HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 OCTC TRANS INV. 11-21-83WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC) PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Tustin City Council at their meeting of November 7, 1983, direct staff to
forward the list of additional projects to the O.C.T.C. for inclusion into the
15-year Transportation Investment Program and to respond to the O.C.T.C. questions
as indicated in this report subject to any changes/additions by the City Council
or the community.
BACKGROUND:
Recently, the Mayor received a letter from the 0.C.T.C. regarding the proposed
15-year Transportation Investment Program. As an intergral part of~ this program,
the enactment of S.B. 693 (Campbell) authorizes the O.C.T.C., with the approval of
local governments, to ask' the Orange County voters to approve a sales tax
specifically for transportation improvements within the County.
In March, 1983, the O.C.T.C. circulated a preliminary 15-year program proposal to
each city and solicited additional project proposals from each of these cities for
inclusion into the program. At that time, staff submitted a memo (copy attached)
suggesting additional projects to be included within the program.
In June, 1983, the O.C.T.C~ committed to allocating at least 20% of any net sales
tax revenues to local governments on a per capita basis. These funds would help
maintain and operate the arterial and local systems.
The O.C.T.C. has presented many questions regarding this program. Staff will
provide suggested responses to each of these questions in the discussion below.
The Commission has requested all responses to be returned to their office by no
later than November 30, 1983.
William Huston, City Manager
Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) Proposed Transportation
Investment Program.
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
On the attached sheets, staff has recapped all of the projects as they were listed
in the O.C.T.C. Preliminary 15-year Transportation Investment Program. In
addition, projects have either been added to the list or expanded in scope and
have been marked with an asterik to indicate same.
These projects within the program consist of improvements to:
Arterial Highways
Existing Freeways and State Highways
New Freeways and Expressways
Fixed Guideway Transit
Commuter Rail
Bus Capital
The O.C.T.C. letter raised various questions with regard to each city's viewpoint
of the program, these questions and some suggested respons.es are recapped below:
o How should a gua'ranteed return to cities and the County be structured~'
This return could be based upon either a per capita basis as previously
ihdicated or on a per lane-mile of arterial highway within each
agency.
What transportation purposes should these funds be available for - local
streets and roads, arterial improvements, State highway improvements that
are not competitive for State funding or other needs identified in the
program?
These funds should be limited only to arterial improvemnt and State
Highway improvements that are not competitive for state funding.
However, a,clear and concise definition of the term of "not competitive"
is needed. Local streets should be excluded mainly due to the
transportation/traffic problems being regional problems in lieu of
localized specialty problems.
Which of the proposed freeway widening projects do you support? Which
are you neutral toward? Which do you oppose?
Tustin supports the widening of the 1-5 Freeway to eight lanes only, and
the Route 55 Freeway to eight lanes only. If a future connector between
the proposed Foothill Freeway and the Route 55 Freeway were to be
constructed, Tustin would support widening to eight lanes on the easterly
end of the 22 Freeway.
Tustin is neutral to the widening of the remaining freeways and are
opposed to none.
William Huston, City Manager
Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) Proposed Transportation
Investment Program.
Page 3
Which of the proposed new freeways and expressways do you support?
Oppose? Neutral?
Tustin supports the construction of the Eastern Corridor and Foothill
Corridor as either a 6-lane major arterial or a freeway-type facility.
.The City is neutral to the construction of the remaining corridors and is
opposed to none.
Tustin feels that the question of a connection between the ~astern
Corridor and Route 55 must be answered at the earliest possible date.
Do you support an investment in rail transit? Oppose it? Are you
neutral?
The City does not have an opinion on rail transit at this time due to the
uncertainty as to what extent the public will utilize it and separate
themselves from the automobile.
Do you have views on the timing of a rail transit investment, on length
of system, or its cost?
No. See previous answer.
o Do you prefer another approach that relies on buses using reserved
freeway lanes or specially constructed guideways along freeways?
Again, it is difficult to give an opinion when the uncertainty of
ridership exists.
o What are your feelings about investment in commuter rail (AMTRAK)
improvements?
It is assumed that the AMTRAK improvements relate to their existing rail
line within the existing A.T. & S.F. rights-of-way, which serve only a
limited portion of the residential areas and activity/work centers. An
investment in this area may have a high cost as it relates to an overall
county benefit.
These responses are staff's viewpoints only, and are certainly open to any Council
or community input.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
I
I
I
~ o
o
o
I
I
I
I
!
I
Z
Z
0
~ ~n
~n Z
o
~ATE:
S UBJ ECT:
MARCH 28, 1983
Inter-Corn
WILLIAN HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS~CITY ENGINEER
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO~4ISSION (O.C.T.C.)
PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR A 15 YEAR INVESTMENT PROGRAM (CAPITAL PROJECTS)
The projects within the limits of Tustin have been underscored in yellow for quick
recognition. There are mang other projects of a regional nature or that are
located in adjoining communities that will be of vast help in reducing
traffic/congestion in the Tustin communitg.
The following are suggested, additions/revisions to the various elements of the
proposed program:
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS/NEW CONSTRUCTION
Jamboree Blvd. between Barranca Rd. and Walnut Ave. should be revised to read
between Houltou Parkway and Chapman Ave.
'Jamboree/Mgfor~ Rd., Walnut Ave. to Michelle Dr. should be revised to read
construct' ultimate roadwaw between Barranca Rd. and Santa Ana Freeway.
La Colina Road between Ranchwood Road and the Eastern Corridor - construct to
ultimate width (1985-1990').
Newport Ave. between the Atchison,' Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad and Edinger
St. - Extend roadway at its ultimate width.
£dinger St. between Red Hill Ave. and Rte. 55 - Widen to six (6) lanes.
Yorba Street between Laurie Lane to Leafwood Lane should be rev/sed to read
between Laurie Lane and Fairhaven Ave.
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS HANAGEMENT
The Red Hill Ave. systems between Irvine and Laguna Rd. and Nisson Rd. and
Warner Ave. are presently two interconnected sgstems. Two problem areas that
need integration into the sgstem are: i) The traffic'signals at the
Freewa~ and 2) the switching operations of A.T. & S.F. Railroad northerl~ of
Moulton Parkwag/Edinger St.
CO~MUTER RAIL
This system could run in conflict with the proposed American High Speed Rail
Corporation's Bullet Train. Definitive detail of each operation is required
before any review/comment can be made.
BOB LEDENDECKER
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/
CITY ENGINEER
db