Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 OCTA CENTERLINE 03-19-01' AG.E N DA R ..... No. 08 · , 03-19-01 MEETING DATE' TO: FROM' SUBJECT' MARCH 19, 2001 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION STATUS OF THE OCTA CENTERLINE PROJECT SUMMARY The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) recently released a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIS/RDEIR) for the Centerline Project for public review and comment. OCTA received numerous comments both supporting and opposing the project. Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer for OCTA recommended to the OCTA Board of Directors that the project be postponed for further evaluation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City at this time. BACKGROUND In September 1999, OCTA released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) proposing a major transportation system improvement within the central portion of Orange County known as the CenterLine Project. The project would construct a 28-mile light rail transit system between the City of Fullerton on the north, extending south through the Cities of Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, then east through the City of Irvine. During the comment period for the September 1999 DEIS/DEIR, OCTA received more than 2000 comments. OCTA has since revised the CenterLine Project based upon input received during the comment period and is currently circulating the SDEIS/RDEIR for public comments. DISCUSSION The SDEIS/RDEIR evaluates seven build alternatives including the Staff Recommended Alternative, the Irvine Alignment Alternative, the Elevated Alternative No'2, and four Minimum Operable Segment Alternatives. Ali of the alternatives are projected to cost more than $60,000,000.00 per mile to construct. This project has the potential to consume a substantial amount of state transportation funds available to Orange County for the next 15-years. This could result in other roadway funds being unavailable to provide local roadway improvements to relieve congestion and bottlenecks. OCTA has provided a recent letter (attached) summarizing funding strategies for the project. CenterLine Status Report March 19, 2001 Page 2 The current project has received support from the core cities of Fullerton, Costa Mesa and lrvine. The cities of Orange and Santa Ana are opposing the project. The City of Anaheim approved the project with the condition that OCTA revise the alignment so that it minimizes impacts to the Colony residential community in Anaheim. A copy of the City of Anaheim City Council staff report is attached for your information. The project is anticipated to accommodate approximately 75,000 passengers per day by the year 2020. This amounts to only 1% of traffic forecasted for the County in 2020. The CenterLine Project is not anticipated to relieve traffic congestion or air pollution. It does however, provide an alternative transit mode. At the OCTA Board of Directors meeting on March 12, 2001, Mr. Arthur Leahy, Chief Executive Officer for OCTA, recommended to the Board that the Authority not proceed with the preliminary engineering phase of the project pending re-evaluation of the project. A copy of the letter from Mr. Leahy to the OCTA Board Members is attached for your information. At the meeting, Mr. Leahy reportod that the preliminary engineerin§ phase would cost approximately $40,000,000.00, and without the full support of the core cities it is too risky a venture to proceed. He indicated OCTA staff would take time to further reassess the project, review other alignments that have public support, and review alternative transportation modes. Tim D. 8erlet ~ Director of Public Works/City Engineer DouglarC'R. Anderson Senior Project Manager-Transportation TDS'DRA:ccg:Centerline Status Report A~achments: CenterLine Project Exhibit OCTA Letter Anaheim Council Staff Report Mr. Leahy Letter T Figure $.2 ORANG~)UNTY CENTE RL! N"?'"~"'ROJ ECT Alternatives Evaluated in the Supplemental DEIS/Revised DEIR N I I ./ , , . : ', "'".~ ~ ~ '7.' .':'~: ' ;:' -~ '~', . . . . ~ , ~ ~ ~ . . ', : - ~..' . -- ~ ~o~ ~ - 7T~ ~ ~ : ,~.-~ S:aff Recommenc:ed Alterna:~ve ~ lwine Alignment. Al',erna:ive ~ Eleva:ed Al:e:na:!ve 2 ~ At-Grade Sec::on IIiil Elevated Sec:ion 0 S~a~io~ Il Re~iona! Transponaiion Cen:e' j Ac:iris/Employment Cen:e' 0 1 2 5 Miles OCTA Chairman Sar~t~ L. Carz D:'r,~cior D~rP..,?lOt' D:rec:or t~..~. N;V.;0,1 G.'.'.'-'.~"O"~ _-',~-Cf, c;o M~rn, Der Sh.':,~. y McC. racken March 8, 2001 Mr. William A. Huston City Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Mr. Huston' The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) appreciates the Council's decision to continue The CenterLine agenda item in order to obtain additional information, 'As requested, we have arranged for the City of Anaheim to supply you with a copy of their staff report on The CenterLine light rail project. You specifically requested information regarding State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds that will be used on The CenterLine project. An explanation of the funding plan may help you better'understand the extent to which OCTA plans to use STIP funds. Based on the current OCTA Board adopted strategy, the construction and capital cost of The CenterLine would be funded through federal "New Starts." Proposition 116, State Transportation improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ), end Measure M funds. If The CenterLine project is constructed, it would be built in short segments. An initial minimum operable segment (MOS), which must be a stand alone system, would be selected. For illustrative purposes, a minimum operable segment from the Edison International Field of Anaheim to the Irvine Business Center could be considered a stand alone' system. Its estimated cost to construct is $1.1 billion (in 2000 dollars). Funding strategies for this MOS have recently been re-analyzed and the amount of funds used from each source might be as follows: Federal"New Starts" $ 660,000,000 CMAQ 62,170,000 Measure M 126,830,000 STIP 131,000,000 prop 116 _120.000.0__00 Total $1,100,000,000 If T. he CenterLine is not constructed, the entire $1.1 billion would not be available for roads. The $131 million STIP dollars could be used for roads and ,Dra~ge County Tr:-Jn.-.-,COtT.gttOn 550 South Afa,n S;re~.l ./ P. 0 ~x ". 478.4 ,' Orange "Cafiforni.~ 92.~3.: 5:~-¢ ,7 ~-'., 56u. OCT;.. f'3-";;." Mr. William A. Huston March 8, 2001 Page 2 the CMAQ funds might be available for HOV lanes. However, the Measure M funds currently could only be used for transit. The remaining $780 million ($660 million federal "New Starts" and $12.0 million Prop.. 116)would be forfeited to another agency or state perpetuatin9 Orange County as a "donor" county. The STIP funds programmed to be used for The CenterLine MOS project have been set aside from two previous STIP cycles and will not impinge on future STIP requests. OCTA staff is considering increasing the New Starts share which would have an impact on the current funding distribution ratios. In addition to The CenterLine light rail project, many other future congestion relief measures are included in Orange County's balanced transportation system, These measures include the widening of 1-5 Far North; SR-22 HOV lanes; 405/73 and 405/55 improvements; 605 HOV lanes; auxiliary lanes on the SR-91; auxiliary lanes on I-5 in south county; widening of SR-133; Kateila, Imperial, and Moulton Smart Streets; Imperial and Jeffrey grade separations; bus service expansion; and new Metrolink rail stations. Since The CenterLine is a major project and requires long-range planning, funding strategies for this and future extensions are being analyzed. Rest assured that OCTA will have funds available for local roadway improvements, and that a light rail system for Qrange County will not consume a disproportionate share of Orange County's long-range transportation funds. Having said the. above, as I am sure you are by now aware, ! have recommended to the OCTA Board of Directors that the Authority not proceed into the preliminary engineering phase of the project at this time. We wil[ continue to work toward consensus with The CenterLine corridor cities, as well as explore other transportation alternatives to improve mobility in Orange County. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (714) 560-5584. I would be pleased to meet with you and members of the city council at any time convenient to you. Sincerely, ~ o Arthur T. Lea. hy ..,,~ Chiof Executive Officer ... ALT'psz ~a r~- 07 -01 CITY OF ANAHELM, CALIFORNIA , Departmen! of i'.blic P.0. fl,,x :t222, Anaheim, California 92803 (714) 785-5176 FAX (714) 76.q-522S www.analmi,n.nt:t DATE- FEBRUARY 6, 2001 TO- CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIl. FROM' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: CENTERLINE LIGttT RAIl., PROJECT RECOMMENDATION' That the Anaheim City Council encourage OCTA to implement cost-effective transportation alternatives to improve regional mobility, similar to' those contained in Attachment 4, and endorse the "no build" alternative for the CenterLine project. BACKGROUND. At the January 23, 2001 City Council meeting Council member Tait requested that CenterLine be agendized Ibr discussion, stating "k's time. for Anaheim to make a. firm statement on what its beliefs are regarding Centerline." Also, he asked staff to provide "recommendations on how to increase mobility at the most efficient cost." These comments were in response to the Federal Transit Administration's December 15, 2000 release of 'the CenterLine Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Dr'aR Environmental Impact Report (DEISfR.DEIR). The public comment per/od on these documents has been exlcndcd to February 14, 2001. Staff comments, now being finalize, d, express prior Council direction. On December 9, 1999, thc Anaheim City Council approved a motion to recommend that OCTA defer any further en~neering of light rail for Anaheim until further evaluation and clarification of technology and funding options are considered. The motion also requested "l:hat OCTA allocate fimding to timely implement thc lbllowing as cost-effective ways to improve mobility: o o . , Express Bus service along I-5, SR-57, SR-91 and other Or,'mgc County freeway carpool lanes; Transitway interchange and arterial bus lane construction to enhance Express Bus operations (e.g., in the City of Anaheim these may include Gene Aurry Way at I-5 and Cerritos Avenue at SR-57); LOSSAN Rail Corridor and Metrolink commuter rail capital and service investments, with considcra.tion el'potential High Speed rail service and station; and Additional bus service beyond the current planned service level." Mar-07-01 . 02 ' 20P 7 2 4 763._~46~ 7 Page 2 No City Council action has been requested by OCTA, unless the City would like to be part of an initial Minimum Operating Segment (MOS). Attachments l, 2 and 3 present MOS information from the DEIS. The City of Anaheim is included in ~wo of the four MOS's proposed. OCTA is considering a shortened MOS Central,. with termini at John Wayne Airport m~d thc Edison International Field of Anaheim AMTRAK/Metroli~flc station, including a 25-acre maintenance facility west oF Edison Field. DISCUSSION- Cost-efficient options to increase mobility include Express Bus along freeway carpool lanes, LOSSAN m~d Metrolink commuter rail capital and service investments (with potential High Speed rail service), and additional arterial express bus service to distribute rail passengers to activity centers. 'l'hese options are described in AUachment 4. "Regional Mobility Options for Orange County's Continued Success: I.et's get to Work!" and were developed in response to Council member 'l'ait's request. The intent of thc options is to provide a broad rm~gc of projects and modes focused on regional mobility. Regional mobility is both a present concern and a growing concern with the Iiarccast increase of almost 7 million people m'td 3 million jobs in the SCAG region by 2025. Demographers expect a continuation Of today's development patterns, with a .high travel demand between the inland Empire and Ormage/Los Angeles counties due to more affordable housing, lhe former md'higher job concentrations in the latter. SCAG and OCTA completed a "Four Comers Study" in June 2000, to address inter-county mobility issues. While a list of recommended projects was approved and is being monitored for implementation, the Study conclusion' is "Overall, the improvements did not reduce traffic congestion as significantly as might have been expected. In fact, there are few locations where the studted alternatives show reduced congestion and increased speeds over 1997 levels. This indicates that Inter-county traffic growth is expected to increase much more than can be reasonably accommodated throuRh realistic increases in capacity." To ac. comn'todate the forecast traffic demand, SR-91 would need to be doubled in width for a 24- lane facility. Such a project is unrealistic, and peak per/od travel time tttrough the SR-91 corridor will become longer in duration and slower in average travel speed. Summary Critique of Light Rail Thc following summary information from recent literature and writings pertain to the cost effectiveness and functionality of light rail to improve mobility. The most comprel~ensive analysis of new rail transit conducted in 1998 at Harvard University contained some of the following findings: Page 3 "In no case has new rail service bccn shown to have a noticeable impact upon highway congestion or air quali~y." "Light rail lacks flexibility, and in many cases passengers who previously had direct bus service now have to transfer from bus to train, with extended journey times." "Modest.improvements to basic, bus service combined with an attractive fares policy have shown they can secure substantially more ridership increases thm~ capital projects involving either light rail or busway construction." Randall Crane, Associate prOfessor, UCLA School of Public Policy & Social Research, writes in a letter to the editor in the June/July Orange County Planner, '"rhcr¢ is no credible evidence that new systems in built out urban areas are worth anywhere near what they cost. They do not reduce traffic congestion, anchor development, or improve travel access in ,'my substantial l'ashion." He indicates that tl~¢ round trip cost for CenlerLine ranges I¥om $24 to $42 according to the OCTA document release. He fiirther indicates "And thc benefits? Regrettably, new rail systems in thc U. S. r~ely make a dent in car tralTm or improve the travel options of the poor or elderly by anywhere near what a comparable expenditure on busses would. Even in Portland and San Diego. So far as I am aware, them is no mainstream transportation scholar who claims otherwise. Even OC'I'A estimates the CcnterLine will only reduce car miles traveled by less than one-halt'percent. How many billions is that worth?" Thomas A. Rubin, a transportation consultant writing in thc spring 2000 edition of the University of California Berkley Institute of Transportation Studies Technology Transfer Program Tceh 'l'rmasfcr authored an article, "Learning from Los Angeles: Rail and Transportation Equity." In the article he indicates "...Los Angeles's unique combination of high population density with a massively overloaded surface trm~sportation network is not the ideal situation for the introduction of rail transit. Urban rail transit systems arc very expensive to build. Rail capital costs are justifiable only whcn they can bc mnortized over very Mgh travel demand. Unfbrtunately, for Los Angeles, it's not population density that determines potential demand for rail; it's trip density within the corridor. Virtually every successful urban rail transit line in the United States has one end of its route system at the largest trip generator of all: the dov, mtown central business district, or CBD. Chicago's Loop. midqown Manhattan, m'~d Center City Philadelphia are ali large centers ol'cmployment, government, commerce, sport and culture. Rail needs to serve this kind of center need to be productive mid cost effective. For smaller centers or activity, busses work best." On May 27, 1999 thc Orange County Grand Jury reviewed light rail planning in Orange County examining nearly 40 documents regarding light rail and made thc R)llowing recommendations: '"l"he OC'I A l)irectors be made aware or' thc national experience in light rail over the past years and ligh~ rail's documented inability to solve urban transit, problems such as traffic Mar-07-01 02 - 21P 7147654667 P.05 Pagc 4 congestion and pollution. Along those lines, we must further suggest that disinterested experts from academia be invited to provide the historical perspective to the Directors. The Director's instruct OCT A staff' to amend Outreach Programs to include data regarding the recent national and ongoing national experience regarding the costzefficacy of light rail in failing to solve urban problems of traffic congestion, pollution, etc. The OC'I'A establish and publish in thc Outreach literature measurable goals tbr light rail regarding the amount of traffic congestion reduction, pollution abatement, and cost effectiveness · issues which will be used as "build-no build"criteria for the development decision process." The primary reason to mention some o[ the literature and findings about light rail is that it is evident that there exists strong evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of light rail in solving mobility problems. · l'Iowever, cities througl~out the country have made decisions to proceed with light rail despite the high capital cost involved. With unprecedented hnding available, new systems ,are proliferating. In Orange County, OCTA puts forth the purpose for the CenterLine project in the Volume I of the Draft EIS/EIR as follows: "Based on the Corridor land use, demographic, tran3;portation, and growth patterns, the CenterLine would play a significant role in addressing travel dcm,md issues, enhancing travel options, and providing service to an expm~ded work force. Specific goals and objectives for the CenterLine are as ~'ollows' · Enhance mobility by serving high demand travel corridors and major activity centers with dependable and convenient service not affected by traffic congestion. Minimize costs by using proven implementation methods, teclmologies, and available public rights-of-way. · Allow for easy expansion (i.e., addition of trains, reduction of headways) to meet expanding needs. · Support economic and local land use objectives by providing access to major activity centers and areas to ensure the continued growth and economic development of the County, including redevelopment of older portions of thc Cotmty. · Protect or enhance the natural, social, and physical environment by providing a pedestriax~ and traasi~ friendly enviro~mmnt, increasing mobility options, and promoting more environmentally sustainable transportation modes. One of fl~e benefits lhat may accrue from proper implementation o£ light rail is the ability to influence development near rail stations. The hope is that by locating housing and shops within walking distance of stations, they cae increase ridcrship ,and rejuvenate surrounding communities.' For example, after two slow decades BART's development projects are taking Off. Page 5 Jeffrey OrdWay, manager of property dcvclopment and real estate services lbr BART states that today "We try to build on the existing strengths of' each community, which may be cultural or physical." I lc goes on to say "The only ones who can identify those strengths are the people that live there." These transit oriented development opportunities may develop in Orange County through collaboration between OCIA, local govcrmnent, business owners and residents. In 1999 Governor Gray Davis signed a bill allowing transit agencies in the state, previously limited to buying property solely for transit purposes like parking, to buy land w/thin a quarter of a mile of Iheir stations for trzmsit-oricnted development. In his 1993 book, 7'he Next Metropolis, Calthorpe wrote of the need for coordinated land-use policies. Without them, l~e warned, "increasing transit investments will only lead to underutilized facilities." But with plm~ning that s'apports alternatives to the car, m~ything is possible. "People may choose to walk, bikc and use transit more often," he wrote. Thc 1998 study of U.S. light rail systems by Harvard University argues that while there are su'ccesses such as in San Diego, buses often would have been cheaper and just as viable. The study notes "Thc fact that political or public support For rail may not be rational from an economist's viewtx)int does not detract from the fact that this support exists and that, in the end, the outcome for Sa.n Diego has been improved ~ransit service all round including both rail and bus service improvements". Furthermore, transit advocates cite the benefit of adding this modal alternative to attract choice riders fi-om cars. Additionally, if light rail is effectively integrated into thc urban fabric, it may add interest to communities by creating appealing transit station architecture and streetscape features. 'rhere are many factors that need to be examined when considering major trm~sportatJo, projects. Some of the more significant factors include initial capilal cost, .environmental benefits, land use impacts, construction impacts, alternatives to the proposed project, community suppo~ (business and residential), aesthetics and operating economics. Council member 'l'ait has requested staff to recommend cost 'effective transportation options that would improve mobility in Orange County. That information is contained in attachment A and is generally consistcnt with the menu of' transportation options contained in fl~c current City Council policy that ,.,,'as approved on December 9, 1999. If thc City Council wishes 1o advise OCTA of' their position on whether to move forward with CenterLin¢ in Aaaheim ('or Orange County), they should base the decision on a variety of factors mentioned above. As can be seen from some of the information provided, there are legitimate differences of opinion regarding light rail and CenterLine. Depending on what criteria are used aJ~d how theyare weighted will likely detemnine thc conclusion. 02' 22P 2'654667 Page 6 To date few community or business groups have expressed an opinion regarding CenterLine. Residents in thc Anaheim Colony area are concerned about thc impact of light rail on this historic area mid the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce has voiced a number el' concerns about CenterLine project feasibility and impacts on businesses. Although staffhas not completed its comments regarding the EIS/EIR for the CenterLine project, staff has concerns about the compatibility of light rail in the central part of the city. There may not be an acceptable aligmncnt that could receive community support due to the residential nature of the area, historic designation, impacts to area businesses, the need for property to provide station parking, construction impacts and requirements for increased density at the station locations. Additionally, concerns with thc massive elevated structures necessary to ,pan intersections and noise impacts from elevated rail have also been raised by staff. The City is also being asked by OCTA to have 25 acres of land currently in commercial/industrial used for a maintenance facility to support the MOS. StaFf has thoughtlhlly attempted to evaluate the CenterLine project and, based upon review of the relevant factors, cannot endorse this project. Alternatively, staff suggests a menu of other transportation improvements to improve mobility in Orange County. IMPACT ON THE BUDGET: No impact on the budget. Rcsp and CitNtnl so, / t inecr ~ GEJ'dw Attachments C' Tom Wood Dave Morgan Mar-07-O] 02 ' ;~SP 7] 47654667 ....... ATTACHMENT I ...... MINIMUM OPER~..,IIG SEGMENT (MOS) NOk.. ,, MOS CENTRAL, MOS SOUTH A, MOS SOUTH B P.O;3 I '-1' 0 1 2 5 Miles Mar-07-01 O2 - ~p A'rTACH>~£NT 2 7] 476.54667 The CcnterLine Project- Minimum Operable Segments Alternative I Length ...... Profile I(1998Capital$)C°st Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) Alter.hal!yes, from SDEIS MOS - South A · , , i2.6 miles 13.6 miles 15.4 miles .o MOS- South MOS - Central 'MOS - North 9.2 miles · , I33% elevated 57% street level 10% cut & cover 81% elevated 19% street level 78% elevated 22% street level 89% elevated 11% street level _ _ $0.81 billion ($64 million per mile) $0.94 billion (S69 million per mile) $1.22 billion ($79 million per mile) $0.82 billion ($89 million per mile) 2020 Daily iRidership 17,500 19,000 53,400 32.000 ATTACI~ ~NT 3 Estimated CenterLine Boardings - Average Weekday - Year 2020 City CenterLIne $~lon i Anaheim Orange Minimum Operable Segment- Central 7.800 6,500 1,050 Anaheim Resort Edison Field/Anaheim Tran$~rtation Center Orangewood/State College $;~te College/Chapman 3,900 · The City/Jusbce Center (Block at Omr, ge) 1.250 Memory Lane/Oily Drive 2,200 Santa Aha SeventeenD/Kings Rd. 2,600 Seventeenth/Bristol Bristol/Civic Center 1,450 1,gO0 Bnstolt First 2.200 Bristol/McFadden Bris[oI/EOinger Brislol/Warner 3,300 1,550 3,300 BriS[01/MaCArthur 1,200 Costa Mesa South Coast Metro (AntoNAve. of ~e Arts} 4,650 irvlne SaKioka Farms Mair~Sk'ypark MacArthufl Main (lrvine) Jonn Wayne Airport MichelsonNon Kan'nan 1,200 1,000 1,450 1,600 1,750 M ich e lson/J am bo tee 1.600 System Total ,,53,4~ Source: OC TAM 2.8 Forecasts Mar-07-O] 02 - 2~P 7147654667 P.05 Attachment 4 Regional Mobility Options [or Orange County's Continued Success l.et's get to Work! In establishing transportation poli~ will Orange County choose to view itself as part ~,f a regional transportation systetn with responsibility to focus primarily on regional jobs-housing and airport connections, or will we choose, to focus primarily on internal circulation needs? BACKGROI~'D Orange Coun,y finds itself al' a cro.qsroad in selecting :he best chuiccs for improving mobility with our limited public transpmxation funding. Forecast growth in th~ rg:gion (Orange County, Los Angclr~ Coumy. Riverside and gan Bcmardiao counties) shows a contim]ed and growing imbalance of.lobs in Orange and Los Angeles countics and. plentiful allbrdable housing in thc Inland £mpke cmmties. Also, at least in thc near-term, Oraut.'.e County businesses will bc increasingly re}ia~t on thc I.os Angeles and Ontario lulernationa] airports. The centcrpiccc ol'thc Mea.nure M pzugrazn is soon tn be completed wiQt imptovemem$ tn the I-5, SR-91, SR.57 and SR-5b. These i~rovemenB include thc largesl number of full-time High Occupancy Vehicle (IIOV) riffles in California. These widened freeways, however, will not provide acceptable Iravel limes for traffic force:ut wi~t~ more jobs in Or~g~ Coun~ and rare population (i.e., employees for Orange County businesses) in ~c Inla~ Empire. For cxamplc. SR-91 traffic is forecast to increase rio[Il Ille current 236,000 vehicles per day to 422.~0. 'lh~ Reeway would need to b: doobled in width to get work,s to jnbs in ()rang~ a~,d Las Angeles comities. Upon amval in ()range County, commuters ctm travel along an upgraded arterial street t~etwork anchored by the construclion of Smart Street improvement.q. Inland Empire conwauler$ arriving to ()range (.'.otmty by Mcn'olink {approxirm~tcly 4% of the peak period perso~ ~rips ~hrough thc SR-91 corridor) are mci by expanded btt~ ~crvice. Circularion within Orange County has been cnlaaxmed. This is a tribute tn the diligr, nt efforts of thc Orange County Tran.q. portation Authority (OCTA) in cnopcratic}n with (~'altrans and local government partners. Currently under review by ()(;'i'A is a proposal m build CunterLine, a 28-mile light rail syst{.nn with a conslructJon copt approximating $3.8 billion. Ccntc. rLine would commit the great ma.iurity of tran.qportatiun l~nding for the next 15 year~, and potentially foreclose regional transpoc~afion options. CenterI.int' lbcuse, on circulation within Orange (;ounty's central corridor and provides very little cormeclivily to either l.os Angelus Coualy or m Riverside County. 'It~ connectivity could improve wilh completion ot'a~ l~7-mile light rail syatt:m, although no funding plan ha:~ been con>id¢l'ed Ii:,r ~l~at sy.qtcm and, given lhe Ccntcrl.inc coat, would be, at least 15 ycar~ out. 'l'h: vibrancy of the Orange County economy in large part will depend on our ability to provide cnnvenient transportation access lbr our employment base. An examination of a menu of transportation impr~,vcment$ lhat have thc potcnt/al to provide greater mobility benefits to Orange C. ounty should be addressed and a.~.~ured of Funding be£o~e a commim'~cnt to (:enterLin. e is ~nade. In lieu or the $3.8 billio~ capital inve.~tmcnt in thc C. entcrLine project, w~. tnu.qt carefully at,.d thoughtt'utty con.qider reasonable alternatives lha~ are heing smdicd by various rc§ional traasp,.,nafon agencic.q. In this regional context, the following otti.x potentially more anraetive and co~t-e[£,ctive nmbilit'y options fur Orange County 1o consider. Mar-07-O] 02 - 29P 7147654667 REGIONAl, TR.&NSPORTATION OPTIONS Freeway, Rail. arid Express Bus regional proposals are in various.stages of analyses with potential bcnclit to ()range County, as st~rnma, rized below. Freeway Riverside Cmmry Transportation Conunission (RCTC) is studying a ne~' east-west freeway corridor connecting with {.)r,~nge County. Coordination with Of;IA has begun. The new comdor is envisioned south of SK-91, traversing and potentially being tunneled under the Cleveland National Forest. KLYl'C is pursuing thi.~ corridor through its Co~nmupiry anrl Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process {CETAP), to "~n~ure ll~at the transportation infrastructure will be in place to foster thc economy of Riverside County and provide accc:~s lbr our cilizen$ to jobs"'. Even witl~ this new corrid, or improv,ment~ will he needed on SR-91, uhhough Iltey would be substantially lc.ss than thc opt/on to widen .qR-D1 from thc existing 12 to 24 lanes. OCTA is proct:cding with a "Freeway Chokcpoint Improvement Prose. am" at 22 locations. This program includes SR-91 we.qrbotmd auxiliary lanes and SR-57 northbound auxiliary lan~s to rcdttce existing comn',uter peak traffic congestion. 1-5 widening for HOV extensirm between gR-91 and ~l~e 1..os Angeles County lint- is also progressing. Thc "Four Comers" Policy Conm~ittee is recommending extension of the SR-91 toll lanes between the Oraxtg¢/Riverside county I/ne and 1-15. Direct connectors between thc SR-91 toll lanes and thc SR-241 is one of 18 freeway:highway projects rccommt.'nded. ga,~! Metrolink sen'icc export.sion including in'lptcmcnting Kiv~.-.r~i&: to Lo~ Ang¢lc:~ service .. i$ recommended by thc Four Cornt-.r~ Policy Co~nmitlee.. Additional bus conneetior~s at destinations are also reco~mnended. Regional efforts are needed tn obtain additional state and lizderal Funding for Metrolink capital investments, additinnal Metrolink service, and Metrolink lcrder services. The California I ligh Speed Rail Au'dmrity will begin study of a 200-mph rail service core, erring Sacramento m San Diego, with pt~ssiblc alit,mn'tents through ()range County (along the l.O,q,q^N Rail Corridor) and throu.k~ the Inland Empir~ (along 1-15). Study coz:rpletion i~ scheduled for June 2003. Both alignments could polemiall¥ be ¢o~tsrructed. The I.O$S^N alignment could be col~ructed itt the near- term, wi~:h possible connection via the (.keen Linc to LAX. The Southern Calil'amia Association of Govcnm-icnts i~ contracting to study a Maglcv corridor linking LAX with John W~ Alit)orr, lrvine Transpoctarioa Center/El Toro Marbro Corps Air Station lhtcility.' 'l'hr:: potential altla.mnea[s will be studied, with recommendation hy Jm~e 2001. Thc CalilBmia-Ncvada Super Speed 'l'rak~ Conmdssion is studying 300-rt'rph rail ~.rvicc connecting Anaheim, Ont~trio tmemafiotml Akpo~x, a~d eventually Las Vegas. 'lifts is one of sev~= applican~ lbr l:ed=ral gail,',.,ad Adt~fini~tration (FRA) funding. ~e ~A decition is expected by February 2001. 'l'Ns project would alarl in Nevada a~Ld eventually reach (.),'ange County. A starter scg[zmnt ~ctwccn Anaheim and the Ontario International Ai~o~ could be a ~jor benclit lbr Orange County aiq, o~ sc~ice and for ~gh-~pt-cd comT~mt¢~ rail set'vice. t It. iverside County tntcgratcd Project., "Transportation L,~sucs and'Options" ncwslcttcr, page l. ... Mar-07-O1 02 - 29P 7147654667 P.07 E~_xpres.~ BU~ Express bus service is dcsigned Io travel long di:~tances and u.~c HOV lanes on freeways m provide travel time suvhxgs To .,dnglc occupant vehicles. ()range County has one of the mos! xophi.~ticatcd I-[()V in the country. Howevex', ~l~is large capital invesnnent is not being fully used. With thc exception of SR-22 and SR-133, arrange County t¥ceways'will have at least lwo I-tOV lanes each. one in each direction of travel, by ~be year 2002. The HOV system also .;~cludcs a ~cri~:~ of direct HOV conncctom that link carpool lanes with uther freeways and some local .~trcct~. Exl:n'ess bus service is in thc aC'fA Fast Forward long-range transptwmtion plan to be expanded "in the fim~re". Thc PUC requires comdinate regional inter-county bus services into a connect¢& regions! nelwork, aCTA currcntly opcr'alcS only three cxprcs~ routes to l.os Angeles County2,. and none to Riverside Cnuntw. Arterial exp,'e.q.q bus service is also possible. Los Angeles Metropolitan 'l'ranspo,'tation Authority (LAM[A) operates express buses along its arterial network. Thc MTA's Men'o Rapid Buses began service in June 2000 on several major arterials including Wihdfire, Whittier, and Vcntura Boulevards. 'i"hese buses combine a v~ricty of new technologies to speed them along conventional :surface sweets. They stap only at major intersections, incorporate low floors for easy boarding, and receive ga'cea-light signal priority to substantially reduce waitin~ tixnes a~ interscctiom. 'Ii,ese simple features an.: ~pet:dmg the new buses by much as 25¥., over regular buses. Soon, special new bu.~ stops will provide more slxelter as ,z'ell as real- time clectronic information on when the next bus will arrive. These Express Bu.q services arc provided al sub~tami.~lly less cost than fixed rail. Best of all, this service does not require decades to design and build e~tpensive new inl?a~truclute; ir can be up and rtuming to conncct activity comers in a very slmrt time and at a small fraction al" th~: Centerl.inc budget. ORANGE COUNTY'S CROS,qR()AD- WHICIt WAY T() SUCCESSS? Current estimates for financing of CenterLioe indicate a total capital cost, including Federal and State Proposition 116 ihnding, as nmch as $3.8 billion. 'l'h/~ includes a commitment of as much as $179 million ofMea.qurc M thnds, $950 million of State Tramporlation Improvement Funds (STIP) and $65'3 nfl. ilion of Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds (according to thc December, 2000 release of fl~e draft env/ronmcntal b~koac~: report). The proposed financing plan would, if approved, preclnde many other options available to improve mobility. A.s Orange County linds itself at tiffs eros,road, it must make certain thal the choice it makes is the bes~ for it~ residents and business community: How mu. ch transportation funding would bt'. left for addressing regional ii,let-county connection need~'? These issue..q cannot wait 15 The City of Anaheim City Council, in December 1999, rcsolve, d Io support aearqem'~ implementation o1' Express Bus and M.e~rolink improvements, and lo defer and further engineering of light ~'ail in Amfl~eim until clarificarinn of' tcchnolugy and funding options were comidered. It has now been concluded that light rail funding would require $3.8 billion to consLruct CemcrLiae; Express l~us continues to bca "lhturc implementation" Ibr aCTA. Let's get to work in implcmcntirag ,Express l'lus on hath our sophisticated llOV freeway neon'ark and on S~mr~ Streets m connect employees with major activity ccntcrs, with Los Ang¢le.q light rail lines and witlx Metrolink. Let's get m work in gaining state and federal fi2nding for improved Metrolink service. Let's get to work in coordinating high-speed commuter rail and airport acccxa cumsections for ()range County. get to work in ¢on.qn'ucting a new c:ast-wr..xl fi'~way conidor connecting Rivcwidc and Orange Countie.q an cnvironm~.:ntally ,ccepmble manner. These ar{.- the ways Io Orange Cnunty'.q continued success. . .. "l:ast Forward". Orange County 'l'ran.~pm'mtion Authority, September 1 !}97, page 3.4-6. OCTA Item, 6. March 7, 2001 To: From' Subject: OCTA Board Members Arthur T. Leahy, CEO ~~'1,-~- CenterLi'ne Light Rail Project- March 12 Board Meeting Agenda Although I believe that the CenterLine Light Rail Project offers significant benefit to Orange County, i recommend that we do not initiate preliminary engineering and a final environmental impact statement (PE/FEIS) for the project at this time. During my tenure as OCTA's Chief Executive Officer, I have had an opportunity to extensively discuss the detailed technical, financial, environmental, and community issues regarding this important project with the elected officials and city staff within the proposed corridor area; a wide' range of local business and community leaders; and OCTA's project consultants, staff, and Board Members. I have come to the conclusion that consensus and support for an alignment that will both successfully serve Orange County's future transportation needs and be able to secure federal funding support needs to be more clearly demonstrated. The decision for OCTA to move to the next step and spend approximately $40 million for PE/FEIS is very important. A financial commitment of this magnitude demands strong partnerships amongst corridor cities, OCTA, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Project partners have to believe the project has merit and that PE/FEIS will adequately address community concerns and lead to successful project implementation. The FTA will look for strong consensus at the local level before they support the allocation of significant federal New Starts light rail funding. If we are to do a light rail project, we need to do it right. There is little benefit in starting preliminary engineering if we do not have the foundation set for bringing the project to fruition. I firmly believe that development of a light rail project for Orange County has strong merit. Once constructed, it could be a tremendous asset. If it is to be successful, however,, it has to be done with consensus and strong partnerships. OCTA staff will continue to be available to discuss the project with potential partners and to assess this and other transportation projects that will contribute to improved mobility for Orange County.