HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-412
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-412
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALL Y
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT
CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LPA
STATIONS.
WHEREAS, fast, convenient, reliable, sate and cost effective transIt IS
important for the economy, community, air quality, congestion mitigation and overall
mobility; and
WHEREAS, population, housing, and job growth in the region require
increasingly proactive planning to ensure that transit can expand to meet the resulting
demand; and
WHEREAS, nsmg fuel costs and the general uncertainty of the nation's
energy future make it prudent to create the most versatile and useful transit system
possible, to provide alternatives to motoring; and
WHEREAS, Omnitrans and the City of San Bernardino recognize the
importance of transit to meeting lifeline mobility needs throughout the region,
including but not limited to the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, Omnitrans and the City recognize that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
service (branded as sbX in San Bernardino) is essential to remedy declining operating
speeds and degradation of service due to increasing congestion; and
WHEREAS, most goals for regional mobility, including effective transit
require the cooperation of national, regional and local governments in all areas that
impact transportation, especially transportation funding, roadway design, roadway
management, and land use planning; and
WHEREAS, this cooperation is only possible through the development of a
shared long-range vision for the future of transportation in the region and its distinct
communities; and
WHEREAS, said Locally Preferred Alternative (LP A) is the culmination of an
extensive planning process that is required by the Federal Transit Administration
(FT A) in order for Omnitrans to become eligible for new federal transit funding; and
WHEREAS, new federal transit funding will be necessary to build the entire
LP A in the E Street Corridor and will benefit the local economy as well; and
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
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALLY
PREFERRED AL TERNA TlVE (LP A) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT
CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LP A
STATIONS.
WHEREAS, the E Street Project Development Team (PDT), of which the City
is an active member, and stakeholders selected the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LP A) based on the results of a comprehensive technical analysis of the final E Street
Alternatives and from public input; and
WHEREAS, the LP A needs to be adopted by both the San Bernardino and
Lorna Linda City Councils in order to be considered by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the next update of the Regional
Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) need to see evidence that the E Street Corridor LP A has local
support and has been adopted locally by all appropriate agencies and jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, Omnitrans worked closely with San Bernardino City staff,
County of San Bernardino, California State University San Bernardino, Metrolink, V A
Hospital, San Bernardino University Adventists Health Services Center and
representatives on the PDT to locate the E Street alignment and its stations consistent
and compatible with the City's policies for circulation and land use in its General Plan
and recent General Plan update; and
WHEREAS, Omnitrans conducted public outreach workshops and meetings
for input from San Bernardino stakeholders throughout the process of developing and
narrowing transit alternatives leading to the LP A; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino supports and encourages premium
transit, to increase transit ridership, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, link
activity centers and encourage high quality new transit supportive development.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City of San Bernardino adopts in concept the E Street Locally Preferred
Alternative (LP A) and its inclusion in the 2006 Regional Transportation Plan.
2. The City of San Bernardino supports transit supportive development in the E
Street Corridor Area. Transit supportive uses include a variety of retail,
housing, employment opportunity, healthcare, and civic/governmental uses in
walking distances of stations which encourages transit ridership and addresses
air quality and traffic congestion.
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
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALL Y
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT
CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LP A
STATIONS.
3. The City of San Bernardino will consult with Omnitrans in preparing and
approving detailed plans for land use and development of properties adjacent
to LP A stations.
4. The City of San Bernardino will consider policies and implementing measures
in its plans and zoning ordinance to provide incentives for sensitively designed
higher intensityldensity transit supportive developments within Yz mile of the
LP A station. Potential incentives include density bonuses, floor area ratio
increases, increases in building height, reduced parking requirements with a
parking study, and expedited review.
5. The City of San Bernardino supports the integration of LP A transit stations
into nearby planned developments and attractively landscaped pedestrian
linkages interconnecting transit supportive uses to the transit stations.
III
III
III
I I I
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
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
2005-412
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALL Y
PREFERRED AL TERNA TlVE (LP A) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT
CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LPA
STATIONS.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at ~ t. regu1Meeting
thereof, held on the 5th day of December, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA X
LONGVILLE X
MCGINNIS X
-
DERRY ~
KELLEY X
JOHNSON X
MCCAMMACK X
-&eM fYeJu
R2hel Clark, City.B;~ _'
hereby ~ ;JL;k4?C ~ ~.
The foregoing resolution IS approved this ---.2.!.'!..-__ day of
T'R ~ em(;e.r ,2005.
Approved as to
Form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City ttorney
i
By: \
Date:
December 5, 2005
To:
Mayor and Common Council - City of San Bernardino
Through: Durand L. Rail, CEO/General Manager - Omnitrans
From: Rohan A. Kuruppu, Director of Planning - Omnitrans
Subject: A Report on the E Street Corridor Project (sbX) - Locally Preferred Alternative (LP A)
Summary
Omnitrans has completed a study to determine the
best way to implement an enhanced state-of-the-
art rapid transit service along the E Street
Corridor in the cities of San Bernardino and
Lorna Linda. Options that were analyzed serve
California State University at San Bernardino
(CSUSB) in the north; traverse central San
Bernardino to Lorna Linda University Medical
Center and the V A Hospital in the south.
Known as sbX, the new high-tech, user-friendly
system will offer more frequent service, fewer
stops, and higher average speeds than traditional
bus service. Investing in this new transportation
system will greatly improve Omnitrans' ability to
meet growing travel demands, encourage
redevelopment, and maintain economic vitality in
the Corridor. The E Street Transit Corridor
Project would be the first segment in a valley
wide system of interconnected sbX service. As
shown in Exhibit ES.I, seven transit corridors
were identified in the San Bernardino Valley as
candidates for premium service.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
The sbX transit service will provide more
comfortable vehicles, higher frequencies and
speeds, which will increase transit usage and
reduce traffic congestion, save energy and
improve air quality. High-quality express transit
service will have:
. Speeds competitive with cars during peak
commute hours;
. Better reliability because express vehicles
travel in dedicated lanes or have preferential
treatment;
. Short wait times between routes and
connecting corridors; and
~-
-
~ 0 "
0 11
:0 B
l:: ~
1..:; - e
0 N II> ....
() .g ~B 1
:!:: g
CI) ";::: .- J!
t:: ~~ ~
/ 00 '"
~ ~
u 0 c ~
f-.:: LL ~
~ l: ~ "-
"~ e EilIJ
:s
I 0
E U
II ~
~ 'CI ~
~ Ui 8
.. S
CI) II
> .
ii: " c
..... .
0 a: "-
. .
.~ ~
~ s
...
"" I!
"""
uj
LlJ
.....
"-
:9
..t: ~
tb ,,<
g ~ ~
W1e
-. ~
~ ~ ~ ~
c:l:D_~
~H~
~J
.
c i
:;
i
01 " ~ ~"@
II . _...!l3:
il: " '-I a: dl;::: =
llle ,. "M.j;l:
.i~ ~8 l iii us 8 ~
i" W , u. u.
OlU ~~ .:.~~~
0 lmm
... o.w
y
-
ES"eet~ansffCorridorProject-Phasel
g
~
~
~
i i
u. ~
~ ~
o 2
'" '"
~
~
3
~
CI) tn
"tJ "-
'3: .g
· -i:
E "-
CI) 0
1;)0
~~
UJtn
'- s::
o n:l
'n; ~
:!:
8
.,;
"
~.-~
:- VI'
\"'_ .. _._/:lOt.lNIUANS
. Attractive, well-designed vehicles and
stations/stops that enhance adjacent land uses.
E Street Corridor Description
The E Street Corridor is about 16 miles long,
generally following Kendall Drive from
California State University south to E Street,
through downtown San Bernardino, east on
Hospitality Lane, and south to Lorna Linda. It
runs through a variety of land uses, from low-
density residential development in the north to
commercial development along E Street. The core
downtown area has some of the highest
concentrations of office and public facilities in
the Omnitrans service area. The southern end of
the Corridor contains significant public,
educational and medical facilities. The Corridor
supports about 121,000 people and more than
71,000 jobs. Many residents have low incomes
and/or are transit-dependent. About 28 percent of
the population lives below the poverty line and 16
percent of the households in the corridor have no
automobile.
Purpose and Need for the Project
Numerous key deficiencies and needs were
identified in the E Street Corridor. Existing transit
services are slower than auto travel. Given that
the Corridor has high transit dependency and an
aging population, this translates into reduced
mobility for many residents. It also results in low
usage by other potential riders, particularly during
lunchtime and mid-day periods. The Corridor is
in need of a catalyst to help accelerate
revitalization efforts that have not yet been
successful. Depressed economic conditions in the
central Corridor create a disconnect in
development between south and north. Parking
capacity is a problem at the university and
hospital campuses. Scheduling existing transit
routes is difficult because of the potential for
delays, particularly crossing the 1-10 Freeway.
This problem will get much worse as population
and employment grow.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Project Objectives
Alternative transit scenarios were designed to
address the deficiencies and needs identified
above. Each of the five alternatives below were
evaluated based on their ability to meet the
following project objectives:
1. Enhance mobility and accessibility
2. Encourage economic growth and
redevelopment
3. Improve transit operations
4. Provide a cost-effective solution
The sbX can serve as a catalyst for community
improvements. In turn, new development can
foster increased transit usage. This synergy
between land use and transportation can take the
form of Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs).
The benefits ofTODs are numerous and the
concept was studied for six of the proposed sbX
stations. As part of this analysis, the draft
General Plans for the Cities of San Bernardino
and Lorna Linda were reviewed for transit
supportive plans and policies. Suggestions for
modifications were provided to both cities.
,-
1-
For example, at the Inland Center Mall, TOD
improvements could better connect the mall uses
with activity on E Street, including sbX service.
Exhibit ES.2 shows how land use changes and
landscaping along with sidewalk and bridge
improvements could create a stronger, more
attractive connection between the mall and the
E Street Corridor.
Transit-Oriented Development at the Loma Linda
Veterans Administration Hospital (Exhibit ES.3)
has the potential to make the V A easier to reach
by transit, while increasing parking for those
arriving by car. It would also create a new transit
center to ease regional connections and provide
better transit access to City Hall and the Loma
Linda University Medical Center East Campus.
Project Development Process
Omnitrans, in cooperation with the San
Bernardino Associated Governments, SCAG and
other public entities, completed an analysis of
alternatives in the Corridor in compliance with
guidelines from the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A).
Stakeholders who have worked with the
sponsoring agencies in the E Street Corridor
Transit Project include:
. The Cities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda
. The City of San Bernardino Economic
Development Agency
. San Bernardino County
. San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SANBAG)
. Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG)
. Caltrans, District 08
. Federal Transit Administration (FT A)
. The Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (Metrolink)
. California State University - San Bernardino
. Loma Linda University Adventist Health
Sciences Center
. V A Loma Linda Healthcare System
. The Inland Center Mall
-
The overall planning and project development
process for federally-funded transit projects is
prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration
(FT A), and is referred to as the New Starts
Process. Omnitrans is following the New Starts
process in order to become eligible for
discretionary federal funds for implementing
premium transit service in the E Street Corridor.
The process (Exhibit ESA) started with the
development of a System-wide Transit
Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley
(July 2004). The System-wide Plan determined
that the E Street Corridor should have the highest
priority among the seven corridors that were
identified.
The analytical phase within the FT A New Starts
process that provided a decision-making
framework for the E Street Transit Corridor
Project is the Alternatives Analysis. It includes:
Existing Conditions: The first step in the
Alternatives Analysis was to compile information
about the Corridor and the metropolitan region to
assess the existing socio-demographic, economic,
and transportation system conditions. This
assessment determined the underlying root causes
of travel patterns and issues related to the
transportation system in the Corridor. For the E
Street Transit Corridor, a comprehensive analysis
of existing conditions was performed in 2004
culminating in the publishing of the report:
Assessment of Existing Conditions (September
2004).
Purpose and Need: In this phase, the purpose
and need for transportation improvements was
carefully defined for the Corridor. Travel
patterns, transportation system performance, and
past studies were reviewed and analyzed. The
Purpose and Need Statement summarized this
technical information along with public input and
identified key trends and issues. These issues led
to the determination of objectives to be achieved
by transportation improvements in the E Street
Corridor.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Exhibit ES.2: Conceptual Design for Transit-Oriented Development at
E Street and North Mall Way
~
\::
,~r
~f
)"
.bX AI'&Inm.'Il\
E -Street
Orange Show
Exhibit ES.3:
Conceptual Design for Loma Linda Transcenter and Transit-Oriented
Development at the V A Hospital
:~
.1 6
/1
L-. "-----.-~
I
I
I
'1-.
I
. _------'J
f ....,ft. ".~""~
I'
~.. < ."" <,..~ I "'.'1" c...
hU.,,, (.... Hup".1l
.-
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
1-
Exhibit ES.4: Schedule for Project Development
E Street Transit Corridor Project
Schedule for Project Development
(Based on the FTA New Starts Planning and
Project Development Guidelines)
2004
2005
2006
~ System-Wide Transit corrror Plan
Alternatives Analysis
sb~
-- -
2007
2008
2009
2010
. Major Development Stage
. Major Development Stage Completed
. Decision Point
Select LPA, MPO Action, Development Criteria PMP
I I
FT A Decision on Entry into PE
I
Preliminary Engineering: Complete NEPA
Process, Refinement of Financial Plan
I I I
FTA Decision on Entry into Final Design
Final Design: Commitment of Non-Federal Funding,
Construction Plans, ROW Acquisitions, Before-After Data
Collection Plan, FTA Evaluation for FFGA, Begin Negotiations
Definition of Conceptual Alternatives: As part
of this phase, a candidate pool of initial
conceptual alternatives was developed to address
mobility problems and other concerns in the
E Street Corridor. This initial set of conceptual
alternatives was structured to provide a range of
multi-modal transportation infrastructure and
service improvements. The transportation
alternatives that were selected with input from
stakeholders and the general public emphasized
different transportation modes, candidate
alignments, and levels of investment, and thus
addressed different aspects of the study purpose
and need. Included in the initial set of alternatives
were baseline alternatives which assume there is
no new major transit capital investment and
various build alternatives which included major
-,..
investments in bus and/or rail transit
technologies.
For the E Street Transit Corridor, the Conceptual
Alternatives were modal in nature and included:
. No Build (No Action) Alternative with only
existing and funded services and facilities in
the Corridor.
. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Alternative, which adds planned projects and
trendline service improvements to the No
Build Alternative.
. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternatives
. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
~
~,,' JO."~!
Nineteen (19) alignment and forty-two (42)
station alternatives were analyzed in the North,
Downtown, Central and Southern portions of the
Corridor. Conceptual Alternatives for the
E Street Corridor are described in detail in:
Definition and Screening of Conceptual
Alternatives (March 2005).
Passenger Boarding sbX Vehicle on Hospitality Lane
Screening of Conceptual Alternatives: The
initial set of conceptual alternatives was subjected
to a "screening process," which narrowed down
these alternatives to a reduced set. The reduced
set of alternatives included only those alternatives
that had a reasonable chance of becoming the
locally preferred alternative. During screening,
the initial alternatives were assessed based on
screening criteria derived from the objectives
identified for the Corridor combined with
community input. The screening criteria, or
measures of effectiveness, applied both numerical
and qualitative measures to assess the relative
performance of each alternative. This process
lead to the identification of those alternatives that
best meet the various study objectives for the
overall E Street Corridor and were carried into
the detailed analysis phase.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
The final step in the Alternatives Analysis phase
was Detailed Alternatives Analysis. During this
phase, conceptual engineering, environmental and
community impact analysis was performed on the
final Corridor alternatives which included:
. No Build, included only existing and
committed projects and services;
. Transportation Systems Management
(TSM), which added planned service
improvements to existing and committed
projects. It added a new limited stop bus
service on E Street that used the routing of
Omnitrans Route 2 (see Exhibit ES.5); and
. Three (3) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
alternatives in the E Street Corridor would
implement sbX on different alignments
through the Corridor. They use the
alignments shown in Exhibit ES.5.
Alternatives 1 and 2 use a proposed elevated
transitway to cross over 1-10.
The primary objective of the Detailed
Alternatives Analysis was to evaluate the five
final alternatives (two baselines and three BRT
Build) and their alignments and select the highest
ranked alternatives/alignments for consideration
as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LP A). The
alternatives were assessed using twenty-seven
(27) individual Measures-of-Effectiveness
(MOEs) that fall into seven categories of criteria
(Table ES.l).
.-
I~
Exhibit ES.5: E Street Transit Alternatives
MAP1
Transporation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternative
..,,- ..
(
/ )
~~
;/ 'hI "'~
/ ~'o...~~......
,4.,...,,_
':.,It
1'>,
!~/'IO"'''",
I ~
"'-
\-"l.'~ f~'( :l "'"
~
~ ~/"'~
~'>
Lorna Linda ""
Medical Cent.r ~
t
~
;l
t
~
"'''s
"''''it
S~.30 8(".0
" g
~ 91'l1s, i
~
fS
" ~
5r"'sr
$."
I. 8t'~
~1"('''i' ~-4-9:
4/"i'A 1'(41"10 'fJIIfO
'O~,. 1\t-4(
o POT[NTIAl. aus STOP LOCATIONS
O POTtNTlAl. BUS STOP LOCATIONS
dh PARK-AHD-AID[ LOTS
_ PRELIMINARY LOCATIONS
of lXCl.USIV[ LANts
0.5
2 MU.s
,
?
_.
MAP 2
sbX Alternative 1
(On E Street Between CIVIC Center and Orange Show)
\
California State University
San Bernardino
+ OPTIONAL STOP
..-
,
\~
'\ ~
~ ~
<\ I'
\
\
t
~
;l
g
~
(
./ )
, It'
~-'h
;/ I/"'~
,~~,...,,-
/ OranQe Show
"'-r(b. FairQrounds
!1~ 1.'0,....,.. ~
I ......... "'0
........... 'S~/'1:.
'- ~{/~
'- {" ~
~..,~, ....
,_1.\'3 ~ Ne..... ..,
} STRt[T
~/"[-~Irr
Lorna Linda ""
Medical Center
"'''s
"'''it.
$-9,10 "<",
g
i
~
S""NSe:
IN"t'~", ~"''''09Dl
41"i'D... "'1"0 "'0
. Vii,. 1\'.1/(
B.4>9rOM ~o
o POTENTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS
O POTtNTlAl. BUS STOP LOCATIONS
wltb PARK-AND-RID[ LOTS
_ PRELIMINARY LClCATIONS
of [XCWSIV[ LAN[$
?
0.5
2 MiI.s
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
A.\..
o~~!
Exhibit ES.5: E Street Transit Alternatives (Contd)
MAP3
sbX Alternative 2
(On 0 and G Streets Between Civic Center and Orange Show)
California State University
San Bernardino
~
OPTIONAL STOP
..-
f
~
if
g
~
~<..
114((
$"?30 8(yo
f
9'11$,
.t
i
~
5'I1S,
y Q~''''''''
/ 4tllll,
I
~ OranQe Show
I Fairgrounds
!
s.",
I. 8e~
'Airel? iVAl}jlD
"lI}jlIJ 1\'.041'101\': :11\'0
Oli'., :.t{
\~1.\!> f.....,
~RrON RO
o POTENTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS
O POTtNTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS
wlth PAAK-A,ND-RID[ LOTS
_ PR[UMlNARY LOCATIONS
01 EXCWSIVE LANES
0.5
2 Miles
9
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
I
MAP4
sbX Alternative 3
(Existing Route 2 Alignment Extending to Palm Ave.)
/
I
/ )
~-~
/ i /);,~ ..::"
L .0
~ I CIvic Center/Downtown
Q 4t: San Bernardino
I nd Center Mall --.. r(~S,.
i OranQe Show
v",( f F'aln;Jrounds
17~ "/O~~~ !~
I "'- -'os"
"'- 'r.
~ ~ 4{/~
f"
~
\
\<;
':a
\
\
\~
\~'Z.\!t VYl"<
f14/i'rON ~
o BUS STOP LOCATIONS
o
I
0.5
....0...
/fn.,
f
~
if
g
;
.
~
i;'
e-
"
.t
is
~
i:f
~
s.",
I 8e}jl
iV1't'..ljI 'VAIli'D
"l1Jj).oo IVAll'IO.A;: :1....0
~,. '4{
2 Miles
I
-
---
Tab/e ES.1: Key Criteria and Measures for Eva/uating A/ternatives
Criteria Category Selected Measures
1. Enhancing Mobility & Accessibility 1 Reduce passenger wait time and travel times - higher speed seNice
2 Directness of seNice and good intermodal connections
3-6 Proximity to population concentrations, especially low income, elderly
and handicapped
2. Encouraging Economic Growth 7 Acreage of redevelopment areas within 1h mile of stations
and Redevelopment 8 Connections to job centers
9 Number of redevelopment areas seNed
3. Land Use Compatibility and 10 Aesthetics and visibility, orientation of alignments and stations to land
Benefits uses and activity centers
11 City Planning Department assessment
12 Compatibility with community general plans and master plans
13 Number of TOO opportunities
4. Environmental Benefits 14 Reductions in annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
15 Reductions in air pollutants
16 Comprehensive rating of benefitsflmpacts
5. Improving Transit 17 Lowest annual transit Vehicle SeNice Hours (VSH) and highest
Operations/Safety and Security average operating speeds
18 Optimize transit operations to interface seamlessly with traffic flow
19 Minimize loss of parking along the Corridor
20 Safety and security at stations and on-board vehicles
6. Cost Effectiveness 21 Total capital and operating costs
22 Forecasted ridership
23, 24 Annualized capital and operating costs/compared to annual hours
saved by riders
7. Other Factors: 25 Support of key stakeholders in the Corridor and the local community
Community/Stakeholder Support 26 Opportunities for public/private partnerships
27 Financial feasibility/local funding commitments
The evaluation was conducted in two stages.
First, the five alternatives including the three (3)
BRT alternatives were compared to each other.
Then, for the BRT alternatives, alignments were
evaluated in the north, downtown, central and
southern portions of the Corridor to determine
how they compared against each other based on
the MOEs.
For most of the MOEs in the evaluation,
quantitative values were calculated such as for
ridership forecasts, costs and cost-effectiveness.
However, some MOE values were qualitative in
nature such as community support and land use
conformity.
-~'
....,
.
In terms of comparisons of the alignments for the
alternatives, the alignment for the limited stop
service in the TSM alternative was essentially the
same as Omnitrans Route 2 with the exception
that it starts further north on Kendall at a park-
and-ride lot at Kendall and Palm. It travels along
Kendall to University Parkway to serve
California State University-San Bernardino
(CSUSB), then south along Kendall Drive, E
Street, Hospitality Lane, Anderson
Street/Tippecanoe Avenue, and Barton Road.
The alignment connects numerous destinations
including CSUSB, downtown San Bernardino,
Lorna Linda University and Medical Center, and
the VA Hospital. It passes under the 1-10 San
Bernardino Freeway at Tippecanoe
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Avenue/Anderson Street. The BRT Alternative 3
alignment is identical to the TSMs limited stop
service. (This alignment is called the Standard
Alignment).
BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 have identical
alignments in the northern portion of the
alignment, traveling to the backside of CSUSB
using new roads that serve the future expansion
of the campus. The CSUSB station is on a
proposed interior University Road north and east
of the campus. The BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 use
Little Mountain Parkway to get back to Kendall
Drive.
In the downtown and central sections of the
corridor, BRT Alternatives I and 3 follow the
TSM alignment (Standard Alignment), staying on
E Street. BRT Alternative 2 is different in that it
leaves E Street at 4th Street and shifts to D Street
until Rialto. It then travels on Rialto to G Street
and turns south to the Inland Center Mall where it
rejoins E Street.
To get from the Hospitality Lane commercial area
to Lorna Linda, BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 use a
proposed elevated transitway to cross over the 1-
10 freeway to join the proposed Evans Street
Corridor which traverses Lorna Linda University
Medical Center (LLUMC) land and serves master
planned expansions of the LLUMC. BRT
Alternative 1 travels straight south on Evans to
Barton Road while BRT Alternative 2 connects to
Anderson Street using a proposed connecting
street north of the railroad tracks.
Input from Stakeholders and the
General Public
Continuous input was received from key corridor
stakeholders and the general public from the
system planning phase through the completion of
the detailed Alternatives Analysis.
The public involvement program for the
conceptual alternatives analysis phase elicited
comments on the four types of Transportation
Modal Alternatives: the No-Build,
Transportation Systems Management (TSM), Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
ESueetuansffCorridorProject-Phasel
..~
;fcid,~!
(LRT). In addition, the individual alignment
alternatives for the North, Downtown, Central
and Southern portions of the E Street Corridor
were scrutinized and commented on in several
different forums held throughout the Corridor.
The process involved the following meetings,
conferences, and workshops held during February
and March 2005:
. February ih sbX Leadership Conference held
at the Radisson Hotel in downtown San
Bernardino was attended by over 100 Elected
Officials, Business Leaders/Professionals,
Agency Representatives, transit riders, and
members of the general public. The attendees
were grouped into three delegations and
rotated to three different topical venues at the
conference. The attendees were given an
opportunity to turn in comment sheets and
indicate their preferences on transportation
modes and specific alignment choices for
each of the four portions of the E Street
Corridor.
. February 9th Public Open House at the
Feldheym Public Library in central San
Bernardino was attended by over 30 members
of the general public, including Omnitrans
riders. The Open House was set up in a
manner identical to the sbX Leadership
Conference with attendees rotating between
three topical stations and indicating their
preferences on transportation modal options
and alignments for each of the 4 geographic
groupings in the Corridor. Those present
.:-
'.;1
I~
were asked to indicate which mode of transit
they preferred to see built in the E Street
Corridor. They overwhelmingly selected
BRT over LRT (Exhibit ES.6).
. February 23rd Project Development Team
(PDT) Meeting held at the City of San
Bernardino - Economic Development
Agency. PDT members attending the meeting
were asked to select their choices of
alignments by geographic grouping. After
weighing the technical information, PDT
members unanimously supported the selection
ofBRT over LRT as the preferred mode to
carry forward into Detailed Alternatives
Analysis.
. March 15t and 2nd Workshops with Omnitrans
Coach Operators and Administrative staff.
Attendees were asked to select their choice of
alignment by geographic grouping in the
E Street Corridor.
. February 1 ih meeting of the SCAG
Regionally Significant Transportation
Improvement Strategy (RSTIS) Peer Review
Committee held at the Southern California
Association of Government's office in Los
Angeles.
. February 15th presentation to the Planning and
Productivity Committee (PPe) of the
Omnitrans Board of Directors.
Exhibit ES.6: Preferences Reported in Community Workshops
PREFERENCES REPORTED IN COM M UNITY
WORKSHOPS
70
60
ill 50
W
b
? 40
LL
0
0:: 30
W
III
:E 20
::I
Z
10
0
No Build TSM BRT
M OOAl ALTERNATIVE
LRT
o Elected Officials/ Business Professionals. Agency Representatives
o Riders/General Public 0 Project Development Team
. Omnitran" .Operators
-
ES"eefffQn~fCorridorProjecf-PhQsel
-
~~~
~1iI/J;.I
~~UNS
all ·
I -....-...
, ::::.:..... .':...-' '.j;.
., ..... - - --
,~~- -( ~.
\t! \ ,
To assist in the evaluation of the detailed
alternatives for the E Street Corridor, a
comprehensive public involvement program and
stakeholder outreach was conducted to determine
which segments ofthose alternatives and station
locations were supported locally within the
Corridor. During the spring and summer of2005,
a series of stakeholder meetings were held
throughout the Corridor to obtain stakeholder
support for the E Street Transit Corridor Project
and receive input on specific station siting and
alignments. This input, along with the October
19,2005, public open house/workshop, provided
the Project Development Team (PDT) with
information on which alignments will be
supported locally in the E Street Corridor.
The final set of five detailed alternatives were
presented to the following forums for review and
comment:
. Stakeholders meetings/workshops with key
staff from the Cities of San Bernardino and
Loma Linda, California State University-San
Bernardino (CSUSB), the Inland Center Mall,
Loma Linda University Medical Center and
the V A Hospital.
. A community open house/workshop held on
October 19, 2005, at the Feldeym Public
Library in Central San Bernardino.
. Project Development Team (PDT) workshops
on detailed alternatives held on July 27,
August 24, and October 26,2005.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Prior to the October 19 Public Open
House/Workshop, a project information mailer
was sent out to over 10,000 households. The
mailer portrayed the alternatives and provided
information on their performance.
The October 19,2005, public open house was set
up with specific workstations that presented
information on the performance of each of the
five detailed alternatives. The public was shown
information on the performance of the competing
segments in the north, downtown, central and
southern portions of the Corridor. The competing
segments were:
. North: Kendall/University "front side"
entrance and station at CSUSB versus a
"backside" entrance to the campus that uses
Little Mountain and a new internal Campus
Road with a backside station.
. Downtown: An alignment straight down
E Street versus a D Street alignment.
. Central: An alignment straight down E Street
versus a G Street alignment to the Inland
Center Mall.
. South in Lorna Linda: A transitway over the
1-10 Freeway to the proposed Evans Street
Corridor versus an alignment on Anderson. A
third option uses Evans in the northern
portion of Lorna Linda and Anderson in the
south.
-
-
-
alignment is that shown in Alternative 3. It is a
"front side" station at the entrance to the Campus
that CSUSB officials felt worked best for their
future Campus Expansion Plans.
Similarly for LLUMC, officials were able to
provide clear direction on station siting and their
strong support for the Evans Street Alignment.
Until the entire Evans Street Corridor is
developed in the future, the alignment shown in
Alternative 2 may be appropriate as a short-term
operational segment.
To determine how strongly supported each
alternative is by stakeholders and the public,
specific ranking information was collected at the
above forums and was used in the comprehensive
evaluation of the detailed alternatives.
Exhibit ES. 7: Public Preferences from the October 19th Open House
The workshop was attended by over 70 members
of the general public. After viewing project
exhibits, the public workshop attendees were
asked to identify the alignments they felt best met
the various categories of evaluation criteria. The
alignments that the general public liked best
(Exhibit ES.7) were recorded and documented for
consideration by the Project Development Team
(PDT).
Workshops were also held with Corridor
stakeholders to determine which station locations
and alignments were supported and fit best into
local master plans and growth plans. Both
CSUSB and LLUMC have new Campus Master
Plans and gave the Project Team specific input on
their preferences. For CSUSB, the preferred
Public Preferences from the
October 19th Open House
35
Number
of Votes
~
#
Corridor Segment
~
It
u'"
~
I
.l'
,f
s
::;
",0
_.>'
~ - ~
.. The Alignment in the North
segment is identical for
Alternatives 1 and 2.
-- The Alignment in the Downtownl
Central segment is identical
for Alternatives 1 and 3
Votes for these duplicate
segments
have been repeated
o sbX Alternative 1
o sbX Alternative 2
o sbX Alternative 3
sbX Alternative 3
sbX Alternative 2
sbX Alternative 1
Alternative
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Community input is on going via a project
website: www.estreet-sbx.com. Project
information and reports can be viewed on the site
and comments can be made by the public.
Comparison of Alternatives
The comprehensive comparison of alternatives
was performed during the summer and fall
months of2005. The Project Team produced
passenger forecasts for the study horizon year
2030, performed an environmental assessment of
the potential impacts of the alternatives and
alignments, assessed the operational performance
of alternatives analyzed their land use
compatibility and potential to influence
redevelopment and their ability to encourage
economic growth. The technical analysis of the
detailed alternatives compared their costs, speeds
(Exhibit ES.8) and their cost-effectiveness. The
~
\,,_. _/O".,~!
3 BRT Alternatives compare quite closely for
many of the criteria (Table ES.2). However,
some differences do exist and factor into their
evaluation.
Overall Ranking of Alternatives
A comprehensive rating of the five E Street
Alternatives was completed, using a scale of
importance from 1 to lO, with lO being the best
performance (Table ES.3). The BRT alternatives
outrank the No Build and TSM alternatives based
on the technical analysis performed in this study
and based on input from the Corridor
stakeholders and the general public. The 3 BRT
alternatives total rating was very close. However,
differences occurred for the various segments of
alternatives in the north, downtown, central, and
southern portions of the Corridor. Those
differences are described in the following section.
Exhibit ES.8: Average Speed (MPH)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Route 2 . No Build Route 2 Limited
11.7 17.2
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
sbX . All 1
23.5
sbX. All 2
23.6
sbX . Alt 3
23.2
-,-
I~
Table ES.2: Comparison of Detailed Alternatives
No Build TSM sbX 1 sbX 2 sbX 3
Route Length in Miles 13.5 15.9 16.7 17.2 15.9
Miles of Exclusive Lanes 0 0 10.3 10.9 9.6
Number of Stops/Stations (LimitedlsbX) - 16 16 17 16
End to End Travel Time in Minutes 69 56 41 42 41
Time Savings Versus No Build (End to End) - 13 28 27 28
Number of Vehicles Required 11 27 22 23 23
Time Between Vehicles in Minutes 15 5 5 5 5
TOO Opportunities -- -- 12 13 12
2030 Forecast Riders per Day 7,891 13,315 16,843 16,367 17,357
2030 Passenger Mile per Day 26,145 49,384 59,948 61,970 62,843
Annualized Operating Costs (in millions of $) $6.1 $15.6 $12.7 $12.9 $12.7
Annualized Capital Costs (in millions of $) $0.8 $5.9 $12.7 $13.0 $12.2
Total Annualized Costs (in millions of $) $7.0 $21.5 $25.4 $25.9 $24.8
Cost per Hour of Benefit (Increment over -- -- $14.09 $17.43 $12.63
TSM)
Estimated Reduction in Annual Auto Vehicle -- 8.53 10.50 10.24 11.04
Miles Traveled (VMT) (in millions of miles)
Estimated Reduction in Future Annual Tons n 2,620 3,296 3,150 3,400
of CO2 Emissions
Table ES.3: Comprehensive Evaluation of A/ternatives for the E Street Corridor
No Build TSM BRT #1 BRT #2 BRT #3
1. Enhancing Mobility and Accessibility 1 6 9 9 10
2. Encouraging Economic Growth and 1 5 9 9 10
Redevelopment
3. Land Use Compatibility and Benefits 1 5 9 10 9
4. Environmental Benefits 5 8 6 5 5
5. Improving Transit Operations/Safety 3 6 9 9 10
and Security
6. Cost-Effectiveness 7 8 8 8 8
7. Other Factors: 2 2 8 7 8
Community/Stakeholder Support
Total Rating 20 40 58 57 60
Note: Scale of performance from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest performance.
-
ES"eetffQn~tCorridorProject-PhQsel
In general, the BRT alternatives rated very high
in Categories 1,2,3,5, and 7. Their shorter
travel times and higher reliability made them
superior to the TSM alternative in the category of
Enhancing Mobility and Accessibility. They
were perceived by the community as better at
Encouraging Economic Growth and
Redevelopment because of their positive image
and highly attractive and visible stations which
also helped them rank high in Land Use
Compatibility and Benefits. Their operating
costs were significantly lower than the limited
bus stop service in the TSM alternative which set
them apart in Improving Transit
Operations/Safety and Security.
Finally, in terms of Community Support, the
sbX image, attractive/visible stations, and the
high speed and reliability of service were seen by
corridor stakeholders and the general public as
real difference makers over the TSM alternative.
&a'M
(Y:;;dl!!
Assessment of North Segment
Alignments
As was the case with the ranking of alternatives
in the previous section, northern alignments were
ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with 10
being the best performance. Rankings are shown
for all seven categories of criteria (Table ESA).
The northern alignment along Kendall and
University Avenue included in BRT Alternative 3
was rated superior to the Little Mountain/New
University Road alignment (65 points versus 54
points). This is largely due to its more direct
service to CSUSB and its faster travel time
to/from the University on Kendall/University
A venue, and lower cost. The stakeholders and
officials at CSUSB favored the
Kendall/University alignment with a sbX station
on the frontside of CSUSB. They believed that it
conformed well into their Master Plan for the
expansion of CSUSB which is expected to nearly
double in size over the next 10 to 15 years.
Table ES.4: Comprehensive Evaluation of Northern Alternatives for the E Street Corridor
BRT Alternative 1
and 2: BRT Alternative 3:
TSM Little Mountain! Kendall/University
No Build Alternative New CSUSB Roads Alignment
1. Enhancing Mobility and 1 6 8 10
Accessibility
2. Encouraging Economic 1 5 9 9
Growth and
Redevelopment
3. Land Use Compatibility 1 5 8 10
and Benefits
4. Environmental Benefits 5 8 7 8
5. Improving Transit 3 6 7 10
Operations/Safety and
Secu rity
6. Cost-Effectiveness 7 8 8 8
7. Other Factors: 2 2 7 10
Community/Stakeholder
Support
Total Rating 20 40 54 65
Note: Scale of performance from 1 to 10 with 10 being best.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
-
-
Assessment of Downtown Segment
Alignments
As was the case with the ranking of alternatives
in the previous sections, downtown alignments
were ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with
10 being the best performance. Rankings are
shown for all seven categories of criteria (Table
ES.5).
The E Street alignment included in BRT
Alternatives 1 and 3 ranked superior to the D
Street alignment (65 points versus 52 points).
This was largely due to the faster travel time
to/from the northern portion of the E Street
Corridor, its shorter length, and lower cost. The
D Street alignment also potentially could have
some significant negative impacts in that a lane of
traffic would be taken as well as significant
parking takes. The stakeholders and officials
from the City of San Bernardino favored the
E Street alignment with a station on E Street next
to the Carousel Mall. They believed that it fit
well into their long-range plans for the downtown
area and is well sited to have a positive effect on
the redevelopment of the Carousel Mall.
Table ES.5: Comprehensive Evaluation of Downtown Alternatives for the E Street Corridor
BRT Alternative 1
TSM and 3: E Street BRT Alternative 2: D
No Build Alternative Alignment Street Alignment
1. Enhancing Mobility and 1 6 10 8
Accessibility
2. Encouraging Economic 1 5 9 9
Growth and
Redevelopment
3. Land Use Compatibility 1 5 10 8
and Benefits
4. Environmental Benefits 5 8 8 4
5. Improving Transit 3 6 10 8
Operations/Safety and
Security
6. Cost-Effectiveness 7 8 8 8
7. Other Factors: 2 2 10 7
Community/Stakeholder
Support
Total Rating 20 40 65 52
Note: Scale of performance from 1 to 10 with 10 being best.
-/
ES"eefffan~fCorridorProjecf-Phasel
-
~n/
~'-':: ~O"NltR"'NS
Assessment of Central Segment
Alignments
As was the case with the ranking of alternatives
in the previous sections, central alignments were
ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with 10
being the best performance. Rankings are shown
for all seven categories of criteria (Table ES.6).
The E Street alignment included in BRT
Alternative 1 and 3 ranked superior to the
G Street alignment in Alternative 2 (performance
ranking of65 points versus 54 points). This was
largely due to the faster travel time to/from
downtown San Bernardino to the Inland Center
Mall, its shorter length, and lower cost. The
stakeholders and officials at the City and the
Inland Center Mall favored the E Street alignment
with a station on the front entrance of the Inland
Center Mall. They believed that it conformed
well into their plan for the expansion of the
Inland Center Mall.
Table ES.6: Comprehensive Evaluation of Central Alternatives for the E Street Corridor
BRT Alternative 1
TSM and 3: E Street BRT Alternative 2:
No Build Alternative Alignment G Street Alignment
1. Enhancing Mobility and 1 6 10 8
Accessibility
2. Encouraging Economic 1 5 9 9
Growth and
Redevelopment
3. Land Use Compatibility 1 5 10 9
and Benefits
4. Environmental Benefits 5 8 8 7
5. Improving Transit 3 6 10 6
Operations/Safety and
Security
6. Cost-Effectiveness 7 8 8 8
7. Other Factors: 2 2 10 7
Community/Stakeholder
Support
Total Rating 20 40 65 54
Note: Scale of performance from 1 to 10 with 10 being best.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase J
-
-
Assessment of Southern Segment
Alignments
As was the case with the ranking of alternatives
in the previous sections, southern alignments
were ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with
10 being the best performance. Rankings are
shown for all seven categories of criteria (Table
ES.7).
The southern alignment along Evans Street
included in BRT Alternative 1 ranked as superior
to the Evans/Anderson alignment in BRT
Alternative 2 because it required a lane take on
Anderson Street. They both were rated superior
to the Anderson Street alignment (BRT
Alternative 3) which was not as well supported
locally by stakeholders and would also require the
taking of a lane of traffic on segments of
Anderson. Since a specific schedule for the
development of the Evans Street Corridor has not
been established yet, the selection between the
alignments shown in BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 is
unclear at this time. Also, the residential takes
associated with the southern portion of the Evans
Street alignment in Alternative 1 have not yet
been fully assessed in the I-lO/Tippecanoe
Interchange Improvement Project by Caltrans and
the San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SANBAG).
Lorna Linda University Adventist Health
Sciences Center (LLUAHSC) stakeholders and
officials preferred the Evans Street alignment.
This was largely due to the faster travel time
to/from the Hospitality Lane Commercial Area
and its orientation to the LLUAHSC.
Table ES.7: Comprehensive Evaluation of Southern Alternatives for the E Street Corridor
BRT
BRT Alternative Alternative 3:
BRT Alterative 1: 2: Evans/ Anderson
TSM Evans Street Anderson Street
No Build Alternative Alignment Alignment Alignment
1. Enhancing Mobility and 1 6 9 9 8
Accessibility
2. Encouraging Economic 1 5 9 9 8
Growth and
Redevelopment
3. Land Use Compatibility 1 5 9 7 7
and Benefits
4. Environmental Benefits 5 8 4 4 4
5. Improving Transit 3 6 9 8 8
Operations/Safety and
Security
6. Cost-Effectiveness 7 8 8 8 8
7. Other Factors: 2 2 10 6 5
Community/Stakeholder
Support
Total Rating 20 40 58 51 48
Note: Scale of performance from 1 to 10 with 10 being best.
-:
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
-
~~!
Cost-Effectiveness/Benefit Assessment
The cost effectiveness of different transit
alternatives was calculated based on the ratio of
the incremental cost of new service, divided by
the incremental user benefit of the new service.
The cost of new service was expressed in terms of
annual dollars required for both capital costs and
operating costs. The user benefits of new service
were expressed in terms of annual hours of transit
travel time savings.
The cost benefits of the three Build
Alternatives, as compared to the TSM
Alternative, are summarized in Table
ES.8. The data in this table showed
that the cost effectiveness of the Build
Alternatives range from $12.63 to
$17.43 per hour of transit travel time
savings. Build Alternative 3 ranked as
the most cost effective of the three
because it will cost the least to provide
each hour of travel time savings.
Bernardino favors the E Street alignment over
the D Street alignment for the above reasons.
The E Street alignment also provides a more
direct service through the downtown area and
is seen as having the potential to positively
influence future development at the Carousel
Mall.
. The central portion from Rialto to Hospitality
Lane is the alignment included in
Alternatives 1 and 3. It is more of a direct
Table ES.8: Cost Effectiveness of Build Alternatives in
Compared to TSM
Annual Capital Annual Time Cost
and Operating Savings Benefit Effectiveness (per
Alternative Cost (Hours) Hour of Benefit)
T8M $21,493,000 - -
Build 1 $25,425,000 263,795 $14.91
Build 2 $25,928,000 254,513 $17.43
Build 3 $24,834,000 264,573 $12.63
Findings from the Evaluation and
Candidate LPA
Based on the comprehensive technical evaluation
presented in this report and public/stakeholder
input, the candidate Locally Preferred Alternative
(LP A) for the E Street Project contains the
following geographic segments.
. The northern portion from KendalllPalm to
SR-30 is the alignment included in
Alternative 3. The primary reasons for this
are its directness of service, support from
CSUSB stakeholders, and its service to
neighborhoods along Kendall Drive.
. The downtown portion along E Street is the
alignment included in Alternatives 1 and 3.
The E Street alignment does remove some
parking, but its impacts are far less than those
associated with D Street where the taking of a
lane of traffic would be needed as well as the
removal of parking. The City of San
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
connection than the G Street alignment and is
favored by Inland Center Mall stakeholders
who prefer a station on E Street near the mall.
. The southern portion from the Hospitality
Lane Commercial Area to the V A Hospital
uses the elevated transitway over 1-10 to the
Evans Street Corridor.
The candidate LP A is shown in Exhibit ES.9 with
detail about its performance shown in Table ES.9.
It is possible that the entire Evans Street Corridor
may not be complete when the LP A is
constructed and open for service. If that is the
case, a short-term LPA is also included (see
Exhibit ES.l 0) which uses the northern portion of
Evans Street and then crosses over to Anderson
Street using a proposed connector road. If the
northern segment of Evans Street has not been
built by the time the sbX project opens,
temporary service will commence on Anderson.
Table ES.lO shows the performance of the short-
term LP A.
t,_
-
Exhibit ES.9: Locally Preferred Alternative
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
~ '".t.;"'~ ~/17 7.:.:~.).'~;ij "-?-~- ' ;~ ~~,
~ ~, --'If"..~ . '~ - ~ :t'
. ~..~ .S'.' L" ~~] . ""
Q. """" Q. ~ =' -.., ,,~ ':l _..,
l ..' ~~...;, ',~ l--'" CallforniaStateUOlverslty tI' ...~. ~~
" ,V;tf'" ~" ' San BernardIno .. ~.::; '.~... $) ~ ~
} '-- \;... '. ..... ~ ~ """..,
'\. .:-" ~ . ~~~ \~\'~::tL"( Jo ~.. ~ lor. ....
r\ i..'-<<, "1... .~:oo;, 'r";';j _ ,. ~ r:' IL '-~
_ ,_,i. ..1-:",1.' , ~ ~'''''''~:i ~ .f31 11 ;..--" ~. ~~ or. 1':1 rif~~" J~ ~~ .... iIiooI
~ LlJI QJ II i. ~ I~ ...::: ....
,P ~~:.l'" ~"~ I~ f'('I};""->~'1" ,~ t:-
...- ' Il.).;;r!~ ~ !NI' '-'~h Iii E-':".:~ J ~
l~~1..~c,. ~,~ t.~tr, C'~ ~~'~~L-I:' "ll .:, -:;' ~,i I~\H ~ '>I
~,~~. Q ',,~ ~,,,} .... ,;:il.'*' y.~, ,,.:~thStreet '^ ~ '1"
,<c ~........ ~f,,;.~ -+-...;.0 ~I' ,
l e' ',; 01 l w'~... ,,<:- '~".~<:) '-- ~
I ~, ~. ~. ~';' ~~.' ~o i\ ,,~.. 36th St~eet III 1.11
.L ." roa.' '>S ~",... '$::'>- 1
,,- "\;., ""W":;'~' .:s-~'r-<:-.':l t. 1 ,J, , ~ r
'ti I.t ..jf....~u ,~t~. tl~''ll.' ..~ + Marshan Boulevard...,
\. . ~- ;'J'" ,}._~ :,'.; "q. , "
l\ ~ ,.t , ~,b. ___ ;_I~~R'3Q~_...._ ~, ~
;:0.1 ''1' ~ ~~ \l .,' l' - ~, ~ ".-'"'T."J" >~ --'==--~s... ~
" . ~ ~'.' .~~~
.._7:. ""' ."1"''' ,,1.1. ~ - " r. '" ~ ,.' ~ ~l' /''lO C~
- ," "-'" ,-,' '" *~Hi9hland Aver,Jue ....,.,,. r., ....... .
- .~~' ~' 'io,. tl-.' "! "-;a.<<''''' ...... ~ I.. c:
~ f:""tf' Tn
'~ \ '!,: ~0101; ~ J' ". ~r,t'
H ._t-G.~~." ore... om' Ilt~.tr i:'b-: !'
\lir...~"' -,I '\. ~ (;, Ill. r:I '0 ,j
::. ..< .,t'l~f>,' '\l 1;; \.;. ~ 101':)0 ~M" I:;!
. . i' .....'~ <' II- ~ '~~-:- ~* Baseline Street
'. '"~I~ :.' ~ 1'/ '41l' ::; ,t "" :;-Y
r."'ifi~:_~"- (~l-..~ ~ ~ ll' .l>t~ LiEll- "..
~, ,[ "t. _ ~ ~. ~ '.__tl
~ C: ,~ (!;...'="! J Carousel Mall ~6 5 ~ ~ .
:!l :Ill ' \ r . ,...- J ~_ - ,t l~!!i CivIC Center I
"'1'"'1 '\, ~...~""""-, . \' "Ie ~ 5
~:::I_ If:7i .....-... ~-_,.4' 'I. - ~ !4th."51reet~ Downtown an
c~'-;'J ,"1. "~IJ I '\"', ~ ~ ~ ,,",.! ~~:~ ~.-.---;;; BernardIno I C
....". .;.IlL;, :5",,_ r;---~""_"I) 'D r:~~ II... - .
~;;: ~'oi'"'TI:".'" g~ RialtoAvenue.-
.. .~ J r r ~ oJ. ~ ) " h.
r !.:-il. '> .....~ ~ __I ~lls:ee~ ;r:1." 1 Or .
0;.' ~ '" ~ .....r:l' ,,-. ~
- ~ 9, Orange Show ,..
. .*~ Fairgrounds
...-.. I:iI ~ D ~ ~
~ ~~"-
,.... ~ f''\., ~range Show'Road r........ ~
;1" u" ~ ?'~l::r ~~~...D~
~~:... ~,. II:: r.: J I ~ .. '
, ~ ~-~,,",
,.".I:.J...",-~~_,.,' "!" II' pltali ,Lan' C
~ ....~-~..,. -~_ _1-10 FreewaY'" \::.. ~ '" .-
II,~,~/"" ~ Iii ~... ~~ -,.,...t';;:~~-r - ~
I ,. '"t~~~ ~~~c.,.." '/.~ ~~~ \~
~ n.. ~~ d'. II' \ '=-tl: d -... ~ --g
_ .~~.. ~ III l j'~,jj'::!,," <(
L ~ 'l~~.~; - '. "t~," . "
~ . ~,t} .l~'r ,.A ~ ~
. L .; ~ ,. ~.~ r
'.-. r .. - e. . 'b!....
"
~-~.. .
~ ,
~
- -,
-"
.......~~,
" ~.~~
~ ~ 4-)
~ ."
.. r::' 'IIi. ""
- -.;"..
~ .
-.']
~ ~ ~
... \
,< I
'}.
1IlI ..........~
,I 1
f
I
""I
~.
lJ
11
r,'I"I
~:
r'
I
. i:I
~ I
I
i
I
oJ
I
~ -
. ...r
I
'~/1
.r
~
II
J
REV to.ll-oS
* Potential Bus Stop Locations
* Potential Bus Stations with Park.and.Ride Lots
Preliminary Locations of Exclusive Lanes
1.0
,5
o
1.0
Miles
-:.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Table ES.9: Locally Preferred Alternative
Acquisition/Easement Required
Area Required within
300' on either side of
P+R Distance Queue intersection
Station Location Spaces in Miles Jumper (square foot) Remarks
Kendall at Palm Ave. 80 0.00 Yes 44,000 Includes Park and Ride (surface parking),
ROW for 300' south of intersection even
though station is further south. Joint
development potential on 12.8 acre vacant
site
CSUSB-South 2.41 2,700 Removes some landscaping
Kendall Dr. at N. Little 1.35 Yes 900 May be difficult due to extremely narrow
Mountain Dr. sidewalks
Kendall Dr. at Shandin 0.68 Yes
Hills/40th SI.
E Street at Marshall Blvd. 150 1.58 Yes 55,000 Park and Ride (surface parking)
ESt. at Highland Ave. 0.92 No With Sidewalk Extension
E SI. at Baseline SI. 1.00 No With Sidewalk Extension
E SI. at Carousel Mall 1.09 Curb extension
E SI. at Rialto Ave. north 170 0.38 3,000 Park and Ride (surface parking)
ofRR On Intermodal Transportation Center
(Transcenter) site (Prior acquisition
assumed)
E SI. at North Mall Way 0.99 No 2,590 Includes linkage up to the bridge and up to
the station near Orange Show Fairgrounds.
Assumes 5' sidewalk could be added to the
bridge. Does not include linkage to
shopping center
Hospitality Lane at Hunts 1.70 7,800 Nearside Stop for EB
Lane
Hospitality Lane east of 0.92 8,400
Carnegie Drive
Evans Street at Academy 440 0.85 176,000 Includes Park and Ride (surface parking)
Wy.
Evans SI. at University 0.47 4,800
Ave.
Barton Road. at Anderson 0.59 11,400
SI.
Barton Road at Loma 120 0.93 155,000 Includes shared parking and replacement
Linda Dr. parking (total 600 spaces).
Station and parking for sbX on 1 st floor of
parking structure, V A parking on levels 2,
3, and 4.
16 Stops * 960 15.86
* Excluding Potential Future Stations
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
,,-
1-
Exhibit ES.10: Locally Preferred Alternative (Shoft Term)
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (SHORTTERM)
"'" ;."ZM.'Y.r:"tJ:'..-.......~. ". " ......7 ~;"l," ~ - ~,-~. - - - ,
-'i ~ . -'i'1!', "':'t ';1 \'" ~-,...'" ~"'. "" ",,'
~.. 'lit'1li:.i.........1',. -. .... - I "'...;:;;. J.
~ "".'1'0/' .~.. =ti""......{ ':\ - I' ~-.. - ~......;1!.,"1
. q,.-..::' ~ ~_ ~ _ '" . ,., ~ ~ ;.. ~ e.:".""-<
l J\."'1 IM~'" ~ .> "-.~ c.a1ifOrnjaSt.~teUniversity . ~ '. ~f,S .~.
~X' ,,' San Bernardono ... ...~,- r'~"'-./I.~j. ~ _ ~ A:
, _ . :~ ~f: .t,~.- <. . :.0" ,... ir' ~ ...." .:...~.. ;; ~ ~
\1 ~'.', ~..:1 "'....\~.t;l. ~ " ,,1:'''1 'L''''\. = r:: _~~....
E. ~,"P. .' ,~"f7 ~'';I. "'~, <r.' -,"" .,.. \
. ,....~ ~", . · '"'11.1, 1"1fi i.. '<2 ;.-0::.... - ']
:.' ;!~~~"'~~.-1:'~ ~.,~,'~ I((!f}~:r,~ '. ,~ -~ ,-!' 1 ,',' ~ ~ ~ ';"';1'"
~'f ~\;;!, -' a~" ,,~. ~,~~ . 1 ~~ fr.-,
I - .~ ,0 .~" ~ ... (4" .;ti "'}.-...:. Dr'i-{> 40th Street ~.. "'" I . ~ r ": ... .,;..,-
~' ,~-<; ~\..., 4!'A.':"~'" r,.~, -. .-. ~ 1 r I
,'~........ ~~f ",\. Q~~%~'~' l I
'l!.' e" ^' .r,,"'" ~ ':''''''~'''S- ,~X '"" Q "'~
';.,r "W:., ~ '~, . ~o ~ >:-1$ 36th Street a L .. F ~1
'';. ~J~lI .. -~. .f e -s:-'fi t.
1''0. ~ 4.~ ~l"'~,r-l' ~~'\. .~'7 I " _ a ..
I). ..:t~ -fl. ..AF. ~;i~' \":"' .L Marshall Boulevard- I
l..I'.I!' '"' :l"":-'1'~'" ~~, ,f:1 T "", .-
\. III y ~, 't. ~. ..r>..
(." "'. ...f.':. .... - _w_ IW.-SR.3.0-__..J:.
'"' "'10.. ..y.... ~,,-.-- -0;;- ""-~ ",...:;::-~ r.o
- '" \\~, '.'. .'''~. ~I'''' J ~ -r::~ I
_ 1"-..... t-. '-'\ lJ lY ~ . I! - ~
'If _ ~_'.l . 'i,r.,. ~ih 1:;. .... ii": ,~-, . .' I:: 'il'~
,.- -...... ~'l;'" ~I ~ 't" ...*~Hlghlan. d A~._~ue...;1. .'tii 1v;Jl. .." It: c:" ::4
I[ c:; ,....." iil.1 ~'\-+ T San Bernardino ;,1:rn . - I;r,. - -~'. -' 8;'O~~ ]
l. ,;'j ~ ~ High School ___ Vl.lli " ol' "II. I .~
' (I ~ ,,\;1.... ..' ~ ~ D1..,~>:.L~
r; ~'""~~ '.\ :y,_ ~ -,.. ~ .11> ~ ~ .
_ ":1 ,..., \ ,,', '-'Ia -...: ~ u. 0 ~tll ~ ~ _ i ~~
~.... t'. a\ .,. 1::; t- Q.I-w'~ * ~;iI'I'~ . ~ I,;! ... "
~- .~' r - ~. - ~,~. il Base me Street. . ~ " tl
:,1"".: '.. ~r ,_ LL ~:~
ts['lr ." '. Ii" t.. L ::. VI "& ,I ~
I,~,;., ...:,~ "!'-'l' \J. .:li~ ,.~" II J [' , ... It'l r.#
~ ~J ..\- ~' ~ l ~.(' r.. ~ .I.._~
_ ';'~' _.,' ~ ~..!'f" t:....if:t Carousel Mall ~I -g;
f ~".;-.' . ]\ t_t Q, ,,\;;1 ~ Slre~ CiVIC Cen,e, !
, C e -'-"'-'] "" ~ - II. ,,\-:1 P'41t\,sjreet"" ,Downtown San
'.' "'''''"''.... "'. '."- -..;, .... ci...... \ofo ;;;.. .---;;; Bernardono -
~~'t!J, .... ",..'.. t_ - &".. [".IoI:,.._~. 'I ...
. II r ..., ,..... .~." S'- ."," ;l;
. .~" .t.. ~ J. ,.~ Rialto Avenue. I-"
.~ ~"', . " ... li ~
I \;; ".-~', ,d ~ ... ~ "., I'j"'r ..
f- . '--..;;;. ", .J ,. a "'. i
_ " "-' U" .:1... .oiI_ E: l
it.. II. I r.'.-I t:. t'f
i:..' ~ ~!J "1:1'" ~iIl Street ~ f '*'
'. _.. 9- Orange Show , r
!: C -;*ij Fairgrounds ........
I "l ~ ('\.~, ~range Show Road , · ; ..' i"
. " Q n -t,~ ..,.. ~"''' tl
l~ ....:,.. ~ ...~. 1":' ~II' I:l " II ,"I ,., a :I.. .:
. 1c"I ~ ,,;(I I ~~....f.) 1:1 Q)
.1.C ~ .. ~ "" . ~ ':' ~La~\ 0 ~ ~
...,J - ,~~.:>.~ _1.l0Freewa~~.l;. ~ ::.~ > ~
," II ' ~( '"' If. :r ~i '::.f.';;i-~~ - ~ ~ r 5.. Redlands ~ ~
I "':~S"- ~~i:l' . ~~..:: .~ ~~, ~' ~ Blvd, .~ J
~ . ~~ '" _' -.0 '/~ -.... ---- Vi 0 Lomalinda 5
~ '~l .. ,,~ ~ .. ~ lr.d.tf1,.;l ~ l~ ~ ~ :; I. University .0
I ':\ ,. .. r tflE.~''f' ';!/ , :E
~>\;~; '~,. ,)It;..' Ill::. (~~)I,..~ ;.. "VAHospital
.'\~); '~ ./ r ~ \;!
#a'..-. - ~;.... _ - :-.t?oo
I
~ i
u
I
J
'!;
" I
~/
~
~)
REV10-1HlS
* Potential Bus Stop Locations
* Potential Bus Stations with Park.and.Ride Lots
Preliminary Locations of Exclusive Lanes
1.0
.5
o
1,0
Miles
_..
.",
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
~.~
~A~
~,.....,__ _~O"'HI'IAN$
Table ES.10: Locally Preferred Alternative (Short Term)
Acauisition/Easement Reauired
Area Required within
300' on either side of
P+R Distance Queue intersection
Station Location Spaces in Miles Jumper (square footl Remarks
Kendall at Palm Ave. 80 0.00 Yes 44,000 Includes Park and Ride (surface parking),
ROW for 300' south of intersection even
though station is further south' Joint
development potential on 12.8 acre vacant
site.
CSUSB-South 2.41 2,700 Remove some landscaping
Kendall Dr. at N. lillie 1.35 Yes 900 May be difficult due to extremely narrow
Mountain Dr. sidewalks
Kendall Dr. at Shandin 0.68 Yes
Hills/40th SI.
E Street at Marshall Blvd. 150 1.58 Yes 55,000 Park and Ride (surface parking)
E SI. at Highland Ave. 0.92 No With Sidewalk Extension
E SI. at Baseline SI. 1.00 No With Sidewalk Extension
E SI. at Carousel Mall 1.09 Curb extension
E SI. at Rialto Ave. north 170 0.38 3,000 Park and Ride (surface parking)
of RR On Intermodal Transportation Center
(Transcenter) site (Prior acquisition
assumed)
E SI. at North Mall Way 0.99 No 2,590 Includes linkage up to the bridge and up to
the station near Orange Show Fairgrounds.
Assume 5' sidewalk could be added to the
bridge.
Does not include linkage to shopping
center
Hospitality Lane at Hunts 1.70 7,800 Nearside Stop for EB
Lane
Hospitality Lane east of 0.92 8,400
Carnegie Drive
Evans Street at Academy 440 0.85 176,000 Includes Park and Ride (surface parking)
Wy.
Anderson SI. and Stewart 0.54 18,000
SI.
Anderson SI. at Barton 0.43 16,200
Road
Barton Road at Loma 120 0.93 155,000 Includes shared parking and replacement
Linda Drive parking (total 600 spaces).
Station and parking for sbX on 1 st floor of
parking structure, V A parking on levels 2,
3, and 4.
17 Stops * 960 15.79
* Excluding Potential Future Stations
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
:-
.
1-
As shown in Table ES.9, the LPA includes 16
stations and is approximately 15.9 miles in length
from the PalmlKendall Station in the north to the
V A Hospital and the Lorna Linda Transcenter in
the south.
The E Street LP A along with the Extension of
Metrolink to the proposed San Bernardino
Transcenter will create a new multimodal hub at
E Street and Rialto that also connects to the
proposed Redlands Rail Line (Exhibit ES.ll).
Next Steps in the Project Development
Process
LPA Adoption and Inclusion in the SCAG
RTP. The selection of the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LP A) was determined by the PDT on
October 26,2005 based on the results of the
detailed alternatives analysis and input from the
general public, stakeholders, and agencies. As
shown in Table ES.ll, the recommendations of
the PDT were presented to the Omnitrans
Planning and Productivity Committee (PPe) on
November 9, 2005, SANBAG Plans & Programs
Committee on November 16 and will be
presented to the Omnitrans and SANBAG Boards
on December 7, 2005 for approval.
Subsequently, the LP A will also be presented to
the San Bernardino and Lorna Linda City
Councils for adoption.
Once all local adoptions have taken place,
Omnitrans is eligible to seek a Letter of
Completion from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). The Letter
of Completion is issued by SCAG's Regionally
Significant Transportation Investment Strategy
(RSTIS) Committee.
Exhibit ES. 11: Red/ands Rail Alignment
* Proposed lRT Stations
* Proposed lRT Stations with Park-aod-Ride
_ Fixed Rail Transit
. . Metrolink Extension
_ E Street Corridor. Locally Preferred Alternative
_r;
o 0..5 1.0
Miles
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
.
Table ES. 11: LPA Calendar of Deliverables and Approvals from Participating Agencies
Project Planning & Public
Development Productivity Omnitrans Meetingsl SCAG RSTlS Peer
Team Items for Action Committee Board Approvals Review Committee
2005
October Evaluation of Detailed E October 19 November 17
Street Alternatives and Public Open RSTIS
Receive Public Input House
October 26 Results of Public Open November 9 December 7 Approval by San November 16
PDT Workshop House Evaluate/Screen 16 Omnitrans Bernardino and SAN BAG Planning
Detailed Alternatives Select and SAN BAG Loma Linda City and Program
LPNLPA Approval Process Boards Councils Committee
Nov/Dec. LPA Alignment and Cost November 9 December 7 Jan/Feb 06 December 15
Estimate Omnitrans &
SAN BAG
November 16
2006
Jan/Feb 2006 LPA Report TBD 2006 TBD 2006 January 19
LPA Financial Plan RSTIS Letter of
Draft Program Management Completion
Plan
New Starts Report
Early 2006 Submit Letter to FTA TBD 2006 TBD 2006 SAN BAG submits LPA
Requesting Approval to as candidate project
Begin PE and Request FTA for the RTP
Participation in
Environmental Process
Early 2006 Transition to Preliminary TBD 2006 TBD 2006 New Public Amendment to RTP to
Engineering Involvement include LP A
Program
Mid. 2006 Environmental (EIS) Process TBD 2006 TBD 2006 FT A is lead MPO and Omnitrans
Begins federal agency are sponsoring
agencies
Next, SANBAG and Omnitrans will nominate the
LPA as part of the package of projects from San
Bernardino County for inclusion in the next
update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
in early 2006. Then the LP A is taken before the
appropriate SCAG RTP Committees for
consideration in the next RTP's Adopted Plans
and Programs list.
Transition into Preliminary Engineering
and Environmental Studies
Several activities and deliverables need to be
produced prior to the commencement of
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Studies.
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
Prepare Locally Preferred Alternative
Alignment and Cost Estimate. The LP A will be
documented in both written and graphical format.
A set of final conceptual engineering drawings
depicting the physical alignment features of the
selected BRT Alternative will be developed. The
complete package will be included in the LP A
Report and will be the basis for advancing the
project into the preliminary engineering phase
upon approval by all appropriate decision making
authorities.
Refined capital and operating cost estimates will
be developed to support the final LP A alignment.
'-
.
1-
For environmental transition, a scope of work
will be prepared by the Project Team for a
Detailed Environmental Analysis that will be
performed under the guidelines of the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEP A).
Prepare Necessary
Documents
million. This would enable the BRT project to
enter a more streamlined New Starts rating
process. To accomplish this task, the Project
Team will evaluate various Federal funding
programs available to Omnitrans.
Evaluate Sources of Funding
for Local Match. The next
task will be to evaluate funding
sources for the local match of
Federal funds. The degree of
local match funding will be a
major factor in the FT A's New
Starts project evaluation
process. A high level of
matching funds from state and
local sources demonstrates both that the project
has strong local support, and that the Federal
participation would be leveraged to a greater
extent than for competing projects with lower
matching levels from other metropolitan areas.
POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUNDING
SOURCES
. STP and CMAQ Flexible Funds
. Section 5309 FTA New Starts Funds
. Section 5307 FTA Urban Area Formula
Program Funds
. TIFIA Loan Program
. Leveraging Future Federal
. Funds - GARVEE Bonds
Prepare LP A Report. The
LP A Report will be used to
summarize all of the decisions
that lead up to the selection of
the LP A. The technical reports
prepared as part of this scope
will be used as the basis for
preparing the document. It will summarize the
following:
. Existing Conditions;
. Purpose and Need;
. Definition of Alternatives and why
alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration;
. A description of the evaluation methodology
and a discussion of the evaluation matrix used
in making the LP A decision;
. A description of the travel demand modeling
process and the results of the process;
. A discussion of land use considerations; and
. A detailed description of the LPA.
Prepare Financial Plan. The following steps
will be conducted in preparing the financial plan.
Identify Federal Funding Sources. The first
task in developing the Financial Plan will be to
identify the capital funding sources available
from the Federal Government. One issue to be
specifically addressed is the pros and cons of
seeking Section 5309 New Starts funding.
Depending on the cost and service plan of the
BRT project, it may be more advantageous to
enter the new "small starts" category of funding
which has a federal participation cap of$75
_.
. .;-'",
The local match requirement for the capital costs
will be segmented and evaluated by type of
capital expenditure. For example, potential joint-
use facilities and opportunities for public/private
partnerships will be evaluated as an opportunity
for private investment to fund a portion of the
capital cost. Vehicle costs will be assessed for a
lease-purchase option in order to reduce the initial
capital outlay.
Stability and Reliability Analysis. Once the
Financial Plan is developed, the next task will be
to evaluate the plan's ability to deal with funding
contingencies such as delays in federal funding,
changes in local economic activity, and some
degree of unforeseen cost escalation. In order to
evaluate the stability and reliability of the funding
plan, two types of "What if' analysis will be
done. A stability analysis will be performed to
measure the plan's ability to withstand changes in
the driving variables in the sources of revenue.
The plan should be able to manage a reasonable
amount of changes in the underlying assumptions
without unduly impacting the funding
requirements of the plan. Changes in economic
growth projections, unanticipated declines in
ridership, or adverse changes to the level of
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase I
&J1,
-~_ rO.....'....N$
inflation should be the type of variables the plan
should be able to withstand. A reliability analysis
will be performed to measure the plan's ability to
be influenced by changes in the legislative and
political environment.
Risk Analysis. In the cost side, each major
component of the transportation system will be
reviewed to ensure that sufficient allowance has
been made to deal with unforeseen contingencies.
This analysis will essentially measure the plan's
ability to manage cost overruns and unanticipated
delays and expenses beyond the planned
expenditure levels.
Prepare Draft Program Management Plan. A
Draft Program Management Plan will be prepared
as required by FT A prior to approval for entry
into Preliminary Engineering. The Draft Program
Management Plan will include:
. Roles and Responsibilities of Key
Participants;
. Quality Control and Assurance;
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR LOCAL MATCH
. State Transit Assistance Funds
. Transit Development Act (TDA) Funds
State and Local . Motor Fuel Taxes
Funds . Vehicle Registration Fees
. Special Purpose Local Option Sales
Taxes
. Special Tax Allocation Districts
Ancillary . Parking Fees
Revenues . Concessions
(Net of Cost of . Advertising
Operating) . Joint Development
. Public / Private Partnershios
. Capital Leases - Lease / Lease Back
Program
Innovative . Vendor Financing of Rolling Stock
Financing Tools . Lease - Purchase Procurements
. Various Short-Term Financing
Proqrams
. Design Management;
. Real Estate and Other Property Acquisition;
. Risk Management;
. Safety and Security;
. Construction and Procurement Management;
E Street Transit Corridor Project - Phase j
. Testing and Preparation for Revenue Start-
Up;
. Human Resources;
. Labor Relations and Dispute Resolution; and
. Legal Requirements, Assurances and
Agreements.
Prepare New Starts Report. A New Starts
Report will be prepared for submittal to FT A.
This report will include:
. Project Justification Information (mobility
improvements, environmental benefits,
operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness,
transit supportive existing land use policies,
and future patterns, and other factors);
. Financial Plan (proposed share from sources
other than Section 5309 New Starts, strength
of proposed capital funding plan, ability to
fund operation and maintenance);
. Fleet Management Plan; and
. Draft Program Management Plan.
Prepare Request to Enter PE. A formal request
for approval to enter Preliminary Engineering
will be prepared for submittal to FT A.
Transition to Preliminary Engineering.
Transition to Preliminary Engineering will
involve the preparation of the Administrative
Record (project files) and a scope of work that
Omnitrans can use to supplement this contract.
Documents Needed for Transition to PE
Product 6.2.1 LPA Report
Product 6.2.2 20-Year Capital Program Financial Plan
Product 6.2.3 20-Year Operating Program Financial
Plan
Product 6.2.4 20-Year Cash Flow
Product 6.2.5 Draft Program Management Plan
Product 6.2.6 New Starts Report
Product 6.2.7 Fleet Management Plan
Product 6.2.8 Request to Enter Preliminary
Engineering
Product 6.2.9 Administrative Record
-
"'