Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout38- City Administrator's ORIGINAL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Fred Wilson, City Subject: Resolution of the Mayor and Administrator Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopting in concept the locally Dept: City Administrator's Office preferred alternative (LPA) for the E Street transit corridor and transit supportive uses Date: November 16, 2005 adjacent to the LPA Stations. MCC Date: December 5, 2005 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: 5/16/2005 — Consultants for Omnitrans made a presentation to Mayor and Council regarding the proposed alternatives for the sbX "E" Street Transit Corridor Project. Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution. Signature Contact person: Teri Baker Phone: X51?? Supporting data attached: Staff rem, Omnitrans Ward: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7 Report & Resolution FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: None Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct Description) Finance: Council Notes: Re—::O. 2-LX, 4 I a Agenda Item No. 39 1 X/510 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Staff Report Subject: Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopting in concept the locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the E Street transit corridor and transit supportive uses adjacent to the LPA Stations. Backizround: In February of 2004, Omnitrans received funding to conduct a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the "E" Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor. The majority of the project was funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The "E" Street Corridor has been identified by Omnitrans as one of the busiest corridors in the Omnitrans system and was selected as a first step in the effort to incorporate BRT technologies to improve efficiency and effectiveness of transit on all heavily utilized transit corridors in the region. BRT technology provides more comfortable vehicles, higher frequencies and speeds, better reliability because of dedicated lanes or preferential treatment, and short wait times between routes. The "E" Street Corridor study area is about 14 miles long, generally following Kendall Drive from California State University south to "E" Street, through downtown San Bernardino, then east on Hospitality Lane, and south to Loma Linda University/Medical Center and the VA Hospital. A Project Development Team (PDT) consisting of representatives from Omnitrans, the City of San Bernardino, the City of Loma Linda, Metrolink, SANBAG, CSUSB, LLUMC, Caltrans, SLAG, and the Veteran's Hospital have been meeting monthly since early 2004 to discuss the project and provide input to the consultants with regard to the "E Street Corridor." In May of this year, staff from Omnitrans and consultants for the project presented an update to the Mayor and Council regarding the project. That update consisted of several alternative routes and stations along the corridor that were being studied. The Project Team has now completed its analysis of alternative routes and stations and has received extensive input from the general public. They are prepared to present their final recommendations to the Mayor and Council. In order for Omnitrans to become eligible for new federal transit funding from the FTA, this extensive planning process was required. The attached report from the Omnitrans describes the comprehensive technical analysis that was performed in an effort to arrive at the final recommendation. Table 9 on Page twenty-two of the report illustrates the final recommendation for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Route along the "E" Street Corridor from Palm Avenue in North San Bernardino to Barton Road in Loma Linda. The United States Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration need to see evidence that the E Street Corridor LPA has local support; therefore, the LPA must be adopted by all appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) also needs to see evidence of City support prior to considering the LPA for the next update of the Regional Transportation Plan. Omnitrans is requesting that the City i Councils for San Bernardino and Loma Linda adopt resolutions supporting the LPA and transit supportive uses adjacent to the stations. The Project Team is available to answer any questions the Mayor and Council may have regarding this project. Financial Impact: None. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution. J o D 1 2 RESOLUTION NO. 3 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALLY 4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LPA 5 STATIONS. G WHEREAS, fast, convenient, reliable, safe and cost effective transit is 7 important for the economy, community, air quality, congestion mitigation and overall mobility; and 8 WHEREAS, population, housing, and job growth in the region require rJ increasingly proactive planning to ensure that transit can expand to meet the resulting 10 demand; and 11 WHEREAS, rising fuel costs and the general uncertainty of the nation's energy future make it prudent to create the most versatile and useful transit system 12 possible, to provide alternatives to motoring; and 13 WIIEREAS, Omnitrans and the City of San Bernardino recognize the 14 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 15 WHEREAS, Omnitrans and the City recognize that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 16 service (branded as sbX in San Bernardino) is essential to remedy declining operating 17 speeds and degradation of service due to increasing congestion; and 18 WHEREAS, most goals for regional mobility, including effective transit, require the cooperation of national, regional and local governments in all areas that 19 impact transportation, especially transportation funding, roadway design, roadway management, and land use planning; and 20 WHEREAS, this cooperation is only possible through the development of a 21 shared long-range vision for the future of transportation in the region and its distinct 22 communities; and 23 WHEREAS, said Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the culmination of an extensive planning process that is required by the Federal Transit Administration 24 (FTA) in order for Omnitrans to become eligible for new federal transit funding; and 2`' WHEREAS, new federal transit funding will be necessary to build the entire 26 LPA in the E Street Corridor and will benefit the local economy as well; and 2; 28 L/ o i l . f RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT I 1 CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LPA 2 STATIONS. 3 WHEREAS, the E Street Project Development Team (PDT), of which the City is an active member, and stakeholders selected the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) based on the results of a comprehensive technical analysis of the final E Street 5 Alternatives and from public input; and 6 WHEREAS, the LPA needs to be adopted by both the San Bernardino and i Loma Linda City Councils in order to be considered by the Southern California 7 Association of Governments (SLAG) for inclusion in the next update of the Regional 8 Transportation Plan; and S WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) need to see evidence that the E Street Corridor LPA has local 10 support and has been adopted locally by all appropriate agencies and jurisdictions; and 11 WHEREAS, Omnitrans worked closely with San Bernardino City staff, 12 County of San Bernardino, California State University San Bernardino, Metrolink, VA Hospital, San Bernardino University Adventists Health Services Center and 13 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 14 and recent General Plan update; and 15 WHEREAS, Omnitrans conducted public outreach workshops and meetings 16 for input from San Bernardino stakeholders throughout the process of developing and narrowing transit alternatives leading to the LPA; and it 7 WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino supports and encourages premium 18 transit, to increase transit ridership, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, link 10 activity centers and encourage high quality new transit supportive development. 20 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 211 1. The City of San Bernardino adopts in concept the E Street Locally Preferred 22 Alternative (LPA) and its inclusion in the 2006 Regional Transportation Plan. 23 2. The City of San Bernardino supports transit supportive development in the E 21 Street Corridor Area. Transit supportive uses include a variety of retail. housing, employment opportunity, healthcare, and civic/governmental uses in 25 walking distances of stations which encourages transit ridership and addresses 261 air quality and traffic congestion. 271 28 i I j I I i RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALLY ! 1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LPA 2 STATIONS. 3 3. The City of San Bernardino will consult with Omnitrans in preparing and approving detailed plans for land use and development of properties adjacent 4 to LPA stations. 5 4. The City of San Bernardino will consider policies and implementing measures 6 in its plans and zoning ordinance to provide incentives for sensitively designed higher intensity/density transit supportive developments within '/2 mile of the 7 LPA station. Potential incentives include density bonuses, floor area ratio 8 increases, increases in building height, reduced parking requirements with a parking study, and expedited review. 9 5. The City of San Bernardino supports the integration of LPA transit stations 10 into nearby planned developments and attractively landscaped pedestrian 11 linkages interconnecting transit supportive uses to the transit stations. 12 /// 13 !// 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 HI 23 HI 24 25 /// 26 27 28 is RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY 1 OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING IN CONCEPT THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE E STREET TRANSIT 2 CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES ADJACENT TO THE LPA STATIONS. 3 4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the J r Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting 6 thereuf; held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 ESTRADA 9 LONGVILLE 10 MCGINNIS 11 DERRY 12 13 KELLEY 14 J014NSON 15 MCCAMMACK 16 17 18 Rachel Clark, City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of 10 _ 12005. 20 21 22 Judith Valles, Mayor 23 ,approved as to 24 Form and legal content: 25 JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney 26 By- 27 28 / �% L OMNITRANS Date: December 5, 2005 To: Mayor and Common Council—City of San Bernardino Through: Durand L. Rall, 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 (LPA) Summary fir" 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 Loma Linda. Options that were analyzed serve California State University at San Bernardino (CSUSB) in the north; traverse central San Bernardino to Loma Linda University Medical Center and the VA Hospital in the south. 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 Known as sbX, the new high-tech, user-friendly service will have: system will offer more frequent service, fewer ■ Speeds competitive with cars during peak stops, and higher average speeds than traditional commute hours; bus service. Investing in this new transportation system will greatly improve Omnitrans' ability to ■ Better reliability because express vehicles meet growing travel demands, encourage travel in dedicated lanes or have preferential redevelopment, and maintain economic vitality in treatment; the Corridor. The E Street Transit Corridor Project would be the first segment in a valley 0 Short wait times between routes and wide system of interconnected sbX service. As connecting corridors; and shown in Exhibit ES.1, seven transit corridors were identified in the San Bernardino Valley as candidates for premium service. Alo.W E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 } � (J) \ \\ K § 2 0 C/) � �j�4 . � � 0 (U ® _ m i w ) | } a - ■ ■ \ / » &md \ ■ \ ES w - \ ( 1 # $) ^ ° ] La 2 \J / §, \ ,�®! Q 0 � �`� ® J \ / U % a © Q) \ cc \ \ 2 — 00 - . � § ƒ �■ ~ ° � - Q ` 0 } 2 \ \; \ 2 / / \ c : . k\ ) !! % ._ as ! !! ) 8 r C md24 ■ « > ntinEud \ s r e . . � MC k /k \ ƒ k \.. ! / ! \ > k \ £Sele Transit Corridor Project-Phase l �'OM N I_TRA NS, ■ Attractive, well-designed vehicles and Project Objectives stations/stops that enhance adjacent land uses. Alternative transit scenarios were designed to E Street Corridor Description address the deficiencies and needs identified above. Each of the five alternatives below were The E Street Corridor is about 16 miles long, evaluated based on their ability to meet the generally following Kendall Drive from following project objectives: California State University south to E Street, through downtown San Bernardino, east on 1. Enhance mobility and accessibility Hospitality Lane, and south to Loma Linda. It runs through a variety of land uses, from low- 2. Encourage economic growth and density residential development in the north to redevelopment commercial development along E Street. The core 3. Improve transit operations downtown area has some of the highest concentrations of office and public facilities in 4. Provide a cost-effective solution the Omnitrans service area. The southern end of the Corridor contains significant public, The sbX can serve as a catalyst for community educational and medical facilities. The Corridor improvements. In turn, new development can supports about 121,000 people and more than foster increased transit usage. This synergy 71,000 jobs. Many residents have low incomes between land use and transportation can take the and/or are transit-dependent. About 28 percent of form of Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). the population lives below the poverty line and 16 The benefits of TODs are numerous and the percent of the households in the corridor have no concept was studied for six of the proposed sbX automobile. stations. As part of this analysis, the draft Purpose and Need for the Project General Plans for the Cities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda were reviewed for transit Numerous key deficiencies and needs were supportive plans and policies. Suggestions for identified in the E Street Corridor. Existing transit modifications were provided to both cities. 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 r,,; ., ► '% 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 I-10 Freeway. This problem will get much worse as population and employment grow. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I �` For example, at the Inland Center Mall, TOD The overall planning and project development improvements could better connect the mall uses process for federally-funded transit projects is with activity on E Street, including sbX service. prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration Exhibit ES.2 shows how land use changes and (FTA), and is referred to as the New Starts landscaping along with sidewalk and bridge Process. Omnitrans is following the New Starts improvements could create a stronger, more process in order to become eligible for attractive connection between the mall and the discretionary federal funds for implementing E Street Corridor. premium transit service in the E Street Corridor. Transit-Oriented Development at the Loma Linda The process (Exhibit ESA) started with the Veterans Administration Hospital (Exhibit ES.3) development of a System-wide Transit has the potential to make the VA easier to reach Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley by transit, while increasing parking for those (July 2004). The System-wide Plan determined arriving by car. It would also create a new transit that the E Street Corridor should have the highest center to ease regional connections and provide priority among the seven corridors that were better transit access to City Hall and the Loma identified. Linda University Medical Center East Campus. The analytical phase within the FTA New Starts Project Development Process process that provided a decision-making framework for the E Street Transit Corridor Omnitrans, in cooperation with the San Project is the Alternatives Analysis. It includes: Bernardino Associated Governments, SCAG and other public entities, completed an analysis of Existing Conditions: The first step in the alternatives in the Corridor in compliance with Alternatives Analysis was to compile information guidelines from the Federal Transit about the Corridor and the metropolitan region to Administration (FTA). assess the existing socio-demographic, economic, and transportation system conditions. This Stakeholders who have worked with the assessment determined the underlying root causes sponsoring agencies in the E Street Corridor of travel patterns and issues related to the Transit Project include: transportation system in the Corridor. For the E ■ California State University— San Bernardino Street Transit Corridor, a comprehensive analysis of existing conditions was performed in 2004 ■ The Cities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda culminating in the publishing of the report: Assessment of Existing Conditions (September ■ Loma Linda University Health Sciences 2004). Center Purpose and Need: In this phase, the purpose ■ The VA Hospital in Loma Linda and need for transportation improvements was ■ Caltrans District 08 carefully defined for the Corridor. Travel patterns, transportation system performance, and ■ The Southern California Regional Rail past studies were reviewed and analyzed. The Authority (Metrolink) Purpose and Need Statement summarized this technical information along with public input and • San Bernardino County identified key trends and issues. These issues led • The Inland Center Mall to the determination of objectives to be achieved by transportation improvements in the E Street Corridor. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I OMNITFANS Exhibit ES.2: Conceptual Design for Transit-Oriented Development at E Street and North Mall Way I INLAND CENTER MALL l I T nM1a .an deda sl rian 1 1 Co t \ Peta oriel \ Potential Nep. 18,000 SF Retail Space ` New P.,king Structure Apa T Now Retail 3 foo New Rstoil Spa — ` Cho 23,000 SF� Flood Con" r- Potential Naw Retail Space I j Potential New Retail Space .J sb%Align=ants L�—_—r--� ---- E-Street^ —� New sbX Slop Orange Show Exhibit ES.3: Conceptual Design for Loma Linda Transcenter and Transit-Oriented Development at the VA Hospital - _ _ •� � • � E.L.IeaNaal sbX Tram •C�n �- e.rr.n ea.a E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 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 S13 Project Development Guidelines) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan ■Major Development Stage ■Major Development Stage Completed Alternatives Analysis ■Decision Point Select LPA,MPO Action,Development Criteria PMP FTA Decision on Entry into PE Preliminary Engineering:Complete NEPA Process,Refinement of Financial Plan ■ 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 Full Funding Grant Agreement ■ Construction:Testing, Inspection,Begin Revenue Services=OEM Definition of Conceptual Alternatives: As part investments in bus and/or rail transit of this phase, a candidate pool of initial technologies. conceptual alternatives was developed to address For the E Street Transit Corridor, the Conceptual mobility problems and other concerns in the E Street Corridor. This initial set of conceptual Alternatives were modal in nature and included: alternatives was structured to provide a range of ■ No Build (No Action) Alternative with only multi-modal transportation infrastructure and existing and funded services and facilities in service improvements. The transportation the Corridor. alternatives that were selected with input from stakeholders and the general public emphasized ■ Transportation Systems Management(TSM) different transportation modes, candidate Alternative, which adds planned projects and alignments, and levels of investment, and thus trendline service improvements to the No addressed different aspects of the study purpose Build Alternative. and need. Included in the initial set of alternatives were baseline alternatives which assume there is • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternatives no new major transit capital investment and ■ Light Rail Transit(LRT) Alternatives various build alternatives which included major m. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 OMNITRAN9 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). The final step in the Alternatives Analysis phase was Detailed Alternatives Analysis. During this +c phase, conceptual engineering, environmental and community impact analysis was performed on the final Corridor alternatives which included: t � ■ No Build, included only existing and committed projects and services; ■ Transportation Systems Management (TSM), which added planned service improvements to existing and committed Passenger Boarding sbX Vehicle on Hospitality Lane projects. It added a new limited stop bus Screening of Conceptual Alternatives: The service on E Street that used the routing of initial set of conceptual alternatives was subjected Omnitrans Route 2 (see Exhibit ES.5); and to a "screening process," which narrowed down ■ Three (3) Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) these alternatives to a reduced set. The reduced alternatives in the E Street Corridor would set of alternatives included only those alternatives implement sbX on different alignments that had a reasonable chance of becoming the through the Corridor. They use the locally preferred alternative. During screening, alignments shown in Exhibit ES.5. the initial alternatives were assessed based on Alternatives 1 and 2 use a proposed elevated screening criteria derived from the objectives transitway to cross over I-10. identified for the Corridor combined with community input. The screening criteria, or The primary objective of the Detailed measures of effectiveness, applied both numerical Alternatives Analysis was to evaluate the five and qualitative measures to assess the relative final alternatives (two baselines and three BRT performance of each alternative. This process Build) and their alignments and select the highest lead to the identification of those alternatives that ranked alternatives/alignments for consideration best meet the various study objectives for the as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The overall E Street Corridor and were carried into alternatives were assessed using twenty-seven the detailed analysis phase. (27)individual Measures-of-Effectiveness (MOEs) that fall into seven categories of criteria (Table ES.1). E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I Exhibit ES.5: E Street Transit Alternatives MAP 1 MAP 2 Transporation Systems sbX Management (TSM) Alternative (On E Street Between Civic Center and • California State University San Bernardino California State University - San Bernardino OPTIONAL STOP �y 2 90T ` o� JpTNST ?' 3Q Mq�h MgRS qGG sq3`G e<�p sR30&,O O Nip `" c San Bernardino N/cNGgNpq iD San Bernardino � NG4NOq \ � High School T/ y kE a�a High School to ve a b Carousel\ 1 M 11 Carousel Mall e g N agSFG/NeSr / EST 2 j 3 c R/gGTpgL ��2e 9TNgT �O f / 4V y 3 o III / .� STHSr y\ Civic Center/Downtown ti Civic Center Downtown M/GG San Bernardino o M/GG�ST San Bernardino I/.,IC.nt.r Mall. T I nd Center Mall - Orange Show �---�—Orange Show 141Z Fairgrounds �qG// _ - Fairgrounds Bi Sq �' eGUO 4""-Q;4"%4,TpggO \\ Iy0 q/gTfgNqTjOqqO�NO ! \`\ �Y h ""-Q', %4,jH O q4/ry `� f 4",4t h „ \ g FMy � 6, J= sieEET U SJ N/"e'? r��� a Loma Linda Yq� ,, P RE Loma Linda '� R m 4RTON RD Medical Center ry Loma Linda 14N°S BgRTON R° Medical Center�, Loma Linda t4 University a<L° University SBGL° \VA Hospital VA Hospital O POTENTIAL BUS STOP e )1O O POTENTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS qT0 O POTENTIAL Bus sioP uoNs NgO OPOTENTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS N V, with PARN•AN"IDE LOTS with PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS B® PRELIMINARY LOCATIONS 0 0.5 1 + 2 Miles M PRELIMINARY LOCATIONS M EXCLUSIVE LANES 0 0.5 1 2 Miles d EXCLUSIVE LANES l E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 OMNiiRA Mf Exhibit ES.5: E Street Transit Alternatives (Contd) MAP 3 MAP 4 (On D and G Streets Between Civic Center and Orange Show) (Existing Route 2 Alignment Extending to Palm Ave.) PJ�- 111 pJF- pPV�' � California State University 011, San Bernardino California State University San Bernardino Noll OPTIONAL STOP 4� 9>' r �Qh ey o9! l 2 QOT ly c qOT \ 1\\ J2 2 Q J= = e I `TO _2 v 2O 20 2 Se Q? v /j//// M4R SRHq(�84vo I s Sq q((84 I'D 3p 3p San Bernardino San Bernardino H/OH414 O e High School �� h �q�f �� High School -� A, gFE a h \ / Carousel Mall 614 fS �\ I Carousel Mall sgSE��NEST o�ON I STHSr � STNST N U G Civic Center/Downtown y Civic Center/Downtown C San Bernardino ° / San Bernardino I/ndCenter Mall�] "T I nd Center Mall�� M/�f ST Orange Show ` Orange Show q� Fairgrounds a� Fairgrounds fyA° l SANef Eye/VQ I S4,v \ /-/0 Fit, 1 q q�fq,VgR pAO /yDA'I yy 1 4 RpER�,4R pAR6TNO / \ Y ho DRr q� f \ h �Rj a� /j V 1p \.2\5 STREET .. Zy�o� \•2\5 Ji� D2 SJ UN��FASi� "'V 4iPN = fRS/ O S4RTON ftC Loma Linda q� P REO� Bq RTON RD Loma Linda Tyq� v Re�� Medical Center University gNOSB,D Medical Center�, University Linda VA Hospital VA Hospital OPOTENTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS eggjDN \ 9,ggjDN OPOTENTIAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS ?p O BUS STOP LOCATIONS q0 with PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS M PRELIMINARY LOCATIONS 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Miles of EXCLUSIVE LANES E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 ' Table ES.1: Key Criteria and Measures for Evaluating Alternatives Criteria Category Selected Measures 1. Enhancing Mobility&Accessibility 1 Reduce passenger wait time and travel times—higher speed service 2 Directness of service 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 'h mile of stations and Redevelopment 8 Connections to job centers 9 Number of redevelopment areas served 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 TOD opportunities 4. Environmental Benefits 14 Reductions in annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 15 Reductions in air pollutants 16 Comprehensive rating of benefits/impacts 5. Improving Transit 17 Lowest annual transit Vehicle Service 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. In terms of comparisons of the alignments for the First, the five alternatives including the three (3) alternatives, the alignment for the limited stop BRT alternatives were compared to each other. service in the TSM alternative was essentially the Then, for the BRT alternatives, alignments were same as Omnitrans Route 2 with the exception evaluated in the north, downtown, central and that it starts further north on Kendall at a park- southern portions of the Corridor to determine and-ride lot at Kendall and Palm. It travels along how they compared against each other based on Kendall to University Parkway to serve the MOEs. California State University—San Bernardino (CSUSB), then south along Kendall Drive, E For most of the MOEs in the evaluation, Street, Hospitality Lane, Anderson quantitative values were calculated such as for Street/Tippecanoe Avenue, and Barton Road. ridership forecasts, costs and cost-effectiveness. The alignment connects numerous destinations However, some MOE values were qualitative in including CSUSB, downtown San Bernardino, nature such as community support and land use Loma Linda University and Medical Center, and conformity. the VA Hospital. It passes under the I-10 San Bernardino Freeway at Tippecanoe ;rs.,: E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I r ,414110F MNITRANS T , Avenue/Anderson Street. The BRT Alternative 3 (LRT). In addition, the individual alignment alignment is identical to the TSMs limited stop alternatives for the North, Downtown, Central service. (This alignment is called the Standard and Southern portions of the E Street Corridor Alignment). were scrutinized and commented on in several different forums held throughout the Corridor. BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 have identical The process involved the following meetings, alignments in the northern portion of the conferences, and workshops held during February alignment, traveling to the backside of CSUSB and March 2005: using new roads that serve the future expansion of the campus. The CSUSB station is on a ■ February 7`h sbX Leadership Conference held proposed interior University Road north and east at the Radisson Hotel in downtown San of the campus. The BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 use Bernardino was attended by over 100 Elected Little Mountain Parkway to get back to Kendall Officials, Business Leaders/Professionals, Drive. Agency Representatives, transit riders, and members of the general public. The attendees In the downtown and central sections of the were grouped into three delegations and corridor, BRT Alternatives 1 and 3 follow the rotated to three different topical venues at the TSM alignment (Standard Alignment), staying on conference. The attendees were given an E Street. BRT Alternative 2 is different in that it opportunity to turn in comment sheets and leaves E Street at 4th Street and shifts to D Street indicate their preferences on transportation until Rialto. It then travels on Rialto to G Street modes and specific alignment choices for and turns south to the Inland Center Mall where it each of the four portions of the E Street rejoins E Street. Corridor. To get from the Hospitality Lane commercial area to Loma Linda, BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 use a proposed elevated transitway to cross over the I- 10 freeway to join the proposed Evans Street Corridor which traverses Loma Linda University - a 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 ■ February 9t'Public Open House at the stakeholders and the general public from the Feldheym Public Library in central San system planning phase through the completion of Bernardino was attended by over 30 members the detailed Alternatives Analysis. of the general public, including Omnitrans riders. The Open House was set up in a The public involvement program for the manner identical to the sbX Leadership conceptual alternatives analysis phase elicited Conference with attendees rotating between comments on the four types of Transportation three topical stations and indicating their Modal Alternatives: the No-Build, preferences on transportation modal options Transportation Systems Management(TSM), Bus and alignments for each of the 4 geographic Rapid Transit(BRT) and Light Rail Transit groupings in the Corridor. Those present E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I MIR were asked to indicate which mode of transit ■ March 1"and 2nd Workshops with Omnitrans they preferred to see built in the E Street Coach Operators and Administrative staff. Corridor. They overwhelmingly selected Attendees were asked to select their choice of BRT over LRT (Exhibit ES.6). alignment by geographic grouping in the ■ February 23rd Project Development Team E Street Corridor. (PDT) Meeting held at the City of San ■ February 17th meeting of the SCAG Bernardino—Economic Development Regionally Significant Transportation Agency. PDT members attending the meeting Improvement Strategy (RSTIS) Peer Review were asked to select their choices of Committee held at the Southern California alignments by geographic grouping. After Association of Government's office in Los weighing the technical information, PDT Angeles. members unanimously supported the selection of BRT over LRT as the preferred mode to ■ February 150'presentation to the Planning and carry forward into Detailed Alternatives Productivity Committee (PPC) of the Omnitrans Board of Directors. Analysis. Exhibit ES.6: Preferences Reported in Community Workshops PREFERENCES REPORTED IN COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS 70 60 so 0 > 40 LL 0 lZ 30 LLI m 20 Z 10 0 , No Build TSM BRT LRT MODAL ALTERNAnVE ❑Elected Officials/Business Professionals ■Agency Representatives ❑Riders/General Public ❑Project Development Team ■Omnitrans Operators E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 OM NIiRANS So+IFer+F1lNu+u " +' � P To assist in the evaluation of the detailed Prior to the October 19 Public Open alternatives for the E Street Corridor, a House/Workshop, a project information mailer comprehensive public involvement program and was sent out to over 10,000 households. The stakeholder outreach was conducted to determine mailer portrayed the alternatives and provided which segments of those alternatives and station information on their performance. locations were supported locally within the The October 19, 2005, public open house was set Corridor. During the spring and summer of 2005, up with specific workstations that presented a series of stakeholder meetings were held information on the performance of each of the throughout the Corridor to obtain stakeholder five detailed alternatives. The public was shown support for the E Street Transit Corridor Project and receive input on specific station siting and information on the performance of the competing alignments. This input, along with the October segments in the north, downtown, central and 19, 2005, public open house/workshop, provided southern portions of the Corridor. The competing the Project Development Team(PDT) with segments were: information on which alignments will be ■ North: Kendall/University "front side" supported locally in the E Street Corridor. entrance and station at CSUSB versus a The final set of five detailed alternatives were "backside" entrance to the campus that uses presented to the following forums for review and Little Mountain and a new internal Campus comment: Road with a backside station. • Stakeholders meetings/workshops with key m Downtown: An alignment straight down staff from the Cities of San Bernardino and E Street versus a D Street alignment. Loma Linda, California State University-San ■ Central: An alignment straight down E Street Bernardino (CSUSB), the Inland Center Mall, versus a G Street alignment to the Inland Loma Linda University Medical Center and Center Mall. the VA Hospital. ■ South in Loma Linda: A transitway over the • A community open house/workshop held on I-10 Freeway to the proposed Evans Street October 19, 2005, at the Feldeym Public Corridor versus an alignment on Anderson. A Library in Central San Bernardino. third option uses Evans in the northern • Project Development Team (PDT) workshops portion of Loma Linda and Anderson in the on detailed alternatives held on July 27, south. August 24, and October 26, 2005. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I The workshop was attended by over 70 members alignment is that shown in Alternative 3. It is a of the general public. After viewing project "front side" station at the entrance to the Campus exhibits, the public workshop attendees were that CSUSB officials felt worked best for their asked to identify the alignments they felt best met future Campus Expansion Plans. the various categories of evaluation criteria. The alignments that the general public liked best Similarly for LLUMC, officials were able to (Exhibit ES.7) were recorded and documented for Provide clear direction on station siting and their consideration by the Project Development Team strong support for the Evans Street Alignment. (PDT). Until the entire Evans Street Corridor is developed in the future, the alignment shown in Workshops were also held with Corridor Alternative 2 may be appropriate as a short-term stakeholders to determine which station locations operational segment. and alignments were supported and fit best into local master plans and growth plans. Both To determine how strongly supported each CSUSB and LLUMC have new Campus Master alternative is by stakeholders and the public, Plans and gave the Project Team specific input on specific ranking information was collected at the their preferences. For CSUSB, the preferred above forums and was used in the comprehensive evaluation of the detailed alternatives. Exhibit ES.7. Public Preferences from the October 191h Open House Public Preferences from the October 19th Open House --The Alignment in the North 35 segment is identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 30 --The Alignment in the Downtown/ Central segment is identical 25 for Alternatives 1 and 3 20 Votes for these duplicate Number segments of votes have been repeated 15 i 10 ■sbX Alternative 1 ❑sbX Alternative 2 5 ❑sbX Alternative 3 sbX A1 3 0 sbX A1'"WI,e 2 AlterrmtIm or ` sbX A/ternat/ve 1 Corridor Segmerd CC O E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I OMN17RANS Community input is on going via a project 3 BRT Alternatives compare quite closely for website: www.estreet-sbx.com. Project many of the criteria(Table ES.2). However, information and reports can be viewed on the site some differences do exist and factor into their and comments can be made by the public. evaluation. Comparison of Alternatives Overall Ranking of Alternatives The comprehensive comparison of alternatives A comprehensive rating of the five E Street was performed during the summer and fall Alternatives was completed, using a scale of months of 2005. The Project Team produced importance from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best passenger forecasts for the study horizon year performance (Table ES.3). The BRT alternatives 2030, performed an environmental assessment of outrank the No Build and TSM alternatives based the potential impacts of the alternatives and on the technical analysis performed in this study alignments, assessed the operational performance and based on input from the Corridor of alternatives analyzed their land use stakeholders and the general public. The 3 BRT compatibility and potential to influence alternatives total rating was very close. However, redevelopment and their ability to encourage differences occurred for the various segments of economic growth. The technical analysis of the alternatives in the north, downtown, central, and detailed alternatives compared their costs, speeds southern portions of the Corridor. Those (Exhibit ES.8) and their cost-effectiveness. The differences are described in the following section. Exhibit ES.8: Average Speed(MPH) Average Speed(MPH) 25.0 I 20.0 15.0 i i 10.0 5.0 0.0 Route 2-No Build Route 2 Limited sbX-AR 1 sbX-Alt 2 sbX-Alt 3 11.7 17.2 215 23.6 23.2 E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 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(Limited/sbX) - 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 TOD 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 -- 2,620 3,296 3,150 3,400 Of CO2 Emissions Table ES.3: Comprehensive Evaluation of Alternatives 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. ;r�;. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I OMf HITRANS In general, the BRT alternatives rated very high Assessment of North Segment in Categories 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Their shorter Alignments travel times and higher reliability made them superior to the TSM alternative in the category of As was the case with the ranking of alternatives Enhancing Mobility and Accessibility. They in the previous section, northern alignments were were perceived by the community as better at ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with 10 Encouraging Economic Growth and being the best performance. Rankings are shown Redevelopment because of their positive image for all seven categories of criteria(Table ESA). and highly attractive and visible stations which also helped them rank high in Land Use The northern alignment along Kendall and Compatibility and Benefits. Their operating University Avenue included in BRT Alternative 3 costs were significantly lower than the limited was rated superior to the Little Mountain/New bus stop service in the TSM alternative which set University Road alignment (65 points versus 54 them apart in Improving Transit points). This is largely due to its more direct Operations/Safety and Security. service to CSUSB and its faster travel time to/from the University on Kendall/University Finally, in terms of Community Support, the Avenue, and lower cost. The stakeholders and sbX image, attractive/visible stations, and the officials at CSUSB favored the high speed and reliability of service were seen by Kendall/University alignment with a sbX station corridor stakeholders and the general public as on the frontside of CSUSB. They believed that it real difference makers over the TSM alternative. 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 ESA: 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 Security 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 ;nw Assessment of Downtown Segment This was largely due to the faster travel time Alignments to/from the northern portion of the E Street Corridor, its shorter length, and lower cost. The As was the case with the ranking of alternatives D Street alignment also potentially could have in the previous sections, downtown alignments some significant negative impacts in that a lane of were ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with traffic would be taken as well as significant 10 being the best performance. Rankings are parking takes. The stakeholders and officials shown for all seven categories of criteria(Table from the City of San Bernardino favored the ES.S). E Street alignment with a station on E Street next to the Carousel Mall. They believed that it fit The E Street alignment included in BRT well into their long-range plans for the downtown Alternatives 1 and 3 ranked superior to the D area and is well sited to have a positive effect on Street alignment(65 points versus 52 points). 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 Comm unity/Stakeholder Support Total Rating 20 40 65 52 Note: Scale of performance from 1 to 10 with 10 being best. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 0 O.-TRAN4 Assessment of Central Segment G Street alignment in Alternative 2 (performance Alignments ranking of 65 points versus 54 points). This was largely due to the faster travel time to/from As was the case with the ranking of alternatives downtown San Bernardino to the Inland Center in the previous sections, central alignments were Mall, its shorter length, and lower cost. The ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with 10 stakeholders and officials at the City and the being the best performance. Rankings are shown Inland Center Mall favored the E Street alignment for all seven categories of criteria (Table ES.6). with a station on the front entrance of the Inland Center Mall. They believed that it conformed The E Street alignment included in BRT well into their plan for the expansion of the Alternative 1 and 3 ranked superior to 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 I R Assessment of Southern Segment Anderson. Since a specific schedule for the Alignments development of the Evans Street Corridor has not been established yet, the selection between the As was the case with the ranking of alternatives alignments shown in BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 is in the previous sections, southern alignments unclear at this time. Also, the residential takes were ranked on a performance scale of 1-10, with associated with the southern portion of the Evans 10 being the best performance. Rankings are Street alignment in Alternative 1 have not yet shown for all seven categories of criteria(Table been fully assessed in the I-10/Tippecanoe ES.7). Interchange Improvement Project by Caltrans and The southern alignment along Evans Street the San Bernardino Associated Governments included in BRT Alternative 1 ranked as superior (SANBAG). to the Evans/Anderson alignment in BRT Loma Linda University Adventist Health Alternative 2 because it required a lane take on Sciences Center(LLUAHSC) stakeholders and Anderson Street. They both were rated superior officials preferred the Evans Street alignment. to the Anderson Street alignment(BRT This was largely due to the faster travel time Alternative 3) which was not as well supported to/from the Hospitality Lane Commercial Area locally by stakeholders and would also require the and its orientation to the LLUAHSC. taking of a lane of traffic on segments of 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 -Ad _ �� t OM NITRAMS Cost-Effectiveness/Benefit Assessment Bernardino favors the E Street alignment over the D Street alignment for the above reasons. The cost effectiveness of different transit The E Street alignment also provides a more alternatives was calculated based on the ratio of direct service through the downtown area and the incremental cost of new service, divided by is seen as having the potential to positively the incremental user benefit of the new service. influence future development at the Carousel The cost of new service was expressed in terms of Mall. annual dollars required for both capital costs and operating costs. The user benefits of new service ■ The central portion from Rialto to Hospitality were expressed in terms of annual hours of transit Lane is the alignment included in travel time savings. Alternatives 1 and 3. It is more of a direct The cost benefits of the three Build Table ES.8: Cost Effectiveness of Build Alternatives in Alternatives, as compared to the TSM Compared to TSM Alternative, are summarized in Table ES.8. The data in this table showed Annual Capital Annual Time Cost that the cost effectiveness of the Build and Operating Savings Benefit Effectiveness(per Alternatives range from $12.63 to Alternative Cost (Hours) Hour of Benefit) $17.43 per hour of transit travel time TSM $21,493,000 - - savings. Build Alternative 3 ranked as Build 1 $25,425,000 263,795 $14.91 the most cost effective of the three Build 2 $25,928,000 254,513 $17.43 because it will cost the least to provide Build 3 $24,834,000 264,573 $12.63 each hour of travel time savings. Findings from the Evaluation and connection than the G Street alignment and is Candidate LPA favored by Inland Center Mall stakeholders who prefer a station on E Street near the mall. Based on the comprehensive technical evaluation m The southern portion from the Hospitality presented in this report and public/stakeholder Lane Commercial Area to the VA Hospital input, the candidate Locally Preferred Alternative uses the elevated transitway over I-10 to the (LPA) for the E Street Project contains the Evans Street Corridor. following geographic segments. • The northern portion from Kendall/Palm to The candidate LPA is shown in Exhibit ES.9 with SR-30 is the alignment included in detail about its performance shown in Table ES.9. Alternative 3. The primary reasons for this It is possible that the entire Evans Street Corridor are its directness of service, support from may not be complete when the LPA is CSUSB stakeholders, and its service to constructed and open for service. If that is the neighborhoods along Kendall Drive. case, a short-term LPA is also included (see Exhibit ES.10) which uses the northern portion of • The downtown portion along E Street is the Evans Street and then crosses over to Anderson alignment included in Alternatives 1 and 3. Street using a proposed connector road. If the The E Street alignment does remove some northern segment of Evans Street has not been parking, but its impacts are far less than those built by the time the sbX project opens, associated with D Street where the taking of a temporary service will commence on Anderson. lane of traffic would be needed as well as the Table ES.10 shows the performance of the short- removal of parking. The City of San term LPA. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 Exhibit ES.9: Locally Preferred Alternative LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ,+1 a`>. California State University `... San Bernardino r • n - ac ��, -. ,,�„ 36th Street Marshall Boulevard San Bernardino High School A _3 v '* aseline Street • Carou.el Mall pr . 6th Street` Civic Center/ t 4thSJree Downtown Bernardino Rialto Avenue �a Q .. Redlands j N Blvd. w oma Linda Aim 0 . . U Q niversity :2 - - University* VA Hospital :.,r ... Avenu� Loma Linda r ,,, :�y Medical Center e�! xlFil' J��~yk F y 7T REV 10-11-05 1.0 5 0 1 0 �e Potential Bus Stop Locations Miles * Potential Bus Stations with Park-and-Ride Lots Preliminary Locations of Exclusive Lanes E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 OM NITRAN9 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 St. E Street at Marshall Blvd. 150 1.58 Yes 55,000 Park and Ride(surface parking) E St.at Highland Ave. 0.92 No With Sidewalk Extension E St.at Baseline St. 1.00 No With Sidewalk Extension E St.at Carousel Mall 1.09 Curb extension E St.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 St.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 St.at University 0.47 4,800 Ave. Barton Road.at Anderson 0.59 11,400 St. 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,VA parking on levels 2, 3,and 4. 16 Stops* 960 15.86 `Excluding Potential Future Stations E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I Exhibit ES.10: Locally Preferred Altemative (Short Term) LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE(SHORT TERM) California State University T r r San Bernardino ti Q ,T +6 �; 'RAY:.�� � �ii •x ��� -;� Sy"��� t, �.�� 40th Street �!136th Street Marshall Boule and SR 30 2 HighlandAvenue,,r r-- \ T E �t San Bernardino , High School y v �} Baseline Street LL Carousel Mall • ' ,- 1 1 ,t. t et ; 6 h Street Civic center,' Downtown Sari 4th Street Bernardino 1,, Rialto Avenue �r Inland Center Mall Orange Show r ' Fairgrounds Orange Show Road »' _ r< ; i {' ✓ '' _ '_ —• ,J� Redlands a, .. .:, -- t' 'b• - Blvd. E IL i Loma Linda �'4,� '4,_ �. .�• ice- �+ T'h- �,ir University 0 ;'e,'. "Fr.",. VA Hospital s a„ � Loma Linda Medical Center � dCt REV 10-11-05 1.0 .5 0 1.0 �c Potential Bus Stop Locations Miles �c Potential Bus Stations with Park-and-Ride Lots Preliminary Locations of Exclusive Lanes E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 OM NIT�� Table ES.10: Locally Preferred Alternative (Short Term) Ac uisition/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 Remove 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 St. E Street at Marshall Blvd. 150 1.58 Yes 55,000 Park and Ride(surface parking) E St.at Highland Ave. 0.92 No With Sidewalk Extension E St.at Baseline St. 1.00 No With Sidewalk Extension E St.at Carousel Mall 1.09 Curb extension E St.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 St.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 Camegie Drive Evans Street at Academy 440 0.85 176,000 Includes Park and Ride(surface parking) Wy. Anderson St.and Stewart 0.54 18,000 St. Anderson St.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,VA parking on levels 2, 3,and 4. 17 Stops* 960 15.79 *Excluding Potential Future Stations E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I As shown in Table ES.9, the LPA includes 16 detailed alternatives analysis and input from the stations and is approximately 15.9 miles in length general public, stakeholders, and agencies. As from the Palm/Kendall Station in the north to the shown in Table ES.11, the recommendations of VA Hospital and the Loma Linda Transcenter in the PDT were presented to the Omnitrans the south. Planning and Productivity Committee (PPC) on The E Street LPA along with the Extension of November 9, 2005 and the Omnitrans and SANBAG Boards in December 2005 for Metrolink to the proposed San Bernardino approval. The LPA will also be presented to the Transcenter will create a new multimodal hub at San Bernardino and Loma Linda City Councils E Street and Rialto that also connects to the for consideration and adoption. proposed Redlands Rail Line (Exhibit ES.11). Once all local adoptions have taken place, Next Steps in the Project Development Omnitrans is eligible to seek a Letter of Process Completion from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The Letter LPA Adoption and Inclusion in the SCAG of Completion is issued by SCAG's Regionally RTP. The selection of the Locally Preferred Significant Transportation Investment Strategy Alternative (LPA) was determined by the PDT on (RSTIS) Committee. October 26, 2005 based on the results of the Exhibit ES.11: Redlands Rail Alignment Redlands Rail Alignment Carousel Mall I I ,-� san eernarmno i. - l ,r vanscMC.r _ San Bernmt r Sa 11—,di- Airport t} M InN k51 ton i,' –– - Uni—si/yot . – H-ands gg AW,M3 M.dkalC�ter VA HOSpifal � - '�' 10-2"5 4 0 05 1.0 7�t Proposed LRT Stations * Proposed LRT Stations with Park-and-Ride Miles Fixed Rail Transit Metrolink Extension E Street Corridor-Locally Preferred Alternative E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 OM NITRA N7 Table ES.11: LPA Calendar of Deliverables and Approvals from Participating Agencies Project Planning & Public Development Productivity Omnitrans Meetings/ SCAG RSTIS 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 November 16 PDT Workshop House Evaluate/Screen Omnitrans San Bernardino SANBAG Planning Detailed Alternatives and and Loma and Program Select LPA/LPA Approval SANBAG Linda City Committee Process Boards Councils Nov/Dec. LPA Alignment and Cost November 9 December 7 Jan/Feb 06 December 15 Estimate 2006 Jan/Feb 2006 LPA Report TBD 2006 TBD 2006 January 19 LPA Financial Plan RSTIS Letter of Draft Program Completion Management Plan New Starts Report Early 2006 Submit Letter to FTA TBD 2006 TBD 2006 SANBAG submits Requesting Approval to LPA as candidate Begin PE and Request project for the RTP FTA Participation in Environmental Process _ Early 2006 Transition to Preliminary TBD 2006 TBD 2006 New Public Amendment to RTP Engineering Involvement to include LPA Program Mid-2006 Environmental (EIS) TBD 2006 TBD 2006 FTA is lead MPO and Omnitrans Process Begins federal agency are sponsoring agencies Next, SANBAG and Omnitrans will nominate the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental LPA as part of the package of projects from San Studies. Bernardino County for inclusion in the next update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Prepare Locally Preferred Alternative in early 2006. Then the LPA is taken before the Alignment and Cost Estimate. The LPA will be appropriate SCAG RTP Committees for documented in both written and graphical format. consideration in the next RTP's Adopted Plans A set of final conceptual engineering drawings and Programs list. depicting the physical alignment features of the selected BRT Alternative will be developed. The Transition into Preliminary Engineering complete package will be included in the LPA and Environmental Studies Report and will be the basis for advancing the project into the preliminary engineering phase Several activities and deliverables need to be upon approval by all appropriate decision making produced prior to the commencement of authorities. E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 Refined capital and operating cost estimates will which has a federal participation cap of$75 be developed to support the final LPA alignment. million. This would enable the BRT project to enter a more streamlined New Starts rating For environmental transition, a scope of work process. To accomplish this task, the Project will be prepared by the Project Team fora Team will evaluate various Federal funding Detailed Environmental Analysis that will be programs available to Omnitrans. performed under the guidelines of the National Environmental POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUNDING Evaluate Sources of Funding Protection Act (NEPA). SOURCES for Local Match. The next . STP and CMAQ Flexible Funds task will be to evaluate funding Prepare Necessary . Section 5309 FTA New Starts Funds sources for the local match of Documents - Section 5307 FTA Urban Area Formula Program Funds Federal funds. The degree of TIFIA Loan Program local match funding will be a Prepare LPA Report. The m Leveraging Future Federal major factor in the FTA's New LPA Report will be used to summarize all of the decisions . Funds-GARVEE Bonds Starts project evaluation that lead up to the selection of the LPA. The process. A high level of technical reports prepared as part of this scope matching funds from state and local sources will be used as the basis for preparing the demonstrates both that the project has strong local document. It will summarize the following: support, and that the Federal participation would be leveraged to a greater extent than for • Existing Conditions; competing projects with lower matching levels from other metropolitan areas. • Purpose and Need; The local match requirement for the capital costs • Definition of Alternatives and why will be segmented and evaluated by type of alternatives were eliminated from further capital expenditure. For example, potential joint- consideration; use facilities and opportunities for public/private • A description of the evaluation methodology partnerships will be evaluated as an opportunity and a discussion of the evaluation matrix used for private investment to fund a portion of the in making the LPA decision; capital cost. Vehicle costs will be assessed for a lease-purchase option in order to reduce the initial • A description of the travel demand modeling capital outlay. process and the results of the process; Stability and Reliability Analysis. Once the • A discussion of land use considerations; and Financial Plan is developed, the next task will be to evaluate the plan's ability to deal with funding • A detailed description of the LPA. contingencies such as delays in federal funding, Prepare Financial Plan. The following steps changes in local economic activity, and some will be conducted in preparing the financial plan. degree of unforeseen cost escalation. In order to evaluate the stability and reliability of the funding Identify Federal Funding Sources. The first plan, two types of"What if' analysis will be task in developing the Financial Plan will be to done. A stability analysis will be performed to identify the capital funding sources available measure the plan's ability to withstand changes in from the Federal Government. One issue to be the driving variables in the sources of revenue. specifically addressed is the pros and cons of The plan should be able to manage a reasonable seeking Section 5309 New Starts funding. amount of changes in the underlying assumptions Depending on the cost and service plan of the without unduly impacting the funding BRT project, it may be more advantageous to requirements of the plan. Changes in economic enter the new "small starts" category of funding growth projections, unanticipated declines in E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase 1 1\ OM NI TRA NS ridership, or adverse changes to the level of ■ Construction and Procurement Management; inflation should be the type of variables the plan ■ Testing and Preparation for Revenue Start- should be able to withstand. A reliability analysis Up; will be performed to measure the plan's ability to ■ Human Resources; be influenced by changes in the legislative and political environment. ■ Labor Relations and Dispute Resolution; and ■ Legal Requirements, Assurances and Risk Analysis. In the cost side, each major Agreements. component of the transportation system will be reviewed to ensure that sufficient allowance has Prepare New Starts Report. A New Starts been made to deal with unforeseen contingencies. Report will be prepared for submittal to FTA. This analysis will essentially measure the plan's This report will include: ability to manage cost overruns and unanticipated ■ project Justification Information (mobility delays and expenses beyond the planned improvements, environmental benefits, expenditure levels. operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness, Prepare Draft Program Management Plan. A transit supportive existing land use policies, Draft Program Management Plan will be prepared and future patterns, and other factors); as required by FTA prior to approval for entry ■ Financial Plan (proposed share from sources into Preliminary Engineering. The Draft Program other than Section 5309 New Starts, strength Management Plan will include: of proposed capital funding plan, ability to • Roles and Responsibilities of Key fund operation and maintenance); Participants; ■ Fleet Management Plan; and • Quality Control and Assurance; ■ Draft Program Management Plan. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR LOCAL MATCH Prepare Request to Enter PE. A formal request • State Transit Assistance Funds for approval to enter Preliminary Engineering • Transit Development Act(TDA)Funds will be prepared for submittal to FTA. State and Local • Motor Fuel Taxes Funds • Vehicle Registration Fees Transition to Preliminary Engineering. • Special Purpose Local Option Sales Transition to Preliminary Engineering will Taxes involve the preparation of the Administrative • Special Tax Allocation Districts Record (project files) and a scope of work that Ancillary • Parking Fees Omnitrans can use to supplement this contract. Revenues • Concessions (Net of Cost of • Advertising Documents Needed for Transition to PE Operating) • Joint Development Product 6.2.1 LPA Report • Public/Private Partnerships • Capital Leases—Lease/Lease Back Product 6.2.2 20-Year Capital Program Financial Plan Program Product 6.2.3 20-Year Operating Program Financial Innovative • Vendor Financing of Rolling Stock Plan Financing Tools • Lease—Purchase Procurements Product 6.2.4 20-Year Cash Flow • Various Short-Term Financing Programs Product 6.2.5 Draft Program Management Plan Product 6.2.6 New Starts Report ■ Design Management; Product 6.2.7 Fleet Management Plan ■ Real Estate and Other Property Acquisition; Product 6.2.8 Request to Enter Preliminary Engineering ■ Risk Management; Product 6.2.9 Administrative Record ■ Safety and Security; E Street Transit Corridor Project-Phase I