Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 3 20 YR MASTER PLN 05-01-89OLD BUSINESS ,o. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER TWENTY-~ MASTER PLaN OF TRANSPORT3~TION IMPROVEMENTS At its April 14, 1989 meeting, the city Council endorsed the Twenty-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements. Councilman Prescott has requested that the Plan be placed on the agenda for further consideration- WAH/dsh/~~'/' A: 132 v ~ ~ · NEW BUSINESS 0]]:], DATE: APRIL 10, 1989 ~' 'APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. .. TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ~ ~"~ ~ '~~ FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION . SUI~JECT: 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 Plan 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' Commission. 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 TRANSFORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMI8810N MARCH 13, 1888 Draft 20-Year Master Plan -,. Transportation Sales Tax Component The 20-Yentr Master Plan of Transportation !mpmvcmcnts calla for expondina'o of $11.6 billlon in Orange County over the next two decades. It covers the priority needs with revenues that can now be identified. Other desirable transpomtion improvements might be added if additional revenues become available. Thc plan shows $8.5 billion of revenues from earlier identified sources, including gas tax revenues, city general funds, developer fees, bus fares, and even anticipated motorist tolls. The remaining $3.1 billion is proposed to be raised by passage of a one-half cent countywide sales tax. While existing revenues include money f~r operations of buses and maintenance of highways, thc sales tax revenues would be directed primarily to capital improvements. Following is the planned expenditure of the proposed new sales tax revenues: IMPROVE EXISTING FREEWAYS Santa Ana Freeway - Add as many as 6 lanes, including 2 ca.,pool 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 the project. Sales taxrevenue would be used on a cash flow basis to ac~lm-ate the project construction by 10 years. COST: $550 __million Rt. - 91 1-405 Riverside Freeway - Add 2 carpool lanes to Orangc County portions of Route 91 that will tic in with lanes being addcd in both Los Angeles and Riverside Coundcs. COST: $400 million Oraage Freeway Orange Freeway Lambcrt RoacL COST: :$40 million Costn Mesa Freeway - Add 2 general purpose lanes to Route 55 bctwccn Route 9~1 and I-5. Thc interchange connec- tions with Route 22 and Route 91 will also be improved. COST: $200 million RlveFsMe Rt.* SS - Add 2 carpool lanes bctwcen I-5 and Rt. - 91 Costa Mesa Freeway San Diego Freeway - Add 2 carpool lanes to I-~ · between Irvine and San Clcmcnte. - ., cosT: $80 million D~o \ UPGRADE FREEWAY INTERCHANGES $/405 Interchange - Bypass and feeder lanes alon,g, I-5 for the busy intersection known as the '~l Toro Y. · COST: $55 million ! 57/91 Interchange - Direct freeway to freeway uansitway connector ~ encourage carpools, van- pools, and commu~cr buses. COST: $50 million Rt. - 91 I IRt.* SS 55/405 Interchange - Dire~ fr~way ro freeway uan- sitway connector to encourage carpools, vanpools, and com- muter buses. COST: $50 million RIGHT OF WAY RESERVE FUND Freeways - Early purchase of land adjacent.to frccways planned for widening to prevent cost escalations. Rall/~ansit Corridors - Acquisition of a portion of thc Los Angcles to SanDiego r~i~road corfidor sou~h from Fullcrton to the San · Diego County line. Purc~ and preservation of the former Pacific Electric red car right-of-way from tho Los Angeles County linc atLa Palina to Santa Ana. COST: $160 million Support to all 28 cities nad the county of Orange for preventative road maintenance and repair of ail streets. COST: $310 million ROAD SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Signal Coordination - Assistance to local jurisdictions in -timing signals where streets cross city boundaries. · Super Streets - Intersection widenings, turning ~~ts, additional lanes through restriping, bus tu~, outs, parking removal, and driveway consolidations along the 21 busiest streets. Capacity Improvements - Complete thc countywide master planned roadway system and eliminate bottlenecks. COST: $590 million REDUCED FARES Stabilize fares for seniors and disabled persons on all forms of public transit, including buses. COST: $20 million I RAIL SYSTEM Los-San Corridor - Addition of two morning northbound and evening southbound peak-hour, local-stop commuter rail trains to supplement existing eight-train Amtrak service, San Clcmcnte to downtown Los Angeles. COST: $80 million Rt.-91 Riverside Corridor i:::;;:::::::::: - ~,, Rt.- 91 ~ Riverside/Orange County Corridor- Initiation of four morning inbound and four evening outbound commuter rail u'alns from Riverside to Irvine, two each on a shoncr route through Orange, two each stopping in Fullcrton. COST: $90 million Feeder System- On a matching basis, funds will be used to plan and construct local extensions to thc backbone rail system. The system will be based' on state of the an technology and planned to ultimately · interconnect and form a more cx~nsiv¢ system. Rail Transfer $ rations and Park and Ride lots will complement the system. COST: $450 million ' GROWTH MANAGEMENT As a condition of receiving any new sales mx revenue, every city and the county of Orange must adopt a comprehensive growth manage- ment plan to link u'affic relief and carefully-planned futm~ develop- 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 u'affic generated by new development. DRAFT '1 · Y E A R- ~' i~MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORlXTION 'IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY PRESENTATION ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MARCH 1-3, 1989 Orange County Trends 1966- 198~ Employment · .' Housing ! · · i Population · · : · · · ! Freeway Miles · ; · · : 78% 8% Gas Tax Value -100% 0% 100% 119% 200% Freeways & Corridors Streets & Roads Transi~ Orange County 20 Year Transportation Needs ;$3.1 ; ;$2.8 · I e :$2.6 I · I ; $5.2 Billions Projected Existing Revenue Sources 20 Year Plan Project Costs Rank 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NATtONWIDE STATE GAS TAXES (RANKING BY $ PER GALLON) 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 18.30 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 9.70 9.001 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 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 NATIONWIDE PER CAPITA SPENDING ON HIGHWAYS State Per Capita Expenditure ($), Rank State, Alaska 906 Wyoming 702 Montana 416 South Dokota 372 North Dokota 354 Iowa 316 Kansas 315 Minnesota 311 Nebraska 304 V~rmont 298 New Mexico 290 Nevada 289 Arizona. 275 West Virginia 264 Delaware 258 Idaho 255 Utah 249 Colorado 246 Maine 241 Louisiana ii 241 Maryland i~, 240 Wisconsin 238 Virginia 234 ' New Jersey 234 New Hampshire 233 26 27 28 29 30' 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 15'0 Texas Mississippi Kentucky Connecticut Washington Arkansas Oklahoma Illinois .Oregon Alabama . New York Missouri Pennsylvania Georgia Tennessee Ohio ~ Rhode Island Michigan Florida Indiana North Carolina Massachusetts Hawaii South Carolina California Per Capita Expenditure ($) 230 226 220 218 217 217 212 208 204 204' 202 202 198 193 193 177 176 173 163 162 155 142 139 130 1271 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · 2O 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 County 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 C , ,_aFORNIA PER CAPiiA SPENDING.. ON HIGHWAYS (COUNTY.. RANKINGS) Per Capita Expenditure .($) 2,765.5 1,101.6 702.6 553.6 534.0 442.3 425.1 396.9 306.2 206.2 256.0 222.2 213.1 209.9 207.9 201.6 187.4 179.5 167.6 163.9 149.9 138.1 136.2 134.7 134.1 132.3 127.7 122.2 119.1 Rank County Per Capita Expenditure ($) 30 Kings 31 Del Norte 32 San Mateo 33 Marin 34 San Luis Obispo 35 Napa 36 Ventura 37 Kern 38 Madera 39 San Diego 40 Los Angeles 41 Yuba 42 Santa Clara {.43 Orange 44 Sonoma 45 Sutter 46 Yolo 47 Fresno 48 Butte 49 San Benito 50 Santa Cruz 51 San Bernardino 52 Solano 53 Monterey 54 Santa Barabara 55 Stanislaus 56 'Tulare 57 San Francisco 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 88.3 86.0 85.8 85.2 83.8 81.9 81.0 80.0 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 iLocal 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 Serf-Adjusts for Growth and Inflation o Is Easy to Collect o Meets the Tests of Fairness and Equity 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 LO8 ANGELES cOui~ITY 1/2% 8AN BERNARDINO 6% COUNTY · 6% ORANGE COUNTY /2% RIVERSIDE COUNTY · ?~ 8AN DIEGO COUNTY 20 YEAR MASTER PLAN PUBLIC INPUT o 15 Member League of Cities Super Committee O 30 Member Special 20-Year Mast. er 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.