteries into and out of Charlotte Amalie were identified,
as shown on the map in Figure 2-29 of the main report.
A person was
stationed at each location for a total of 12 hours over the two-day period,
covering the hours from
6 am to
6 pm.
Several minor streets were not
covered,
but observations of those locations confirmed that they were little-
used roads due to their width,
grade or continuity,
and that they con-
tributed little to the daily traffic to and from the city.
Sampling was conducted at each location by counting the traffic in 15-
minute
intervals,
alternating the direction of counting every 15 minutes
throughout the period of the cordon count.
Thus,
approximately 30 minutes of
traffic counts were obtained per hour in each direction.
Both the type of
vehicle and the number of occupants per vehicle were
recorded.
A. 2
EXPANDING THE SAMPLE DATA
Data obtained from the cordon count were not always evenly spaced at 15-
minute intervals,
nor did they always cover the
full
15 minutes,
for
a number
of
reasons:
rest breaks,
late arrival at the count location,
rain interrup-
tions,
time expended changing vantage points, etc.
Consequently,
a graphical
method was used for expanding the sample points
to cover
the
full counting
period.
Data points were plotted according to the actual
times they
represented,
and 15-minute counts were
read off
the graphs by mode.
Peak
A-l
period,
peak hour,
and 12-hour counts were then calculated for each location,
as shown in Tables A-l through A-4.
The 12-hour estimates were then expanded to 24-hour estimates using
factors derived from data collected in 1981 by URS Consultants,
Inc. using
automatic traffic counters.
URS locations corresponded with the cordon count
locations
(except
for the waterfront),
so that appropriate daytime/nighttime
factors could be obtained for each location.
These were applied to the 12-
hour cordon count results to produce 24-hour estimates.
An exception to the above method was made for the transit bus counts.
Since a companion data collection effort was conducted to obtain bus rider-
ship counts for all buses and all
runs throughout an entire day,
these data
were thought to be more
reliable than the sample data.
Because transit
buses comprise such a small portion of overall traffic and tend to bunch up,
a 15-minute sampling interval may miss bus groups and underrepresent buses in
the sample.
A comparison of the census with the cordon count results did,
in
fact,
confirm this occurrence.
A-2
TABLE A—1
NUMBER OF VEHICLES ENTERING CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY MODE OF TRAVEL AND CORDON COUNT LOCATION
TOTAL
CAR
TAXI
TRUCK
BUS
OTHER
VETERANS DRIVE-
WINDWARD PASSAGE
Peak AM Period
2238
1687
218
276
20
37
Peak AM Hour
1051
848
83
104
10
6
Peak PM Period
2179
1566
284
301
14
14
Peak PM Hour
841
610
101
116
10
4
KRONPRINDSENS
Peak AM Period
982
804
74
98
0
6
Peak AM Hour
426
360
22
39
0
5
Peak PM Period
831
665
76
90
0
0
Peak PM Hour
346
281
30
35
0
0
SOLBERG
Peak AM Period
370
289
9
70
0
2
Peak AM Hour
228
169
7
50
0
2
Peak PM Period
166
114
19
32
0
1
Peak PM Hour
61
41
8
11
0
1
MAFOLIE
Peak AM Period
1526
1040
87
384
0
15
Peak AM Hour
766
540
43
179
0
4
Peak PM Period
1046
671
126
241
0
8
Peak PM Hour
402
262
56
84
0
0
DE BELTJEN ROAD
Peak AM Period
675
501
78
70
22
4
Peak AM Hour
302
244
14
34
8
2
Peak PM Period
961
710
140
76
20
15
Peak PM Hour
557
408
92
33
11
13
VETERANS DRIVE-
FEDERAL BUILDING
Peak AM Period
2027
1461
214
322
7
23
Peak AM Hour
885
682
67
124
2
10
Peak PM Period
1761
1171
273
287
6
24
Peak PM Hour
711
505
94
94
5
13
SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
Peak AM Period
965
812
36
112
0
5
Peak AM Hour
408
354
8
42
0
4
Peak PM Period
926
743
73
104
0
6
Peak PM Hour
410
341
29
38
0
2
TABLE A-2.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY MODE OF TRAVEL AND CORDON COUNT LOCATION
TOTAL
CAR
TAXI
TRUCK
BUS
OTHER
WALK
VETERANS DRIVE-
WINEWARD PASSAGE
Peak AM Period
4353
2762
499
416
387
30
259
Peak AM Hour
2046
1487
117
164
209
13
56
Peak PM Period
4000
2339
898
433
164
40
126
Peak PM Hour
1603
918
357
165
86
20
57
KRONPRINDSENS
Peak AM Period
2081
1521
167
178
0
3
212
Peak AM Hour
1015
777
60
75
0
2
101
Peak PM Period
1592
1106
161
123
0
6
196
Peak PM Hour
644
431
64
53
0
3
93
SOLBERG
Peak AM Period
674
504
29
111
0
2
28
Peak AM Hour
451
320
26
84
0
1
20
Peak PM Period
293
194
45
45
0
0
9
Peak PM Hour
133
94
14
23
0
0
2
MAFOLIE
Peak AM Period
3022
2054
255
614
0
82
17
Peak AM Hour
1613
1155
114
331
0
8
5
Peak PM Period
2310
1032
813
411
0
8
46
Peak PM Hour
871
398
330
128
0
0
15
DE BELTJEN ROAD
Peak AM Period
1315
635
320
99
230
6
25
Peak AM Hour
557
341
23
52
128
2
11
Peak PM Period
1788
950
466
104
224
15
29
Peak PM Hour
1010
589
294
47
60
13
7
VETERANS DRIVE-
FEDERAL BUILDING
Peak AM Period
4047
2495
731
532
174
55
60
Peak AM Hour
1748
1225
168
253
68
28
6
Peak PM Period
3673
1949
937
574
86
45
82
Peak PM Hour
1446
819
301
202
.
75
22
27
SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
Peak AM Period
1770
1362
108
193
0
7
100
Peak AM Hour
791
626
22
82
0
7
54
Peak PM Period
1924
1227
204
170
0
12
311
Peak PM Hour
712
526
82
63
0
3
38
A-
TABLE A-3
.
NUMBER OF VEHICLES LEAVING CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY MODE OF TRAVEL AND CORDON COUNT LOCATION
TOTAL
CAR
TAXI
TRUCK
BUS
OTHER
VETERANS DRIVE-
WINDWARD PASSAGE
Peak AM Period
2523
1964
234
272
19
34
Peak AM Hour
1179
975
81
104
6
13
Peak PM Period
2588
1943
271
339
17
18
Peak PM Hour
1089
862
111
99
6
11
KRONPRINDSENS
Peak AM Period
956
743
85
112
0
16
Peak AM Hour
464
357
36
56
0
15
Peak PM Period
968
755
98
111
0
4
Peak PM Hour
416
353
22
40
0
1
SOLBERG
Peak AM Period
125
77
14
34
0
0
Peak AM Hour
57
34
4
19
0
0
Peak PM Period
338
255
23
55
0
5
Peak PM Hour
184
144
11
27
0
2
MAFOLIE
Peak AM Period
633
436
56
139
0
2
Peak AM Hour
313
225
21
65
0
2
Peak PM Period
1639
1129
186
316
0
8
Peak PM Hour
837
616
62
159
0
0
DE BELTJEN ROAD
Peak AM Period
625
493
61
67
0
4
Peak AM Hour
287
241
15
29
0
2
Peak PM Period
603
405
118
75
0
5
Peak PM Hour
215
151
41
20
0
3
VETERANS DRIVE-
FEDERAL BUILDING
Peak AM Period
1655
1097
200
334
0
24
Peak AM Hour
670
455
73
131
0
11
Peak PM Period
1726
1140
335
229
0
22
Peak PM Hour
683
497
105
72
0
9
SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
Peak AM Period
1038
816
41
148
21
12
Peak AM Hour
423
344
14
47
11
7
Peak PM Period
1309
1064
89
122
17
17
Peak PM Hour
563
465
38
42
9
9
TABLE A—4.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE LEAVING CHARLOTTE AMALIE
BY MODE OF TRAVEL AND CORDON COUNT LOCATION
TOTAL
CAR
TAXI
TRUCK
BUS
OTHER
WALK
VETERANS DRIVE-
WINDWARD PASSAGE
Peak AN Period
4316
2966
445
392
298
38
177
Peak AN Hour
2055
1522
167
156
115
8
87
Peak PN Period
5311
3209
918
553
316
45
270
Peak PN Hour
2272
1464
466
157
63
13
109
KRONPRINDSENS
Peak AN Period
1773
1108
157
189
0
65
254
Peak AN Hour
931
559
59
87
0
61
165
Peak PN Period
2443
1427
401
195
0
7
413
Peak PN Hour
1012
693
61
65
0
4
189
SOLBERG
Peak AN Period
192
100
25
65
0
1
1
Peak AN Hour
93
45
8
40
0
0
0
Peak PN Period
617
434
77
93
0
6
7
Peak PN Hour
351
251
45
51
0
2
2
MAFOLIE
Peak AN Period
1052
605
190
251
0
1
5
Peak AN Hour
475
307
42
125
0
0
1
Peak PN Period
3398
2001
764
557
0
46
30
Peak PN Hour
1394
895
261
238
0
0
0
DE BELTJEN ROAD
Peak AN Period
962
614
206
95
0
12
35
Peak AN Hour
406
316
32
41
0
0
17
Peak PN Period
952
545
271
94
0
12
30
Peak PN Hour
337
206
97
23
0
0
11
VETERANS DRIVE-
FEDERAL BUILDING
Peak AN Period
2687
1635
434
543
0
60
15
Peak AN Hour
1116
693
165
230
0
28
0
Peak PN Period
4137
2049
1458
406
0
23
201
Peak PN Hour
1533
921
428
124
0
10
50
SUGAR ESTATE ROAD
Peak AN Period
2538
1397
82
243
443
48
325
Peak AN Hour
1248
688
37
77
253
23
170
Peak PN Period
3084
1872
225
230
517
57
183
Peak PN Hour
1356
818
83
85
237
46
87
A-
APPENDIX B.
ONE-WAY CIRCULATION CONCEPTS FOR CHARLOTTE AMALIE
Various one-way routing plans have been proposed by the League of Women
Voters and other groups as an alternate to a new four-lane highway across
the Charlotte Amalie Harbor.
These plans have the intuitive appeal of low
cost, minimum disruption,
and preservation of the Charlotte Amalie water-
front.
This appendix analyzes some of the traffic impacts of:
(1)
the initially
proposed plan,
and
(2)
a modification of
it.
These plans are shown in
Figures B-l and B-2
respectively.
Initial Plan.
The initial one-way loop plan
(Figure B-l) developed a
one-way eastbound link from Veterans Drive to Norre Gade across the Emancipa-
tion Gardens area.
Norre Gade and De Beltjen Road would become one-way
eastbound to Lovers Lane,
and Veterans Drive would become one-way westbound.
A clockwise traffic loop was developed using Lovers Lane,
Sugar Estate Road,
Centerline Road,
and Long Bay Road.
In addition,
Dronningens Gade and Sugar
Estate Road were developed as a one-way eastbound route.
This concept eliminates interaction conflicts at the intersections along
Sugar Estate Road and Long Bay Road by creating a "steady flow system".
The
one-way routing in the central area facilitates right turns at Hospital Gade.
The plan,
however,
has several disadvantages:
1.
The eastern one-way "loop" would result
in circuitous travel to reach
the Charlotte Amalie High School,
Post Office,
and Hospital.
It
would cause a diversion of traffic onto First Avenue and into the
adjoining neighborhoods.
2.
All access from the east and north would have to enter the center of
town via Veterans Drive.
This results
in indirect access to
westbound Main Street.
3.
De Beltjen Road has steep grades and narrow travel
lanes
(9
feet
in
some places).
It
is not equivalent to Veterans Drive and not well
suited for trucks.
4.
To facilitate eastbound access from Norre Gade
to De Beltjen Road,
the turning radius
in the southwest corner
of this intersection
would have
to be expanded.
B-l
B-2
FIGURE
B-l.
INITIAL
ONE-WAY
PLAN
B-3
FIGURE
B-2.
MODIFIED
ONE-WAY
SYSTEM
5.
The heavy eastbound Veterans Drive traffic would be required to flow
through the Emancipation Gardens - Fort Christian area.
6.
The Norre Gade approach to Hospital Gade would be overloaded,
even
with all parking removed.
Its two lanes would have to carry over
1,300 vehicles per hour during busy periods of the day.
7.
Finally,
the plan does not increase the number of moving lanes
between Fort Christian and Lovers Lane.
It shifts traffic flows,
rather than increasing capacity.
Accordingly,
it is not recommended as an alternative to expanding
Veterans Drive.
Modified One-way System.
A modified one-way routing system is shown in
Figure B-2.
This system builds upon the early action street circulation
proposals.
It differs from the loop scheme
in that:
(1)
it does not call
for
a one-way "loop," and
(2)
it calls
for one-way northbound operation on De
Beltjen Road from Norre Gade to Dronningens Gade.
This concept eliminates the problems of a
"loop".
It also maintains the
direct access into the center of town via Sugar Estate Road.
It substantial-
ly simplifies the Veterans Drive - Lovers Lane intersection.
In all other
respects,
it
is similar to the initial concept.
Thus,
it also fails to
provide the needed additional east west traffic capacity.
Accordingly,
the
modified one-way system also
is not recommended as an alternative to the
expansion of Veterans Drive.
B-4
APPENDIX C.
TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, ST. THOMAS WCOI
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
244-1981
TO ESTABLISH THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
WHEREAS the Virgin
Islands Legislature,
through
Act No.
3903
(1976)
and Act
No.
4478
(1980),
has recognized
the need for development
of. a Virgin
Islands transit program,
and has appropriated
funds
for such purpose;
and
WHEREAS the Department of Public Works was
identified
as the agency authorized
to pursue the development
of
a
transit program;
and
WHEREAS
Public Transportation
in
the Virgin
Islands suffers from
a lack of direction and regulation,
seriously limiting beneficial services which would otherwise
be available to the Community;
and
WHEREAS responsibility
for the oversight
and
regulation of transportation
in the Virgin
Islands
is presently
delegated among five government
agencies
(Department
of
Public Works,
Public Services Commission,
The Taxicab Commission,
Department
of Public
Safety,
and Office of Highway Safety)
with no proper coordination;
and
WHEREAS lack_of delivery
of effective public
transportation
services
is contributing to numerous parking
problems,
highway congestion,
vehicular and pedestrian
accidents,
and
an
increase
in motor vehicle population
beyond
island land mass limitations;
and
C-l
t.r
i
*
2
*
WHEREAS,
improper equipment,
improper routing
and
scheduling of bus
transportation,
improper care
and maintenance
of equipment,
lack
of bus stops
and
signs,
and
a
lack
of
published
information
all
contribute to
a
fast
deteriorating
public transportation
system;
and
WHEREAS the existing public *transportat ion systems
on
St.
Thomas
and
St.
Croix will eventually
fail without
Government
assistance, much to the public detriment;
NOW
THEREFORE,
By virtue of the authority vested
in me by Section
11 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin
Islands,
it
is
hereby ordered as
follows:
Section
1.
There
is established within the Department
of Public Works the Virgin
Islands Office of Transportation
(hereinafter the "Office” or "VIOT").
The office shall
be headed by
a Director and be staffed as deemed appropriate
by the Commissioner.
The Office
is established
for the
following purposes,
for which
it shall have
full power
and authority:
(a)
to conduct transportation planning
for implementation
by
the Department of Public Works;
(b)
to conduct
a continuing analysis of Virgin
Islands transit systems and to prepare a
program for transit development;
(c)
to implement
the Wilbur Smith
"Virgin
Islands
Mass Transit
Study"
for maintaining and
improving public transportation services
in
the Virgin
Islands,
and
to update rthe study
as needed;
(d)
to recommend contracts with qualified private
firms where appropriate to operate transpor-
tation services
in
the Virgin
Islands;
'(e)
to prepare applications,
in 'conjunction with
the Office of the Federal Programs Coordinator,
for submission to the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration and/or Federal Highway Administration
for available assistance to improve transportation
services;
and
(f)
to recommend and formulate policies,
legislation
and programs
for improving and supporting
(financially and otherwise)
transportation
systems
in the Virgin
Islands
in order
to
insure mass transit service development,
and
to insure coordination with the Virgin
Islands
Planning Office,
Highway Planning and Research
C-2
*
3
*
Office,
Virgin
Islands Taxicab Commission
and
the Department
of Public Safety
in
all
activities.
Section
2.
The VIOT shall annually prepare
a budget
to
be included with the departmental budget
to provide
funds
for VIOT personnel,
office,
equipment
and supplies,
for construction of needed transportation
facilities
and other improvements
(such as parking areas,
bus
stops,
bus terminals,
equipment garages and maintenance
areas),
training,
and for such other purposes
as may be
necessary to carry out the programs approved.
The VIOT
budget
shall be requested as an appropriation from the
Road 'Fund
(33 V.I.C
I 3002)
each year.
The budget
shall clearly state the objectives to be attained and
the expected measureable results,
and shall be accompanied
by a report of the results of operations
in the previous
fiscal year.
Section
3.
The Commissioner of Public Works
is hereby
directed to expeditiously implement
this Executive
Order
and,
in furtherance thereof,
is authorized to
expend funds appropriated
in Act
No.
4478
for the
purposes stated
in Acts No.
3903 and 4478.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF
I have hereunto
set -my hand and
caused the Seal of the Government of
the Virgin
Islands of
the United States to be affixed
at Charlotte
Amalie,
St.
A.D.
C-3
Chapter 87. Automobiles for Hire
SECTION ANALYSIS
401.
Registration and
licenses; operators' badges;
identifica-
tion cards
401a.
Issuance of badge and identification card without compli-
ance with requirements ; number of operators
; renewal
402.
Operation of automobiles for hire
402a.
Classification of taxi service
403.
Number of passengers
404.
Tariff of automobiles for hire
405.
Maximum rates for service
of motor
vehicles operated
for hire in Virgin Islands
406-408.
[Repealed.]
HlSTOBY
Franchises for bus
services
in
St. Croix. Grant of exclusive franchises for
bus services in St Croix, see Act June 11, 1958, No. 304, Sess. L. 1958, p. 33, Bet
out as a note under section 10 of Title 30.
§
401. Registration and licenses; operators’ badges;
identification
cards
(a) No person may operate an automobile for hire until he has
applied for and been issued an operator’s badge and an identification
card by the Commissioner of Public Safety, and provided, however,
his
application has been approved by the Virgin Islands Taxicab
Commission. The Commissioner may not issue an operator’s badge
or an identification card to any peraim who has not complied with
the pertinent provisions of chapten^Sj^^ 35 of this title or, in the
case of every applicant who has not been issued such a badge and
card prior to April
17, 1967, who does not comply with or satisfy
each of the following requirements and qualifications
(1) An applicant must be either a citizen of the United States
or an immigrant alien admitted to the United States for permanent
residence under the pertinent provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended
(8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.), except that
any person applying for the renewal of a valid badge and card for a
new license year who does not meet the requirements of this subdi-
vision shall be issued a badge and card if application for status as an
immigrant alien has been properly filed and is pending. In the event
that such application lapses or is denied, the current badge and card
shall immediately become invalid and void.
^ v>? 6-T
C-4
00
IN
CO
JCU
tnaao
a>
aoHC
a
o
•s ®
•o
0>
a *
u lo
•o 50
c c
as
cs
« £
* t*
T3
t*
a «
5 2o
2 *»
« §
.2 -o
JS sa
o a
*«
to
to a
a
«-«
•>, ©
a 2
a a
a
<u
<4-1 ^
’ (N
O
*?
COO
®
03
&-
a
5
•2 ^
a **
a u
a
oj
iso
c3o
>»
aA
-4Jos
aC
03
<0
oo
03
C-5
o
coo
o
CM
H
O
u*
coU
as ~
S -°
O
cdX
<D C
‘
0)
p*
ai *“
S
<D -a
cd
*-^
c
j
cd
a)
_
—
ttS £
c *1
g>
0)
O)
.2
D n O U
^ »h 3
o =2
.
-o
"2
£• >.
Is g
•-
bo
cu
c 4=
a)
*5*
3 m
2 ?
» s °
"
a> to _
S o
m S P "3
m O
W
2 .a ^
T3
° * _
to *
-*"5
Ss
;>
C *o°
p- o
<d X
-
LO X C »
0)
.
a>
>*
~
o a•cr* 3
_
O
CO
—
00 O >
“
U ID £ U
3
^ -
<
o
PP
C3
u
§<
to ®
a; 2
to 23
’§ 8
£ to
a. v
- o
w a
ton ou
2 .2
C 3
O. O
<3
-‘J
^
0)
CQ
O
«
< w
>><
^X
§ s
GO
O «M
CD o
M a=L
6 rC O
2 “ E
.= c
off 5 > «l
Oi _ ro
rH ®
„„2
<D
» X
CO
O o
CO
‘
X *m
-
.
ft
. s
£ d
“* c
6P
c
41
d
E
< 1
to
£a
° n
~
M „ 3
to
a <n
c
_ O
0)
E
CO
03
rH 12
C
<D
a>
a)
E m
X o o o
H X £ ’-U
5
cj : u
qj
S'
a)
” w ^
to
"3
O
x U
be
^ c
c
•r*
aJ
a) •«
£
. X x
.
ga-*-»ct>
n. O v
O) tD
*= £ E 3
to & _ «
.
t- 5 a
1—'m
^ m > -U
•
• .2 g d >
°l-5 a.<£
S
to §*.2 c
03 .£
c*__i
O
tH -3 o ** ®
d b a *s >
J g
-2 ° 23
s §-§^ s
“
'
tt) c ^
w ^ £ .2 "
_ O ^ -3
0)
^<gSE
O
00 O
> T3
O
'
al C
_ O
. JD
O D
CO
QQ
03
tH
tO
• c
” =3
0) nj
C
03
3^ XI
U 5
c
-
^ a
C o
2 «w
E o
CO
® —*
c T,
a*
04
E <
= §
0) >
il
to
O
UJ
s-
(1)
fs
JS
"o
o«
<3D -O «
00 w
4)
XJP C
CO o
cd
0)
« o
£*»
to
o»
S g
4)
7 3 C
I
CQ
0)n B1
sJ
>»
_
CD
O
O-i
w
cd
X
to
41
°o c
<“
r: 'z
.. -o « §
t
® .= -U ®
B,
O < ^ •- C
a
C " ago. 8 “
Jito
• g.3 ag
-1-* w
a a —
o ,H
T3 c
"o x: “
o
2 .2
a H §
o Z
.•£ -
> s
« .
a o w
°* S
*"*
E _g StC5 ““
a a
te « '3
to
HM B a c H
_
Si
.si
5
« g «
05
„.
^ OJ1
.2 o
*5
.
4-> 7r «+H O n 2
,•- « o
0) C
OS
TO t- W
0> *5
00
mm
O
8 ftS
S M :S»«
CO
• rH
r-
CO
r X
a a — H
*j
c O c a
.2 ^.S-S^o
•*-> U *5
01 t— *
o
^ o
,aC
SJE2-
D O V( -
. «
l£J ° ^ ** 3
c “ 2-2^
3 I §5
fc-g
osl'sis
c «2 ooiio
a
t; o O o
.5
fi, -q- i—i *!>
£
aa
a3
XJc
as
o
j®d» j
r O
c
to
T
0) c
£ .5
'
x "E
>* x
c E
^
5 g S o
p E 3
i
01 §
g
o *f^
CO O
2< >
Cm X
O 3 tti
® m
°3
-*->
Ai
x
cd c
«, x g
T
-4J Oo
— X g
o
O) x
a> x —
ta *> 75
o x
»i
03
H
coo
a>
' —
.j_ c ^
^
?-c-> — ^3oo®o
c 23 ^ E «
5 2 5
co
tn x
'
w
—
- n °
.
UJ
•+>
5
CD ^-s
' M «
OX ^c
cd
11
E
Si
c .2X
m o p .w
cd
to
ai O
C3 3
w d u,:
O Cm X
*-*
a
^ u
uT _
^
M
-
C K
? 0)0
O
W v/ —
1-
-*-> C u/.
ft
o
C
-2 D a -
O'
03 w
CD q
'] '?m e
5
r! c ° 5 a
g. 5 « X S3
^ « g S “
^4»»
bc.p
-d-5 E 2
0-air
5 P X •=
“> a SSS
«— ««25 6«r
fc. J=
p.
•ft s
CD
CJ *x
O a
„, 3joD ti«3 ,n
. #r
C P O X
<1)0
<D
03
r-
Qi .M
r>> C
Che
-u
•£
kjTJrt # C.5 b3 8- C
.
o ss % S 3 u
>>
mi 10 *' E h , „3.i.to
o .2 ^ -a 2
3
* o
S.c ° 2 2 3^
x
3 O x
« HH
03 ©
o
<D
<U
>
•*-* 3
W.
•Jr,
bfi
. C >
O to
S E 3
t mA
X x
+-> E •-
--
^ P t) •-
X
^
a;
ojrr*t? ^
5.!
X
Cd
fc£
§* ° m
n'
^ O
a)
03 X
^ m
a; 5
*
*
c
O' E
s««
X
CD
cd a
c
t) X
a)
cr
a)
_
<D
03
03 p tj A
Cd
C
--4 E gl « 3
— « g<I
o,
o
r E.
^
03
— — —
CJ
2 3 T C •«
2 ffe o »
s 2
1
"ad
X
0)
<D
cd p X
1
7
fe £
!
. S£ g
:
>» w oi'm
5
he — js ^
: £
5 ^ 2
n M
4->
3 " v® n k J
C<
® H -
03 ^
h£) ^
£ X -
m *
a C .5 m •*
i- a
s
U O
CD
3 _ C
O
O
0) X
c
<1)0 0
hr
a ® ®
t? g „
5
•n M— a ° a o **
JfS 2. 3 C > ~ a
-§2 d
2
°2
Et 2 g
2 *3 P
_
a—
.2 5 hto
ftl, j
gpcc 2 .t;«>>D,c
a,.2.s|C'3^o E
>>>,&« 3
03
03 -O
3 s
p a °
_
-e o « 23
a^ g a
w 3 C
t* X
<D 2
g *2
fc .- .E
l3
g c
5 «
cd
<
<D
>»
CDtD X
>hii a
c •- o
C3 3
fi<3
+*
X
-.
0)
0)
; j= to
aa c M —
2 ag.e m
a a a .o .2
'1
cd
CM
- * =
Z
co x
»X ^o
is 53
w
•—
O
.. X
*- -m E
od P P
25 a
•SSftto
to
totoc-aaSg§P.-5§a.
«s.2 f.5 d h “s°?^
ol
I
s g s s-S-i:
m
r; D
° » OX ^ m W
»'3 3 £
cd O
- 3 o ° C o u
01 ^
^ c &
5 &E’g
© i*£ g o
X
X § X x
o
-
-
w
o
TO
l-
m
Cd
c
--
a3r—.cdXt-
+* jz 3
CC^ U ? W 5h
2 .S
cd
u X
o cD
3
-*J
tn c
«M E
O 3
03
H C S
ft
”7
Eu
^
^
Cd
Xfl
^
CD
g
>,..
. w ^
pi H ^
»- s E O A
O
D* £
d)
0)
E h h
bflj=
- 3
O
CD "2
ii
Jm
*“»
be a
«
QJ
o
CD
fco >»
X *c
as o
"3 £
* 3
0)
03
o u
"X o
° 'E
c c3
X X
•Si
p.
03
* E °
Pi'S
O
(y H
H .h H
X X O
2 m
bo
5
a)
a,
a.E ^
x
o
O
. 55
X -p c
O
0)
<u
E 5 E
o ?
g
•to o .h
2^3
<ftr
O P oS 3 Si>
g “to
rH
- d
£?> ! 8
s 8 S 3 & E
-3 |-=to
3 ®'s"3
m
— oSt-
fc, 'aXt®
-i
e) g-§'a ° 2 c. 3 ^
v
2 a *” ao-a
o
cs^^d^e
OgoOgs^M
. fT“
i«*_
ft C ^ Q 2 o x
•"
»to
CD
.
Xox^^ 3 x 3 cPoa)®
U<H H O tH d H
P*.M O
M X
eo
as o
a)
a
X
fy:axu
3>
o
X*
COO
o
CM
00
00
<M
C-6
03
>>
03
*r*
©
•rn £
S* 0
©
*->
C0
>>
e-
3-4
.£
5
^
2
0
’£
bfi ° ^
C3
-4~»
U
Cl
«SO
ot
Ed
-3O
s>
otoHO
>»•; — v -a
“11-8
>>„_ —
4-1
>4
t°J-°=£
E» u,2 x
O S 3-0
o
!» 2.2 n
2
o O
ja
8* y -e
.
< 5 to'
J
u>
t, a _ M
•a
4»
.5
'5| §*
°
a< c -g
fl;5J
•r ?
4)
OT m
“£•? « J=
p_, C
**
0)
3 'O 3
00 o
^ o
2- t:-5.w
4> "O O g
.
c J! a o c
c
o
= c
3
.£
O
v-l
ti
>*
C3
u
i? E
c-
~
a _
ss
o3ax>
»
to D h
2
at ® « c
b b d &
a)
o
.
—
S3
©A .2
•u
* V
as
*»
.11“
O
0)
<u
j ot
is ,2
® -a
-
m
4> C
•3*3
*•
7?
OT „C
^
oj ©
‘E
c o o
§£‘5
cfl
cn
O
COO
©
CM
g -5
" O
<£ ! « o'"®
®
ot 3 co
_
Q«
-*-*
—
? oSl S^N
S-S 8-s § fc
3« ‘3 ® —
cj LO
73 oC
bo o
"
X £ c
>• *3 eo
^ ® ® 2
ft t-
. T3
OT
«3
b>
® e
CS > ^ 2
® 5
§, * « 00
g
OT
«4_|
i"§*J.s£
s-ssi;:.
“i2 |°2
• > o H
4IC5
^ •— O
OT rH
® <*M
P* W 3 _
» O
03 "2
5 c I .I” <i
m c — £
fcj O
i-3
a w
£ E S'
. S’S js
— £ c
.-
§>s
*2
15 s
to E
er w
fli
2
c — M
2* O ®
r-i
P
,C
4)
.5
1?
*>
® «
t< S -
oP° e a
•-
4) E ~ 3 03
c -c
3 2 "o -h
.-*-' O T3
.
-^§“SP
4) .3 •£
*sj
.= c .2 "
d
| 2 ££ go
£5 S J
c > £“g
5 s a § s
H *•= ®J= g
® -C 3 -r g o
s
s m C "h di
2
<nfj « «'
= 13
a, £
S
e
s 2
3
*JT
©
CB
£
•5 2
'S
e.
IS
®
e
o
®
u
p;
o»
2 §
ee
S
r
=
S
c
01
•o
c
c
u
ee
g
fe£ ±
•e
3
es
c
-
^3
£
t*
•n o
c
04
0)
0)
2 g
«
o H
c
.
eS
« 2
he ^
T3
41 c
« °
E Oo
5
OT
1 8 <
csS
o
•° 3
21
I|
*5 § §
oC
era
w ©
Si-o
o c
>»^ P
e
l)
»H
03
s-f a i<
’ S = -
4)
»««WSafflfcal“
° °
° ±
©
> ^
Jr
2 ^ -=
j= ^ 10
Q g e ^ ^ 2
>
c = ^^S2
2
0)
>
rn m s
P-i
g* „£ <C
41 ,c
c
e
« "S
5" -fi o
g "S
->
o go
a
«
2
4) -w
^
o
-o
03 <3 3
"g
S
Sa
„
W
£3
4)
O
si 2
» _ ® M O
S
58 •=
2 .2
03
t3 5
03 aa
m
^
—
S' c r®
® £
aj
.10
S
^
|
0)
m
«
*
5
M
C8
O
cu a
« t
OT
O
•h!
O C
f?
o
&H
03
.<4-1
0)
©
P*
^
r-
fll oC
C
c;
0
5,3
.2
<u
.2 3
£ T3
1 s
O
a
u
c
43
O
-a
« “ ^
ft e -o
5
V,
o & .2 ‘5
3 ®
®
so a *j
so
£ .2 £ §
2 S *«
™M
c« USC
O
12
tU T3 =
S ^
J2
03 T3
« 2
eS
« ^ > g J=
£
e«
tj ^
"S _
C
£ -o 8 ’g ^ ^ .2
w
03
® S
?
43
“ I
« .2
O 2 5
.2 £
bo
03 c
3
^
OJ O
In
o)
P
e £
S o
>1 .—
o
l-
-is lj
w
3
O
o
b '2
bij
o" 05
d c<e
u
oj
^=*’
4)
fc- S
S
«
O*
rt 2
^
0^0
03
C
"S
hh
c
c
2
w
w
~
p 5 5
t-t
es
»-
w w
c J1
S
«'hi —
c £3£ c S-
C
a
2
03 -2 «=
03
r «
u
1. £ .2 c
-S
e
ft O
-^o
t>
cS
03 £ .£
03
#5
©©
CM
C-7
c
cm
W
CS
ac
GCK
CC5c
f-3
co
£u
©9
3O
ca
.t;
pCS
CJ
cC pC
OQ
03
w
w
0)
g-
cm
r;
73 S
bo
c
C9
J5
tn O
£
_•
oU
M
. TJ
00 S
co a
om to
-
01
^ c
00
CT> g
6& It
§ §
= rac °
pa
<u ”5
<u
wjs j- 5
« "O-
s e * a'
3 5 b?
U£ s I
c4 .2
.
^
.
-*i O «w O
I >
« >2 .2 © ©
) ^
r- o
ui c
; a s
§ g
os « oc;
"
. 2
qj
* rv^ ^ ©
i w
CQ
CQ
«,
‘M —
• ^
O^pO w
O
*,'“' e
•
S °
S a.2s
So-"
5 «
§
‘i
o
- —
a>
©
GO
•a $.a 3
n 3
id
0's ® B
-WO 5
2
§
o ©
M s
C
tS
0
*-M© c
a* .3
03r ©
1 «
^ £
3 ©
©
l-i
£ ©
s *
_
OQ
© ©
“i
16
t-
co
£U
£>
csoHo£
e-j©
e
CM
a
ai
a>a
o
>» c
e
os
*
o
l~.O
J
.;.
s .a
O
3
ty
oa
o
c
£
cs
.
'O
2?
c
<U
c3
J t>
ra
.
m
QJ
TJ
C3
05
qj
O
^
c
WT4
# 03
QJ
-Q 0 0 2
co3
"5 JO3
•F=)
6e- «2
.2
°>
p3
60
QJ
O
60
>»
*0
QJ
-2
t*
P,
0)
e
C pQ
QJ
°s
-4-S .2
O
O
pU
-*=3
ca
T3
X
O
3
CO
T3
CO
’>
0
CO
a 60
c
QJ
60c
QJ
s0
O
• CO
S
°o°
CO
*
C£>
-
cr
<H N
G
.S3
<
§
j»
"e
-*-a
••*"’
!3
C
^
03
O- £
«
-O
CO
C3
<u
o
©
I
is
fi ^
.2
§
o
^
«
g,
aa
of)
®
03
03
03
c
«
.2
®*
’5
5S
o ^
£3
-w
* 'S
o
§
CO
O
<uS..S3
C<
”5
a
£
~
Z 2
-u
”3r
«
*
C
t3
a)
oa
c.
03o
»- a
®
g
13c
2
B5
03
Q3=
22
«C
03
03
<U
.>
P.
2J5
CO
T7
*S
cS
CS
E
o
TD
E
CS
«C
3
>
es
>*
n>«
1U
“
QJ
C
CO
63
O
Ps
0)
c
bo C
XJ
GS
S
-05
73
u
2
Q
.
,
03
ai
03 02
c= o
l~s o
- 03
kO
(M
CM
.
"O'
O
d ^
g |
• J
60
60
QJ
CO
<£>
<o
04
__
02
2 ^
2,73
o
c
S3
V
o.
5
s
o
§
G «
.2
J=o
«
3
U
S3
2?
CM
©
00
© H
CM
d a
£; o'
. c-
©
03
C-
3-1
03
eo
C03
P,
G3‘ S'
© £
o
eo
1-1
o J
^5
03
p. ©*
03
G ©
U,
03
O
»H
«t-l
>» h4
43
«
t: w
o
S*
«
aO
coo
.
P
G W
G
*-3
Tit©
ia
^
d
a 'Z,
j> o'
©
t-
03
03
03
PG3
t>
oo
eo
03
OT
sm
o"
CO
6
tj*
. t>
a 5
1-1
n-3 Q
M ©
© —
oS^o
© £
c -2
© 3
e a
c
Co ©
W
bo
© •=
5
c o
H
cs
OT
*•
U*
«
©
bo &
^ ©
.2 °
s §
“§ «
»
s
. >
•=0? ©
©a
e ^
e
*^3
|'5
1 2
©
c*.
•
E
W. W©
3 <=3
5"- © a
T3
-o
es
T3C
as
© ^ —
!- s
<->
0) CO
£5 >
g « X
«m
oa
”
s
8
75
^« ao Q
| 3 c2 B
£iS 2 « o
a to 'hus;
I 3 » X *Q
l* 5 .
>.
# (o
;. o
tf
«®r a I
tC0l£>
©
• ©a
$ i'SIs
S -- :»K
g 2
.
.
3 2
©
t—
5? W pC
® M §
„• >2 ^ .!?
" “ ®
®
2 «Z°E
0 “”I " o
-» a'g**
g O
M
^ ©a
B w
(j
g c
.« ©
£ -o
•
©
' C
*0 5
w-
3
D M (M
W
CQ O
o
.*< ©
’Ba» O s ^
r^> o «
©a
©j
^
r* « -«
33 S
<33
S O
© o
u oa
t, ^
° 6
sz
c© ©
3 *<
SI
£ i> ^ 2 “
£
*£> © ©
35 oa
^
.
«
5
. S
3
«>
m
**T »a
S «o« 2 e
t-
©
oa ^ © ©
t
§&§
b£
g
^ W
>>»
>bpC
I
§ § &
illsis i-.sai
cS
fc*s B
© © Jz
> c ©
©
SEC
ea
«•*
o«
m
ft
te 2
-
°S,S
® ® a
2 c “
^ «
CS
* &0 J-
bO C ©
C
'
dfi «©
4. *3
as ^
a P
©
bo
G ^
tS C
h 'U
a ©
•§ s 2 * e
ca s ^
&
•
q, S f* ^3
‘r* *3 ©
<3 <J g •§ *U
Si-g
S-S-*
*m
ra
•5 ©
2 |
& £
'13 ©
81
<(
Im
• 11^ ^
>»
5 0^
^ w
4 a©O
£©
bo
G
©
C ^»
© _
1 ^
to
£5
cj
ea ^
»
22
•-
Sf.t .2
63
-t-*
je
2 - S‘5
5 «M ’—
o a. u
S
S!
8,8
^ C
c£
2.2 'SSS
s ts
Pa
©
It
s-s-s
9> c _
3 ^
•
- 3
G 3 S=
© *o
<a
© T?
©.£ §
tS ^
©
as
5 &
x 2
ft o
<5
-*-»©
4-> m
©
_
<0
*2
G ©
O 3
•*« m
© «*H
©
© ©
CO
M
o
©
04 -3
d
3
Z 2O
l> C
<©
c
• 3
iH O
©
^ ^
-
©
5
+*
, ^
©
© © -a
>»Jb
G ®
© ©
£ S
oa ^. _ £ a
•< 5 ° *o
_
C 3 C
—
<n « «
s
o S u
VP S ®
3 S h M
».S
•2
i> "5
83 2 « "S
o w &a
5
CQ >
2
© s
Bl
G *C 3
©
ft —
•
6 <J ~
PQ
©
G © 2
© >
I ’§ «M
a g o
t- fe 2
<0 a £2
«
03 ”
05 S
«*=»
^ o
© 00
*«5
<; ©3
>*
«
-p ^©
*3 G
©
©
© ts
gSfi§~|
§ ts 1 1
®
© .3 ©.-
m 3 m
0 -5 a %
Si
« = £ = S T3
cq CQ
CO pO
® ca
©
2
99 6 ©
© ^ TS
> ^ G3
©
62
o
W
. C
G
a
p.
68
11
JJS
** 3
M S
0 «
CO
3 !
8
§•
h a
O a
c
<->
0 *1
-a 03
a ^
• 0 5
:n
°*
CM
oa
CM
O U
o kT
,
r
•
o a
£
«5 t
'
0
o
c
S
g<^
s;
c w
§«’
1 §
55
sc -
C-8
KT.u
5
w>
££O
t-cs
CM
CO
co
§
s
* ->£
S « e- g,*
— e
, & o
«M
«S &
.
0
3
US
l»
_?o
»)
2
e
a
®>
.2
•e
Cum
£©
se
=*=>s«
u©
TO
0)
S3
TL
1®s
a>wa
^3
b£ £
e a
©>
eow
C-9
Cor.
s
tx.
ro
cSU
>. co
£
tJ
8m
0
©
cd
£
jz
K ^
#G
Ul
E
^
§
£
©
-C
*C£
8ma©
cc
cdo
tc
'TJ
.£
c
W
0
> 2
£
u
jz
©
© *c
3
*•>
CD_
o
c
cd
’4"> ^
£
c
c
a
© .2
© a=
t5
i-
©
q5
Jm
©
<2
5
.52
Hi £x
X
.5?
*"
x
£
a!
S
E *g
CD T3
c
a)
C 4=
i
i
OQ
3
^
3 -a
©
© ©
-C
0
CD
CD
O
Cd
CD
c -a
o
u
ino
"E
w S
a .2 _
$
E
c
© ^ ©
—
C3
o3
-*->
0
CD
o' *5
r ^
5
c
©
nj
3 --
a;
as
c
©
C
o,
<u
03
•5
©
OJ ©3
8m
cd
0 *G
.3 73
-=
o
I. x
£
©
JO
03 —
CO
-»
*"<
-4T
-0
© .£ a ^ ^
c<
b£)
73
cd
.0
©
mC
&
© ^5 ©
« -2 x
-0 a E—
1
CD
73©
©
pC
GO S
© ®
CS
“
aj
©
pG
-MJ
ro
Jm© c
2
es
©
2
-*->
.— X rn
TS ©
© *c
.- .2
©
®
e x
o ©
C
m X
aS
i-
S
bo a D
X X
rt
C
3
cs
O
S^
1"H
3 w
cs
_
,
CD
bO 3
.5 .2
’£ ’m
©
>
E j§
•u> *2
o
2
e
03
e 2
2
«
5°
cd
Jm©
<HM
a o
~ «
15 x
o
-u>
E
c
o
a
4-
J
U
3
O
CS
Q)
«4H .2
O U
CD
2
3 JO
o x
-j>
3
as
as
8—
^
0
>i
a,
cs
°
E
o *2
^
«
CD
©
TO
3
g
O
5
oj
bo
X ”C
3
cS
es jo
s
bo "5
-o
0)
C3
Q.
jQ
CD
u J=
a>
o
~
CD
O
O
E
G
§ "2
8m
3
5-
h
©3
T3
03
0
a3
8m
>
0
>
"H
u>
.2
v
*& ^
2
o
^ JO
03C ®
o "H
co
.
CD
CD
Jm
03
3* o
« s
03
S
CO
03
4_j
JO
o
•« 3
i-
cr
a>
joo|
2
^
£ &
8m TJ
.9
c
M—C
0
O
fe
2 -=
Q.
0
«*->
c °
«
1
0 c
•y «
e6 c
8m ^
03 0
g«-C
o c
o
O) E
cc
C/3 d
00
C/3
»-« U-I
•- O o
TJ 3-D
c
-
c*
o hJ
E
*
O
CD
CD
q;
S CO
03o ^
3 HD
CD ^
CO
^ cT
U.
<M
0
1-H
TT
"O
•
»M
C
CO ^
O ^
c§3
« co
1 £
«s
J= -O
^ «
_ T3
^ §
5
E
.2 <J
Q
=
c*o a
«n
.
1 C.S
8 E
.
to"^
»-
rs w
?E =
\=8
p—
w
K
rt -2
n
t-
-co E
r 3B1
^ M
0) >»*S
C « >
£
«^> ^
©li
ri
“ ^-C
2 ° u
J2 " o
"D ^
JBl-o
M E
CJ
0»x
" cum.-
t3-
Q_* So
®-S-
t~ “T o
2 c o-
o-c «
3ftg
E
EoU
C3
*X
ctH
a>
)m©
©u3
-a
0/
©
^03^03*
^
E
5P6
3 0"^
-4-5
CO
03
0
0
8-*
U
*7^
0
X
-
cO
c
.2
E
03
j
o j:
o3
-*->
«4H
,
-3
CD
.3-
CD
*" J5
"5
O
O “
T3©
o
c
~C
o
’k
S .£
3
tc©
8m
>>3
cd
©
£
£
w
6
o
S
CD
73
1J
H
03
<U
C
JO .=
w
bo
S3 ±
u >
o ^
aj o
JOl M
«w
-
°
X
_
a!
SO
4->
o
*3
«S
rt
t+_(
o
o
J= X
3
CJ
CCSy
">
X
^
aj
c E*
.2
cu
« =
S5
X
5
03
c
& o
9--n
3
o
o
u
CD
_
8-
C
0 —
a -0
§•1
03
X
>
°
o
w
C
t,
03
0
j©
+e
3<
^
es
*C
pM*v 0
3
«
E
>
t-
8m
o
g
>.2
E "
u .£
g
as
E
-0
o —
as
as
2 -a
as
cd
as
O.
as
bo -2
.5
o
T3
SO
S T3
•g
S
a c
Q. O
03
,2
0
rt
x
.-2
*j
as
$
2
r5 w
& .©
03
03
C.
©
03
©
©
CD
.2
iS
-4-J
M—
»
UJ
Ps
rt'a
rt
S- E
>>
p©
73©
<
4-5
©
.C
4-5
«4M
O
>
©
©
0
-C
(—
f—
©u o
CD
©
CD
C
0 o
Ig
s
rt
«
T5c -a
as
C
-O
o
c
rt
CD
^rs
g. ™
CD ^
0
©
3
®
X
CD
O C
a
os
.5
^
=
jo
E
-
o
-a
r/o
m-j
•—
r-
^
| x
rt
2
E £
o
^
r
o
©- O
„
o3
.3
©
0
"O
^
-S
"£
©
c,o
CCS
a ss
a
ecs
cC
^0
©
0/3
x;
^5
0
X
cj
?
03
^0 “
S
8m
OS g
x Eo
"5
bf
X
c
CD ^
03
E
Q)
OS
E
.2
a!
C
as ©
as
•2
^
2
rt
c
E-c
asc
as
as
as
x
-a
a
a!
>» 2
rt
g
a Sc
s-
3
«2
5
CD
•a
rt
.3
OS*
~
E
as
'^3
.g
-a
-M
OS
a
UJ
JM
^
OS
=
rt c
-“ox"
4J ^
4J
2
be
>, g
.3
c X c
be "I
rt
'g 2
-a
a
-2 to
3
3
fe
U O
O J=
2
2
=
o
03
>>
»« c
g
2
-a
2
gs
s 5 2
S.
C
*0
^
©
0)
co
;©;
©
-5
©
o
^ X
L3 T
C?
4J
c«
13C
CO
73©3
CD
.2
©
r O
c a
o
©3
.2
o3
8m
0
2
c
a
os
as
c^
—3
—
os
cd —
_, _
rt
as
X X
CD
-4~>
cc
as
a- E
cd a
'O
os
rt
•S
c
^
3
>>
rt
eC X
E ^
OS ’g
—
-o
CD >
CD
0
gj
£
O ^
-a
.
«
t.
T3
03
e
2
§ too
©
E
£p
g3 2
C T3
.2
S
x x
Maau
©
©4
Qj 0)
^ -a
— o
— a
£ T3
O C ^
as .2!
u
ce c
©s ©. w
9^5
cT"o to
w c
r— > ton
•* ^
.
• O'cs
oJn
^T?
- a<
©
as
ce 2
- co rrT
>,
»-*
:
c!^:
«
•-. a o
a ^
>»
“
JZ
03
—
= a
8-
^•7
D
=
O 2
03
"C U -
£
62 J
E ® E
!?£<
—
rt
.
— ^
*£-
CO s ^
rt w .o
isl
2 £ £
03
CO
£
I
8 g rt
-
•o
.
a, d'0’
a
.
2
co
_
tn
«.2
a;
as E g
-a |5
SU«M
2 ^ =
csX.o
i
§
S
J=
g
©
I
f
S
’-5
©
S
-O
3
CD©
be
•o
rt
CJ
^
©
©
-©
e
oS
c©
co
C.
« t> <xT
^wS 2
oo ^csTJ
ct
^ w >
D5
o »
U73^-« C/2
.2
w
tt "2
OS
E
cs
2
o
CCD
c
3*
.2
os
.£
>
IS
es
as
>
E
o
M X
3
„
OS >3
E
os
X
as
as
bo
.2
"C
as
%
E“S
09
0)
r. .2
c
CS
-O3
CS
as X!
r
c
bo
cs
-a
>»
J-! ^
as
,03 c5
Ci
cs
O CO
CO
©
8m X
C.-2
° £
§ *8
"S
^
II
09 g
E -2
E
3
es
t,
»
s
f—i ao
|g
> §
OS
CD
X —
5. 5
a
-
2
K g
c E
Os
C
es
s
x
5
X
os
& g
E °
0
OS
os 3
s
'-5
E 2
2 x
CC
pC
i °
& IQ
3 s0
1
OS
^
M—
3
S
c.
>—
esX
ts
X
>>
§s
g>
"rt
bo
03
xs
,
CS g
X
O
os X
0
p*
••
03
K, 2
CD
Js c
-S a .2
1 Et5
g
° e
O
es
3 3
_
e*
3
CS _
O
©
as
r-
«
E
X
g
xs
O
§«
o ^
o
•
U
3
os .2
X
.2
E.a
es
>sX
c
E-i
.2
cS
o
os •-
•—
CD
a .2
& P
es £
0) X
*S
o
3
o XJ
es
c
o
CD X
3
>
O
t-"
-= S -
£ 2
=
M
.
IT
ct- J
es m
.
o __
bo
a 'g -r
x a ?
es < _o
r-> O
3
3
©
t -c
O
-w
T3
^©
©
G-
©
tf
00
©
CD©
eo
w
eo
£05
(M
©
#5
ocT
t>©
©
>»
e3s
CD
fc- 0
cC
cS
c£
©
©
©
QJ O
CJG oO
OJ
J- _
.
oj
tr ^5’
«M O
g’3
03
^
CJ —
03 .t.
OJ WCh
fcfi
c ©«-
S c °
^.2
*-» -c
^ ID.
OJ CO
T3 5
c
bfi
CJ C
5^
m3
03
C
*J
x -
CJ
,C\J
CO c
MJ C ©
oi *Z5
« » a
- C
1-
= ’5)-u
> 3
'o
a) £
— c
-e ^ c
-
CJ <M _
r~
-
| c .5
2
T3 -
CJ s
03
*-
“CO
oj £°
-c -
-3
.
Z3^
MM
CJ _a;
*• m
C3
^-S
43
G.
^*D 0)
J fa
..
V.
Zm ^
73©
73C©C
bo
E w
•<
c»
ja
c
d a o
w
c«x
1-8 8
CTlX 3
- few
c
*- r
0 3 0
E °
— “
“3
C3
~
g
CL«G
S Ts ^
C--S
a c os
U =
•
S °
03
^
pU
,
c
03 gS
S
Oi
o ^
W-
«0M
^
8 a O)
O
OJ
*"*
= “r
es X W
a £ t:
i<
a
1 _
© 15
u
&
*»
SS
2
s
©
es
x
»->
’S
CD
S
3©
x
-2
s=>
es
^
Z=i
S
4)
Sa
G
O
©
1i=s©
£3
£=)
a= X
1
1
X
=
«p=
K
£
C
es
©
©
|
« 2
_g
3
X
c-
s
© 5
B 1
es3
^
i g
CD
S
t=<
^
ci
T=!o
3 §
OS
os
X s
x EH
3
,
cs
^-i
a 2
to ^
X
3
C3
O
^
IZj
cd
©
© g
B g
.2 -S
—
33
o
o o
U
0) ^
o
E X
g w
cs
2
s-
3
os
2
OS
>
cd
>, "3*
—
j
i—
©
©.
*3 K
CO
O
^
&
•S
s
X
*
Dh B
*M
cs
O a
c-
_
es J-
a
2
o
cd
.2 ©
.2 ^
£ T5
C
8m
5
cd
© 0
o
!:
c
G 5
cd — X
2 § -M
«
3 U
x m <3
CS g .2
a
" x
©
C
8m
t+H
e3
©
©
M
J
0
CD
©
£’S Is
3
£ -a
^ x
g
3 •-
Sm
v
CJ
XX©
ft)
_2
cd
«3
Ego,
© x
©
8m
•
•
E ° i> Is
*a x *3 "©
fc,
,‘ti X >
O
> 3
o
**i ^
73
3
03
CD
_ Ch
© ©
3
a — "
E = °
-
j-
9
o
32 a
rt ~
*M
0
Cd
ED
^
CD
CD
D. Cl
n 2
«
es
”
0
<4M
'
73
CD
Is g 5
a ”15
>>“ 2
5
a
E
©
©
o
« E -5
rt
. £ §
§I*S
ro
ST 3
t g ©x
X
3
b 5 3
c
®
s
© *
©
© 5 «a
°
©
o
E-i
esoX
UO — —
a-1
©
O
o.
8m
H-J
«
•=
8m
a© I
fe.
x
® d
g x -a
x
o
?
^
E
c
c -2 W
to
cd ©
c
z
Z X3
P-M
©
© -9
8-
^
©y ^
2
©
'I W
©
03
Sm 0
CD ^0
0
cd
c
r
•s J
5
U©
II
©
«
.
.
*g
©
p.
cd
^
CD
©
8m
8m
©
© cr
pj
o
.-d
>> ^
8-
C w
C.
c
Q
M-J
©
W
0
-*-»
MM
_
©
e
©
E
cdc
© .2
s- X
c3
e
E
£
o
§-eo
0 ^
8m 13
0
C
-c
cd
ED H
0 w
I
g
"es .2
73
03
o
c—
3
©
3
>
3
©
© -a
x
o
*» X
©
,03
^
©
3
E-I
3 .0
-
VS
g
CS
©
u
a
>
g X
0
*«
. —
S 3
a
O
«
3
X
*J X
C-10
J3i
71
t-
eo
•e
aa
C£c
b.
Co
C
=
•
w .i X
cor Si sz
eS ®
cd
#©
TZ
> *5
csS
«
ti
cd
>
O
c3
E-
G
O
03
-o
£ XC
©
cd
0)
oT ^
03
5=
©
i2 c£
03
CO
cdX
03
©
Sx
*“ J
3
too
•= O -&O0-
o !•> w
>+*
C.
n<
eS ®
<
_
4)
~ SZ
O
•zl
•—•
co
Jr
sz
o ®
£
—
-tJ
>>
., -C
(J A
•
«2 >
- T3 £
fc-
£ _e
£
cox
-*j
2 |
2 e
css
E
„ £
o _£
+>
X
03«3 ^
§•8
03 O
<£ X
c
-*->
03
"eO
-c©
= X ©
> J2 .2
E
CQ
03GO
|il.s|
O 2 § f 3
_
e
3 a b •=
.
§ 3-2 |s
? J ® w
.
03
J2 U U
Q.
u w zz
a;
•
a>
to
„
C
4> «w
«
SJ O
Xw
. CM
w -
^ C O
c3 Uj
g« 8
> ^
to
03 _
— C
*-
— 'tb-§
rt-fc g
> 3
a)
0 4)^
x o
**-*-* c
c
E °*£
©
fc£
G©
CO
3a
«i->0
l*
01©
E32
eoo
"S*
E °
Su-
S e.«o
|:§£
£ c«
rj 3
.
3 ®
2
i-
.
I
Cl to
fi8 P C*
e C®
o ^
« ~
.ti
““S'
8.5b
6
2J<
t-
*3
=sU
®
sz
c.
0)
cjX
ai
c
_o
'-3
_c3
o
’>
tio
c«HJUS
®
OHO
CD
SZ—
1
>)
-Q
"O
CO
-3
to &
£ «
E
!- O
<2
03
© ©
X X
©
*
*“=!
©
u h '5
°
o j:
o C S ^ ^ ^
X X ^
-4J ©
>
c, © 2 jg ^
CJ5
U ^ .2 o —
©
hr
*—
^
f3 .E
bo 2
« S
41 S c ^
rv “
ra
>-
ST .3 *>
O § .2
3
<D
02
CX
c
Sm
cS©X
«W
03
©
° X 5
rt
*»
^ °
+0
_r m y
«
c .«
u .2 ^5
-»-> *»
3
rt
cn
=
O
e3
-5
s Jo!|
oJ-S^E g
-1 t: •-
o
> •-
jVJ
£ & o
x
™3
co
s-t
cC
.5
2 «^Pnh
>
TO
-t->
U
«
o ^
<*H
CJ
’C3o
COXH
J £o
S “
c 'E
o
cs
•3
<u
c ® «e
§ js ®
2 *• ^
& s
i,
E
r* &
3-8
"f '«o
eS o
_®
a,
J2
bo
83
«s
.a E
§3 'S
§
>.
03
Q.
c o
©
?-4
te
p*
° e
© —
*3
bs
"o .S
C a
<u
©
Em
.2
.13 3®
•
g^=£
a ^- E ©
®
o
°* ^
os
cs
'** « o
P. JD
-*-»
®
TO
2^3
° ® ^
s
«1 25
©
C$
X
©
©
bo
.5
to
a -2 _I
® 13
>» H
G
-5
3
® "g 3 g C
»"> X ^
CO
q;
.S H §
>» “ ^
T5
P- “ *?
£ O
03
_
§ w — S3 tc S
C
0>
|_
®
® a o
o.
a
to
<*-i
to
fe «
® «c
.© +S
*~
A1 3
, ^
** x -E a ~
:
c
** * —*
bo
2
2 O I s
.
•5
°
« -2
s
® ®
J
> « X
®
_
C8 S -g
•
co
c
-
o
c
O
&
©
to
'O 'U
ti
.
G
O ©
m
O g.§ ffE
•£ $£ >2
5
>- S=
° £
^
®
bO g
«
_.
C. ^
®
^3 «
°
fc
4J*
«
©
C
« ^
« S
s ?
S
£?s^a
CS
.£
x cn G
“
© ° & •§ g
3 g>-5|
't
o .£
_ .2
i«
W
l t -r
O)
S-I
csS © -©
>
©
g
Cl
cd X
a ^
3 ^
^
&
2
>
©
3©
©
C-ll
Ch. 37
AUTOMOBILES FOR HIRE
T.20 §407
Subchapter II. Automobile-For-Hire Medallion
Medallion system investigation authorized. Act Oct. 20, 1981, No. 4646 §
10,
Sess. L. 1981, p. 259, provided: “Within ten days after the date of enactment
of
this
act
[Oct.
20,
1981]
the
V.I.
Taxicab
Commission
shall
initiate
an
investigation
into
the
inequities
created
by
the
implementation
of
the
medallion system including, but not limited
to, the issuance of conflicting
in-
structions
x.o operators, inefficiencies in implementing the law, and administra-
tive delays caused by inadequate
staff of the Commission. To
the maximum
extent
practicable, and
in accordance with
law,
the Commission
shall
take
such
steps
as may be necessary
to
correct administratively these
inequities
and
rectify any rights violated of persons affected by the medallion system.
The Commission
shall, within 60 days after initiating its investigation, report
to
the Governor and the Legislature
in
detail and
in writing the inequities
^
identified and the steps taken to rectify rights violated.”
" Repeal of former sections 406-414a. Former subchapter
II which related to
Automobile-For-Hire Medallions, comprised of sections 406-414a, was derived
from Act Nov.
2, 1977, No. 4056, §
2, and was repealed by Act May 26, 1978,
No. 4129, § 6, Sess. L. 1978, p. 81.
407. Medallion—Required
for
automobiles-for-hire,
description.
issuance, fees
(a)
After October
30,
1978, no person, company,
corporation,
or partnership may register an automobile
for hire or purchase
license plates therefor or own an automobile for hire
enterprise
within the Virgin Islands who has not first obtained an automobile-
for-hire
medallion
as
provided
by
this
subchapter.
Medallions
shall only be
valid on the
island for which they were originally
issued.
(b)
Automobile-for-hire medallions
(hereinafter referred
to as
“medallions”)
shall be sold by the Virgin Islands Taxicab Commis-
sion in the manner provided by this subchapter. The Commission
shall cause
to be minted such medallions
as may be required
to
carry
o>it the purposes of
this subchapter. Medallions
shall
con-
sist of a metal plaque of such design as may be determined by the
Commission. Each medallion
shall bear on
its face a permanent
registration number-drffefehT from thaT~ofi^any other medallion,
and shall bejn^fked for the island for which it is to be issued.
(c) Tke Commission shall sell to any. person, company, corpora^
tion, ,<5r partnership who owned orf^Mav
a valid
set of
Virgin Islands license plates issued for an' automobile for hire, one
medallion for each such set of plates owned. The Commission shall
charge twenty-five dollars for each medallion sold. In the calendar
year beginning January!,
1979, and in each calendar year there-
after the Commission may' sell no more than ten new medallions
eacmtfear. New medallions sold on and after January
1, 1979, shall
bq solaf<ythe highest bidder from among approved buyers as pro-
C-12
T.20 §407
MOTOR VEHICLES
Ch. 37
vided by section 410 of this
title; provided, however, that of the
number of new medallions auctioned each year, no
less than
five
shall be sold
at auction
exclusively
to approved buyers who
are
veterans and of the five, two shall be for St. Thomas, two shall be
for St. Croix, and one shall be for St. John. The revenues from the
sale of any medallion under this section shall be deposited in the
Taxicab
Commission
Fund
of
the
Virgin
Islands
Treasury.
Added May 26, 1978, No. 4129,
§
4, Sess. L. 1978, p. 76; amended
Aug. 10, 1978, No. 4185, § 2(c), Sess. L. 1978, p. 205.
1978—Subsection
(a):
Act
No,
4185
substituted
“October
30,
1978”
for
“August 31, 1978”.
Effective date of 1978 amendment. Act Aug. 10, 1978 became effective on the
date of its enactment.
Certificates of entitlement. Act Aug.
10,
1978, No. 4185,
§
5,
Sess. L.-1978,
p.
205, provided: “For the purpose of implementing the 'medallion system
as
created by Act No. 4129
(Bill No. 7924)
[which added this subchapter], the
Virgin Islands Taxicab Commission may issue, pending receipt of minted, metal
plaques,
certificates of entitlement which shall be valid for the same purposes
as a medallion
is
valid and
shall be
issued under the same
conditions
as a
medallion would be issued. Upon receipt of minted, metal plaques, the Commis-
sion
shall cease to issue certificates
of entitlement. By rules and regulations
properly promulgated, the Commission shall provide for exchanging certificates
for metal plaques
in a timely fashion, and such
other procedures necessary
to the issuance of the
certificates as the Commission deems appropriate. The
crimes
and
penalties
applicable
to
medallions
under
section
413,
Title
20,
Virgin Islands Code,
shall be applicable
to
certificates of entitlement.'”^
“THP”, “CHP” or “JHP”
license
plates. Act May
26,
1978,
No.- 4129,
§
5,
Sess. L. 1978, p. 80, as amended by Act Aug. 10, 1978, No. 4185, § 2fd), Sess. L.
1978, p. 205, provided:
“(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4
of this
act
[this
section]
to
the
contrary, any
person,
company,
corporation,
or
partnership
who,- on
May
12,
1978, owned
a
set
of Virgin
Islands
license
plates marked
‘THP’,
‘CHP’,
or ‘JHP’, which plates were registered
to
a
surrey,
safari,
or other
tour bus-type vehicle, shall be eligible to purchase from the Taxicab Commis-
sion one n^edallion for each set of plates owned. The medallions so purchased
shall entitle the owner to
all the rights and privileges of any other medallion
owner under subchapter n of chapter 37 of Title 20, Virgin Islands Code
[this
subchapter]
.
“(b) After the date of enactment of this act [May 26, 1978], the Commis-
sioner
of
Public
Safety
shall
cease
to
issue
‘THP’, ‘CHP’
or ‘JHP’
license
plates
for
surrey,
safari,
or
other tour bus-type
vehicles.
After August
31,
1978, such vehicles
shall only be operated with
plates
issued by the Taxicab
Commission to owners
of medallions of automobiles for hire, pursuant to the
provisions of this act [this subchapter].”
§ 408. Registry of Medallions, resale, two medallion limit, approved
buyers
(a) The Commission shall keep and maintain an accurate Regis-
try of Medallions which
shall include each medallion registration
number, the island for which
it was issued,
its owner, the attach-
ment and
cancellation
of any
lien
or encumbrances
against any
90
C-13
Ch. 37
AUTOMOBILES FOR HIRE
T.20 §409
medallion,
t ie number
of
the
set
of
license
plates
issued
each
medallion
e. ch
year, any change
in ownership
of the
medallion
and such o ber information as the Commission deems necessary.
The Registry of Medallions shall be public information pursuant to
Title 3, chapter 33, Virgin Islands Code.
(b) The owner of any medallion may
sell the medallion to any
approved
b
yer. The
set of
license plates
for an automobile
for
hire issued
) the seller of the medallion for that medallion may be
transferre
o the buyer after the inspection and registration of
his vehicle
required by law, or destroyed and a new set of plates
issued the
yer as determined by the Commission. No sale jf any
medallion
ill be valid until the Commission has been notified of
the sale,
t’
buyer has been approved by the Commission, and the
transaction
noted in the Registry of Medallions.
• (c) No
rson, company, corporation,
or partnership may own
more than
wo
medallions
at any
one
time,
provided,
however,
that
those
persons,
companies,
corporations,
or
partnerships,
Who owned on May
12, 1978, more than two valid
sets of Virgin
Islands
licence
plates
for
an
automobile-for-hire may
own
no
greater number of medallions than
the number
of such
sets
of
plates owned on that date, and provided further that any person,
company, corporation, or partnership owning more than two me-
dallions may not purchase any
other medallion
while he
is
the
owner of more than two medallions.
(d) Any person, company,
corporation, or partnership desiring
to purchase
a medallion under
this
subchapter from
either
the
Commission or another medallion owner may do so if approved by
the Commission. The Commission shall, by regulation, establish cri-
teria to insure that owners of medallions will in good faith, cause
to be operated on the streets and highways of the Virgin Islands an
automobile for hire
in a manner acceptable to the public interest.
Any potential buyer which the Commission finds meets these
cri-
teria
is an approved buyer under the meaning of this subchapter.
—Added May 26, 1978, No. 4129, § 4, Sess. L. 1978, p. 77.
§
409. Medallions—Liens and encumbrances against, limits of same
(a) Any medallion valid under this subchapter may be encum-
bered with
a
lien or other such evidence
of debenture. No
such
encumbrance shall attach to any medallion until the encumbrance is
reported to the Commission and recorded
in the Registry of Me-
91
C-14
T.20 §409
MOTOR VEHICLES
Ch. 3
dallions. No encumbrance duly attached to a medallion shall impai
the right of the owner of the medallion to cause to be operated
ai
automobile for
hire
on
the
island
for which
the medallion wa
issued, except when and if the medallion must be forfeited. No en
cumbrance which requires forfeiture of the medallion to the securei
party upon default of the owner of the medallion shall be
valii
as
to
the
forfeiture
unless
the
secured
party
is
determine<
by the Commission
to be an approved
buyer. When
the ownei
of an encumbered medallion subject to forfeiture to an unapprovec
buyer is in default on the encumbrance, the medallion shall be sole
at auction by the Commission
to the highest bidder among
ap-
proved buyers and the proceeds of the sale shall be paid the un-
approved buyer. The auction shall be conducted in the manner pre-
scribed by section 410 of this title.
(b) A medallion may be encumbered by more than one lien
oi
evidence of debenture but the total of all encumbrances outstanding
against any one medallion may not exceed twenty thousand dollars.
Each creditor takes his encumbrance subject to prior existing en-
cumbrances. The Commission shall take such steps as may be neces-
sary to assure that the sale of any medallion is subject to the settle-
ment of any encumbrances duly attached.—Added May 26,
1978,
No. 4129, § 4, Sess. L. 1978, p. 78.
§
410. Sale of medallions by auction
Whenever the Commission
is
required
to
sell
a medallion by
auction, and in selling all medallions newly issued on or after Janu-
ary
1, 1979, the Commission shall cause to be advertised on the
island for which a medallion is issued, timely notice of the sale by
auction. The notice shall contain information that only approved
buyers may purchase medallions .and the procedure by which
a
person may become an approved buyer. Medallions sold at auction
shall be sold to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder is not an
approved buyer of record at the time of the auction, the sale shall
be honored if the Commission finds that the highest bidder subse-
quently qualifies as an approved buyer. No person who has been
denied status as an approved buyer may bid at an auction conducted
under this section until such time as he is determined to be an ap-
proved buyer.—Added May 26, 1978, No. 4129,
§
4, Sess. L. 1978,
p. 79.
§
411. Death of medallion owner
Upon the death of the owner of any medallion, the Commission
92
C-15
Ch. 37
AUTOMOBILES FOR HIRE
T.20 §413
shall, at the option of the heirs,
sell the medallion at auction to an
approved buyer and pay the proceeds to the estate of the deceased,
or transfer the registration of the medallion to an heir or group
of heirs if the heir or group of heirs qualifies as an approved buyer,
or reregister the medallion
to any person, company,
corporation,
or partnership designated by the heirs which person, corporation,
company, or partnership
is an approved buyer.—Added May
26,
1978, No. 4129, § 4, Sess. L. 1978, p. 79.
§
412. Medallion—Lost, destroyed, stolen, or mutilated
Any owner of a medallion which is lost, destroyed, stolen, or in-
voluntarily mutilated shall report such incident to the Commission
promptly after discovery of such happening. Such report shall be
made by sworn declaration under penalty of perjury and the owner
shall
state the
circumstances
in which
the
medallion was
lost,
destroyed,
stolen, or involuntarily mutilated as the case may
be.
All information known to the owner, such as the names
of wit-
nesses, which would be helpful in recovering the medallion if lost or
stolen shall be stated in the declaration. The Commission shall enter
such
incident
in the Registry
of Medallions
and
not
allow any
further transactions on the medallion for twenty days thereafter
or
until the medallion
is recovered whichever
is
less.
If,
in the
time allotted, the medallion is not recovered, the Commission may
issue a duplicate thereof. If the medallion is involuntarily mutilated
the Commission shall issue a duplicate promptly after presentation
of the mutilated medallion. In each case
in which
a duplicate
is
issued, that fact shall be noted in the register of medallions and the
owner shall
charged twenty-five dollars.—Added May 26, 1978,
No. 4129, § 4, Sess. L. 1978, p. 80.
§
413. Crimes and penalties
(a) No person shall willfully mutilate,
carve, engrave, destroy,
or otherwise deface in such a manner as to render undistinguishable
the number and island of issue on any medallion minted under this
subchapter.
(b) No person shall forge, imitate, reproduce or otherwise falsely
copy so as to obtain a likeness generally indistinguishable from the
original any medallion minted under this subchapter.
(c) No person shall cause to be operated within the Virgin
Is-
lands an automobile for hire who
is not the owner of a medallion
validly obtained under this subchapter.
(d) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this sec-
tion shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not more than
five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed
six months or both.—Added May 26, 1978, No. 4129,
§
4, Sess. L.
1P7R
r>
80
C-16
APPENDIX D.
TAXI FARES
ISLAND OF ST. THOMAS
MAXIMUM RATES
MOTOR VEHICLES FOR HIRE
TOWN
AIRPORT
Om@
M©r© than
Qr»©
More thal
Person
©me person
Person
on© persoifc
(per person)
(per persep)
Agnes Fancy, Turnbull and New Islander
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.50
2.00
4.50
2.50
Agnes Fancy— Intersection at Singleton Home ..
3.00
2.50
4.00
2.50
Airport Terminal ........................... .
.
3.50
300
—
—
Bali Hai Hotel
4.00
8.00
5.00
Blackpoint Hill (Top)
.......................
3.50
5.00
3.25
Bluebeard’s Beach Club
5.00
10.00
6.00
Belong©
3.50
7.00
4.00
Bolongo Estate Peak
4.00
7.50
4.50
Bonne
Esperance
3.50
5.00
3.25
Bordeaux Housing Development
. .
7.50
4.00
6.00
4.00
Botany Bay
6.00
8.50
5.00
Boumefield (Low Cost Housing)
2.00
2.00
2.00
Bovoni
3.00
7.00
4.09
Brewer’s Bay and V. I College
.............. ..
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Brockman
Level
3.50
6.50
4.00
Brockman Hill (Top)
..
5.50
3.50
7.00
4.00
Brown Estate
3.00
5.50
3.50
Canaan
3.00
6.25
4.00
Caret Bay Estate
3.50
5.00
3.50
Caribbean Beach Hotel
. .
3.50
3.00
1.50
1.50
Cassi Hill (Top)
3.00
6.00
3.50
Coki Beach
4.00
7.50
4.50
Contant (Great House-Mill)
3.00
3.50
2.50
Contant Development
(via Hideaway Road)
..
. .
4.50
3.00
3.00
2.50
Contant (To Bridge at Soto Town)
........... • •
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Contant (Beyond Bridge
to Soto Town)
..
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Contact (Lindbeth Jewelry)
.
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
Crown
Colony
3.50
5.50
3.50
Crown Mountain Peak
3.50
6.00
3.50
Crown Jenai
3.50
5.00
3.00
Cowpet Bay
5.00
10.00
6.00
Dorothea Beach Club
5.00
9.00
5.00
Dorothea
Estate
4.00
6.00
4.00
Drake’s Seat
2.50
6.00
3.50
Elizabeth
Estate
2.50
6.00
3.50
Emerald Hill (Top)
3.50
6.50
4.00
Flagg
Hill
(Top)
3.50
6.75
4.00
Fort Mylner Shopping Center
2.50
5.25
3.50
Fortuna
Mill
3.50
5.50
3.00
Fortuna Point
6.00
8.00
5.00
Frydenhoj
4,00
7.00
4.50
Frenchman’s
Bay
3.00
6.50
4.50
D-l
Frenchman’s Reef
Gold
Hill
Harmony
Estate
Havensight (Cross Road)
Hawk Mountain
Hope Estate (Newton House Intersection)
Hull Bay Beach (Beyond Larry’s Bar)
Hull Bay Residence (Above Larry’s Bar)
Hull Bay — Tropeco Point
Krum Bay (Power Plant)
Krum Bay (Sub Base)
Lagoon Fishing Center
Limetree Hotel
Lindberg Bay Beach Club
Long Point
Louisenhoj Castle
Lovenlund
Madison (James) School
Mafolie
Mafolie Church
Mafolie Hotel
Magens Bay
Magens Bay Peak
Magens Point Hotel
Mahogany Run Golf Course
Mandahl Bay
Morningstar Beach Club
Mountain Top Hotel and Apartments
Nadir Hill
Nisky
Paul’s Cross Road
Pelican Beach
Pavillions
Pineapple Hotel
Raphune Hill (Top)
Red Hook
Rosendahl
St Peter Mountain
Sapphire Beach Club
Scott’s Beach
Secret Harbor Area
Shibui Hotel and Plantation Apartments
.......
Smith Bay
Solberg Lookout
Sorgenfri Estates
Tabor Estate
Thatch Farm and Kirwan Terrace
Thomas Estate (New Quarters)
Tutu (Old Development)
Tutu (New Development)
Virgin
Isle Hotel
West Indian Company Dock
Wintberg
TOWN
AIRPORT
One
More than
One
More than
Person
one person
(per person)
Person
one person
(per person)
5.0CU
3.00
6.50
3.50
6.00
4.00
6.50
4.50
6.00
4.00
7.50
4.50
3.50
2.50
4.50
3.00
6.75
4.00
7.50
4.50
5.50
3.50
4.50
3.00
6.50
3.50
8.00
4.50
5.50
3.00
6.50
3.50
8.00
4.50
9.00
5.50
3.00
3.00
1.75
1.75
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
6.50
4.00
7.50
4.50
5.50
3.00
6.50
400
3.00
3.00
1.50
1.50
3.50
4.00
7.50
4.50
4.00
2.50
6.00
3.50
5.50
3.00
6.50
4.00
3.50
2.50
5.00
3.50
4.00
2.50
6.00
3.50
4.00
2.50
8.00
3.50
3.50
2.50
5.50
3.50
6.00
3.50
7.00
400
7.00
4.00
8.00
4.50
5.50
3.00
6.50
400
6.50
4.00
7.50
4.50
7.50
4.00
8.50
475
5.00
3.00
6.00
3.50
6.50
4.00
7.50
4.50
5.00
3.00
6.00
450
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.50
3.00
5.00
3.00
7.00
4.00
8.00
450
7.00
4.00
8.00
450
6.50
4.00
7.50
450
3.50
2.50
4.50
3.00
,
7.50
4.00
8.50
450
5.50
3.00
6.50
400
6.50
4.00
7.50
450
7.00
4.00
8.00
4.50
,
7.00
4.00
8.00
4.50
,
7.00
4.00
8.00
4.50
,
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
.
5.50
3.00
6.75
400
.
5.00
3.00
6.00
3.50
.
6.00
3.50
5.00
3.00
.
6.00
3.50
7.00
450
.
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
.
2.00
TOO
4.00
2.50
.
4.50
2.50
5.50
3.50
.
4.50
2.50
5.50
3.50
.
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
.
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.50
3.00
6.50
400
D-2
MISCELLANEOUS POINT-TO-POINT RUNS
MORE THAN
ONE
ONE PERSON
FROM
TO
PASSENGER
(PER PERSON)
Morningstar Beach
.
.
.
.
7.00
4.00
Virgin Isle Hotel
3.00
3.00
Magen’s Bay
....
7.00
4.00
Shibui
8.00
4.50
Berg’s Homes
2.00
2.00
Red Hook
6.00
3.50
Red Hook
4.00
2.50
Red Hook
5.00
3.50
Red Hook .............
t
.
.
.
.
12.00
6.50
Red Hook
10.00
5.50
Red Hook
5.00
3.00
Red Hook ....
,
.
.
.
.
8.00
4.50
Red Hook
....Hull Bay
.
.
.
.
.
9.00
5.00
Red Hook
.
.
.
.
.
8.50
4.50
Red Hook .............
6.00
3.50
Red Hook .............
.
.
.
.
.
7.50
4.50
Red Hook .............
.
. .
.
.
6.50
3.50
Red Hook .............
and Apartments
. . .
.
.
8.50
4.50
Red Hook
9.00
5.00
Red Hook
4.00
3.00
Red Hook ............
6.00
3.50
Tutu
................
3.00
Tutu
................
3.00
Tutu
.
.
.
.
.
3.50
2.50
Tutu
5.50
Tutu
.
.
.
.
.
7.50
4.50
Tutu
3.50
Tutu
.....
8.00
4.50
Tutu
.......
.
. .
.
.
6.00
3.50
Tutu
3.00
3.00
Tutu
................
400
Tutu
3.00
Tutu
3.00
Tutu
and Apartments
3.50
Tutu
450
Bali Hotel
3.50
Bali Hai
3.50
Bali Hai
400
Bali Hai
5.00
Bali Hai
400
Bali Hai
and Apartments
.....
7.00
400
Bali Hai Hotel
......
.
.
.
.
.
8.00
450
Bolongo
.............
3.50
Bolongo
.............
3.00
Bolongo
.............
400
Bolongo
450
Donoe ...............
3.50
Frenchman’s Reef
.
.
.
.
.....
7.50
450
Frenchman’s
Reef
.
.
.
5.50
3.00
Frenchman’s Reef
.
.
.
3.50
D-3
MORE THAN
ONE
ONE PERSON
FROM
TO
PASSENGER
(PER PERSON
Island View
6.50
4.00
Island View
4.50
Island View
3.00
Magen’s Bay
8.00
4.50
Magen’s Bay
5.00
Magen’s Bay
and Apartments
.
.
.
.
5.50
3.50
Mahogany Run
6.00
3.50
Mahogany Run
4.00
Mahogany Run
7.50
4.50
Mahogany Run
7.00
4.00
Mahogany Run
and Apartments
6.00
3.50
Mahogany Run
4.00^
Mahogany Rim
4.50
Mahogany Run
4.50
Shibui
4.00
Shibui
and Apartments .....
3.50
ADDITIONAL CHARGES AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
:
A.
This Taxi Tariff must be posted in all public vehicles.
B.
Town limits, for the purposes of
this Schedule, shall end on the North at Berg’s
Homes or the West of Burma Road, and includes High Road Catch Basin, French-
man Hill to the Boschulte House.
C.
The charge to country points not mentioned
in
this Schedule
shall be arrived at
by using the nearest tariffed place crossed and the next tariffed place ahead. The
fare shall be based on the point or place nearest to the passenger’s destination.
D.
Round trip fares
:
Double the one-way fare, plus waiting charges.
E.
Waiting time
:
$0.15 per minute after the first 10 minutes.
F.
Radio Call
:
One-third plus the Basic fare.
G.
Between the hours
of midnight
to
6:00
a.m.
all
out-of-town
lares
will be
$1.50
additional to the regular fare and intown $1.00 additional.
H.
Within city limits
:
$1.75 per person.
I.
Double one-way fares on any scheduled run for person requesting care for them-
selves only. Customer must be informed before departure.
J.
Trunks, boxes and suitcases
:
. $0.50 each.
K.
Grips and liquor boxes in excess of one each per passenger
:
$0.50 each.
L.
Rates for sightseeing fours
:
(1)
One or two passengers:
$20.00.
(2)
Three or more passengers:
$10.00 per passenger.
(3)
Limited time for tours :
Two Hours.
M.
All Taxis must have ON DUTY - OFF DUTY
signs
posted.
When on duty they
must pick up all passengers.
D-4
I
CO
CM
CMO
i
2
dz
j
-j
0Q
KSSSSSSi^S,9 15^
l0 0ir)000ino0lftlrt00 oinQLOOOininirjinino
9
L?
l^^ 9
l9
l\C^NinNioioohiflOhC'jinininMowif50 hNhWNin
coo^Ln^ifjirjc^ddcdM^ioidirjdcocdcri'^cddioddM^r^d'fcdiocdrHc^io
.
*”"3
*“j
P“1 ...
.
.
y—t
muommmotGOommmmm
~
~
C3 O O h N M N
r*
m
*r ^
cd
co m
«
2: 5
o
.2
CD
-*-t
7z
cq
jz
u o o
>, 2
c4
e
cq -2
o o
O O
§>
>>•£
O 2 «
J3
u "2
Ch %
O
n
c4
>
Cfl
0>
t. cq
_
s c
a>
2
5 5 E -S -g
o o
«
^3
a
UUUQ t
cQ ”3
> £
OT
£ .£
.-2
C
T3
Ci-t
CQM 'o
>,
o c
cq
a>
o rj
£
P-.
o
c
CU
CQ O
coo
3
U U
i>
>»
W
« « 5
Sf £
n
^
cq
M -O S >
C
t,
_
2 S
c
*> y) a
as 3
s a
a
c e u
ra
m
“
4)
4)
CJ
03«
I
>> e
OJ c
^ a
rt
CQ
CO
CO
E E
ag«fii|§ s
r
^r>OT—
it-.
03
—
^ P- > W
<4
. 2!
4>Ow
vi M “
i
to 3 J5 «
3c^o£>,=3..
raajns^.Z^tCOOCl.
<?
<B
i,w
.G ~
i 1
o
^ ^
«W>O
|k®«
•-1
ClD
—
-c
« U u
>>
03 C
tfl C
3
C
cz
T V
r.
23
U)
03 X3
~
C
3
.—
03
03
:Q 44
24
£4 O
OQ«.*J 33
W JC .3
><
O
CO
K U
° a
H
CC
(/) ^
G
rz
<
=J
0)
X<
in m oo
t- cM co co
cM co
co
cM co
to cd
oi
O 2
a. c
w
«s
ca TJ
C u r
0
£ S
CO
03 —
•
1
C3
Vj
o5 13
-a
«
V
tn
•;
> M
4>
ca
x:
*o
cjj
K
co ^ j-
S~
to
0)
hh
3 0^3
n r o o
W W
C/3
75
£u
>ic
§
V)
Wl
V)
a
"O •«
C ^
H
ei
u «
ei G
^ £
*J
as
VS H
:
o
i O
S «
>i
fl)
C)
1/1
o Q W >
K
co o c
u
£ £ «
o n o ^
C 2
C
u "3
4) 3
3 5^0
(h 5 ?&.
a
UjH
ITS
5
asQ
as
oi
a.
Sou
LL
momo ommo
ia m a o n ia n o“3 0 “3o
NinNin p n n 5 n r- p o m m
c-i S n in n
in
H 6 Ot H
ri fi N t<
ri fi rl fi ri ri ^
"<l<P4 cdrH^
o
CL
JSncGaK
2 u
u §
'_ o
2 2
-2 £
qj
CQ
eo 2 2
g
3 2
o S |
-i -a _
w g-S
T3
I.
C
4)
t*
2
',3 S
fl c w
a
>oH
S
4)2
c
3
4)M
5
>>
<4
C4n
m
- - »
.. •£ £ S
g
<330 QQ02 2
>,o
g -
m
. 03
J3 “s 3
.5 B >
« C
l5
2 c a
.
n o o
jSSS
£ -
£«
!
i.
CO w
..
OJ
<i>
a>
*3 PQ
»—
4
io
OJ
G
co
§ §
co cn
O O Tf 41
QCo
a.
QC
<
o
oc
O
1-
4)
>> "3
2?
t,
3 V
c 2
3 o
•s
« 2
3 3
>»
<4
g«
CQG G
CQ
CQ
<
C2
SQ
2: o CJ
UJ
.JDQUXu
cn
0
yjH
toZ<
H
us
Ct1u
sO
a:
m m in in in in o
M M M N M M O
co
cM cM cM o
co ^
’-I
N
N
O' ^ w
O
C4 O
CO ^ ^
k°* G
^
w Oi .S
O
»T4 O
^ *o
t. c
2 c K
.
c >
to
O
1-
2’ _
41
C4
“c3 -3
c
c •£
5 5 2
s-s
W 2
O £
C « S
« J
JO
£22
3
ZS 3
03
23
CC
-4J
C3 2
_
(4
'cQ ^
r
-i
3 w
CL
CO CL
>?
(3 U 2
c
3 w
•3 G
-s n
C
co
co —
C2 £
non CQOGOOU.C3
S « % w
O O O O
1/3 Q
o mo w w o
dNHunio^cnco^NHH
-1
X ^
tn
2 £ ^
<y
CO
tZ -G
O G
cn a
_ _ c
c,
OT
O
>»
fj
CQ
CQ
Is
•—.
I-.
L-<
t-
r-.
rr
r
rT rr
•E-o
® G^OB
>.
s in
-*-*
G O
CQ
<D >
OOO
^ U C 2 -
‘n J
uomoLOLOoinoQ
'
~
*
*-
woo
co
co co
cM ^ co cM cM ^
rH d
CJ
>-
44
Pi
u.
—
ij
•
'O
—
tc ^ G
° 2
>» 2
G 44 O
° 3 O G
2 3
2 2 -2
2 £«
cJ g
5
.3 s
CQ 4=
»
CP
W
cQ
t>
tX) ^
.5 ^
G ^ ^
u. 3 G
O O S
G4
'
. a*>
14 5 ^
3; VS
'
G ®
2 S
4J 3
0.
Cl.
I
[jj
D- w
3 -^
cn "
2
G
2
VS
D-5
H
fcl d X
D-6
Road,
turning
right
at
second
paved
road,
and
slop
at
Bethlehem
Sugar
Factory.
From
must
pick
up
all
passengers
except
in
areas
where
a
contract
or
franchise
has
been
there
turn
right
to
Fredensberg
and
turn
left
at
next
intersection,
photographing
Mon
awarded
to
a
group
or
a
specific
person.
Bijou
at
Canaan
Hill
for
panorama
pictures.
Come
down
mountain
to
the
sea,
turning
s-
w.
.c
t- o
o « o p
$ a ° 5
H
|
05 O
&
o
£,*~1
U
zj
'->
u
^
‘*j
fl
3
^3
fl
a)
ai v
a> «
z)
f3 ^ m
co ^ ^ n
o
OOOOOOOO
> g*®ooooo
^
§
rji ^ o in c4 o
a,
^ ^
a
o
33
e
j o r
in
a.
inz<u
so
oc
u.
CQ
e3
ft
><
c*
5
asO
<J
2o
as
u.
cO
8
0,
s o o o o © o
m ^ ^ ^ ^
^
i N M
to J! O
t»
S
5
1
ffl
as
as
© 5
2 g O
iuZ
<8.2.3
U
.> >
-$
-
—
ZA _
-5 * a a
a ^ a «
2 W » a jj
rn - c a c
« JC 3
3
fa
—
E
C!
32
O
C3
—
"a
a q
<a o a £° ft ft
"3 -3
a
<a
a a
.2 JJ 'J
2 a
o
a
-a
o>
so o a
a a
'i.
i:f
«
^
O
c/a
s
*rr
«
.2 S
«•
<8
3
>*
x -
g
©
3
£
W3
3 w
'3
0J
= 2
TS 2
3>1
CO -o
=:
s
a
^
^2
o
a
3,
•-
-r3
^
-3
-3
-C
_a
<
-=
>. c
e
i
a "
5 * &
D<
-»
r:
^
o
</a
to
^
a»
C3
o a
-=
—
v
0)
a, a aa
jf »a
3 a a
=
-S
o
aa «
n = £
“
a
3
VM
u
.
. O
«
-V
W-4
V
a
5
—*
3 ~ a
oa y
1
.2
i i
*§
as ?
as
a
a,
O’
^
a o
cO
c3
-Q
“3
0)
s
-
“3
in
£
3
js w
^
3 IS
£
§>
5 S
O .©
EC
u
<
as
o a a
fa
8
>,
3
a
- 3
a —
—
2
'3
y
=3 5
a
»
3
>.3
5
a y
"
S
a
i i
k
= —
o
© e
-a
©
©
CO
JD
QJ ^
% JZ
3
jr o
u
O
CO
g-4
o
.r
U
•
o
SH
•*
2
U
3 £
o
os
-i
-i B
S3
4>
Q. «
0
2
® J
h*. “
^ o
3
.. ^
..
©
••
01
j? »
t.
e
«=>
0
0
3
0> 2
O
1 a s
K
®
***
a O
•
! ! =
5 °.l
• 2 &
C X £
O
1- J
U
a
as
•t
1
aa
©
™
£
©
5
ox
0J3
-3
^
CJ
^
-3
CO
CJ
a
.2
.H
3 a
S
=>
n
'a.
3 I
2 =
2
o
o Z
2 Z
CO
CM
04
J3J3
-C^:x; 3 3 3 i3 XIO 3 3 3 XXIXI 3 3
•
'
ZJ O
<J
ZJ o
uo 000
'j u o u 00
cy a
0
1
u
£
d Z
z
z I
0) K
_i O
UJ O
-J
H
Ik
5 h
E
0)
U
LkO
SD
-JO
s X
DZ<
X<
u>
04 J
s
ceO
yjj
H
D
LUX
u
rn
O
>
z
©
CSS
C3
f3
C3
c3
rj @
&
v
n
<w v
a>
3
X
S
.1
!Q
31 0
S^4)
CS
S3
Qj
qj ^
^QJ
33 333 33
y w
y y
tJ
y y
eg ^ M N
rt<
-< N N N ^
-2 00 000 0000
a o o 000 0000
2 o ^
6 co
in m
i> o
o o
o m
c4 oi
0000
p o O o
CD a N ®
o m
in
3 M*
e4 *h *4
IN lO
CO H
c
©
o 00 000 0000
00 oon 0000
CO
ONJ
O'i
CO —«
CO
CO
ifl
CO
o o
^
CO
o*
-<f m 't
m
co
o o
o o
o ^
o p o o m
o o o
in
*—i
OJ CO N H
N N CO O CO
CO N
*1 N ®
^
O
3
D-7/8
APPENDIX E.
URBXTRAN REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR PARCARD PROGRAM1 AND
GOVERNMENT! PARKING LOT
E.l
ON-STREET ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A.
Assumptions
1.
Number of spaces = 830
2.
Number of paid parking days per year = 240
3.
Number of paid hours per day = 10
4.
Percentage of time parking spaces are occupied = 80%
5.
Average parking duration = 45 minutes
(.75 hours)
6.
Price
for parking = $0.50 per hour
7.
Realization = 0.75
B.
Annual
Income Calculations
1.
Number of revenue hours per year
(This income calculation excludes additional income potential from the sale
of advertising space on the PARCARD).
C.
Annual Cost Calculations
1.
Number of PARCARDS needed
= AlxA2xA3xA4 =
1,593,600
2.
Annual parking revenue
=
(Bl x A6 x A7) / A5 =
$796,800
= Bl / A5 =
2,124,800
2.
Unit cost of PARCARD =
$.07
3.
Annual cost of PARCARDS
= 2,124,800 x
.07 =
$148,736
1 Adjusted for
.75
realization.
E—
1
E.2
OFF-STREET ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A.
Assumptions
1.
Number of spaces =
500
2.
Number of paid parking days per year = 240
3.
Number of paid hours per day =
10
4.
Percentage of time that short-term parking spaces are occupied = 50%
5.
Percentage of short-term parkers = 70%
6.
Average price for short-term parking = $.50 per hour
7.
Price
for long term parking = $44.00 per month
8.
Average short-term parking duration = 2.00 hours
B.
Annual
Income Calculations
1
.
Long-term
a.
Number of revenue months per year
= Al x
(1 - A5)
x 12 months =
1,800
b.
Annual parking revenue
= 1,800 x A7 =
$79,200
2.
Short-term
a.
Number of revenue hours per year
= Al x A5 x A2 x A4 x A3 =
420,000
b.
Annual parking revenue
= 420,000 x $.50 =
$210,000
3.
Total annual off-street revenue
= Bib + B2b =
$289,200
Annual Cost Calculations
1 .
Number of tickets needed
= B2a / A8 =
210,000
2.
Cost per ticket =
$0.01
3.
Annual cost of tickets
= 210,000 x 0.01 =
$2,100
4.
1,800 monthly passes
@ $.10 =
$180
5.
Total annual cost =
$2,280
E-2
APPENDIX F.
PROJECTED COSTS OF PARCARD PROGRAM AND GOVERNMENT PARKING LOT
PARCARD
PARKING LOT
1st Year
2nd Year
1st Year
2nd Year
PERSONNEL COSTS
Enforcement
Parking Superintendent
7,000
7,000
15,000
15,000
Parking Supervisors
11,000
11,000
30,000
30,000
Parking Lot Attendants
40,000
40,000
Parking Enforcement Agents
100,000
100,00
Maintenance Worker
8,000
8,000
Fringe Benefits
45,000
45,000
35,400
35,400
SUBTOTAL
$163,000
$163,000
$128,400
$128,400
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Professional Services
Monitoring
& Evaluation
5,000
5,000
Personnel Training
5,000
Public Education
5,000
2,500
Distribution and collection
95,600
95,600
(12% of PARCARD revenue)
Materials and Supplies
Uniforms,
Clipboards,
etc.
2,000
1,500
2,000
1,000
Tickets
2,280
2,280
PARCARDS
148,740
148,700
Fuel/Maintenance
3,000
3,000
1,000
1,000
SUBTOTAL
$264,340
$256,340
$5,280
$4,280
TOTAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
$427,340
$419,340
$133,680
$132,680
CAPITAL
Equipment
Tri-wheel Scooter
12,000
Two-way Radio
7,500
Ticket Spitter Assembly
25,000
Toll Booth Assembly
20,000
Improvements
Parking Lot Equipment Installation
25 , 000
General Site Preparation
5,000
500
Signage and Striping
5,000
1,000
5,000
500
TOTAL CAPITAL
$24,500
$1,000
$80,000
$1,000
Source:
Urbitran Associates,
Inc.
F-l/2
APPENDIX G.
SITE VISITS AND MEETINGS
The study team conducted three site visits in the course of performing
the study.
They occurred on the following dates: November
2-9,
1987;
February 1-5,
1988;
and March 22-25,
28-29,
1988.
The Deputy Commissioner
of the Department of Public Works and Director of the Office of Public
Transportation, Verne Callwood,
and the Senior Transportation Planner of the
Office of Public Transportation,
Randolph Richardson,
assisted the study team
in setting up numerous meetings with the Governor,
elected officials,
appointed officials,
and other members of
the Virgin Islands community.
The
organizations and people with whom the team met are listed below in chrono-
logical order of the meetings.
Department of Public Works:
James Savage,
Commissioner.
Governor of the Virgin Islands:
Governor Alexander A.
Farrelly.
St.
Thomas Chamber of Commerce:
Tom Bennett,
Executive Director.
Mannassah Bus Lines: Raymond Francis,
President; Horace Callwood,
Treasurer
and General Manager.
Department of Planning and Natural Resources: Allen Smith,
Commissioner;
Brian Turnbull, Assistant Commissioner
for Planning.
President of the Virgin Islands Legislature:
Senator Iver Stridiron;
Clarence
Cuthbertson, Assistant.
Virgin Islands Taxi Commission:
Douglas Williams,
Executive Director.
St.
Thomas Taxi Association Presidents: Gaston Brown,
Reliable Taxi Associa-
tion;
Euzebe Birmingham,
Sunrise Taxi Association;
Joseph Griffin, Virgin
Islands Taxi Association.
St.
Thomas Traffic Committee:
Helen Gjessing,
League of Women Voters;
Tyrone
Martin,
Road and Highways Engineer;
Sargeant Roberto
E.
Simmonds,
V.I.
Police
Department Traffic Bureau.
Paul Hoffman,
Lawyer and Organizer of Traffic Committees.
Department of Economic Development and Agriculture:
Eric Dawson,
Commis-
sioner.
Senate Finance Committee:
Senator Lorraine Berry,
Chairperson.
G-l
Abramson Enterprises: Ann Abramson,
President.
Public Works Committee of
the V.I.
Legislature:
Senator Douglas Canton,
Chairperson.
St.
Croix Taxi Associations:
Linus Johnson and Joseph Moses,
Taxi Drivers;
Maurice Williams,
Paul Bannis,
and John Weekes, Association Presidents;
Dudley Johns,
Department of Public Works.
St.
Croix Traffic Committee:
Jan Hanley,
President of Chamber of Commerce on
St.
Croix;
Bill Taylor, Architect;
Lt. Melbourne Clarke,
Commander Traffic
Investigation Bureau on St.
Croix;
Julio Emenaion,
Superintendent of Streets
and Roads.
Elderly and Handicapped Representatives:
Beverly Smith,
Dial-A-Ride; Mark
Vinzen,
V.I.
Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities; Joseph Moses,
Represen-
tative of
a local
church.
Administrator
for
St.
John and Ferry Operators:
Bill Lomax, Administrator;
Ira Fleming,
Deputy Commissioner
for Public Works; Albert Newtonville,
Assistant to Senator O'Connor;
Clifton Boynes,
Ferry Operator.
Chief Engineer,
Department of Public Works:
David Swan.
National Park Service:
Suzanne Lewis, Acting Superintendent.
Director,
Division of Roads and Highway Engineering,
Department of Public
Works: Aloy Nielson.
URS Consultants,
Inc.:
Fred Eisenzimmer.
Executive Director of Chamber of Commerce on St.
Croix:
Frank Comito.
APPENDIX H.
REFERENCES
1.
Adams and Associates.
"Redesign of High Hazard Highway Intersections,
St.
Thomas, Virgin Islands."
Prepared for the Virgin Islands Department
of Public Works and the Federal Highway Administration,
1977.
2.
"Agreement to Operate and Operating Assistance Agreement,
Department of
Public Works with Abramson Enterprises,
Inc.,
Res Government Franchise
for bus service on the Island of
St.
Croix."
Department of Public
Works.
1987.
3.
"Agreement to Operate and Operating Assistance Agreement, Department of
Public Works with Mannassah Bus Lines,
Inc.,
Re: Government Franchise
for bus service on the Island of St.
Thomas."
1987.
4.
Andreas Esberg
& Company.
"Financial Statements for Mannassah Bus
Lines,
Inc."
1981,
1982,
1983.
5.
ATE Management
& Service Co.,
Inc.
U.S. Virgin Islands Specialized
Transportation Final Report .
Prepared for the Office of Public
Transportation,
1983.
6.
Dalton,
Dalton,
Newport in association with
E.
H.
McDowell
& Associates.
Proposed Transportation Improvements: Windward Passage Hotel
to Raphune
Hill,
St.
Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands,
Final Environmental Impact
Statement .
Federal Aid Project TER 0001(008).
Prepared for the Govern-
ment of the Virgin Islands Department of Public Works,
1983.
7.
Draft Virgin Islands Comprehensive Policy Plan .
Government of the
Virgin Islands.
1987.
8.
"Draft Mass Transportation in the Virgin Islands, A Comprehensive
Review."
Virgin Islands Department of Public Works,
Office of Public
Transportation.
1987.
9.
Gannett Fleming Engineers and Planners
in association with Island
Resources Foundation.
Transit Development Plan Up-Date,
Final Report
and Technical Reports .
Prepared for
the Virgin Islands of the United
States Department of Public Works,
1982.
10.
Governor's Executive Budgets.
1981
- 1987.
11.
Governor's Road Fund Budgets.
1981
- 1987.
H-l
12 .
Lea,
Elliott, McGean
& Company.
Post Delivery Inspection of the Flxette
Buses,
Final Report .
Prepared for
the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works,
1986.
13.
Menasco-McGuinn Associates.
Virgin Islands Highway Functional Cla-
ssification and Needs Study,
Summary Report .
Prepared for the Govern-
ment of the Virgin Islands Department of Public Works,
1973.
14.
"Paradise Travel Survey."
V.I. Housing Authority and V.I.
Department of
Public Works.
1984.
15.
Prosser
& Prosser,
P.C.
"Abramson Enterprises,
Inc. Mass Transit
Division Statement of Operations
for the Fiscal Years Ended September
30,
1983 and 1982 and the Nine-Month Period Ended September 30,1981."
1986.
16.
"Public Bus Transportation,
Government of the Virgin Islands, Audit
Report."
U.S.
Department of the Interior,
Office of Inspector General.
1987.
17.
Recommendations to Reduce Traffic Congestion for Charlotte Amalie,
U.S.
Virgin Islands .
Federal Highway Administration.
Prepared for the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representa-
tives,
1987.
18.
Robert deJongh Associates.
Main Street Mall .
Prepared for the Govern-
ment of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Planning Office,
1974.
19.
Rollings and Nielson.
Christiansted Parking Study .
Prepared for the
Virgin Islands Planning Office,
1974.
20.
The League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands.
"One-Way Traffic Flow
Plan."
1987.
21.
The Charlotte Amalie Parking Study.
Virgin Islands Planning Office,
1974.
22.
The League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands.
"Response
to the
Department of Public Works Regarding the Draft Environmental
Inpact
Statement
'Proposed Transportation Improvements: Windward Passage Hotel
to Raphune Hill'
by Dalton,
Dalton and Newport."
1983.
23.
The Master Plan for Government Office Centers
.
Virgin Islands Planning
Office
in consultation with Wallace Roberts
& Todd and Robert deJongh
and Associates.
Prepared for the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Office of the Governor,
1983.
24.
Urbitran Associates,
Inc.
Report on the Implementation of a Paid
Parking Program in Downtown Charlotte Amalie,
St.
Thomas,
U.S. Virgin
Islands .
Prepared for
the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Public
Works,
1986.
H-2
25.
U.S. Virgin Islands Economic Review .
Department of Commerce,
Office of
Policy,
Planning and Research.
1986.
26.
URS Consultants,
Inc.
"U.S. Virgin Islands St.
Thomas Traffic Counts."
1981.
27.
"Vendor Activity Center Plan."
Department of Planning and Natural
Resources.
1987.
28.
Wilbur Smith and Associates in association with Design Collaborative.
Virgin Islands Mass Transit Study, Recommended Short-Range Transit
Development Program,
Final Report .
Prepared for the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration,
1976.
29.
Wilbur Smith and Associates,
and Q and Company.
U.S. Virgin Islands
Transit Marketing Study,
VI TRAN, Virgin Islands Public Transit .
Prepared for the Department of Public Works,
Division of Public
Transportation,
1986.
H-3/4
100 copies
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1989- 601-538' 00028
I
Official
Business
Penally
foi
Private
Use
$300
DOT LIBRARY
O C
-4 ^
d o
D 45
on T3
J