lrtp stakeholder input

8/20/2019 Lrtp Stakeholder Input

1/190

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Potential Ballot MeasureInitial Stakeholder Input

October 7, 2015

ATTACHMENT C

REVISION #2


2/190

Potential Ballot Measure Initial Stakeholder Input

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i of ii

1. Stakeholder Outreach Summary ........................................................................................... 5

2. Initial Stakeholder Input Submittals Summary ....................................................................... 73. Long Range Transportation Plan and Potential Ballot Measure Assumptions ....................... 9

4. Subregional Input

a) Arroyo Verdugo ....................................................................................................... 17

b) Central Los Angeles ................................................................................................ 21

c) Gateway Cities COG ............................................................................................... 23

d) Las Virgenes/Malibu COG ....................................................................................... 33

e) North County Transportation Coalition ..................................................................... 35

f) San Fernando Valley COG ...................................................................................... 47g) San Gabriel Valley COG .......................................................................................... 51

h) South Bay Cities COG ............................................................................................. 57

i) Westside Cities COG ............................................................................................... 61

5. Regional Facilities Input

a) Bob Hope Burbank Airport ....................................................................................... 66

b) Long Beach Airport .................................................................................................. 72

c) Los Angeles World Airport ....................................................................................... 74

d) Palmdale Regional Airport ....................................................................................... 76e) Port of Long Beach .................................................................................................. 80

f) Port of Los Angeles ................................................................................................. 84

g) Union Station ........................................................................................................... 86

6. Other Stakeholder Input

a) Access Services ...................................................................................................... 89

b) Alliance for Community Transit Los Angeles (ACT-LA) ............................................ 93

c) Caltrans ................................................................................................................... 95

d) Central City Association of Los Angeles ................................................................. 96

e) City of Long Beach .................................................................................................. 97

f) Community Health Councils, Inc. ........................................................................... 100

g) EnviroMetro ........................................................................................................... 103

h) Investing in Place .................................................................................................. 120

i) LA County Department of Public Health ................................................................. 129


3/190

Potential Ballot Measure Initial Stakeholder Input

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ii of ii

j) LA Thrives ............................................................................................................. 132

k) Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce ............................................................. 135l) Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition .................................................................... 137

m) Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association ........................................... 141

n) Los Angeles/Orange County Building Trades Council ............................................ 143

o) Live Ride Share ..................................................................................................... 144

p) Local Transit Systems Subcommittee .................................................................... 150

q) Metrolink ................................................................................................................ 151

r) Move LA ................................................................................................................ 153

s) One LA .................................................................................................................. 166t) Santa Clarita Valley Chamber ................................................................................ 171

u) Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) ........................................................ 180

v) Tier 2 Operators .................................................................................................... 184

w) TRUST South LA ................................................................................................... 187

x) Valley Industry and Commerce Association .......................................................... 189


4/190

1 .

S t a k e

h o

l d e r

O u

t r e a c

h

S u m m a r y


5/190

Stakeholder Outreach Summary

Since the October 2014 Metro Board action on the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)Update and potential ballot measure schedule, Metro staff has participated in over 190meetings with stakeholders throughout Los Angeles County to ensure their input in the process.The Mobility Matrix was the first step in the LRTP update and potential ballot measure. Theeffort considered unmet transportation needs throughout the county based on a bottoms-upprocess that gathered extensive and ongoing input from subregions, councils of governments,cities, the County, and other stakeholders. Over the eight-month effort Metro staff facilitatedover 100 meetings with local jurisdictions, Councils of Governments and transportationagencies to establish subregional goals, objectives, and performance measures as well asidentify project/program costs and schedules.

Following the completion of the Mobility Matrices Metro staff organized and facilitated bothgroup and one-on-one meetings with representatives from all nine subregions and all seven

regional facilities to support the identification of specific project and program priorities fromeach of the subregions and regional facilities. Metro staff provided information on materialsthat Metro had developed as resources for this effort including, the potential ballot measurefunding structure, optimal subregional funding targets for multi-modal capital improvementprojects, and the results for the general public opinion survey. In addition to the subregionaland regional facility meetings, Metro staff coordinated meetings with targeted stakeholdersincluding:

Access Services Active transportation/public health Business Caltrans Environmental Industry Labor Local transit operators Metrolink

Throughout the Mobility Matrices and LRTP update/potential ballot measure process Metrostaff has participated in meetings with over 60 local community groups to provide updates andtake input on the respective planning processes. These groups have included local communitycouncils, chambers of commerce and boards of trade. Metro staff also organized and heldmonthly meetings with a special working group of the standing Technical Advisory Committee.The stakeholder input as presented in the Initial Stakeholder Input Submittals Summary hasbeen received by Metro in response to Metro’s formal request for initial input by September 1,2015 and includes communication from all nine subregions, all seven regional facilities andtwenty three other stakeholders.

5


6/190

2 .

I n i t i a

l S t a k e

h o

l d e r

I n p u

t

S u b m

i t t a l s S u m m a r y


7/190

Formal Submittal DateSubregions

Arroyo Verdugo Cities 8/27/2015

Central Los Angeles 9/1/2015Gateway Cities COG 9/1/2015 and 9/18/2015Las Virgenes/Malibu COG 8/31/2015North County Transportation Coalition 9/1/2015San Fernando Valley COG 7/28/2015San Gabriel Valley COG 8/24/2015South Bay Cities COG 8/28/2015Westside Cities COG 8/20/2015

Regional FacilitiesBob Hope Burbank Airport 8/7/2015

Long Beach Airport 8/31/2015Los Angeles World Airport 9/1/2015Palmdale Regional Airport 9/1/2015Port of Long Beach 9/1/2015Port of Los Angeles 8/31/2015Union Station 9/1/2015

Others Access Services 9/1/2015 ACT-LA 8/31/2015Caltrans 07/2015

Central City Association of Los Angeles 8/31/2015City of Long Beach 9/2/2015Community Health Councils, Inc. 9/1/2015Eco-Rapid Transit 9/15/2015EnviroMetro 8/31/2015 and 10/1/2015Investing in Place 9/1/2015LA Thrives 9/1/2015LA/OC Building & Construction Trades Council 9/1/2015Live Ride Share 9/1/2015Local Transit Systems (LTSS Motion) 2/26/2015Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce 9/1/2015

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition 9/1/2015Los Angeles County Department of Public Health 9/8/2015Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association 8/20/2015Metrolink 8/27/2015MOVELA 9/1/2015One LA 9/23/2015Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce 6/19/2015Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) 9/1/2015T.R.U.S.T. South LA 9/1/2015Tier 2 Operators 3/24/2015VICA 9/8/2015

Potential 2016 Ballot MeasureInitial Stakeholder Input Submittals Summary

7


8/190

3 .

L R T P a n

d B a

l l o

t M e a s u r e


9/190

A

oo

d

eo

In

u

•

B

bn

•

Gen

e

•

L

Ce

naMo

o

•

L

Cnd

n

d

•

P

dn

•

S

hP

dn

NohC

yS

e

o

In

u

•

SnaCa

a

•

P

md

e

•

Ln

e

S u

b r e g i o n a l P o t e n t i a l B a l l o t M e a s u r e P l a n n i n g A r e a s

9


10/190

10


11/190

Long Range Transportation Plan and Potential Ballot Measure Assumptions

Augment, Extend, and Sunset Assumptions

The 2017 LRTP is currently assumed to cover the time period from 2017 – 2057 (fortyyears) and incorporate projects funded by the Metro Board in the 2009 LRTP thatsunsets in the year 2039 with Measure R. The three principle alternatives to thisassumption revolve around these decisions: extend the existing tax or not; augment theexisting tax or not; and, place a sunset on the new tax or not.

SB 767 (de León) provides the Metro Board maximum flexibility for all three of thesealternatives. For example, the Metro Board could alternatively elect to propose anextension only, like Measure J, or it could elect to propose only an increase, without anextension, like Measure R. Finally, the Metro Board could change the sunset year of

the tax (now tentatively assumed to be 2057) or eliminate it altogether, like Proposition A and Proposition C.

Three considerations led staff to the 2057 LRTP augment, extend, and sunsetassumption, as follows:

Unmet transportation infrastructure improvement needs: The Mobility Matrixprocess concluded that the entire inventory of needs for transportation capitalimprovements countywide was between $157 and $273 billion (in 2015 dollars).Shorter sunsets did not provide enough resources to develop the necessary level

of consensus given this need; Market research indicates public support for transportation improvements: Past

statistically reliable quantitative surveys conducted found no significantadvantage to including a sunset clause in a Los Angeles County transportationsales tax ballot measure; and,

Alameda County super majority: In November 2014, 70% of voters in AlamedaCounty approved a ballot measure that augmented an existing ½ centtransportation sales tax while at the same time extending the original ½ centtransportation sales tax when it expired.

As a result of these considerations, the LRTP Framework assumes an augment andextend approach similar to the Alameda County strategy, as shown in Table 1, below:

11


12/190

Augmenting Metro’s existing transportation sales taxes for at least a 40 year period(through the year 2057) and also extending an existing sales tax (Measure R) expiring

in 2039 will provide the best opportunity to secure the necessary resources to addressthe public’s desire for transportation improvements. Prior to making a final decisionnext year, the results of further market research will be provided to the Metro Board.

Project Cost Inflation and Sales Tax Revenue Growth Assumptions

The SB 767 (de León) expenditure plan requirement to schedule projects and showapproximate completion dates raises the need to assume the impact of inflation overtime on project and program costs. The initial project costs were requested in 2015dollars and our cost inflation assumption is 3% per year.

The sales tax revenue growth assumption is 3.8% per year through 2040 and 3%thereafter. The difference between inflation cost growth and revenue growth through2040 is primarily economic growth from the UCLA Anderson School Forecast of taxablesales for Los Angeles County. Countywide Planning staff has found the UCLA

Anderson School Forecast to be the best available for our long term planning needs.

12


13/190

Optimal Subregional Target Assumptions

The transparent process required by SB 767 (de León) and the bottoms-up processdirected by the Metro Board required Countywide coordination of subregional revenueassumptions. To prioritize the enormous unmet transportation capital needs identified

in the Mobility Matrix process, the subregions needed to know roughly what they couldexpect for capital improvements from the assumed augment and extend approach tothe potential ballot measure.

Staff worked with the subregions to develop subregional revenue targets they could usefor their priority setting process. To divide revenues into subregional targets, staffconsidered prior discussions with the subregions before developing a new approach.The purely current population and employment approach in Measure R led to laterdisagreements about extending that approach beyond 2039 in Measure J.Representatives from high population and/or employment growth areas felt the 2005

data used for Measure R was inequitable for taxes that would extend well beyond 2039,as proposed in Measure J.

To respond to these very valid concerns, staff interpolated Southern California Association of Governments 2008 population and 2035 employment information toestablish 2017 and 2047 population and employment data points, as shown in Table 2:

13


14/190

As one can see from the data in Table 2, at least one subregion had a credibleargument to use each of four differing basis for the targets. To avoid disagreementsover the basis of the targets to be used, Metro staff offered a blended approach and anoptimal approach. The blended approach added-up to 100%, but the optimal approachwould not at 112%. This meant the optimal approach would require approximately $4.5billion in non-measure funds from existing taxes beyond the 2009 LRTP planninghorizon of 2 039, but within the new LRTP planning horizon of 2057. The subregion’s allpreferred the optimal target approach and Metro staff found it to be workable andconcurred, making the optimal basis the consensus choice for the initial subregionalpriority setting exercise.

Before calculating the subregional revenue targets, assumptions were also neededabout how much of the anticipated revenue from the augment and extend approachmight be dedicated to multi-modal capital improvement purposes. Measure R had 55%dedicated to these purposes. It should be emphasized that for discussion purposes,staff assumed that roughly half of the new tax, about $60 billion, could go for multi-modal capital improvement purposes, though we cautioned that this was ultimately adecision expressly reserved for the Metro Board when more information about all needswere known.

Roughly half the tax, about $60 billion, is on a year of expenditure basis while theproject cost data identified in the Mobility Matrices is based on current year dollarsinstead. This required that the value of the $60 billion, again roughly half the tax, bedeescalated before being made available to each subregion as a target on a currentdollar basis. This enabled the subregions to directly compare their target to the projectcost data they already possessed.

14


15/190

Table 3 shows the end result of the target setting consensus, subregional targets indeescalated dollars comparable to project cost data on the same basis:

Table 3, Consensus Subregional Targets:

15


16/190

4 .

S u

b r e g

i o n a

l I n p u

t


17/190

a. Arroyo Verdugo

17


18/190

1 s t F i v e - y e a r

F u n

d i n g M a r

k

( 4 0 / 8 )

P r o j e c t N a m e

C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l

2 n d F i v e - Y e a r

F u n d

i n g M a r

k

( 4 0 / 8 )


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l

S u b r e g i o n a

l

1 5 8

N o r t h H o l l y w o o d t o P a s a d e n a T r a n s i t

C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

8


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

8


C o r r i d o r

( S R - 1 3 4 )

1 4 2

S u b t o t a l :

A r t e r i a l S t a t e o f G o o d R e p a i r ; i n c l u d e s

r e s u r f a c i n g o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , r

e p a i r , a n d

s i d e w a l k r e p a i r

1 0


r e s u r f a c i n g o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , r e p a i r

, a n d

s i d e w

a l k r e p a i r

1 0



, a n d

s i d e w a l k

r e p a i r

4 8 . 4

B u r b a n k B u s T r a n s i t C a p i t a l & S t a t e o f

G o o d R e p a i r ; i n c l u d e s b u s r e p l a c e m e n t

a n d e x p a n s i o n , t r a n s i t m a i n t e n a n c e

f a c i l i t y

4 . 3



a n d e x p a n s i o n , t r a n s i t m a i n t e n a n c e

f a c i l i t y

4 . 3



a n d e x p a n s i o n , t

r a n s i t m a i n t e n a n c e

f a c i l i t y

2 5 . 5

B u r b a n k B u s T r a n s i t O p e r a t i o n s ; i n c l u d e s

a l l - d a y s e r v i c e o n e x i s t i n g r o u t e s , n

e w

s e r v i c e

5 . 9



e w

s e r v i c e

5 . 9



e w

s e r v i c e

2 2 . 3

B i c y c l e a n d P e d e s t r i a n P r o j e c t s ;

i m p l e m e n t s B i c y c l e M a s t e r P l a n a n d

P e d e s t r i a n M a s t e r P l a n

4 . 3




4 . 3




2 5 . 5

T r a f f i c S i g n a l S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s a n d

S t a t e o f G o o d R e p a i r ; i n c l u d e s a d a p t i v e

c o n t r o l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , s i g n a l s y n c ,

h a r d w a r e r e p l a c e m e n t

2 . 1


S t a t e

o f G o o d R e p a i r ; i n c l u d e s a d a p t i v e



2 . 1


S t a t e o f G o o d R e p a i r ; i n c l u d e s a d a p t i v e



1 2 . 8

R a i l C r o s s i n g I m p r o v e m e n t s ; i n c l u d e s

q u i e t z o n e , D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n P e d R a i l

C r o s s i n g , a

n d C l y b o u r n g r a d e c r o s s i n g

4 . 3


q u i e t z o n e , D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n P e d R a i l

C r o s s i n g , a


4 . 3


q u i e t z o n e , D

o w n t o w n S t a t i o n P e d R a i l

C r o s s i n g , a


2 5 . 5

A r t e r i a l I n t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s

4 . 3


4 . 3


2 5 . 5

F r e e w a y I n t e r c h a n g e I m p r o v e m e n t s ;

i n c l u d e s I - 5 B u e n a V i s t a I n t e r c h a n g e a n d

W i n o n a r a i l t u n n e l

4 . 3

F r e e w a y I n t e r c h a n g e I m p r o v e m e n t s ;



4 . 3

F r e e w a y

I n t e r c h a n g e I m p r o v e m e n t s ;



8 . 5


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

3


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

3


C o r r i d o r

( S R - 1 3 4 )

6 2

S u b t o t a l :

4 2 . 5

4 2 . 5

2 5 6

G l e n d a l e

6 2 5

7 8 ( A T P 1 ) B u s s t o p z o n e s t o m e e t A D A

c o m p l i a n c e

5 . 5

7 8

4 6 9

( T C 2 ) B e e l i n e c a p i t a l f u n d i n g ; i n c l u d i n g

l a t e n i g h t a n d w e e k e n d s e r v i c e ( c a p i t a l )

1 . 9

( A T P 2 ) G l e n d a l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C e n t e r

B u s B a y i m p r o v e m e n t s ; i n c l u d i n g

c a n o p i e s , s

e a t i n g , s i g n a g e , r e a l t i m e t r a i n

s i g n a g e

7

( T O 3 ) B e e l i n e o p e r a t i o n s f u n d i n g ;

i n c l u d i n g l a t e n i g h t a n d w e e k e n d s e r v i c e

( 1 . 5

a n n u a l )

4 5

( A T P 3 ) C e r r i t o s A v e C o m p l e t e a n d G r e e n

S t r e e t s P r o j e c t ; i n c l u d i n g c o n n e c t L Z T C t o

G l e n d a l e M e m o r i a l , C e r r i t o s P a r k

/ S c h o o l ,

F o r e s t L a w n , i m p r o v e d b i k e

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , l

i g h t i n g , w a y f i n d i n g

2

( A T P 5 ) E x p a n d H a r v e y D r

/ S R - 1

3 4 P a r k -

a n d - R i d e

1 5

( A T P 4 ) G l e n d a l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C e n t e r

B i c y c l e a c c e s s i m p r o v e m e n t s ; o n L o s F e l i z

R d

a n d B r a n d B l v d

8

( A T P 6 ) G l e n d a l e B i c y c l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

P l a n p r o j e c t s ; i n c l u d i n g V e r d u g o W a s h

b i k e w a y a n d b r i d g e s o v e r L A R i v e r

2 2

( T C 1 ) P h o t o v o t a i c S y s t e m f o r B e e l i n e

M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y

4

( A T P 7 ) I m p r o v e m e n t s t o b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n

b r i d g e s a n d t u n n e l s o v e r S R - 1

3 4

- B r i d g e s : L o u i s e , G e n e v a , C o n c o r d ,

C o l u m b u s , A

d a m s

- T u n n e l : K e n i l w o r t h

7 . 5

( H w y 1 ) S R - 2 M o u n t a i n S t I n t e r c h a n g e ;

W i d e n N B o f f - r a m p a n d S B o n - a n d o f f -

r a m p s

2 9

( T C 5 ) M i d l i f e R e h a b H i s t o r i c D e p o t

1 . 5

( H w y 5 ) S R - 2 V e r d u g o A v e n u e S B O n - r a m p

S i g n a l i z a t i o n

0 . 4

( T C 4 ) G l e n d a l e B e e l i n e e a s t - w e s t t r a n s i t

s e r v i c e o n F o o t h i l l B l v d f r o m S u n l a n d t o

L a C a n a d a F l i n t r i d g e ( c a p i t a l )

4

M O B I L I T Y M A T R I X - A

R R O Y O V E R D U G O D R A F T S e p t e m

b e r 1 0

, 2 0 1 5

S e c o n d F i v e - y e a r P r o j e c t s

4 2 . 5

1 0 + Y e a r P r o

j e c t s

2 5 6

J u r i s d

i c t i o n

4 0 - y e a r F u n d

i n g M a r

k

( T i e r 1 + T i e r 2 )

B u r

b a n

k

3 4 1

4 2 . 5

F i r s t F i v e - y e a r P r o

j e c t s

18


19/190


F u n

d i n g M a r

k

( 4 0 / 8 )


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l


F u n d

i n g M a r

k

( 4 0 / 8 )


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l



b e r 1 0

, 2 0 1 5


1 0 + Y e a r P r o

j e c t s

J u r i s d

i c t i o n

4 0 - y e a r F u n d

i n g M a r

k

( T i e r 1 + T i e r 2 )


j e c t s

( H w y 6 ) S R - 2 / H o l l y D r : A d d s i g n a l s a t

r a m p s

0 . 6

( T C 6 ) E x p a n d G l e n d a l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

C e n t e r ( G T C )

1 5

( H w y 2 , 3 , 4 ) S R - 1

3 4 R a m p I m p r o v e m e n t s ;

i n c l u d i n g E B o f f - r a m p a t C e n t r a l A v e . ,

W B

o f f - r a m p a t B r a n d B l v d , W

B o n - a n d o f f -

r a m p s i n c l . B

R T s t o p a t H a r v e y D r .

1 4 . 6

( H w y

2 , 3 , 4 ) S R - 1

3 4 R a m p I m p r o v e m e n t s ;

i n c l u d i n g E B o f f - r a m p a t C e n t r a l A v e . ,

W B

o f f - r a m p a t B r a n d B l v d , W

B o n - a n d o f f -

r a m p s i n c l . B

R T s t o p a t H a r v e y D r .

7 2

( H w y 7 ) S R - 2

/ F e r n L n : A d d N B O f f / O n

R a m p

2 0

( H w y 8 ) I - 2 1 0 : A d d s o u n d w a l l s -

P e n n s y l v a n i a A v t o L o w e l l A v

2 3

( H w y 9 ) G l e n d a l e A v e : A d d 1 N B l a n e f r o m

D o r a n S t t o S R - 1

3 4

1 . 1

( H w y 1 0 ) M o n t e r e y R d : E x t e n d t o

G l e n o a k s B l v d o v e r V e r d u g o W a s h

1 0

( H w y 1 1 ) O r a n g e S t : E x t e n d o v e r S R - 1

3 4

b e t w e e n

D o r a n S t a n d G o o d e A v e

8 0

( H w y 1 2 ) S R - 1 3 4 F r o n t a g e R o a d : C o n s t r u c t

S o f f r e e w a y b e t w e e n B r a n d B l v d a n d

G e n e v a S t

8 0

( H w y 1 3 ) S R - 1 3 4 / C e n t r a l A v e : G r a d e

s e p a r a t e E B a n d W B o n - a n d o f f - r a m p s

b e t w e e n

P a c i f i c A v e a n d C e n t r a l A v e

1 2

U N

P R O G R A M M E D

0 . 9

U N P R O G R A M M E D

0


1 8


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

6


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

6


C o r r i d o r

( S R - 1 3 4 )

1 1 3

U N

M E T O P E R A T I O N S N E E D S ( T O 1 )

G l e n d a l e B e e l i n e d e d i c a t e d o p e r a t i o n s

a n d c a p i t a l f u n d i n g ( 4

. 2 a n n u a l )

2 1

U N M E T O P E R A T I O N S N E E D S ( T O 1 )

G l e n d a l e B e e l i n e d e d i c a t e d o p e r a t i o n s


. 2 a n n u a l )

2 1


G l e n d a l e

B e e l i n e d e d i c a t e d o p e r a t i o n s


. 2 a n n u a l )

1 2 6

U N M E E T

O P E R A T I O N S N E E D S ( T O 2 )

G l e n d a l e

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C e n t e r

O p e r a t i o n s ; i n c l u d i n g s t a t i o n

a m b a s s a d o r s , c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e ( 0

. 8

a n n u a l )

2 4


B e e l i n e o p e r a t i o n s e a s t - w e s t t r a n s i t

s e r v i c e o n F o o t h i l l B l v d f r o m S u n l a n d t o L a

C a n a d a F l i n t r i d g e ( 4 a n n u a l O p e r a t i o n s )

1 2 0


I n c r e a s e b u s s e r v i c e a n d i m p r o v e

f r e q u e n c i e s f o r G l e n d a l e B e e l i n e T r a n s i t

S e r v i c e s ( 7

. 5 a n n u a l )

2 2 5

S u b t o t a l :

7 8

7 8

4 6 9

8 . 5 S o u n d w a l l s

8 . 5

S o u n d w a l l s

8 . 5

S o u n d w a l l s

1 8

T r a f f i c S i g n a l S y s t e m

I m p r o v e m e n t s / r e p l a c e m e n t s a n d S t a t e o f

G o o d R e p a i r

1 2



, a n d

s i d e w a l k

r e p a i r

1 5

B i c y c l e a n d P e d e s t r i a n P r o j e c t s

5

S u b t o t a l :

8 . 5

8 . 5

5 0

L a C a ñ a d a F l i n t r i d g e

6 7

8 . 5

5 0

19


20/190


F u n

d i n g M a r

k

( 4 0 / 8 )


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l


F u n d

i n g M a r

k

( 4 0 / 8 )


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l


C o s t

( ' 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 s ) S u b t o t a l



b e r 1 0

, 2 0 1 5


1 0 + Y e a r P r o

j e c t s

J u r i s d

i c t i o n

4 0 - y e a r F u n d

i n g M a r

k

( T i e r 1 + T i e r 2 )


j e c t s

I - 2 1 0 S o u n d w a l l s

8

F o o t h i l B l I n t e r s e c t i o n O p e r a t i o n a l

I m p r o v e m e n t s

0 . 5 0 0

L a C r e s c e n t a A v e n u e ; A t I - 2

1 0 ; M o d i f y

t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a n d c h a n n e l i z a t i o n ,

c o n s t r u c t w e s t b o u n d o n - r a m p t o i m p r o v e

t r a f f i c f l o w .

5 . 0 0 0

P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e ; A t I - 2

1 0 ; M o d i f y o n -

a n d o f f - r a m p i n t e r s e c t i o n s a n d t r a f f i c

s i g n a l s t o i m p r o v e s o u t h b o u n d t o

e a s t b o u n d I - 2 1 0 l e f t t u r n c a p a c i t y

.

1 . 0 0 0

V e r d u g o F l o o d C o n t r o l C h a n n e l ; N e w Y o r k

A v e n u e t o S h i r l e y J e a n S t r e e t ; C l a s s 1 B i k e

P a t h

.

1 . 5 0 0


4 9

S u b t o t a l :

8

8

4 9

C i t y w i d e B i k e T r a n s p . P

l a n P r o j e c t s

5

C i t y w

i d e B i k e T r a n s p . P


5

C i t y w i d e

B i k e T r a n s p . P


3 0

C i t y w i d e S a f e R o u t e s t o S c h o o l

2

C i t y w

i d e S a f e R o u t e s t o S c h o o l

2

C i t y w i d e

S a f e R o u t e s t o S c h o o l

8

F i r s t M i l e / L a s t M i l e P r o j e c t s

7


1 0


4 0

I n c r e a s e d L o c a l T r a n s i t C a p a c i t y

9 . 5


1 0 . 5


7 0

T r a n s i t M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y C o n s t .

1 5

S o u n d w a l l s

9

S o u n d w a l l s

1 0

C o m p l e t e S t r e e t P r o j e c t

8

C o m p l e t e S t r e e t P r o j e c t s

1 0

C o m p l e t e S t r e e t P r o j e c t s

8 0

S h a r e d M o b i l i t y - B

i k e / C a r S h a r e

5



5



2 0


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

5


C o r r i d o r ( S R - 1 3 4 )

5


C o r r i d o r

( S R - 1 3 4 )

8 0

S u b t o t a l :

5 6 . 5

5 6 . 5

3 3 8

R e c o n f i g u r e S R - 1

1 0 o n - a n d o f f - r a m p s a t

F a i r O a k s A v e n u e , i

n c l u d i n g n e w h o o k o n -

r a m p a t e n d o f S t a t e S t r e e t a n d w i d e n o f f -

r a m p .

9



F a i r O a k s A v e n u e , i n c l u d i n g n e w h o o k o n -

r a m p

a t e n d o f S t a t e S t r e e t a n d w i d e n o f f -

r a m p .

5 . 6



F a i r O a k s A v e n u e , i n c l u d i n g n e w h o o k o n -

r a m p a t e n d o f S t a t e S t r e e t a n d w i d e n o f f -

r a m p .

2 . 9

A r r o y o S e c o B i c y c l e a n d P e d e s t r i a n T r a i l

1 . 9

C i t y w i d e

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s

2 1

C i t y w i d e S a f e R o u t e s t o S c h o o l

1

C i t y w

i d e S a f e R o u t e s t o S c h o o l

2 . 5

C i t y w i d e

S a f e R o u t e s t o S c h o o l

2 . 5

P a s a d e n a A v e . a

n d M o n t e r e y R o a d G r a d e

S e p a r a t i o n

3 5 . 6

S u b t o t a l :

1 0

1 0

6 2

S u b r e g i o n a

l T O T A L :

1 6 3 1

2 0 3 . 5

2 0 3 . 5

2 0 3 . 5

2 0 3 . 5

1 2 2 4

1 2 2 4

8

8

1 0 5 6

. 5

6 5

L a C r e s c e n t a - M o n t r o s e

P a s a

d e n a

S o u t h P a s a

d e n a

8 2

1 0

4 5 1

5 6 . 5

4 9 6 2 3 3 8

20


21/190

b. Central Los Angeles

21


22/190

CE 3535 A

A .

, , , , , .

$250,000,000

CE 762, 3162

& 3534 A

; ;

. $475,000,000

CE 3612 A C A B D

A F $375,000,000

CE 3160 E

. $5,000,000

CE 14, 15, 79& 84

E F ( 10/ 110, 101/ 110, 10/ 60/ 5,

5/ 110) $200,000,000

CE 495 / :

, , , CC .

$25,000,000

CE 3529 C

: &

, , , , ( ) /

' .

$65,000,000

CE 3595 C E C

(C ' ). $50,000,000

CE 3530 C 1 /

.

$100,000,000

CE 3622 /

, &

. $250,000,000

CE 3610 /

, &

.

$10,000,000

E /

, &

C A A C (A AC) .

$100,000,000

CE 3559 /

, &

, ,

.$450,000,000

CE 22 C B C E ( )

/ $585,000,000

CE 23 E E $600,000,000

CE 25 C : " C " / E /

$425,000,000

CE 498 D A

. $120,000,000

CE 3161 ' A

C B . $21,000,000

CE 3555 DA AD DA

" / " .

$260,000,000

A C F CE A B E E

22


23/190

c. Gateway Cities COG

23


24/190

24


25/190

25


26/190

26


27/190

27


28/190

28


29/190

29


30/190

30


31/190

31


32/190

32


33/190

d. Las Virgenes/Malibu COG

33


34/190

34


35/190

e. North County Transportation Coalition

35


36/190

36


37/190

37


38/190


39/190

39


40/190

40


41/190

41


42/190

42


43/190

43


44/190

44


45/190

45


46/190

46


47/190

f. San Fernando Valley COG

47


48/190

48


49/190

49


50/190

50


51/190

g. San Gabriel Valley COG

51


52/190

52


53/190

53


54/190

54


55/190

E x h i b i t A

2 0 1 7 L R T P U p d a t e - S u b r e g i o n a l P r o j e c t P r i o r i t y S u b m

i t t a l F o r m

S u b r e g

i o n :

S a n G a b r i e l V a l l e y

T i e r 1 F u n

d i n g S h a r e :

$ 2

, 3 0 0

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T i e r 2 F u n

d i n g S h a r e :

$ 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l F u n

d i n g S h a r e :

$ 3

, 3 0 0

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l s C h e c

k

1 0 0 %

$ 3

, 3 0 0

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

P r o j e c t

C o s t

( $ )

G o l d L i n e F o o t h i l l

$ 1

, 0 1 9

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 F i r s t a n d l a s t m i l e

$ 9 9

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 5 7 / 6 0

$ 2 0 5

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 A d v s i g n a l t e c h n o l o g y

$ 6 6

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 H O V e x t / c o n n e c t o r s

$ 2 3 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 R R x i n g e l i m / i m p r

$ 3 3

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 B i k e / p e d f a c i l i t i e s

$ 2 3 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

G o l d L i n e E a s t s i d e

$ 5 4 3

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 C o m p l e t e

s t r e e t s

$ 9 9

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 6 0 5 / 1 0 & 6 0 5 / 6 0

$ 2 7 7

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

B u s s y s t e m i m p r o v e

$ 5 5

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

6 0 5 h o t s p o t s

$ 7 3

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

6 0 h o t s p o t s

$ 7 3

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

1 0 h o t s p o t s

$ 8 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

2 1 0 h o t s p o t s

$ 8 8

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 1

, 6 1 7

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 1 9 8

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 9 2 4

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 6 6

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 2 3 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 3 3

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

T o t a l =

$ 2 3 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

R e l a t

i v e P r i o r i t y

H i g h

M e d

i u m

L o w

$ 1 9 8

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

H i g h w a y E f f i c i e n c y

2 8 %

$ 9 2 4

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

M o d a l C o n n e c t i v i t y

6 %

T r a n s i t

4 9 %

$ 1

, 6 1 7

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

P r o j e c t / P r o g r a m C a t e g o r y

P e r c e n t o f F u n

d i n g S h a r e

( % )

A m o u n t o f F u n d

i n g S h a r e

( $ )

A c c e l e r a t e d F u n d i n g P r o j e c t s

- S R

- 7 1

- 6 0 5 H o t s p o t s

- 6 0 H o t s p o t s

- 1 0 H o t s p o t s

- 2 1 0 H o t s p o t s

$ 1 2 7

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

2 %

$ 6 6

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

I T S / T e c h n o

l o g y

7 %

$ 2 3 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

A c t

i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

G o o

d s M o v e m e n t

D e m a n

d B a s e d P r o g r a m

7 %

$ 2 3 1

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

1 %

$ 3 3

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

55


56/190

56


57/190

h. South Bay Cities COG

57


58/190

58


59/190

SOUTH BAY POLICY & PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS TO METRO

Regarding the:Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP),Metro Call for Projects (CFP) Restructuring &

New L. A. County Transportation Sales Tax

Approved on 8/27/15 by theSouth Bay Cities Council of Governments

Board of Directors

SBCCOG LRTP Recommendations for Restructuring LRTP Investments Significantly increase funding for sub-regional transit and highway projects; Restore Local Return funding to 25%; Replace Call for Projects with a Sub-regional subvention program in which a

competitive funding process is used to allocate more than current 3% of LRTP; Fund current transit and highway operations and maintenance before new majorcapital projects;

Reduce operating costs through public/private partnerships; Design in funding flexibility for future innovation.

SBCCOG Metro Call for Projects Restructuring RecommendationsA. For a new Sub-regional CFP Process

Eliminate CFP and replace it with a simpler, less bureaucratic, more timely sub-regional subvention process;

Re-design the CFP process to mirror current sub-regional project development processes (such as the South Bay Highway Program) that provide funding fordiscrete project development phases when lead agencies are ready to proceed; and

Allocate CFP reimbursements based on projected cash flow needs of leadagencies.

B. If Metro retains the current CFP Countywide Process Ensure flexible sub-regional evaluation criteria; Do not create a separate Complete Streets CFP category; each category should

include Complete Streets performance measures; and Use the existing Metro Technical Advisory Committee to review ongoing policies

and issues rather than creating a new CFP Steering Committee; don’t create new bureaucracy.

59

Attachment 1

page 1 of 2


60/190

SBCCOG Sales Tax Measure Recommendations and Priorities for Metro Consideration The LRTP should be completed prior to the sales tax; A new sales tax measure should meet SBCCOG priorities:

o A "Neighborhoods First"- bottoms-up focus that is not a clone of the previous A, C and R Sales Tax designs;

o A safe, clean & cost-effective transportation system in a State of GoodRepair;

o Sub-regional project selection flexibility within minimum-required Metroeligibility guidelines;

o A flexible design that funds innovative projects that respond to changingmobility and sustainability priorities and needs over the next 40 years; and

o Re-payment of Measure R debt service by the 2039 expiration date of themeasure.

Recommended SBCCOG Sales Tax Regional Capital Projects to be Submitted toMetro

o Fully fund South Bay Highway Program “Operational Improvements” o Restore Local Return funding share to 25%

o Add capacity / widening the I-405 South Bay Curveo Modernize the I-405/I-110 Interchange, add HOV connector ramps & new

auxiliary laneso Add HOT lane on I-105 from I-405 to I-605o Extend Green Line South to Crenshaw in Torrance with mitigation

measures comparable to those implemented in communities adjacent tothe Gold Line

o Create South Bay Slow Speed / Complete Streets Networko Build South Bay Intelligent Transportation System Fiber-optic Networko

Create South Bay Goods Movement Rail/Hwy. Grade Separationso Add Rapid Bus Lines to connect with Transit Centers and Rail Stationso Build mobility improvement projects to serve regional activity centers

including but not limited to those in Inglewood, Carson and San Pedroo Extend I-110 ExpressLane south of I-405 / I-110 Interchange

Fund sustainable project elements in the augmentation element of the new salestax – examples include:

o Complete Streets;o Clean-vehicle slow-speed lanes;o Active transportation;o

Mobile source emission reduction strategies;o Private sector transportation initiatives; ando Other Innovative Transportation/Communication Technologies.

60

Attachment 1

page 2 of 2


61/190

i. Westside Cities COG

61


62/190

September 1, 2015

Phillip A. WashingtonChief Executive OfficerLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityOne Gateway PlazaLos Angeles, CA 90012-7952

Dear Mr. Washington,

In 2014, Metro Board approved the comprehensive and holistic countywide approach forpreparing Subregional Mobility Matrices to be used in the 2017 Long Range TransportationUpdate (LRTP) and as a resource document for the 2016 potential sales tax ballot measure.The Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) and representatives from its membercities assisted Metro and the Fehr & Peers consultant team during this process and identified atotal of 433 transportation improvement projects in the Westside subregion that are consistentwith the Mobility Matrices performance measures, goals, and objectives.

On June 19, 2015, you requested the initial stakeholder input of project priorities to support thedevelopment of a draft framework for the LRTP Update and the potential sales ballot measure.In developing the list of project priorities, the WSCCOG considered the following:

• Metro Subregional Optional Capital Improvement Funding Targets• WSCCOG 2013 Recommended Transportation Priorities • Westside Mobility Matrix Goals/Objectives• Metro Long Range Plan Issues General Public Opinion Survey Results (March 2015)• Potential Funding Sources (e.g., federal, state, and regional, including Proposition A and

C)

The WSCCOG supports an iterative process in the development of the potential ballot measureand LRTP update, which may require the WSCCOG to amend the project priorities as moreinformation becomes available from Metro throughout this process, such as refined projectscope and costs, travel demand and performance measure studies, input from stakeholderoutreach, additional polling information, and the allocation of regional funding dedicated toactive transportation projects, local return, transit operations, and state of good repair.

Within this context, the WSCCOG identified the following initial list of transportation projectpriorities in the Westside subregion. The projects are listed in alphabetical order and includedetails such as project/program category, time period, estimated costs, and key informationpertaining to the project’s description and status.

On July 20, 2015, the San Fernando Valley Council of Governments (SFVCOG) submitted itssubregional transportation priorities to Metro and listed the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project asa high priority with a $1.4 billion contribution to the project. The WSCCOG is co-committed withthe SFVCOG to contributing funds for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project.

62


63/190

As Metro moves forward with the initial input of subregional priorities for the potential ballotmeasure framework expected in October 2015, the WSCCOG will continue to provide input andadvocate for the following:

1. Support a dedicated regional funding allocation for active transportation2. Support an equitable share of costs for joint projects with regional significance, such as

the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project

The WSCCOG will continue to engage with Metro and remain actively involved in thedevelopment of the ballot measure and LRTP update throughout the on-going process. WSCCOGwill also work with Metro staff to collaborate on Metro’s future stakeholder outreach andcommunity workshops throughout the process.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the WSCCOGExecutive Director, Katherine Perez-Estolano, at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

Jeffrey CooperChair, Westside Cities Council of GovernmentsCouncilmember, City of Culver City

CC: Honorable Board Members of Westside Cities Council of GovernmentsCecilia V. Estolano, Co-Executive Director of Westside Cities Council of GovernmentsKatherine Perez-Estolano, Co-Executive Director of Westside Cities Council ofGovernments

63

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


64/190

I n i t i a

l L i s t o f W e s t s i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r i o r i t i e s

( A s o f S e p t e m

b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5

)

L o w R a n g e

H i g h R a n g e

A c t i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

N e t w o r

k s a n

d 1 s t / L a s t M i l e

C o n n e c t i o n s

A c t i v e

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

H i g

h

S h o r t t o L o n g

T e r m

( 0 - 2

0 + y r s )

$ 2 , 1

6 4 , 2

0 7 , 2

0 0

$ 3 , 2 6 4

, 4 0 4

, 6 0 0

I n c l u d e s t h e

f o l l o w i n g s u

b p r o g r a m s i n t h e W e s t s i d e : B i c y c l e P r o g r a m

, C i t y w i d e B i c y c l e

M a s t e r P l a n

, L i v a b

l e B o u l e v a r

d s a n

d S t r e e t s c a p e s P r o g r a m

, M o b i l i t y H u b s ,

E d u c a t i o n / E n c o u r a g e m e n t P r o g r a m

, 1 s t / L a s t M i l e P r o g r a m

, P e d e s t r i a n P r o g r a m

, a n d

S a f e R o u t e s t o S c

h o o l

.

E l i g i b

l e f o r o t

h e r r e g i o n a l

/ s t a t e

/ f e d e r a l a c t i v e t r a n s p o r t i o n - r e

l a t e

d f u n d i n g s o u r c e s .

M e t r o

h a s y e t t o

d e t e r m i n e t h e p e r c e n t a

l l o c a t i o n o f t h e n e w s a

l e s t a x a n

d M e a s u r e R

E x t e n s i o n r e v e n u e s

d e d i c a t e

d t o a c t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s

. W S C C O G s u p p o r t s

d e d i c a t e

d r e g i o n a l

f u n d i n g

f o r a c t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

.

C r e n s h a w L i n e E x t e n s i o n t o

W e s t H o l

l y w o o

d / H o l

l y w o o

d

T r a n s i t

H i g

h

M i d - L

o n g T e r m

( 1 1 y r s - 2

0 + y r s )

$ 2 , 3

3 6 , 4

0 0 , 0

0 0

$ 6 , 3 6 5

, 7 0 0

, 0 0 0

P u r p

l e l i n e t o W e s t H o l

l y w o o

d a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e e x t e n s i o n . M e t r o a n

d C i t y o f W e s t

H o l

l y w o o

d a r e c u r r e n t l y u n

d e r g o i n g t h e H o l

l y w o o

d / W e s t H o l

l y w o o

d - C r e n s a w

/ L A X

T r a n s i t C o r r i d o r A n a

l y s i s S t u d y .

I - 1 0 R o

b e r t s o n / N a t i o n a

l

A r e a M u l t i m o d a l C i r c u l a t i o n

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t

M o d a l

C o n n e c t i v i t y

H i g

h

M i d - L

o n g T e r m

( 1 1 y r s - 2

0 + y r s )

$ 4 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

$ 6 0

, 0 0 0

, 0 0 0

R e c o n f i g u r a t i o n / r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e I - 1 0

R o b e r t s o n / N a t i o n a

l a r e a o n

/ o f f r a m p s a n

d

a r t e r i a l s i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n L i g h t R a i l C u

l v e r

C i t y S t a t i o n a r e a t o i m p r o v e c i r c u l a t i o n

f o r

v e h i c l e s

, t r a n s i t ,

b i c y c l e s

, a n d p e

d e s t r i a n s

. C i t y o f L o s A n g e l e s i s t h e

l e a d o n t h e

p r o j e c t .

L i n c o l n B l v d B R T / L R T

T r a n s i t

H i g

h

M i d - L

o n g T e r m

( 1 1 y r s - 2

0 + y r s )

$ 1 , 4

5 5 , 2

8 0 , 0

0 0

$ 1 , 8 3 0

, 1 2 0

, 0 0 0



b p r o j e c t s : 1 .

) L i n c o

l n B l v d

. i m p r o v e m e n t s

f o r w i d e r

b r i d g e

,

b i k e l a n e s , t r a n s i t l a n e s

, e t c

. ; 2 .

) B R T

f r o m S a n t a M o n i c a B l v d

. t o L A X ; 3 .

) P o t e n t i a l

f u t u r e u p g r a d e t o r a i l

f r o m B R T

f r o m S a n t a M o n i c a t o L A X ; 4 ) I m p l e m e n t a

d d i t i o n a

l

t r a n s i t f a c i l i t i e s a l o n g L i n c o l n B l v d

. f o r T r a n s i t E n

h a n c e d N e t w o r

k .

S e p u

l v e d a B R T / R a i l P r o g r a m

T r a n s i t

H i g

h

M i d - L

o n g T e r m

( 1 1 y r s - 2

0 + y r s )

$ 2 , 7

2 0 , 5

2 0 , 0

0 0

$ 7 , 7 5 2

, 4 6 0

, 0 0 0



b p r

lrtp stakeholder input

Documents