HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - FED GRANT LIGHT RAIL PROJ (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
George Caravalho
May 26, 1992
Federal Grant: Suspended Light Rail Demonstration Project
City Manager's Office
The Federal Transit Administration recently announced a competition for 'grant
monies to support a suspended light rail pilot project. Proposals must be
received on or before July 8, 1992. The purpose of the project is to assess
the current technology and to determine the feasibility and costs and benefits
of using such a system for transporting passengers.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan, in outlining .the planning
opportunities in the Valley Center, proposed tying the entire area together
with a light transit loop. system. The regional mall, transportation center
and commuter rail site, the future City Hall, and the. industrial center are
proposed to be linked together with the transit loop. The General Plan
specifically states, "A looped light rail system serving the .entire Valley
Center area will connect employment, housing and recreation areas." With that
policy direction, staff has initiated an analysis of pursuing the federal
grant.
The federal grant process involves three major steps. The first one is the
preparation of the grant application. Staff is looking for direction from the
Council to devote staff resources to assess the feasibility and utility of
preparing a grant application, and to submit a proposal if a satisfactory
package can be achieved. Other -than - staff resources, no other commitment of
City resources is required to enter the grant competition. The federal
government will choose three finalists, each of which will be eligible for up
to $333,000.00 to develop information on the feasibility and benefits of their
proposal and the,location for the pilot project. The FTA will then choose one
of these and provide not less than $4,000,000 in FY 1993 for preliminary
engineering and environmental impact statement preparation.
If the City. is chosen to construct the system, the FTA shall provide not less
than $30,000,000.00 for construction in FY 1994. As is typical with federally
funded projects, the federal government will fund up to eighty percent (80%)
of the entire cost. The local government, and any private sector
participants, would have to contribute the. remaining twenty percent (20X).
Agenda Iten--,/
Should the City successfully compete through the entire process, the City and
any private sector participants would have to contribute up to $6,000,000
combined. A clear demonstration of public/private participation, and the
participation of a technology vendor, will be necessary if the City is to
successfully compete.
Under the grant guidelines, the system vendor/manufacturer shall fund
one -hundred percent (100%) of any operating deficit for the first two years,
and fifty percent (50%), up to a maximum of $300,000, in the third year. At
the end of the third year, the City would have responsibility for operating
the system. To date, the operational costs of the system, and the potential
ridership are unknown. These issues would be studied in greater detail should
the City advance to the next stage of the competition.
The federal government is seeking maximum private sector participation in the
development of the technology, and a public/private participative effort in
the system's design, construction, and implementation. AGI, American Guideway
Incorporated, has obtained the rights to a suspended light=rail technology
developed in Canada. AGI is also working in conjunction with AAI,, an
engineering and manufacturing firm headquartered in Maryland. AAI has
manufactured carriage assemblies for the Maryland Light Rail System, in
addition to other transportation and military projects.
Two consultants representing AGI and AAI met with various staff members to
determine if the City would be a good match with their firms in pursuing the
federal grant. If we mutually agree that this is a good match, the City would
participate with this technology vendor in the preparation of the grant
proposal. Ultimately, the City would have to issue an RFP prior to committing
to work with any particular technology vendor should the federal government
advance us to the next step in the process. AGI would have to participate in
the RFP process, and the City is not endorsing any particular technology
provider at this time. Local vendors would have an opportunity to compete.
Staff . has also tentatively explored the possibility of cooperating with
Newhall Land and Farm and Six Flags Magic Mountain to determine their level of
interest, their willingness to lend staff support to the initial preparation
of the grant application, and their ability to contribute financially or
otherwise to the project. All the parties are still analyzing the pros and
cons of the project, and are awaiting to see if the Council will direct staff
to continue to examine the feasibility of submitting a grant proposal.
In a very preliminary fashion, staff has conceptually looked at several
potential alignments, primarily trying to link the transportation
center/commuter rail station with the regional mall, the future City Hall, the
office corridors on Valencia Boulevard, the Valencia Corporate Center, Magic
Mountain, and the Industrial Center. The demonstration project requires
approximately three miles, which will not allow the connection of all of
these. Ultimately, the alignment would be determined through the
environmental review process, should the City get that far in the
competition. Subsequent phases of the project would also require
consideration, including connections to Canyon Country and Newhall.
The federal announcement was made. on March 31, 1992, and the grant application
is due on July 8, 1992. Some of the options available to the Council include:
1. Direct staff to work with the technology provider and local economic
interests to determine the feasibility and utility of submitting a grant
application to the federal government for the suspended light rail
demonstration project. Authorize staff to submit a grant application if
a feasible proposal can be developed that serves the interests.of the
City and is mutually acceptable to the technology vendor and local
economic interests.
2. Direct staff not to pursue this grant application, and to continue to
evaluate other transportation solutions for Santa Clarita Valley.
RECOMMENDATION•
Direct staff to work with the technology provider and local economic interests
to determine the feasibility and utility of submitting a grant application to
the federal government for the suspended light rail demonstration project.
Authorize staff to submit a grant application if a feasible proposal can be
developed that serves the interests of the City and is mutually acceptable to
the technology vendor and -local economic interests.
ATTACHMENTS•
1. A portion of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Announcement of a
Competition for Grants to Support a Suspended Light Rail System
Technology Pilot Project; etc.
2. Background material on the Suspended Light Rail Transit System (SLRT)
KJM:kjm:285
1. Direct staff to work with AGI, Newhall Land and Farm, and Six Flags
Magic Mountain on the grant application, including several alignments
for the demonstration project. Direct staff to update the Council at
the June 9 meeting. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of the
Council's support for pursuing the federal grant.
2. Direct staff to provide additional background material, with a draft
resolution of support, at the June 9 Council meeting. Direct staff to
update the Council on the level of private sector interest in the
project. Provide the Council with options regarding potential
alignments for the proposed demonstration project.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Announcement of a Competition for Grants To support a Suspended Light Rail
System Technology Pilot Project; Solicitation of Systems and Sites
Agency: Federal Transit Administration, DOT
Action: Notice
SUMMARY: The federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces a
competition for the Suspended Light Rail System Technology
Pilot Program and solicits applications from eligible public
entities interested in participation in the program. The
purpose of this project shall be to assess the state of
technology for a Suspended Light Rail System and to
determine the feasibility and costs and benefits of using such
a system for transporting passengers.
DATES: Proposals (6 copies) must be received on or before July 8,
1992.
ADDRESSES: Proposals shall be submitted to Steven A. Barsony, Director,
Office of Engineering (TT13-20), Federal Transit Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6431, Washington, DC 20590
and shall reference SLRSTPP/R&D.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary L.. Anderson, Office of
Engineering (TTS -20) at (202) 355-0222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION;
Background and Objectives
On December 18,1991, the President signed the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991(ISTEA) (Pub.L.102-Z40), providing
authorizations for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation for the
next six years. The purpose of the Act is 'to develop a national Intermodal
Transportation System that is economically efficient , environmentally sound,
provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy and
will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.'
Page 2
Section 3030(c) of the Act establishes a Suspended Light Rail System
Technology Pilot Project , the purpose of which is to assess:the state of new
technology for a suspended light rail system, and to determine the feasibility,
costs, benefits and environmental impact of using such systems for transporting
passengers.
Grants will initially be awarded to three public entities that must proved
services for advancing the development of the suspended Light Rail Transit
System Technology Pilot Project., total of not less than $1,000,000 will be
awarded in FY1992 to three entities to develop information on the feasibility
and benefits of their proposed system and location for the pilot project.
Grants shall be used by the selected entities to prepare for the final phase of
the competition in accordance with procedures established below. The
amount of each grant will not exceed 80% of the cost of such participation.
No entity will receive more than one-third of these funds. If fewer than three
complete applications from eligible public entities have been received in time
to permit the awarding of grants, the deadlines for the submission of
applications and the awarding of grants may be extended.
Based on the information submitted as a result to the initial phaseefforts, the
FTA will select one of these entities to proceed into the deployment phase of
this project. FTA will provide not less than $4,000,000 in FY 1993 to the selected
entity to conduct conceptual and preliminary engineering and environmental
impact statement preparation. In addition, Section 3030(e) provides for
expedited procedures as follows: the FTA shall approve and publish in the
Federal Register a notice announcing either,
(A) a funding of no significant impact, or
(b) a draft environmental impact statement. If a draft environmental
impact statement is published, the FTA shall approve and publish in the
Federal Register a notice of completion of a.Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
The 1991 ISTEA specifically provides that this project is not subject to the Major
Capital Investment Policy of the FTA. The selected public entity will make a
determination on whether or not to proceed to actual construction of the
project. If the determination to construct is made, the FTA shall enter into a
full -funding grant agreement providing not less than $30,000,000 for
construction in FY 1994, subject to the availability of funds from Congress.
Page 3
The Federal share of the cost of construction of the project will be 800/* of the
net cost of the project, and the full -funding grant agreement shall address the
operation cost deficits for the project:
A. The system vendor for the project shall fund 100 percent of any deficit
incurred in operating the project in the first two years of revenue
operations;
B. The system vendor for the project shall fund 50 percent of any deficit
incurred in operating the project in the third year of revenue operations;
and;
C. With respect to the third year of revenue operations, the Federal share
of operating costs shall be paid by FTA from amounts provided for this
project in a sum equal to 50 percent of any deficit incurred in operating
the project in revenue operation or $300,000, whichever is less.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Consistent with the ISTEA this project shall:
A. Utilize new rail technology with individual vehicles of a prefabricated,
elevated steel guideway;
B. Be stability seeking with a centre of gravity for the detachable
passenger vehicles located below the point of wheel -rail contact; and
C. Utilize vehicles which are driven by overhead bogies with high efficiency,
low maintenance electric motors for each wheel, operating in a slightly
sloped plane from vertical for both the wheels and the running rails, to
further increase stability, acceleration and braking performance.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE
Each public entity shall submit one original and five copies of its proposal to
Steven A. Barsony, Director, Office of Engineering, Federal Transit
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 6431, Washington, DC 20590,
Mall Code TTS -20. Only complete proposal received on or before July 6,1992;
shall be considered. The proposals shall reference SLRSTPP/R&D.
Applications must meet the following requirements:
Page 4
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Consistent with the ISTEA, the applicant must;
a. Be a public entity of State or local government in consort with
commercial enterprises, educational or research organizations,
and/or Federal laboratories.
b. Have the capability to manage the planning, design, construction
and operation of a suspended light rail transit system.
C. Be in cooperative agreement with a system vendor with
demonstrated capabilities in the area of mass transit, in possession
of the developed technology of suspended light rail transit as
defined by the system "Requirements' as included in this Notice.
d. Be capable of providing the 20% funding for the studies as
required by the he Act (i.e., FTA providesgrants of up to 80% of
the cost of the initial study grants).
e. In the event a decision is made to construct the project, the
public entity should identify a potential source(s) for the local
share of the capital project.
Demonstrate that the candidate system, is feasible and will fulfil a
useful public transportation need.
2. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
To be considered in this competition, applicants should submit proposals that
include an initial description of the Suspended Light Rail Transit Concept,
conforming to the requirements in the ISTEA noted above under "Project
Description", and also information on the following:
a. Speed - The cruising speed for a particular system is the result of
tradeoffs of routs alignment, power supply capacity, passenger
throughput, along with other parameters. The system speed
should be sufficient to allow total trip times equal to or better than
those achieved by other transportation alternatives.
05-21-1992 11:04 202+636+3535 JEFFERSON GROUP P.02
SUSPENDED LIGHT R41L.TR4NSff (SLRT)
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
SLAT is a new method of transportation for both urban and Intercity applications. The
technology and operational concepts aro designed to meet public need at an affordable
cost. SLRT can be provided as a turnkey system to municipalities.
The 8LRT car Is suspended from an elevated guideway, a light steel truss -type structure
that can be reloostable. Suspension uses the advantages of natural forces for stability
of operation and ride quality. The guideway system presents a visual Intrusion that is low
compared to concrete structures supporting conventional elevated light rail. Ground
clearance allows for free passage of surface vehicles.
Single car operations are planned. While primary usage is envisioned for passengers,
cargo could also be accommodated. Mapmum car capacity Is two hundred people; both
sitting and standing. Doors are arranged to allow simultaneous entrance from one side
and apt from the other.
Each car is suspended by two bogies of four wheals each. The wheels and running rails
are eloped rather than vertical which substantially Increases wheel to rail adhesion without
increasing weight. There is no ape between opposing wheels so each wheal operates
at its own speed in curves, reducing rolling resistance and noise. This arrangement of
' wheels, rails, and suspension la known as 'stability seeking'. Inherent benefits are
=` Improved comfort and safety and a reduction of maintenance and energy costs. Car
bodies can be detached from the bogies so that passenger and cargo bodies'may be
Interchanged. The economic impact of this feature is significant.
Propulsion is provided by high performance electric motors. Hydraulic- brakes are
Integrated with motor braking and additional emergency track brakes.
05-21-1992 11:04 202+638+3535 JEFFERSON GROUP P.03
Station design Is another key feature of.the system. With the minimum length being only
ong car, platform walking is greaty reduced. The simultaneous use of one side of doors
for entry and the other side for e)dt reduces stop time by as much as 50% during peak
periods, Increasing productivity. The smaller size and higher throughput of an SLRT
station Increases personal security and reducae the opportunity for vandalism.
Satisfaction of transportation needs requires operational acceptance, environmental
Integration and, as previously stated, affordable capital and operating costs. SLRT will
meet these requlrements.
2
American Guideway Corporation 04/30/92
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEATURES
FOR FTA PILOT PROJECT
SYSTEM SUMMARY
Guideway
Maximum Car Capacity
(crush load)
Typical Speed Range
Maximum Speed (target)
Station Spacing .
Noise Expectation
Visual Intrusion
Minimum Curve Radius
Operating Curve Radius
Track Superelevation in Curves
Stations in Existing Buildings
Propulsion
Vehicle Power Consumption
Braking
Grade Capability
WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS
Car Length - Outside
Car Width - Outside
Car Height - Inside
Vehicle Swing
Vehicle Weight (empty)
Guideway
Vehicle
Control System
Elevated, light steel truss -type structure,
relocatable
Steel wheel on steelrail system, wheels
inclined
200 sitting & standing
20-50 mph
75 mph
Variable
Low
Minimal: see-through guideway
82 ft. (service areas)
350-2500 ft. at maximum speed
Not required
Yes
Electric motors
400 kW
Hydraulic brakes, blended with motor braking
& emergency track brakes
10% (max)
5% (typical)
Approximately 62 ft.
Approximately 11 ft.
Approximately 7 ft.
8.5 degrees (normal)
16 degrees (max)
50,000 lbs.
25 ft.
16 ft.
Manual Operation, (Autopilot -future)
Note: All values are preliminary and will be verified during the detail design phase of the pilot
program.
American Guideway Corporation
1
SUSPENDED LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
OUTLINE
Section
Federal Register Reference
1.0
Introduction
Background and Objectives
2.0
System Description (Overview)
Project Description
2.1
Human Factors
2.1.1
Passenger Movement
2.A
(Through Put and Speed)
2.1.2
Ride Comfort
2.13 and 2.1
2.1.3
Noise and Vibration
2.2A
2.1.4
Magnetic Fields and EMI
2.28
2.1.5
Safety
2.2C
2.1.6
Station Operation
2.2D
2.1.7
Availability and Reliability
2.2E
2.1.8
Aesthetics
2.2F
2.2
Vehicle Description
2.2.1
Size and Capacity
2.3A
2.2.2
Propulsion System
2.2.3
Braking System
2.313
2.2.4
Suspension and Stabilization System
2.2.5
Structural Integrity
2.3C
2.2.6
On -Board -Power
2.3D
2.2.7
Emergency Systems
2.3E
2.2.8
Bogie
2.2.9
Car Body
1
2
American Guideway
Corporation
'
OUTLINE (CON'T)
Section
Federal Register Reference
2.3
Guideway Description
2.3.1
Structural Integrity
2.4A
2.3.2
Configuration
2.4B
2.3.3
Structure
2.4C
2.3.4
Power System
2.41D
2.3.5
Track Switches
2.4
Route Information
2.5
Stations
2.5.1
Types and Location
2.5.2
Operation
2.6
Environmental impact
2.6.1
Pollution
2.6.2
Architectural Integration
2.6.3
Surface Traffic Relief
2.6.4
Land Space
2.6.5
Street Lighting
2.6.6
Station Size
2.6.7
External Noise
3.0
Cost
3.1
Development
3.2
Construction
3.3
Operation
3.4
Maintenance
4.0
Previous. Experience
2