The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 5 MSTR PLN TRANSP 04-17-89TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING'DIVISION SUBJECT: TWENTY-YEAR MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION iMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council at their meeting of April 17, 1989 approve the Twenty-year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements (dated March 7, 1989) . BACKGROUND: State Senate Bill 142 provides for each county Board of Supervisors to designate a local transportation authority to develop a long-term transportation plan in each California county. On January 19, 1988, the. Board of Supervisors designated the Orange. County Transportation Commission (OCTC) as the Local Transportation Authority in Orange County. OCTC was authorized to explore long-range funding options with a special emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of a local sales tax increase to finance transportation improvements. Based upon technical studies developed by OCTC staff and consultants, with input from government, business and community groups, this draft Twenty-year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements has been completed and reviewed by the Commission, and is currently being publicly circulated for review and additional comment. This circulation period will continue to May 8, 1989 at Which time a public hearing on the plan is scheduled. After this May 8th public hearing, OCTC may choose to adopt, adjust, or abandon the plan. If adopted, OCTC will request both the Orange County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population of incorporated territory to ratify the Twenty-year Master P~an of Transportation Improvements. DISCUSSION: Copies of the Twenty-year Master Plan of Transportation improvements are available in both the City Manager's office and the Engineering Division for the City Council's information and review. Attached to. this report are the following' · o Summary of the planned expenditure of the proposed new sales tax revenues. o Summary presentation of the Twenty-year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements. TWENTY-YEAR'MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS APRIL 10, .1989 PAGE 2. These summaries were prepared by the Orange County Transportation C6mmission. -' Staff has reviewed the subject Twenty-year Master Plan and recommends approval of said document as written. Any revisions that may be made after the May 8th public hearing may need to be re-evaluated at that time. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv DRAFT 'Y E A R' MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ORANGE COUNTY TRAN8PORTATION COMMI8$10N MARCH 18, 1088 Draft 20-Year Master Plan Transportation Sales Tax Component The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements calls for expenditure of $11.6 billion in Orange County over the next two decades. It covers the priority needs with revenues that can now be identified. Other desirable transportation improvements might be added if additional revenues become available. The plan shows $8.:5 billion ofrev.enues from earlier identified sources, including gas tax revenues, city general funds, developer fees, bus fares, and even anticipated motorist tolls. The remnining $3.1 billion is proposed to be raised by passage of a one-half cent countywide sales tax. While existing revenues include money fbr ope .rations of buses and maintenance of highways, the sales tax revenues would be directed primarily to capital improvements. Following is thc planned expenditure of the proposed new sales tax revenues: IMPROVE EXISTING FREEWAYS Santa Aha Freeway - Add as many as 6 lanes, including 2 carpool lanes, from 1-405 to the Los Angeles County line. Existing state and federal resources are expected to fund $1.1 billion with the sales tax revenue providing the additional $550 million to complete thc project. Sales taxrevenue would be used on a cash flow basis to a~celerate the project construction by 10 years. COST: $550 million Rt.. 91 1-405 Riverside Freeway - Add 2 cerPool lan. es to Orange County portions of Route 91 that will tie in with lanes being added in both Los Angclcs and Riverside Counties. COST: $400 million Riverside R~. * SS _Orange FFeeway Orange Freeway - Add 2 carpool lanes between 1-5 and Lambert Road. COST: $40 million Rt. - 91 Costa Mesa Freeway - Add 2 general purpose lanes to- Route 55 between Route 9,1 andI-5. The interchange connec- tions with Route 22 and Route 91 will also b~ improved. ' Cos~ Pr~,way COST: $200 million San Diego Freeway - Add 2 carpool lanes to between Irvinc and San Clcmcnte. COST: $80 million m~o \ Freeway UPGRADE FREEWAY INTERCHANGES $/405 Interchange - Bypass and fceAcr lanes along I-:5 for thc busy intersection known as thc "El Toro Y." COST: $$$ millign 57/91 Interchange - Direct freeway to freeway transitway connector to encourage carpools, van- pools, and commuter buses. COST: $$0 million Rt. - 91 Rt * Rt. - SS 55/405 Interchange - Direct freeway to freeway u~n- sitway connector to cncourallc carpools, vanpools, and com- muter buses. COST: $50 million RIGHT OF WAY RESERVE FUND Freeways- Early purchase of landadjaccnt to freeways p .lanncd for widening to prevent cost escalations. Rail~ansit Corridors - Acquisition of a portion of the Los · An ge les to S an Dic go railroad corridor south from Fullcrton to thc S an Diego County linc. Purchase and preservation of the former Pacific Electric red car right-of-way fi'om thc Los Angeles County tine atLa Palina to Santa Aha. COST: $160 million ROAD MAINTENANCE Support to nil 28 cities and. thc county of Orange for preventative road maintenanCe and repair of all streets. COST: $310 million 'ROAD SYSTEM IMPRO~ME~S Signal Coordination - Assistance to local jurisdictions in timing signals where streets cross city boundaries. Super Streets - Intersection widenings, utming pockets, additional lanes through restriping, bus tm'q, outs, parking removal, and driveway consolidations along the 21 busiest streets. Capacity Improvements - Complete the countywide master planned roadway system and ¢!imituge bottlenecks. COST: $590 million REDUCED FARES $~:)iliz~ fares for seniors and disabled persons °n all forms of public u'~nsit, including buses. COST: $20 million RAIL SYSTEM Los-San Corridor - Addition of two morning northbound and evening southbound peak-hour, local-stop commuter rail wains to supplement existing eight-wain Amuak service, San Clcmcnte to downtown Los Angeles. COST: $80 million LOSSAN Cor~dor Rt.-91 Riverside/Orange County Corridor- Initiation of four morning inbound and four evening outbound commuter rail trains from Riverside to Irvine, two each on a shorter route through Orange, two each swpping in Fullcrton. COST: $90 million Feeder System- On amatching basis, funds will be us~dtoplan and construct local extensions to the backbone rail system. Thc system will be based' on state of the art technology and planned to ultimately interconnect and form a more extensive system.' 1~ nil Transfer Stations and Park and Ride lots will complement the system. COST: $450 million GROWTH MANAGEMENT As a condition of receiving any new sales tax revenue, every city and the county of Orange must adopt a comprehensive growth manage- ment plan to link u'affic relief and carefully-planned future develop- The Countywide Traffic Tmprovement and Growth Management Program emphasizes good planning, improved cooperation between neighboring cities, and requires that new development pays its fair share toward dealing with ~'affic generated by new development. 'DRAFT Y E A R "'~MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORtatiON IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY PRESENTATION ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1989 Orange County Trends 1966- 1986 -100% i; Employment Housing Populatiou Freeway Miles 8% Gas Tax Value I 78% ; ! ! ! · : | 100% 119% .200% Freeways & Corridors Streets & Roads Transit/l~l Orange County 20 Year Transportation Needs e e I e e ! & ;$3.1 I e e I I e I ;$2.8 i I e · .i$2.6 : , I I · .;$4.5 ; $5.2 i I I I | ! , I I I 0 2 4 6 8 Billions Projected Existing Revenue Sources 20 Year Plan Project Costs NATIONWIDE STATE GAS TAXES · (RANKING BY $ PER GALLON) Rank 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 State Montana Wisconsin Connecticut Utah Maryland Nebraska Colorado Washington North Carolina Viginia Minnesota Mississippi North Dakota Tennessee Arizona Delaware Iowa Louisiana Nevada Oklahoma West Virginia Kentucky Michigan Rhode Island South Carolina Cents Per Gallon Rank State 20.00 26 Texas 20.00 27 Ohio 19.00 28 Idaho 19.00. 29 Indiana 18.50 30 Maine 1830 31 New Hampshire 18.00 32 New Mexico 18.00 33 Oregon 17.75 34 Arkansas 17.50 35 Alabama 17.00 36 Illinois 17.00 37 South Dakota 17.00 38 Vermont 17.00 39 Pennsylvania 16.00 40 Hawaii 16.00 41 Kansas 16.00 42 Masschusetts 16 43 Missouri 16.00 44 Florida 16.00 145 California 1535 ' 46 Alaska 15.00 47. New Jersey 15.00 48 New York 15.00 49 Wyoming 15.00 50 Georgia Cents Per Gallon 15.00 14.70 14.50 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 13.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 12.00' 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 9.7O 9.00 ] 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 Rank 1 2 4 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NATIONWIDE PER CAPITA SPENDING ON HIGHWAYS State Per Capita Expenditure ($) Rank State Alaska 906 Wyoming 702 Montana 416 South Dokota 372 North Dokota 354 Iowa 316 Kansas 315 Minnesota 311 Nebraska 304 Vermont 298 New Mexico 290 Nevada 289 Arizona 275 West Virginia 264 Delaware 258 Idaho 255 Utah 249 Colorado 246 Maine 241 Louisiana ii 241 Maryland i~ 240 Wisconsin 238 Virginia 234 New Jersey 234 New Hampshire 233 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41~ 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Per Capita EXpenditure ($) Texas 230 Mississippi 226 Kentucky 220 Connecticut 218 Washington 217 Arkansas 217 Oklahoma 212 Illinois 208 Oregon 204 Alabama 204 New York 202 Missouri 202 Pennsylvania 198 Georgia 193 Tennessee 193 Ohio 177 Rhode Island 176 Michigan 173 Florida 163 Indiana 162 North .Carolina 155 Massachusetts 142 Hawaii 139 South Carolina 130 California 1271 Rank 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 26 27 28 29 Count~ Merced Mono Sierra Trinity Alpine Tuolumne Plumas Siskiyo Inyo Modoc Nevada Lassen Colusa Placer Riverside Imperial Humboldt Amador Shasta Mariposa Lake San Joaquin Contra Costa Tehama El Dorado Glenn Mendocino Calaveras Alameda CA FORNIA PER CAPII'A SPENDING ON HIG AYS (COUNq RANKINGS) Per Capita Expenditure ($) Rank County Per Capita Expenditure ($) 2,765.5 30 Kings 1,101.6 31 Del Norte 702.6 32 San Mateo 553.6 · 33 Marin 534.0 34 San Luis Obispo 442.3 35 Napa 425.1 36 Ventura 396.9 37~ Kern 306.2 38 Madera 206.2 39 San Diego -256.0 40 Los Angeles 222.2 41 Yuba 213.1 42 Santa Clara 209.9 143 Orange 207.9 44 Sonoma 201.6 45 Sutter 187.4 46 Yolo 179.5 47 Fresno 167.6 48 Butte 163.9 49 San Benito 149.9 50 Santa Cruz 138.1 51 San Bernardino 136.2 52 Solano 134.7 53 Monterey 134.1 54 Santa Barabara 132.3 55 Stanislaus 127.7 56 Tulare 122.2 57 San Francisco 119.1 58 Sacramento 116.1 109.0 108.1 108.0 108.0 106.0 104.0 102.5 102.2 98.0 96.4 96.4 96.3 94.0 93.4 883 86.0 85.8 85.2 83.8 '81.9 81.0, 80'O 79.2 '76.5 75.8 60.5 59.4 57.7 20 YEAR MASTER PLAN TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OPTIONS o CoUntywide Developer Fees o Employee Fee 0 !Local Gas Tax o Parking Fees o Vehicle Registration o Local Sales Tax o Tolls KEY FEATURES OF A 1/2 CENT LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX o Provides the Greatest Revenue Yield o Self-Adjusts for Growth and Inflation o Is Easy to Collect o Meets the Tests of Fairness and Equity o Is Permissible Under Existing Law o Requires a Countywide, Simple Majority Vote Is Available to Assist in Financing All Transportation Areas (Streets, Roads, Freeways, and Rail Transit) CALIFORNIA COUNTIES TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX o 11 Counties Representing 62% of the State Population LOS ANGELES COUNTY 6 1/2% 6% ORANGE 8AN BERNARDINO 6% COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY · COUNTY ?~ 8AN DIEGO COUNTY 20 YEAR MASTER PLAN PUBLIC INPUT o 15 Member League of Cities Super Committee O 30 Member Special 20-Year Master Plan Citizen Committee o 7 Public Workshops Involving 250 People o A Survey of 600 Orange County Residents O Transportation Network--a Group of Business Trade Associations o Transportation Coalition--Major Employers o Orange County Industrial League O Orange County Board of Supervisors' Special Task Force 20 YEAR MASTER PLAN TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX COMPONENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS · · Freeways $1,3 Billion o Santa Ana Freeway (Build Sooner) o Riverside Freeway o San Diego Freeway o Orange Freeway o Costa Mesa Freeway o Santa Ana/San Diego Freeway Interchange Streets & Roads $ 900 Million o Super Streets o Signal Coordination o Road Maintenance o Deficient Intersections o MPAH Improvements Transit $ 900 Million o Stabilize Bus Fares for Seniors and Disabled Persons o Los San Rail Corridor o Riverside/Orange County Rail Corridor o Local Feeder System(s) o Right-of-Way Reservation o Transitway Interchanges Growth Management As a condition of receiving any new sales tax revenue, every city and the county of Orange must adopt a comprehensive growth management plan to link traffic relief and carefully-planned future development. The Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program emphasizes good planning, improved cooperation between neighboring cities, and requires that new development pays its fair share toward dealing with traffic generated by new development.