Pacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis Transit Coalition September 26, 2012
2
Study Area Pacific Electric Rightof-Way/West Santa Ana Branch (PEROW/ WSAB) extends 20 miles from Paramount to Santa Ana Study evaluates modal alternatives and potential connections to: Los Angeles Union Station & Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center 3
Study Background Study Purpose (Alternatives Analysis) Determine how best to use the right-of-way to provide transportation improvements for corridor communities Identify preferred strategy for further study Cooperative Effort Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Metro and OCTA own the right-of-way and will decide whether/how to move project forward 4
Planning and Project Development Process General Steps to Implementation Alternatives Analysis Planning Study *we are here* Identifies preferred strategy (or strategies) Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Analysis California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Final Design & Secure Funding Construction Operation 5
Stakeholder and Public Participation Our study involved: Elected Official and Stakeholder Briefings Steering Committee Technical Advisory Committee Community Meetings Summary reports at /perow 6
Community Meetings What We Heard Top transportation challenges and issues: Existing and future highway and freeway congestion Lack of alternatives to the automobile Lack of connection to the regional transit system Challenges to transit usage Need for improved bicycle and pedestrian access 7
Community Meetings (cont.) Possible solutions: Interest in implementing transit service Concern over potential negative impacts Support for rail alternative Support for linear pedestrian/bicycle facility Interest in related economic development/ revitalization opportunities 8
Final Set of Alternatives Alternatives included: No Build Transportation System Management (TSM) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Street Car Light Rail Transit (LRT) Low Speed Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) 9
BRT Alternative Alternative defined as: High-capacity, high speed bus service similar to Metro Orange Line in Los Angeles County Two options studied: HOV Lane-Running Option similar to Metro Silver Line Street-Running Option similar to Metro Rapid lines and OCTA BRT 10
BRT Alternative Alignment Northern Connection Area: Street service Transitway and freeway HOV Lane service PEROW/WSAB Area: Dedicated lane service Some street service Southern Connection Area: Street service 11
Guideway Alternatives Street Car Similar to Portland, Santa Ana At-grade, in street, mixed with auto traffic LRT Similar to Metro Blue, Green, Gold, Expo Lines Typically operates in own right-ofway Low Speed Maglev Similar to Linimo in Nagoya, Japan Must be fully grade-separated 12
Northern Connection Area Alignments Union Station Green Line 1. New Green Line station 2. San Pedro Subdivision 3. LA River Bank Options East Bank West Bank 1 West Bank 2 West Bank 3 4. Union Station access 13
PEROW/WSAB Area Alignment Green Line Harbor Blvd. Station 1. Dedicated operations in center of ROW 2. Harbor Blvd. Station interface with future Santa Ana-Garden Grove Street Car Project 14
Southern Connection Area Alignments Harbor Blvd. Station Santa Ana RTC 1. Harbor Blvd./1 st St./Santiago St./SARTC 2. Westminster Blvd./17 th St./Main St./ transfer to Street Car system 15
Alignment Challenges Northern Connection Challenges ROW purchase and coordination Traffic Impacts Union Station access/capacity New Metro Green Line Station PEROW/WSAB Area Diagonal crossing traffic and safety impacts Adjacent residential neighborhoods Southern Connection Area Traffic and Safety impacts Historic and cultural resource impacts Sensitive Land Use impacts 16
Cost to Build $8,000 Cost to Build ($millions) $7,477 $7,000 $6,621 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $10 $1,075 $1,081 Street HOV $2,575 East Bank $3,217 $2,918 $2,969 West Bank 3 East Bank West Bank 3 East Bank West Bank 3 TSM BRT Street Car LRT Low Speed Maglev 17
Daily Ridership Estimates 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 TSM BRT - Street BRT - HOV Street Car LRT Low Speed Maglev Note: Blue portion of each bar represents new transit riders. West Bank 3 alignment shown for Street Car, LRT, Low Speed Maglev. 18
Cost-Effectiveness The Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) compares the cost of constructing and operating each alternative to the ridership it attracts and serves. A CEI of under $25 is the goal when seeking federal funding. $100.00 $90.00 $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 FTA Threshold $8.15 $20.47 $16.60 $51.44 $48.23 $89.90 TSM BRT BRT Street LRT Low Speed (Street) (HOV) Car Maglev Note: West Bank 3 alignment shown for Street Car, LRT, Low Speed Maglev. 19
Environmental Impacts Traffic: BRT, Street Car, LRT have major impacts from in-street operations Low Speed Maglev has minor impacts from column placements Visual & Aesthetics: Low Speed Maglev has major impacts due to elevated structure LRT, Street Car have medium impacts from overhead catenary Noise & Vibration: LRT has major impacts from steel wheel-on-steel rail operations Low Speed Maglev and BRT have minor impacts Parks, Cultural & Historic Resources: Low Speed Maglev has major impacts due to elevated structure All other alternatives have minor impacts Property Acquisition: All build alternatives require property for maintenance facility Low Speed Maglev has major property impacts due to turning radius 20
AA Study Results Alternatives All Modes BRT Street Car LRT Low Speed Maglev AA Study Key Points Increase Corridor transit ridership, attract new riders 2035 ridership exceeds system capacity Operates on congested highway system Lowest initial capital cost Best Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) Vehicle and operations issues New mode requires new staff/facilities Similar Cost to LRT High Capital Cost Traffic, noise and vibration impacts Highest Ridership Highest Capital Cost New mode requires new staff/facilities Significant property acquisition and visual/aesthetic impacts No U.S. system lengthy/costly approval process 21
Staff Recommendations Reflect the technical evaluation, stakeholder and public input, and input from the two advisory committees Grouped by technology, alignments, stations, and phasing Recommendations are for further study by Metro and OCTA in future engineering/environmental phases (e.g., EIR/EIS) 22
Staff Recommendations (cont.) To be presented to SCAG Transportation Committee on Nov. 1 Technology: No Build, TSM, LRT Northern Alignment: West Bank 3, East Bank Southern Alignment: Harbor/1st Stations: As determined with cities; Cerritos/ Bloomfield deleted per Steering Committee Phasing: LA County segment given priority 23
Next Steps SCAG Transportation Committee Nov. 1 SCAG Regional Council Dec. 6 Metro Board Early 2013 OCTA Board Jul. 23 24
Thank You /perow For more information, please contact: Philip Law Acting Manager, Transit/Rail law@scag.ca.gov or 213-236-1841 25