Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-06-04 - AGENDA REPORTS - LACO MOBILITY ELEMENT PLAN (2)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: a r BoQa Members of the City Council FROM: o ' ityanager DATE: June 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Council Study Session - Presentation of North Los Angeles County Subregional Mobility Element Implementation Plan BACKGROUND The City of Santa Clarita and the Cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, and the unincorporated areas of north Los Angeles County all participate in the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition. Among the projects of the coalition was the development of the above plan. The preparation of the plan was facilitated by the consulting firm of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. At the June 4th Council Study Session, the consultant will give a presentation to the Council as part of its contract. A copy of the plan is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION Receive presentation. ATTACHMENT North Los Angeles County Subregional Mobility Element Implementation Plan - Final Report GAC:MAR:Iep s: \ c d \council \ m obi 1 el 1.m a r Agenda Itenn: Z ❑9 A G O Dw 1 February 1996 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA A ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS C G M w G a 0 0 0 CO 0 FINAL REPORT North Los Angeles County Subregion Route 141I-5 Mobility Improvements Implementation Plan Prepared for North Los Angeles County Subregion Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates with Planning Company Associates Emerson & Associates Cordoba Corporation Echelon Industries DMJM February, 1996 U North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Table of Contents U 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................::....1 1.1 Purpose of the Study ................. . ..................... 1 1.2 Study Area ..._................. ... . ..................... 1 1.3 Study Process and Participants ........ . .... _.................... 4 1.4 Organization of the Report .................................... 4 I C, 2.0 SETTING..:................_...........................:,.,:6 2.1 Existing Transportation System .................. I , ............. 6 2.2 Growth and Socioeconomic Forecasts ............................ . . 6 2.3 Travel Demand Models and Forecasts .. . .......... . ....... . ........ 8 2.4 Alternative Modes and Trends for Use .......... ........... _ ....... 13 2.4.1 Bus Transit .... .................... . ............... 13 2.4.2 Passenger Rail ...................................... 13 2.4.3 Freight Services ....: .............. ....... ..... _ ......... 18 2.4.4 HOV Usage , ........ . .............................. 18 O2.4.5 Park -and -Ride Lots ........................ , , • .......... 18 3.0 MULTI -MODAL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PRIORITIZATION .. 19 3.1 Sources of Projects ............... . ............ _ ............. 19 3.2 Initial Phasing of Projects ........... .., ... ........... , ..... ,. 20 3.3 Project Data Summaries .................. . ...... . 3.4 Project Prioritization Process ...... . . ...... . ... ................ 25 4.0 STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLANS .............................. 31 4.1 Packaging of Priority Projects (Tier I) ................ . ........... 31 4.2 Proposed Funding and Implementation Gameplan for Tier I Improvements ...... 32 O 5.0 RELATED SHORTTERMIMPROVEMENTS ..........:....:............. 45 5.1 TSM Projects .. , ........ _ ..... , . I ......... _ ............. 45 5.2 Travel Forecasting Coordination .............:.. , ...... , ....... 45 5.3 Highway Projects ......... ............................... . 46 5.4. Bus Transit Projects .......................................... 46 5.5. Rail Transit Projects ..... _............ .... , ..... 47 5.5.1 Amtrak ...:::.....> ............................... 47 5.5.2 SPTC Santa Paula Branch ........................... . ... 48 5.5.3 SPTC Conventional Freight .............................. 49 5.5.4 Alameda Corridor ..................... . ...... , ........ 49 5.5.5 High Speed Ground Transportation ......................... 49 5.5.6 Construction Phasing Complements/Conflicts ................... 51 6.0 SUBREGIONAL PARK-AND-RIDE MASTER PLAN ....... . . . ...... . ...... 52 6.1 Existing Supply and Demand .............. . ................... 52 6.2 Planned Improvements .. I ............ I .. I ............ . .. . . • .. 55 C� 6.3 Demand Forecasts and Additional Needs ........................... 56 6.4 Implementation Priorities and Plan ......................... ............... 57 I C, a North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan List of Tables CI 2-1 List of 11gures 7 G Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Projections ...... _...... _............. 12 1-1 Vicinity Map ...................................... _ .......... 2 1-2 Study Area ................................................. 3 2-1 Travel Demand Modeling Areas .............:....................... 9 2-2 Metrolink Ridership ............................................ 15 2-3 Existing Rail Service ........................................... 17 O3-1 Short-term projects ............................................ 22 3-2 Mid-term Projects ............................................. 23 3-3 Long-range Projects ........................... . .: ......... . ..... 24 3-4 Sample Project Data Sheet ................................... . ... 26 6-1 Park -and -Ride Survey Sites ...................................... 54 List of Tables CI 2-1 Existing and Projected Population, Housing and Employment .......:.......... 7 2-2 Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Projections ...... _...... _............. 12 3-1 Project Categories .................... • .................. • • • • . 21 3-2 Project Data Summary .......................................... 27 3-3 Project Rankings .............................................. 30 4-1 Funding Opportunities ................... . . ..................... 33 4-2 North Los Angeles County Subregion RTIP Projects .............. I ........ 37 4-3 Transportation Funding Apportionments for Los Angeles County Subregion ..... , ... 43 6-1 Park -and -Ride Lot Inventory Survey ................................. 53 6-2 Park -and -Ride Analyses Summary ...., .............................. 58 6-3 Park -and -Ride Needs by Subregion .................................. 59 CJ U G 0 O ii i0 I C' North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Study The North Los Angeles County Subregion Mobility Improvements Implementation Plan has been funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as part of the Regional Comprehensive Plan effort. This study was intended to result in an implementation plan for transportation improvements in the North Los Angeles County Subregion, with an emphasis on improvements in the Route 14/I-5 Corridor. The study was conducted as a follow-on to the subregional planning effort conducted in 1993 which identified existing transportation conditions, programs and policies. The purpose of this effort was to focus on the strategies required to implement the priority projects in the subregion. This study was performed during the 1995 calendar year and reflects the conditions (e.g. planning assumptions, funding programs) in existence during that time. C 1.2 Study Area The North Los Angeles County Subregion includes the area of Los Angeles County north of the San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Mountains. It includes the Cities of Santa Clarita, Palmdale and Lancaster, as well as unincorporated portions of the County surrounding each of these incorporated cities. fy Figure 1-1 illustrates the North Los Angeles County Subregion in relation to the rest of the County. Figure 1-2 illustrates the study area and depicts major highway corridors in the Subregion. The geography of the study area divides it into two subareas; (1) the Santa Clarita Valley and surrounding canyons, and (2) the Antelope Valley/High Desert area. The Santa Clarita Area is characterized by canyons and the Santa Clara River, which concentrate travel on a limited number of facilities. In the C} Antelope Valley area, level terrain and a grid system of streets characterize the transportation network, but the Palmdale Regional Airport and surrounding land owned by the Los Angeles Department of Airports constrains travel in the north -south direction to a limited number of facilities. The major transportation facilities which link, the two subareas and the subregion as a whole to the rest of Los Angeles County are the Route 14 Freeway, parallel arterials, the Metrolink commuter rail service and other transit services on the 14 Freeway. State Route 138 is another Subregionally significant corridor which provides an east -west connection between San Bernardino County and I-5 and thereby to the northern portion of the state. The focus of the implementation plan was intended to be on these facilities in the, Route 14 Freeway corridor, as well as the portions of the Golden State Freeway (1-5) which link the Santa Clarita Valley p and Route 14 to the San Fernando Valley. The shaded area on Figure 1-2 illustrates this focus area within the larger North Los Angeles County Subregion. IG C KERN COUNTY 9 5 ma Z O O O z 0 4Z Lid m 7d' U) il��h Il��iil NOT TO SCALE Meyer, MohaddesAssociafes, /na NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL. MOBILITY FIGURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Traffic Bgineenng • Transportation Planning VICINITY MAP 1-1 Q D O r3 0 C3 SAN FERNANDO ALLE <' SII III�I •��®ao�e-mwe� yawams-m.,ww, NOT TO SCALE Meyer, MohaddesAssoc/ales, kc, NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIGURE STUDY AREA 1-2 Traffic Engineering • Trensporlatiion Planning Ic Io North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 1.3 Study Process and Participants This study has been conducted by a consultant team lead by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (MMA) working closely with a technical and policy advisory group consisting of staff representatives from the following agencies: • City of Lancaster G0 City of Palmdale • City of Santa Clarita • County of Los Angeles, Regional Planning • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) G SCAG The list of consultant and agency personnel involved in the study is included in Appendix A of this report. The Subregional Team met monthly throughout the study effort to discuss issues and findings, provide p feedback on interim results and assist in the prioritization of the transportation improvement projects included in the Plan. Public input to the Plan will be incorporated through presentations to the City Councils of each jurisdiction and through presentations to interest groups throughout the study area. U 1.4 Organization of the Report Chapter 2 of this report provides background information on the existing transportation facilities in the study area and an assessment of future conditions based on travel forecasts prepared by the different jurisdictions. Travel demand patterns and use of alternate modes of transportation are summarized. The experience following the Northridge earthquake is also discussed as an indication of potential use of Cl! alternate modes under conditions of severe congestion. Chapter 3 identifies and prioritizes the range of potential transportation improvement projects in the study area. Some of these projects are near the point of implementation and others are "dotted lines on maps in various long range planning documents. The process through which the projects were evaluated and ranked for implementation is described. G Chapter 4 includes the Strategic Implementation Plan for the priority projects. It identifies funding and political strategies which will guide the jurisdictions in the subregion in their pursuit of implementation of the transportation improvements most critical to mobility needs in the subregion. T Chapter 5 describes the related projects in the subregion which will be pursued by one or more of the jurisdictions as complementary improvement projects to those being jointly pursued by the subregion as a whole. In Chapter 6, the issue of Park -and -Ride facilities is addressed. Existing park-and-ride supply and demand and projected future needs for additional park-and-ride spaces are quantified. A plan is presented O to guide implementation of the additional spaces along the Route 1411-5 Corridor and at transit centers. In t� North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan The Appendices to this report, which are contained in a separate document include the following materials: • A - Persons involved in preparation of the report • B - Background Technical Report (Task 1 Report) • C - Individual Project Descriptions for Improvement Projects • D - Background Material on Funding Sources and Strategies O 0 E - Bus and Rail Transit Issues Memoranda G C V C" C 0 0 5 C/ North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 2.0 SETTING This chapter provides the results of data collection and analysis conducted in Task 1 of this study, which includes collection of information and compilation/verification of travel demand forecasts. In addition, this section provides a brief background on the major regional highway system in the North Los Angeles County Subregion. 2.1 Existing Transportation System Interstate 5 (I-5) and the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14) are the major routes connecting the Antelope and Santa Clarita valleys to each other, as well as with the San Fernando Valley area and the Los Angeles Basin to the south, and with Kern County to the north. The I-5 contains eight lanes through the study area, with truck bypass lanes also provided in the vicinity of the SR -14 interchange, The SR -14 varies from four lanes, north of Santa Clarita, to eight lanes at its southern terminus at 1-5. In addition to the freeways, a series of regional highways and arterials provide additional mobility 0 opportunities and subregional connectivity. These facilities include, but are not limited to, San Fernando Road (SR -126), Pearblossom Highway (SR -138), Soledad Canyon Road, Sierra Highway, Palmdale Boulevard (SR -138), and SR -18. The SR -126 is either four or six lanes over most of its length, but does have some two-lane sections. Pearblossom Highway is a two-lane highway which links the Antelope Valley with cities in San Bernardino County. Soledad Canyon Road runs east -west across Santa Clarita i� Valley and connects I-5 and SR -14. This facility contains between four and six lanes.. Sierra Highway contains between two and four lanes in Santa Clarita Valley and Antelope Valley and two lanes along the segment that connects the two Valleys. Palmdale Boulevard contains four lanes through Palmdale and two lanes to the east. Traffic volumes on I-5 range from about 50,000 vehicles per day at the northern end of the study area to almost 200,000 south of SR -14. At the southern end of the study area, SR -14 carries approximately 120,000 vehicles per day. Between Santa Clarita Valley and Antelope Valley, SR -14 carries between 70,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day. The volume drops to between 30,000 and 60,000 vehicles per day in the Antelope Valley, near Palmdale and Lancaster. San Fernando Road (SR -126) in Santa Clarita carries approximately 25,000 vehicles per day, Traffic along SR -138 is between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day, east of Palmdale, and 30,000 to 40,000 within the City of Palmdale. CJ 2.2 Growth and Socioeconomic Forecasts In 1994, the population of the North Los Angeles County subregion was estimated at approximately O 463,000 residents or five percent of the total county population of approximately 9.23 million. (See Table 2-1) According to U.S. Census and the State Department of Finance data, between 1980 and 1994, the population of the North Los Angeles County subregion increased by almost 300,000 people — capturing approximately 15 percent of the county's total growth and growing the fastest among the subregions in the SCAG region. C� n_ 6 0 C`l C 0 0 C 0 f; North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan TABLE 2-1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND EMPLOYMENT 7 1980 (1) 1994 (q 1994 {2) 2015 (superseded) 1420; SLTwSCAG RC raft'' 95 (4) Local (5) SLAG RTP (8) Luca) (9) POPULATION Lancaster (6) 48,027 97,291 115,500 255,600 251,800 268,300 293,383 293,929 Palmdale 12,227 68,842 98,300 318,300 304,900 257,700 370,891 247,068 Santa Clarita 65,082 .110,641 128,800 210,100 204,300 139,800 230,438 205,135 Unincorp. IA 58,493 114,839 120,600 521,200 427,100 513,000 520,865 458,037 North IA Subregion (7) 1 183,829 391,613 463,200 1,305,200 1,188,100 1,178,800 1,415,577 1,204,169 HOUSEHOLDS Lancaster 18,328 32,899 36,800 82,000 85,500 84,200 97,159 95,492 Palmdale 7,673 21,951 30,100 101,800 111,000 87,800 128,984 82,356 Santa Clarita 21,188 38,476 43,500 72,100 72,500 47,500 81,345 72,098 Unincorp.: LA 18,459 34,206 35,700 145,400 134,600 142,700 159,205 145,515 North IA Subregion (7) 65,648 127,532 146,100 401,300 404,700 362,200 466,693 395,461 EMPLOYMENT Lancaster 15,970 42,040 29,400 99,400 75,200 112,900 79,000 101,854 Palmdale 7,893 16,075 25,400 90,800 75,500 60,100 77,840 99,902 Santa Clarita 18,526 45,249 38,100 68,900 68,400 :59,600 69,947 64,316 Unincorp. LA 11,033 28,532 24,000 93,000 106,600 87,800 111,455 157,200 North LA Subregion (7) 1 53,4221 131,896 116,900 352,100 325,600 320,400 338,242 423,272 (1) 1980 and 1997 U.S. Census; Finployment from State Employment Development Department and SCAG. (2) State Department of Finance, 1994 estimates for population and household; Employment from SCAG. (3) Southern California Assodatim of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan Forecast (adopted 1994) (4) SCAG Draft 1995 Forecast (May 1995) (5) Lancaster and. Palmdale General Plan. Santa Clarita/LA County Public %rks, Transportation Madel (6) The 1994 DOF population estimate includes a prison population of 4,088. (7) North LA Subregion is the sum of Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, and Unincorporated LA. (8) SCAG Draft 7,020 Forecast (August 1995) for Regional Transportation Plan Update (9 Response to SCAG Draft 7020 Forecast by Cities of Palmdale, Lancaster,. Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County (October 1995). 7 10 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Although employment in the North Los Angeles subregion has increased significantly since 1980, job growth has not matched the level of population growth. Therefore, the subregion is still considered housing -rich and job -poor. In 1990, there was approximately one job per every household in the North Los Angeles subregion, which compares to a countywide ratio of approximately one and one-half jobs per every household. By the year 2015, the population of the North Los Angeles subregion is projected to almost triple in size. C' According to the adopted SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Forecast (1994), the North Los Angeles County subregion is forecast to have a 2015 population of 1,305,200. Currently, SCAG is in the process of updating the forecast, and in May 1995 developed the Draft SCAG 95 Forecast. This draft forecast shows the subregion increasing to 1,188,100 people by the year 2015 -- a reduction of approximately 117,000 people from SCAG's currently adopted forecast. Finally, a sum of population C) projections in local general plans shows the population of the subregion growing to 1,178,800 by the year 2015. SCAG has recently begun the process to update the Regional Transportation Plan based on transportation conditions in the year 2020, necessitating the need to develop socio-economic forecasts for the year 2020. SCAG's draft 2020 forecasts, which were provided to the Subregion in August, 1995 are also shown in C Table 2-1, along with the Subregion's response to those draft forecasts. The Subregion's forecasts indicate a slower rate of growth in population and housing, but an increase in employment in the Subregion, in comparison to SCAG's forecast. The Subregion's forecasts which represent an improved jobs -housing balance for the Subregion would reduce the demand for commute trips out of the Subregion and lessen traffic forecasts in the Route 14/I-5 Corridor to some extent. The 2020 forecasts supersede the 2015 forecasts and will be used for future long-range planning for the subregion. 2.3 Travel Demand Models and Forecasts Several agencies have travel demand models that cover all or portions of the subregion. Caltrans, SCAG, [J and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) all have models that cover the entire subregion. The County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita jointly have a model that covers the Santa Clarita Valley. The Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster recently completed a model development process which created a consolidated Antelope Valley Model. Various modeling areas are shown in Figure 2-1. 0 SCAG Model SCAG's socio-economic based model is calibrated to 1990 conditions. SCAG has developed scenarios to forecast travel for years 2000, 2010 and 2015. SCAG's modeling area includes all of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties, and the urbanized portions of western Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The model is peak period based and produces representative traffic volumes for the AM peak period (6:00 AM -9:00 AM), the PM peak period (3:00 PM -7:00 PM), the Midday period (9:00 AM -3:00 PM), and the Night period (7:00 PM -6:00 AM).. The individual assignments for each of the four periods are then added together to produce daily traffic volume forecasts. I Ca in Kern County LEGEND Focus Area of a Regional Model r•r•r•— Window Model NOTE: Caltrans, SCAG and MTA models include Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, and urbanized portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. --- _- RIVERSIDE IIA lu, t _ COUNTY IPI yvn aw,yrevzim�...e- -.. NOT TO SCALE M NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIGURE Meyei MohaddesAssocia/es, /nc. TRAVEL DEMAND MODELLING AREAS 2-1 Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning KERN COUNTY Or r r r r r r r. r. r. .. r. r.r.r.r• v cc i t Lancastercc • r ••VENTURA ! High Desert PaHndale Corridor COUNTY i 2 ai I .�.r.r. 1 Santa ._._:rI -- �_..._..... Clarif _ LOS ANGELES \_ SAN BERNAAMNO m, -COUNTY . - _ _ --_," .,, COUNTY -.. --- _- RIVERSIDE IIA lu, t _ COUNTY IPI yvn aw,yrevzim�...e- -.. NOT TO SCALE M NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIGURE Meyei MohaddesAssocia/es, /nc. TRAVEL DEMAND MODELLING AREAS 2-1 Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning U North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Caltrans Model Q The Caltrans Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS) model is the original parent model to the SCAG Regional model. Both cover the same area, are peak period based, are calibrated to 1990 conditions, and use the same socio-economic data, developed by SCAG. One significant difference between the two models, however, is the fact that the Caltrans model does not explicitly model transit activity. Until recently, Caltrans used 2010 as the forecast year. However, Caltrans recently received U the 2015 socio-economic data from SCAG and is in the process of developing a 2015 model. LACMTA Model The Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (LACMTA) model is also similar to the SCAG model. This is primarily due to the fact that the MTA model is based on the SCAG model. MTA's model also G incorporates the significantly detailed transit (bus and rail) networks, originally developed at the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD). The MTA model covers the same five -county region and is also socio-economic based. It also uses a peak -period based assignment to produce daily traffic, volumes forecasts. The MTA model contains a much finer level of zonal detail (mostly in Los Angeles County) than the SCAG model. MTA has scenarios for both 1990 and 1994 conditions and has recently completed the year 2015 baseline scenario and a number of alternative scenarios from which the recently 0 adopted Long Range Plan was crafted, Using results from this model, the MTA Long Range Plan has identified the improvement projects on the Route 14 corridor as having the highest Countywide ranking in terms of mobility and cost-effectiveness indices_ County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita C) The Santa Clarita Valley model is used by both the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the City of Santa Clarita. The modeling area extends from the Angeles National Forest on the north to the I-5/SR-14 interchange on the south, and from the Ventura County border on the west to the Angeles National Forest on the east. The model was developed through a cooperative process by consolidating the original County and City models. It is currently calibrated to 1992 conditions and is used to update the City and County General Plan Circulation Elements. The model can use either land use data (in terms C, of dwelling units and square feet of commercial development) or socio-economic data (population and employment) as inputs to the trip generation component. Future year scenarios have been developed for both 2015 conditions and buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster 4D Both the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster have recently completed updating their models to year 1994 conditions. As part of that process, one consolidated Antelope Valley model was created. The Antelope Valley model extends from the Kern County Line (Avenue A) on the north to Pearblossom Highway on the south, and from 190th Street West to 120th Street East. The model uses land use data in terms of dwelling units and acres of commercial and industrial development as inputs to the trip generation component. The horizon year for the consolidated model is 2015. Adjacent Modeling Areas The North Los Angeles County subregion is bounded by regions for which travel demand models have also been developed. Kern County is covered by Kern County Council of Governments (COG) model. The San Bernardino area is covered in the San Bernardino County Comprehensive Transportation Plan CN (CTP) model. In support of Caltrans advance planning work, cross -county modeling has recently been done by SCAG's Inland Empire office, using the High Desert Corridor Model This is a hybrid Q 10 U North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan derivative of the SCAG Regional Model and the Victor Valley Model, Ventura County COG maintains a model of the county- The I-S/SR-14 interchange is the northern boundary of the detailed portion of the City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework model. Travel Forecasts in the Subregion The consultant team has received traffic volume forecasts for each of the travel models discussed above. O Each of the travel models produces different forecast volumes for facilities in the Subregion, therefore, the traffic volumes at some locations are defined by a range. In general, traffic volumes on I-5 and SR -14 are projected to increase between 100 and 150 percent. Traffic volumes on I-5 are projected to range from about 100,000 vehicles per day at the northern end of the study area to between 400,000 and 500,000 south of SR -14. At the southern end of the study area, r, SR -14 is projected to carry between 200,000 and 300,000 vehicles per day.. Between Santa Clarita Valley and Antelope Valley, SR -14 is projected to carry between 150,000 and 200,000 vehicles per day. The volume will drop to between 50,000 and 100,000 vehicles per day in the Antelope Valley. Traffic volumes on SR -126 (existing San Fernando Road) are projected to increase between 50 and 100 percent to approximately 40,000 vehicles per day in Santa Clarita. Traffic volumes on SR -138 are projected to increase between 100 and 200 percent to between 40,000 and 60,000 vehicles per day. Forecast Problem Areas Significant discrepancies that need resolution and will be examined further as part of this study are future cordon volume assumptions for SR -14 at the Kern County line and on I-5 south of the I-5/SR-14 junction. U (Cordon volumes are the volumes on roadway links which cross the boundary of a modeling area.) Each of the models calculates the SR -14 cordon volume differently. SCAG uses past traffic volume growth rates to develop future year cordon volumes. The Antelope Valley Model assumed that the cordon volumes would increase at a rate similar to the rate of growth internal to the Valley. This method has a tendency to overestimate traffic forecasts on regional facilities, such as freeways. Only a portion of the traffic on SR -14 originates in the projected high-growth area of Palmdale/Lancaster, therefore, f volumes on the freeway would not be expected to increase at the same rate as trips internal to the area. The Kern County model uses traffic forecasts from Caltrans' Statewide Model for cordon points. Regional forecasts on I-5 south of the junction are likely unrealistic, since they translate into approximately 25 to 30 freeway lanes of traffic, where there are currently 12 to 14 lanes. This projection is still valid, however, since it is an indication of long-range travel demand along this corridor assuming Cj that the current jobs/housing ratio does not improve and commute patterns remain relatively unchanged over the next 20 years. Expected Reasonable Ranges of Traffic Projections and Lane Needs Table 2-2 provides a comparison of the year 2010/2015 traffic model volume forecasts along I-5 and SR -14 within the North Los Angeles County region. Also included are projections based on the assumption of continuation of the historical trends between 1989 and 1993. The volume forecasts based on historical trends were compared to each of the model forecasts to develop the expected range of traffic volumes for year 2015. Lane needs were calculated assuming operation at midpoint of LOS D conditions (volume/capacity equal to 0.85). The daily capacity of a freeway lane is typically assumed to be 20,000 D vehicles per lane. This would be the upper end of level of service (LOS) E conditions.. At midpoint LOS D conditions a freeway lane should not carry more than 17,000 vehicles per day. The calculation of HOV lane needs are discussed in Section 2.4.4. O 11 c c c G c C' y z 0 F U 0 a zA 4 M a N .� N �1 Qi W a 0 U r4 w Q z r4 IF it Q' E b O Z Io North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 2.4 Alternative Modes and Trends for Use 2.4.1 Bus Transit The North County Subregion is outside the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) transit service area. Public transit within the study area is provided primarily by the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) and Santa Clarita Transit. Both agencies provide local transit C% services, commuter services and Dial -a -Ride or Demand Responsive Services. The key factors about the public transit service provided within the study area are; • The majority of the local services are provided with 30-60 minute headways in the peak O periods. This level of service appears lower than might be expected based on comparison to municipalities of similar population, but is not unexpected given the size of the service areas and patterns of low-density development that is not totally built out. • About one half of the population in the three key communities are served by a public transit line within a 1/4 mile of their residence. Lancaster is provided slightly less service than G* Palmdale or Santa Clarita, in terms of the percentage of residents within a 1/4 mile of a transit route.. • There seems to be a propensity to use the service if it's provided. For example, Santa Clarita provides about 30% to 40% more service than AVTA in terms of vehicle hours of p service and vehicle miles of service per capita. This results in about 20% more ridership. • For the present AVTA operation, the local service has a revenue/cost (R/C) ratio of 27% while the commuter services have a R/C ratio of 58%. In Southern California R/C ratios of 15% to 25% are typical for the local or urban core services. These statistics suggest that a well focused and targeted improvement program might not severely impair the present p revenue/cost picture. 2.4.2 Passenger Rail Metrolink Service 0As of October 31, 1994, Metrolink operates 18 daily commuter trains over the Santa Clarita line during morning and afternoon rush hours, Monday through Friday. Of these 18 trains, 8 operate the full length from Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) to Lancaster, 8 operate between Princessa and LAUPT, and 2 operate between Santa Clarita and LAUPT. The service north of Santa Clarita was instituted in response to the travel needs resulting from the 1994 Northridge earthquake and provided a a much needed service. Stations are located in Santa Clarita, at Princessa, at Vincent Grade/Acton and in Lancaster. Metrolink trains do not currently stop in the City of Palmdale. The key factors about the Metrolink service provided within the study area are • The bulk of the ridership on the Santa Clarita line comes from the Santa Clarita and Via Q Princessa stations. O 13 U C North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan • Ridership potential on the Metrolink might be effected by the parallel commuter services provided by the Santa Clarita Transit and the AVTA. The fares on the bus commuter operations are less expensive than Metrolink, and provide a more flexible route/stop structure with only a small time penalty. A survey of Metrolink riders indicates that 75% to 80% have their trip origins within five miles of the station. The fact that such an increase of passengers could be handled so quickly by Metrolink (at the same time that highway capacity was severely impaired) amply demonstrates the responsiveness, capability, and value of commuter rail as an alternate mode in the Route 14/I-5 corridor that is not dependent on the freeways themselves. 0 Effects of Highway Congestion on Transit Ridership in the Corridor The extensive roadway damage caused by the Northridge Earthquake, the resulting loss of highway capacity and congestion, provided a unique opportunity to test the sensitivity of transit ridership and modal split against available highway capacity and levels of congestion in the corridor. An estimate was made of the relationship between Metrolink ridership and available roadway capacity based on information gathered after the Northridge Earthquake. Figure 2-2 displays daily ridership on the Metrolink Santa Clarita during the months following the earthquake. Each drop in ridership generally corresponds with the opening or improvement of a roadway and/or freeway link. A clear relationship was found for two time periods: May 17-18, when the Gavin Canyon Bridge was reopened 'along I-5; July 8, when the southbound SR -14 to I-5 and northbound I-5 to SR -14 connections reopened. Before the reopening of the Gavin Canyon Bridge, total roadway capacity was approximately 24,000 vehicles per day (The Old Road, Sierra Highway, SR -14) and daily Metrolink ridership was 5,700 boardings per day. After the bridge reopened, total roadway capacity increased to about 34,000 vehicles per day (I-5, Sierra Highway, SR -14) and Metrolink ridership declined to 3,900 daily boardings. This represents a 42 percent increase in roadway capacity and a 32 percent decrease in Metrolink ridership. Similarly, before the reopening of the I-5 and SR -14 connectors, total roadway capacity was approximately 21,000 vehicles per day (Sierra Highway/San Fernando Road, Foothill Boulevard, SR -14 truck lanes) and daily Metrolink ridership was 3,900 boardings per day. After the connectors reopened, d total roadway capacity increased to about 28,000 vehicles per day 0-5, SR -14) and Metrolink ridership declined to 2,900 daily boardings. Ibis represents a 33 percent increase in roadway capacity and a 26 percent decrease in Metrolink ridership. The conclusion that can be reached from these relationships, is that for every ten percent increase in Q roadway capacity, there is an eight percent reduction in Metrolink ridership. Metrolink Ridership Trends The only roadway connections not yet open by August/September 1994 were southbound SR -14 to northbound I-5 and southbound I-5 to northbound SR -14. These "reverse" connections would be of little C use to potential Metrolink riders, therefore, from their perspective, the roadway network was back to its pre -earthquake state. Metrolink's ridership for the Santa Clarita Line was approximately 2,800 boardings per day in August/September 1994. By September 1995, ridership had increased to about 3,100 O 14 io pOUOd,w wo"Ww 4l flN of S 8S 78 S HN CQ 4l HS (4/11) k Z Q I I G (L I I I I Z- I i I I I l l I I 0 I I v Q a) I I 0 �z O Zul�- "0 m 2 W m Fx J m a � hm a F�S 0 W 0 0 O 0 rte_ 1 I -- CL d 0 m(nW V L m . 0 iNN' Z J m N x m 0 O 0 0 0 0 N,Z = O m - z m Z DLu Of u .CD U mnQ 0 � 2 F- m N O m O^ 0 W 0 C z cQ Ow UY 001 NZ fj J p t� [W9 Z Q W CO 02 OOW�V—G OlW J O Z pOUOd,w wo"Ww 4l flN of S 8S 78 S HN CQ 4l HS (4/11) k a` 5 e 8 ): I -uel Can-Ouo q 10YA P-odo kC H T -01S 8 00 8 N Is I I I I I @ I I I I 1 I I i I I I l l I I l l l I I I I I I v P I I 0 �z 0 O 0 0 "0 m c > m Fx 00wt a � hm 0 F�S 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 N V L m O Q¢ m N x m 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O m - z N -'02 0 3 u N 0 t00 a` 5 e 8 ): I -uel Can-Ouo q 10YA P-odo kC H T -01S 8 00 8 N Is I m - a m . m n _ N m0 O N �m �O mm 00 om 1y o O N ON Om -0 1O m 00 N O _ O O m O .ON O 0 n^ 0 u1^ 00 nm O N —m _ N 0 fO v O ^ m _00 m � M v1O N 0 0` v W o� o op N mo N - a'0 0 N V 0 00 _ o m `r N 0 N N ON M O N O 00 N 00 N N O N N O N O 0 � N O 0 N O 0= ,mom 0- 00 0 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I i I I I l l I I l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -FTTT-n 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 m O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0V 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O o 8 0 0 N 0 t00 m N O m O^ 0 0 N 0 001 u0i t� � b F-OmbpWT OOW�V—G OlW m - a m . m n _ N m0 O N �m �O mm 00 om 1y o O N ON Om -0 1O m 00 N O _ O O m O .ON O 0 n^ 0 u1^ 00 nm O N —m _ N 0 fO v O ^ m _00 m � M v1O N 0 0` v W o� o op N mo N - a'0 0 N V 0 00 _ o m `r N 0 N N ON M O N O 00 N 00 N N O N N O N O 0 � N O 0 N O 0= ,mom 0- 00 0 U North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan I boardings per day and is steadily rising. This represents an increase of almost eleven percent, which is L an indication of the maturation and continued success of Metrolink as an alternative mode of transportation for this heavily congested corridor. Trends with Regards to Passenger Rail For orientation purposes, the geographic area has been divided into four segments with the center located G at Palmdale, they are; 1) North—to Lancaster, 2) South—through Santa Clarita and the Interstate 5/Route 14 interchange, 3) West—Santa Clarita into eastern Ventura county, 4) East—towards San Bernardino along SR -118. Figure 2-3 illustrates existing rail service lines in North Los Angeles County. Along the north segment, work will be concentrated on constructing passing sidings at five mile intervals O and of approximately two miles in length. Extending commuter service from Lancaster to Rosamond (about 12 miles) is under study. Amtrak and Caltrans, Division of Rail, are investigating the possibility of operating Amtrak trains from Bakersfield to Palmdale and on into Los Angeles. The Metrolink service plans incorporate this possibility. The south segment is planned to be double tracked between Santa Clarita and Burbank with the exception U of the existing single track Tunnel 25 (north of I-5 and 14 interchange). Tunnel 25 represents a serious constraint. Due to drainage and track stability considerations, speeds are limited to 25 mph through this tunnel. It is planned to rehabilitate Tunnel 25 (structural improvements have already been made) to allow 40 mph operations. Additionally, future plans incorporate several "Curve Reduction" projects (i.e., projects which realign speed restricting sharp curves)in the Santa Clarita area. A new station in the vicinity of Newhall is planned after the second track has been built. G Along the west segment, Ventura County has plans to bring the Santa Paula branch line back into service. The line once joined the main line in Santa Clarita at Highway 126. The service would have commuter trains and weekend beach service but most likely will extend southerly towards Los Angeles rather than back into Santa Clarita. Ventura County plans to open this line prior to 2015, but the opening is O dependent upon continuing ridership and community growth. Although the east segment has the potential for passenger service to be added for an east -west service, it is not thought to be practical by 2015. Amtrak service may follow this route coming from Bakersfield but no definite plans have been made at this time. C) high Speed Rail Service Plans Plans for a high speed system between Los Angeles and Bakersfield are being prepared. The alternatives being examined include an alignment through Santa Clarita and Palmdale/Lancaster and northwest to Bakersfield. This is called the Antelope Valley Alignment and although it is somewhat longer than the G "Interstate 5" alignment it offers other advantages such as reduced tunnelling, and the fact that it does serve an important population center (Palmdale/Lancaster) that the I-5 alignment does not. The California Transportation Commission Railway Committee recently recommended selection of the "Antelope Valley" Corridor and provides additional support to include High Speed Rail compatibility and support in future projects in the North Los Angeles County Subregion. The High Speed Antelope Valley Alignment will follow some portions of the existing Southern Pacific/Metrolink alignment. The exact locations of O` passenger stations have not been determined. A recent study placed a station in Santa Clarita and another in Palmdale near the airport. () 16 NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY - EXISTING RAIL SERVICE Figure 2-3 SOUTHERN PACIFIC FREIGHT Trains Da PASSENGER SERVICE (Trains/DUI THROUGH TRAINS: 5 (varies with demand) METROLINK: 19 LOCAL SWITCHERS: 2 (varies with demand) AMTRAK: 0 STUDYAREA ■o�z�xm�ww LA - LANCASTER LINE OTHER RAIL LINES 1�mmmmm— C North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 2.4.3 Freight Services IC SPTC Freight Service For the purposes of this study, the most significant freight rail operations occur on the 75 (f) mile line from LAUPT northwesterly from Los Angeles through Burbank Junction (SPTC West Line), then to Saugus (Santa Clarita) and northeasterly to Palmdale and Lancaster (SPTC Saugus Line). G The SPTC continues to operate through freight trains over this line. The number of trains operated on any given day will vary depending on business demand and operations on other parts of the SPTC system. The SPTC intends to continue to operate on this line although the major portion of freight moves east through Colton and, when necessary, between Colton and Palmdale Junction via the "Palmdale Cut-oftff". U The Palmdale Cut-off runs from SPTC Colton Yards through Cajon Pass and west somewhat parallel to Highway 138 to rejoin the Saugus Line near Sierra Highway and Avenue R in Palmdale. IG SPTC also operates local industry service on this line. Typically, two local switchers a day will operate over various portions of the route, delivering and picking up freight cars from on line industries. This too, will vary with business demands. 2.4.4 HOV Usage In 1990, 20% to 253 of the residents of Palmdale and Lancaster traveled to work via car pool. Only 14% of the residents of Santa Clarita did so. After the January 1994 earthquake, Caltrans implemented HOV lanes on sections of SR -14 to encourage car and van pooling, From February to May, 1994 HOV Q usage for southbound, AM peak travel accounted for 40% to 50% of travel on SR -14. This shows the potential for HOV usage on SR -14 under severely congested conditions. Although the circumstances precipitated this level of response, the basic statistics before the earthquake suggest that HOV usage might remain as high as 20% to 25% (of corridor usage). Table 2-2 contains an estimate of HOV lane needs along SR -14 for year 2015. The HOV volumes were assumed to be 20 percent of the one-way total volume at the midpoint of the range. The value of 20 percent is consistent with both the current mode split and SLAG HOV demand projections. HOV lane needs were calculated assuming operation at midpoint of LOS D conditions (volume/capacity equal to 0.85). The daily capacity of a freeway lane is typically assumed to be 20,000 vehicles per lane. This would be the upper end of level of service (LOS) E conditions. At midpoint LOS D conditions an HOV 40 lane should not carry more than 17,000 vehicles per day. The analysis indicates a need for two HOV lanes each way south of Sand Canyon Road and one HOV lane each way to the north to Avenue D. 2.4.5 Park -and -Ride Lots D The extent of usage of official and unofficial park-and-ride lots or areas is indicative of the commuter concern with trip costs, travel time and congestion. Many key lots are operating at or near capacity, including the ones located on Avenue S and Sierra Highway/SR-14 in Palmdale, the Price Club lot in Santa Clarita, and the Caltrans lot in Acton. Park -and -Ride Expansion programs for the corridor are planned. Chapter 6 of this report focuses on park-and-ride expansion needs. IN 18 0 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 3.0 MULTI -MODAL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND O PRIORITIZATION This chapter presents the list of multi -modal mobility improvement projects for the Route 14 and I-5 corridors through the North Los Angeles County Subregion, provides descriptions about the nature and implementation status of each project, and describes the prioritization and ranking process which was O undertaken in this project. The list of transportation improvement projects includes short-term projects about to be constructed, as well as long-range projects. (See Section 3.2 for a description of short-term, mid-term, and long-term.) The prioritization of this list of projects was undertaken, so that the implementation plan could focus on those projects of highest priority to the Subregion as a whole. Development of the list of all projects was a collaborative effort, with substantial guidance received from G the members of the Technical Advisory Committee. 3.1 Sources of Projects Various sources and documents were consulted to identify all current mobility improvement projects in the corridor, which have been proposed, planned, funded (either full or partial) and discussed in various local, subregional or regional planning processes. The list began with an initial project list which was developed as part of the previous phase of the SCAG's Subregional planning process. This list was summarized in the report for that study. Other local, subregional and regional studies, planning and implementation documents were collected, reviewed in detail and catalogued. Some of the major regional iJ sources, which provided information on multiple projects, included the following: • "North Los Angeles County Subregion Plan, December 1993, by Hightower and Associates for SCAG. • Circulation Elements for the cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Santa Clarita. • Antelope Valley Sketch Master Plan of Arterial Highways. • SCAG's Regional Mobility Element. • Caltrans' State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), 1992-99. • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority's Congestion Management Program and Multi - Year TIP Call for Projects List, FY 1995-96 through 1998-99, and Long Range Plan ("A Plan for Los Angeles County Transportation for the 21st Century"), To augment the improvement project research process and to receive direct feedback, individual workshop meetings were held with all jurisdictions and agencies participating in the process, during the months of January and February, 1995. Planning and engineering staffs, and in some cases elected officials and commissioners participated in these meetings. Individual meetings were held with the following agencies: • City of Lancaster • City of Palmdale • City of Santa Clarita • County of Los Angeles • Los Angeles County MTA • Caltrans O 19 to North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan To focus the discussions at these meetings, a meeting outline and a list of questions were developed and O sent to the participants in advance of each meeting (see Appendix). 3.2 Initial Phasing of Projects For better organization, the initial list of projects was categorized by mode which included, Freeways/Highways, Freeway HOV, Bus, Park -and -Ride, Commuter/Light'Rail, High Speed Rail and Freight Rail projects. In addition, projects were listed regardless of implementation status and timing (short vs long-range). With feedback from the Committee members, and discussions at the individual meetings, all projects were segregated into the following categories: Short-term projects, which are currently in variousprogramming stages, and further implementation strategies would be developed for them as part of this project (1995-2005). • Mid-term Projects, which have a reasonable chance of implementation within the next 20 year horizon of this project (by the year 2015), and will be the focus of detailed strategic implementation in this project (2005-2015). Long-term Projects, those which are beyond the year 2015 and will only be generally discussed for strategic implementation. Some factors which were used for the categorization included, potential ridership levels/mobility G improvement, cost and cost effectiveness, political support and expediency. A further categorization was made by dividing all projects into regionally and subregionally significant projects. Regionally significant projects, were considered to be those which are on facilities connecting the North Los Angeles County area to the rest of Southern California and are especially oriented towards commuter traffic. Subregionally significant projects are those which are related to facilities connecting various jurisdictions within the Subregion or serve a major subregional function. Table 3-1, presents the final modal and regional categorization and initial phasing of all identified projects. Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 show the Short-, Mid- and Long Term projects, respectively. EN W I� 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 (71 0 0 n_ 0 TABLE 3-1 PROJECT CATEGORIES Priority( Proj Regionally SigttiGcant Projects.. ....... . OSi il 9tu, lean Pi Phasing In .. .................. (1) NLA -1 Rte. 14 HOV, 1-5 - San Fernando Rd. (MTA 20 Yr. Plan) Ave. L arterial widening (Lancaster) NLA -2 Rte. 14 HOV, San Fernando Rd. -Sand Canyon (MTA 20 Yr. Plan) - construction to begin SR 126, widening Valencia Ave. to Bouquet Canyon Rd. (2--4 lanes) 1995-2005 NLA -3 Rte. 14 HOV, Sand Canyon -Escondido (MTA 20 Yr. Plan) - construction to begin (STIP) NLA -4 Rte. 14 HOV, Escondido-Pearblossorn Hwy. (MTA 20 Yr. Plan) SR 126, widening 15th St. to Lyons Ave. (2�4 lanes) (STIP) NLA -5 Rte. 14 HOV, Prarblossom Hwy. -Ave. L with Ave. L And Ave..S Interchange Expand local transit service/Metriiiink feeder buses Enhancements (MTA 20 Yr. Plan south of Ave. P-8, Lancaster Call for Valencia Town Center Transit Center Projects north of Ave. P-8) Traits system NLA -7 Pearblossom "Expressway' limited access facility; Rte 14 to 50th St. W (under study), Lancaster Metrolink Station - Park-and-ride expansion including interchange at 14 (Caltrans Call for Projects) NLA -8 SR 138, Widening, 10th St. W - 30th St. W (4»6 lanes) (STIP, 20 Yr. Plan, RME) NLA -9 SR 138, Widening, Ave. T to Long View Rd. (2-4 lanes) (STIP, 20 Yr. Plan, RME) NLA -10 SR 138, Widening to San Bernardino County Line NLA -11 SR 126, Widening Ventura County Line to 1-5 (2-4 lanes) (STIP) NLA -12 Railroad Right of Way Protection along SR 126, Santa Clarita to Ventura NLA -13 1-5/Rte. 14 Interchange + 1-5 HOV, SR IIS to SR 14, (MTA 20 Yr- Plan) + parallel routes (Sierra Hwy./Old Road) (Santa Clarita) NLA -14 Metrolink Service to Lancaster; on-going commitment (MTA 20 Yr. Plan) NLA -15 Lancaster Metrolink Station - under construction NLA -16 Vincent Grade Metrolink Station NLA -17 Newhall Mctrolink Station NLA -19 Express Commuter buses to destinations other than LACBD NLA -20 Park -and -fide lots NLA -21 California High Speed Ground Transportation project (ROW protection) NLA -22 Ave P-8 Freeway (new SR 138) to 90th/100th St. E., incl. Rte. 14/P-8 interchange (Sketch Plan) (Project subsequently divided into two segments; Rte 14 - 50th St. E and 5OLh - 90th) NLA -23 North LA County Signal System - TSM project (2) NLA -24 SR 126 Exprcssway/Frccway (RME) - or Alternate E -W Route Other Arterials on Sketch Plan NLA -25 Passenger rail extension San Joaquin Valley - LA via Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita 2005-2015 NLA -26 50th St. E, N -S Expressway (Sketch Plan) (check feasibility with LADOA) NLA -27 Palmdale Metrolink Station/multi-modal terminal (3) NLA -28 SR 122, 90th/100th St. NS Corridor (Freeway) (Sketch Plan) (Caltrans study feasibility) NLA -29 High Desert Corridor (P-8 from 90th/100th St. to San Bernardino County Line) .Long LA -30 California High Speed Ground Transportation project (construction) Range LA -31 Rte.. 138 Bypass (90th/100th St. to Avenue D to Rte 14) Freeway (Sketch Plan) LA -32 Rte. 138, Rtc, 14 to 1-5 Freeway (Adopted Freeway, Sketch Plan) LA -33 Rte. 14 HOV, Ave. D to L (Sketch Plan) I LA -341 San Francisquito connection; Santa Clarita to Lancaster (Sketch Plan) Notes: 1) Project 6 has been mcorporated into Project ) 2) Project IS has been removed from further consideration 7 7 e e ■ 7 e e ■ e 7 w \ 2 $ /$ $ ( LLJ / L<L cr / 52�=em §((\§)) \ \ lo lo / M «L W \\� w \d>7� \ /� | st ) . . f©ANL ©UNY \ § ( \. l | -®H , � k � z m . � 2 \\\\ � % f \ :| }\\\ ,a_. } | / / / ) \ :,a_ | \. . . ... HIM \\kms � �a \ w \ 2 $ /$ $ ( LLJ / L<L cr / 52�=em §((\§)) \ \ lo lo / M «L W \\� w \d>7� \ /� ui st ) . . f©ANL ©UNY \ § ( \. l | -®H w \ 2 $ /$ $ ( LLJ / L<L cr / 52�=em §((\§)) \ \ lo lo / M «L W \\� w \d>7� \ /� 9 } § CL § : o > cn ui ) kcc A \ § ( 7 ) , 9 } § CL § : o > cn ) k { ( 7 � k � z m . � 2 � % f \ :| • • • • • • • • • • • KERN COUNTY ass asar:aaa®seal aaa ®a�aer_ .. as.a ...gip ..... sY�aaet�aet LOS ANGELES COUNTY 3 AVENUE % F N �^ V 2 � FI m A%MDALE ; J Project 21 not displayed 3 F ® ,�. � 3 w LANCASTER w Gy S t3 JOVE O AVENUE Z9B�R Sid y ,c g _a 'r: AVENUE '� ♦ 10PNEW FACILITY hyo ACLAR _ ROW PROTECTION ♦1 RAIL TRANSIT * p RAIL STATION \s s: Tye IIIIP•gllll ` SAN FERNANDO VALLE ttt®a.a�a. �.d III�N if Va4mmamu>nV2<e, NOT TO SCALE M NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIGURE Meyei MohaddesAssociates, /nc. MID-TERM PROJECTS S-2 Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning FRo O AVENUE % F N �^ V 2 � FI m A%MDALE ; t 21 2? F ® ,�. ..:' PALMDALE BLVD ♦ QD Gy S JOVE O AVENUE Sid y mV. Z . ♦ A PEARBLOSSOM Hwy P1 21 Y OR�4w� C �C -. DAD RD '� ♦ 10PNEW FACILITY hyo ACLAR _ ROW PROTECTION ♦1 RAIL TRANSIT * p RAIL STATION \s s: Tye IIIIP•gllll ` SAN FERNANDO VALLE ttt®a.a�a. �.d III�N if Va4mmamu>nV2<e, NOT TO SCALE M NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIGURE Meyei MohaddesAssociates, /nc. MID-TERM PROJECTS S-2 Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning • • 0 • • • • • t s KERN COUNTY az aaasaaxaee xx rvxxawrxaewaa x aa, a a• •o®a.• a��rrw>rass�®:a cxs�aaea�.wzasaaxaaxr a asxti axaex®axarwa• LOS ANGELES COUNTY AVENUE D nl Project 30 not displayed 3 LANCASTER d 0 F( r 33 N �B Q 9 /^ _KFBD D AVENUE s : QO i Oyd JpJ� O s T C1 5� PVatf SA ACLAR e a a ti ti w F x ti r PALMDALE °' PALMDALE BLVD AVENUE T y PEARBLOSSOM Hy NEW FACILITY SOLEDAD DYN RD HOV LANES << Illlp.ylll SAN FERNANDO ALLE '4z` lll� hll� aaa.aF3a.;aaR t yssa�meawaaz m. - NOT TO SCALE NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBREGIONAL MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIGURE Meyer MohaddesAssociates, Inc, LONG TERM PROJECTS 3-3 Traffic Engineering 0 Transportation Planning G North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 3.3 Project Data Summaries C Detailed data and facts were collected on each identified project through various sources. This information was documented on individual project fact sheets. This was done to assist in the next step of project prioritization. A first draft of the project sheets were completed by consultant team members and were distributed to committee and agency members. Comments and feedback were received on all items and incorporated into the project summaries. Information on the following items was documented O on each project: C_ • Project Title and Reference Number • Project Description • Project Readiness including, - Environmental Clearance Status - Design Status - Funding Status - Inclusion of the Project in Planning/Programming Documents • Potential Implementation Time Frame • Responsible Jurisdiction • Lead Agency A sample project data sheet is presented in Figure 3-4, on the next page. The full package of finalized project data sheets is included in the technical Appendix for this report. Table 3-2 presents an overall summary of data on all projects. The last column in Table 3-2 includes a ranking score, which indicates the results of the project prioritization process explained in Section 3.4. It should be noted that the Project ID #'s do not necessarily correspond to the ranking. The Project ID #'s were developed before the ranking was established. 3.4 Project Prioritization Process After all project data was compiled and documented, a first attempt was made to rank and prioritize G projects for their relative need and benefit to the Subregion. The evaluation criteria utilized were consistent with the recent MTA Call For Projects criteria. The ranking methodology and the process to assign the evaluation criteria points was a subjective/qualitative exercise, similar to that used by the MTA in the Call For Projects process. No quantitative formulas were developed. The primary difference between the Call For Project rankings and the North Los Angeles Subregional rankings is, that the MTA C rankings were relative rankings for projects within their modal category, whereas the North Los Angeles Subregional process attempted to rank the projects across all modes. A summary of the types of questions which were considered when determining how a project should be ranked, and the number of maximum points for each category, is provided in the following paragraphs: 1. Regional Significance (20 points maximum) - How does the project provide mobility and congestion relief, particularly on the CMP network? Agency was asked to provide forecast data if available. - Is the project part of a regional (MTA or SCAG) or multi jurisdictional plan? - Does the project serve any regional trip generators, such as airports and regional C activity centers, to which access would be enhanced? L 25 IQ G G G G O G G 0 0 PROJECT IDITTTLE: NLA -1: Route 14 HOV (1-5 to San Fernando Road) PROJECT RANKING: Short Term - Evaluation Point Score 90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would extend the first phase of the Route 14 HOV Lane (San Fernando Road to Sand Canyon) south to the Route 5/14 junction, adding one lane in each direction for exclusive use of carpools and buses. The entire segment would be implemented by adding two lanes in the center median of the freeway. The resulting cross section would include three mixed flow and one HOV lane in each direction. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Status: PSR complete. PSR being considered on direct connection ramps. Issues: Supplemental EIR will most likely be required for the I-5/SR-14 interchange. DESIGN Status: No work has been started on this HOV lane. In FY 1995-96 Call for Projects. Will be done in next four years. Issues: FUNDING Status: The cost estimate for this project is $13.9 million (per MTA Long range Plan). Funding was awarded for FY 1998-99 through the FY 1995-96 Call for Projects. Issues: INCLUSION IN PLANNING DOCUMENTS Status: This project is included in the MTA 20 Year Plan and the SCAG RME, but not the 1994 STIP, Caltrans has proposed to include Route 14 on the National Highway System. Issues: MTA is currently undertaking a countywide HOV Systems Integration Study, which will establish a priority system for all proposed HOV projects. POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME Estimate: JURISDICTION: Los Angeles County, Santa Clarita LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans Figure 3-4 Sample Project Data Sheet (For complete set, see Appendix to report) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c c c TABLE3-2 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY 'PmD F D.rN .' ". ctmnee -.:- ax 'Wd'w Doo.rm R levd&vncy 3H00.T'IERN N -1 R.. 14 MV. 1-5-3n F•rmed Rd MIt mt tivl4bd 17.9 mlllim, 1.9 MI,CFP ARA MPA M Yr. P6% WAG RME IWr5-99 C.Me, SO NLA -2 AM. 16 HDV, S.e F•m.ed RA-S.odCr K.D•c •.b, b. 10% 353 mllliw (m P) MPA M Yr. Por, SCAG RMF, I9 STP 391 C.Me, 91 NLA -7 Rb. 15 HDV, S.d C. a -E rocld K.Drv. m •r 1e 19% M.1 m0II,m(mP) MfAMYr.P6r, SCA RMF IMSTP 6% C.Mv, 9l NSA -4 Rb. 15 HDV.E .dd-M.Wme.N . K.Dc m. IW4.d 6d]mmlm.,.a.%mrd WAM Yr. F6r, SCAG R"_ IMSTIP 2OW-MOS C.M. m N -S R.. 14 MV. Pr rb.mm- An. L WA..Ld Ar.S lm.b Evbr.mm K.D. eA.. P -d .,ymb wd a2m ,em.pmbd WAM Yr.P%r,3CAGR (b Au. P -S) MOO -DAs C.M. n NLA -7 h.rbbmm u ,S0.-14 a Suh StEI¢L Wm op QSK-14 mt tbl4.d b Mr.. C.M. 56 NLA -5 SR In 7Md IU%3L W. -M SL W.4�6bw. D.ft MR. K Doc mt tW4rd L2 vAtlw TIP WAM Yr. Pb% IMSTIF. hbe41.CE 1995-1999 C.M. n NLA-% SRI7A An Tble .Rd . 46, SRW D¢.b .,Y,,Wdrd 19.7vtlplm P MPAMYr.Ph43CAGRMG1991STIP 1996-1999 C.Imm 71 NLA -10 SR Iso M9d•ob [om rRd eSR-15 mt lwl4ed mt ,Mf.d m.pm.drrr. C.Mm 71 NLA -16 SR II Widreie bS.v brmdm Ce Lim RAC.r ah. Emm mt ,wtbbd mrvam.d C.M. 74 NTA -11 ISR 114 Wideb VnvrunCo U..1-5 ..e Sbme ER C.M. m,rb, MAE M.6 mIMm STP r.n 1996 C.M. T NLA -12 RWlrmd bwfW. hor W. SRIXSao.CbrM.o V•nlun m[ 1Wtb.d RDW Mr Sm.C6d. RS.11111. .S... Frd mm 1995-1999 C.Mv. 15 NLA -17 1-S IDV, SR 116a SA 15♦ nhl Harr bmH Ald Rw KRb •u I-Smv&A b MI'AMY,,Mcr. CAGRME C.M.. D NLA -M Mevolivk 3enkebL.¢r.rov- wmmimrvt mlvrry mardd m5mlm .O..d thou PY 1996 WAM Yr. Pbu. SCAR RIS v Iv SORRA M N[A-]5 fA¢.err AbeallokS.tlw K.De,c del c m •e AIM ¢.n.r Q4 MPA come6..t M WA M Yr. Pb SCAG lk @ 1993-Im SCA I .l 57 NU -16 Vb:evtGnb Mevo%vk3vde mt verb. mt rb14.d u¢br ,REM hlmdb veoelntmtM MTA MY,. Pbv. SCAO IUQ 1995-1991 SORRA Incl $I M -I? K.bp 105,.1 kS.tlw mt tbl4.dvdv o vd deird MPAC err comlm ,r WAMYr,Phv.SCAGRW 1991 WRK& la.l A NIA -l9 . Comms levee rerbr Jnedmber mmr d ft,M AAC I .I T.veR W M NLA -M hrk-.ed-Rldbv Crr r{n Es ml tbl4.d•c• A.,S 17mllliw br A..3 WA comlrmt M WA M Yr. PY WAG RME .Iver, Ml'g9CRRq ix.1 M NLA -21 Cirllbrt %S dpmudh.m ntlov t ROW.. mt tb14.d mr neidrd CAN 3 dQwvd Tnm Sb .Mm Pon=I C1Mm N NLA-nA An. FSFrsr wr3 R 175 a 504 S t E, W. R.. 1VP5 br.bv TbrI Re evt tW4vd.-.n—.d Ave V.11Skr.h R.. hlmdb CE PoAwu C.M. TI NIA -D Wrth I.ACeu S IS -'I4M t wed RTP. nl n.5 md%be nmrd WAM Yr. ML WAG RME I .l m 1 M Iv470 br Pm WA MD TERM NU -21 C.Ilbrd. IR h5 dGouvd Tnm mdve t ROW cde ikidrd mt tbhh.d CA 5 dGr.vdTR.ee Sm .Mer PoRDAI C.M. M NIA-nll An. PSFmr wv9R1555O4SSEe 9tWIWt%StE, TbrI Re n mt tbid.d m.%m.d M.1c,r V.p Skecb n.. hWdb CE %stwo C.M. 'n NLA -M 3R 126 r RME) -or.Mrmv E -W Mvub Tbr I Ae nr r Word C.M. m NLA -25 hmv rnllr usbm S.nl aV. Ai Avr V. v.Cbdv ..drCMA .%mnl.b enlrrd 1.9.1111. C.M., Ran M. uvk,w.I.d C.Imm n NLA -26 s %S%E. N -S I .1 I m NLA- hbrdb Meeapvk5bdv%uM-mAl brmh.l t IW4.d Porr2W5 SCRRA hlmdl. 14 WNGTERM -2d SR127.911MIt StN-SComdr mt tWrbrd CW".% .l 51 NU -M M hD..ncoMdr fps he.~W45. a 3.v &.,&.c uv Lim mt tbi4rd mubmed C.M. m NLA -70 C.%brd. M h3 dOmwdTk.m rbtbv t em¢bv .% menndyoe lop ml tbl4rd Port M65 C.Mm 11 NIA -21 R.. IM u (MIM St b Au am D b Rb. 14lrmwy K.D.. C.M., 67 NLA -72 R.. IA Rw 11 b 1-5 Frr NIA -75 R.. N IDV, A.. D e PS ml tbl4vd C.Mm 51 NIA -M Son Fnr ulroeer6.: 9oovC4d.bbmm.r mvrrdd IaW 55 c ) mF1 > wory9n. b Ft. 2) holec115 b. %eoo nmawd tram 6vthercvmidntivv F19rrA9.j95-roulM,abwal..m U North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan - Is the project compatible with nearby services and does it avoid duplication with other projects? - Does the project cross jurisdictional or community plan area boundaries? - Which freeways/HOV lanes and major arterials served are located within ik mile? 2. Cost Effectiveness (15 points maximum) d What is the relative benefit per dollar expended on the project? Are specific policies and commitments been adopted by the responsible agency to ensure long-term maintenance for the project? What cost saving strategies are incorporated into the project? Can the responsible agency demonstrate commitment to out -year funding for completion of the project? Who will pay for maintenance of the project? How is the project designed to minimize maintenance costs? 3. Land Use and Environmental Compatibility (15 points maximum) O Does the project support local land use goals, air quality, and energy conservation? - Can evidence be provided to demonstrate community and multi -agency support? What land use -related policies and actions have been taken by the responsible agency to encourage transit use? Have transit operators and traffic forum members been involved and support the project? U 4. Benefit to Transit Users (10 points maximum) - Which transit facilities or services does the project serve? - How does the project increase the speed of fixed -route transit, increase transit use, and O expand or enhance the quality and security of transit services? - What efforts has the lead agency made to develop and improve transit centers and bus shelters? - How will the project encourage transit use or transit operating improvements? 5. Management of Existing Systems (10 points maximum) O How will the project help to maintain or improve level of service, travel times, or eliminate gaps on the route and in the corridor? How is the project important to the effective maintenance and management of existing facilities and systems? C) - How does the project eliminate or avoid transportation service deficiencies in the community(ies) it serves, such as existing service gaps? How does the project eliminate bottlenecks, obstacles or gaps? Will the project correct existing safety problems encountered by the users? How does this project serve a previously unserved population? [IE O 28 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 6. Inter -Modal Integration (10 points maximum) - How will the project contribute to a balanced and integrated system for the movement of people and goods? - How will this project improve transfers or eliminate conflicts between travel modes or between services provided by different agencies? Does the jurisdiction have any parking policies which encourage transit use? - Does the project provide linkage with and facilitate the use of other transportation modes? 7. Long -Term Project Development (10 points maximum) O - What is the project's potential long-term value, including right-of-way protection or applicability to other locations? Does the project further previous MTA actions supporting the project, such as completing partially funded project segments? How does the project represent a new and/or innovative solution to providing transportation services? O Who owns the right-of-way 'where the project is to be constructed? Are there any future plans for the R -O -W which might affect the project? Project Readiness (10 points maximum) What project milestones have already been completed (e.g., Project Study Report, Environmental Clearance, Governing Body Approval, Plan, Specifications & Engineering Estimates, Right -of -Way Certification)? What evidence is there that project funding will result in timely completion of the project? A first draft of the project ranking matrix was developed and presented at the TAC meeting. Comments were received from TAC members and incorporated into the matrix. The final project prioritization matrix is presented in Table 3-3, on the following page. Project Number 18, which represented a policy directive to eliminate express commuter buses into downtown Los Angeles which compete with Metrolink, was dropped from the list of projects during the evaluation process, as it was felt by TAC members that this directive was not a "transportation improvement project" in the same sense as other projects on the list, and that the commuter express routes were successful and should be continued for the foreseeable future. It should be noted that highway safety measured through accident rates and history was not included as a criteria. As mentioned previously, the evaluation criteria utilized were consistent with the recent MTA © Call For Projects criteria. SR -138 has a relatively poor safety record due to the high vehicular speeds on a relatively narrow roadway. If safety had been included as an evaluation criteria, SR -138 improvement projects would likely have been ranked higher in Table 3-3. G 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 3-3 PROJECT RANKINGS NLA -2 jlkte. 14 HOV, Sm Femerdo RA - Smd C4uq. 18 is 15 9 9 9 9 10 94 NIA -3 Ru, 14 HOV, Send Canycn-Ewmdido IB IS I5 9 9 9 9 9 93 NIA -1 Ru. 14 HOV, 1.5 -Sm Fmmdo Rd. IB IS 15 9 9 9 9 6 90 NIA Ru. 14 HOV, Escondido . Pewblwwm Hwy. is 13 15 9 9 9 9 6 90 N .S Rte. 14 HOV, F blo Hwy.. Ave. L with Am L A Ave. S Intmch"e Eohencemmu 16 15 15 9 9 9 9 5 87 NU -20 Park+M-Ride 1w 16 IS 14 8 7 10 8 8 86 ALA -23 North U Camty Sip dSystem-TSM project 14 15 15 8 10 8 7 9 86 NU -14 lvfolmk Smri. m lsK ,,on- pigcortunibne 15 10 14 IO 8 9 9 10 85 NU -19 Etyrme Commmer btu. to aha de =ti 14 13 15 10 8 9 7 8 84 NLA -15 Lme.l. Metrolink Srotim 12 12 14 9 7 10 9 10 83 NU -16 Vir..t 0.& Metrolink Statim 12 12 14 9 7 10 9 8 81 NLA -13 1-5/Rte. 14 hd hwW + 1.5 HOV, SA 118 to SR 14 +p .11.1 rout. (Siem Hwy./Old Roed) (Smit Clm ) 18 12 8 9 9 9 9 6 RO NU -17 Newhall Metrolink Station 12 12 14 9 7 10 9 6 79 NLA -12 Railroad Right of Wry Protection Ioq SR 126, Smit Clarila w Vmtuu 10 14 14 9 5 8 10 8 78 NU -I 0 SR 138, W kknb,g to Sm Benwdmo County Lbw 15 13 13 5 8 4 8 8 74 NLA.21 Califanu High Sped Oramd Trwuporution project (ROW study) 18 5 Is 7 5 8 10 6 74 NU -9 SR 138, Widmm& Ave. T W Long View Rd. (2a 41m.) Is 13 13 5 8 4 8 8 74 NU -I I SR 126, Widenir& Vmt Canty Lbw w 1-5 (2a 4 Iuws) 15 12 10 5 8 4 9 8 71 NIA -22A Ave. Pe Fm (new SR 138) W 50th St E., bel. Ru. 14/P8 inml m e (Sketch Plm) 12 14 1 13 5 4 7 9 7 71 NU -e SR 138, Widm'og, 10th St W.. 30th SL W. (4->61m.) 10 15 8 5 9 6 8 10 71 NLA -7 Pewblamm limited. Gcilit , Ru. 14 to 50th St E., imlud intro e e Ate. 14 15 10 5 5 7 4 8 4 58 M TERM NU -21 Califs. High Speed Orovnd Tt pas project(ROW protection) IB 5 IS 7 5 8 10 6 74 NLA -27 Palmdale Metrolink Sutior✓multimodal unnuul 12 10 12 10 7 10 9 4 74 NI -A-25 P..enger tail ett. m Sm )wquin Valley - U vie Anteiop Ve11ey and Smu Cleri. 17 7 12 8 8 10 7 4 73 NLA -26 50th SL E., N -S Eepr..way (Sketch Plm) 15 12 10 6 9 1 7 9 2 7o NLA -22B Aw. P8 Freeway (crow SR 138). 50th SL E. w 90dd100th SL E (Sketch Pim) 12 14 13 5 4 7 9 5 1 69 NLA44 SR 126 EpyT,,wy (RAE) -a altemeu FW Route IB IO 'S 6 9 5 8 3 64 LONGTERM NU -33 Rte. 14 HOV, Ave. D In L (Skeuh Plm) 12 15 15 9 9 9 9 3 81 NU -30 CLLdf High Speed Om -A Ttvupmation project Tesoro¢tion) 19 10 10 8 7 10 7 4 75 NU•32 Rte. 138, Rte. 14101-5 Freeway 16 10 12 6 8 6 9 3 70 NU -31 Ru. 138 Bypu (90W I00th SL W A.. D W Rte. 14) Freeway 18 8 10 6 7 6 9 3 67 NU -29 High Besot C..I.o M 6a. 90tH 00th SL to Sm B.T dkw Canty Line) is 8 10 6 6 6 9 3 66 NU -34 Sm Frerebquiw corvwction, Sema amts to Lmemur(Sketch Plm) IS 8 6 5 8 68 '2 SB NU -28 SR 122, 9W 001h St. N -S Conidm (Freew.y) (Sketch Plm) 18 5 3 6 9 6 6 1 54 Na.: 1) Protect 6 h. ben ueaD.atad into Pried 5 2) Pmject 13 h. been removed 6om Bother muid.atio. (\uwn194W4-03 V4Wuank.W 0 0 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 4.0 STRATEGIC INIPLEMENTATION PLANS This chapter of the report provides recommendations as to the steps which need to be taken to implement the priority projects shown on Table 3-3. The implementation plan is focused on projects along Route 14 and I-5. C 4.1 Packaging of Priority Projects (Tier I) The North Los Angeles County subregion has identified and ranked 22 projects for implementation in the short term. The ranking of the projects resulted in a clear set of priorities for the subregion. Many 0 of these projects are components of an overall improvement program. Rather than designing a strategy for funding 22 separate projects, seven packages encompassing like projects are proposed. These packages then become integrated into comprehensive transportation planning programs, thus increasing their individual competitiveness. The groups of projects were not necessarily groups of consecutively ranked projects from the ranking fl table, although the Route 14 HOV lane projects were largely grouped at the top of the rankings. The packages of short-term projects are the following: Route 14 HOV Projects Q NLA -1; Rte. 14 HOV, I-5 to San Fernando Rd. • NLA -2; Rte. 14 HOV, San Fernando Rd. to Sand Canyon • NLA -3; Rte. 14 HOV, Sand Canyon to Escondido • NLA -4; Rte. 14 HOV, Escondido to Pearblossom Highway • NLA -5; Rte. 14 HOV, Pearblossom Hwy. - Ave L with Ave. L and Ave. S Interchange Enhancements Q • Accompanying supporting park-and-ride facilities I-5 HOV Projects • NLA -13; I-5 HOV, SR 118 to SR 14 and parallel routes (Sierra Hwy./Old Road) (Santa O Clarita) • Accompanying supporting park-and-ride facilities Intermodal Projects • NLA -20; Park & Ride Lots ("Intermodal Transportation & Parking Centers") p 0 NLA -14; Metrolink Service to Lancaster; on -going commitment • NLA -15; Lancaster Metrolink Station • NLA -16; Vincent Grade Metrolink Station • NLA -17; Newhall Metrolink Station • Lancaster Metrolink Station Park and Ride Expansion O O 31 IQ North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan TDM/Signalization Projects NLA -19; Express Commuter buses to other destinations NLA -23; North LA County Signal System - TSM project High Speed Rail G0 NLA -21; California High Speed Ground Transportation Project (ROW Study) SR 126 Projects • NLA -11; Widening, Ventura County Line to I-5 •. NLA -12; Railroad Right of Way Protection along SR 126, Santa Clarita. to Ventura Q Accompanying supporting park-and-ride facilities Projects SR 138 • NLA -10; SR 138 Widening to San Bernardino County Line • NLA -9; SR 138 Widening Ave T to Long View Road Q NLA -8; SR 138 Widening, 10th St. W - 30th St. W • NLA -22; Ave P8, Freeway (new SR 138) to 50th St. E., including Rte 14/P8 Interchange • NLA -7; Pearblossom "Expressway" limited access facility; Rte, 14 to 50th St. E. including interchange at 114 • Accompanying supporting park-and-ride facilities G The strategic plan in this chapter of the report focuses on the short-term projects, which are most directly related to the Route 14/1-5 Corridor. In Chapter 5, the third package of projects is discussed as Related Improvements. The projects included in the second and third implementation phases (mid- and long-term) did not lend themselves to packaging as did the short-term one and are discussed later in this chapter. Q 4.2 Proposed Funding and Implementation Gameplan for Tier I Improvements IQ The North Los Angeles County subregion has developed a comprehensive, intermodal transportation infrastructure improvement program to meet their sub -regional ground access needs well into the next Century. In order to enable the North Los Angeles County subregion to best position itself for timely implementation, a funding and implementation gameplan should be established. It must be noted that such a gameplan is designed to assist the subregion in what is a dynamic, political environment. By definition, said gameplan will need continuous monitoring and adjustment to remain relevant to a changing environment. This Gameplan is therefore provided based upon current federal, state, regional and local information, and it must be clearly recognized that continuous updating of the gameplan will be necessary to adjust to changing conditions and parameters at the federal, state and regional level of government. Noted below are specific "steps" to be taken in the preparation of project funding and implementation for the various project packages noted above. These steps are not intended to be exclusive, but are among the steps necessary to ensure funding and implementation of the improvement programs. A summary of funding opportunities is outlined in Table 4-1. 32 O O O O O O fl O O O C Table 4.1 Strategic Funding & Implementation Matrix Package or Projects Federal Funding State Funding Regional Funding Local Funding Private -Public. Partnership (Match S or Other) Fundis TIER I PROJECTS 1. R-14 H Proleccts Nauo-I Highway System STIP inclusionH V systems plan - % local match likely (can HOV/SOV loll road potential (NHS) be MTA, other non -state funds). State Infrastructure Bank (see Call for Projects State infrastructure bank (sec ISTEA Reauthorization private -public) Local contribudon to leverage State Funding) funding possible 2. 1-5 HOV Project NHS STIP HOV systems plan 20-30% local match likely (from Private funding probably not MTA, local sources). practical here -- unless as part of ISTFA Reauthorization State Infrastructure Bank Call for Projects development of exclusive truck Local contribution probably not cortidor program. necessary. 3. Intermodal Projects ISTFA Reauthorization State Rail Bonds Call for Projects Use of Local Bert funds ror Joint development of Park & • Metrolink Park & Ride (per LRP) Ride possible • Park & Ride Lots Annual Transportation TDA funds SCRRA.-- Metrolink funding Appropriations Local matching funds necessary. 4. TDMISignalization Projects Highly unlikely State TSM funds Call for Projects Local Rerum. Prop. C. Private partnership funding Prop. C (u%) unlikely. Other local funding likely necessary., Transportation Management Organization (TMO) possible for certain TDM measures. 5. High Speed Rail ISTFA Reauthorizadont State Rail Bond funds SCAG Section 8 funding for Local funding for ROW Private partnership opportunities study of high speed tail prorecdon is likely to be needed unknown- Cafifomia Transportation condors (e.g., Union Station Commission (CTC) grant for study) high speed rail study Call for Projects 6.. SR - 126 Improvements ISTFA Reauthorization §STIP inclusion Call for Projects Local funding need for project Private partnership funding highly likely (20 - 50% opportunities unknown. State Infrastructure Bank rental 7. SR - 138 Improvements ISTFA Reauthorization STIP inclusion Call for Projects Local funding need For project Private partnership funding highly likely (20 -5090 opportunities unknown. State Infrasmicture Bank tential Inn 1991, ISTFA included a special category of funding for -High Speed Rail-. Over the past few yews. Congress and the Administration have not funded this Section as originally intended_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4-1 (cont.) Strategic Funding & Implementation Matrix Package of Projects Federal Funding. State Funding Regional Funding Local Funding Private -Public Partnership (Match $ or Other) Funding TIER 11 PROJECTS 1. Newhall Metroludc Stauon To be reviewed and updated annually 2. Railroad Rightof-Way To be reviewed and updated annuafly Protection along SR 126 3. SR 139 Bundlr. To be reviewed and updated annually to San Bernardino County Line Ave. T to Long View Road 10th Street to 30th 5 tree[ P-8 Freeways 4. High Speed round To be reviewed and updated annually Transppomuon (Right -of - Way Srudy) 5. SR -126 To be reviewed and updated annually Ventura County to I-5 6, Pearblossom Highway To be reviewed and updated annually TIER III PR JE T 1. Intermodal Palmdale To be reviewed and updated annually Metrolink Station Passenger rail extension 2. R-126 To be reviewed and updated annually Expressway 3. 50th Street Expressway To be reviewed and updated annually 4, High Speed Rail (ROW To be reviewed and updated amu ally pmtecuon) O O O O O O O O O O O Table 4-1 (cont.) Strategic Funding & Implementation Matrix Package or Projects Federal Funding State Funding Regional Funding Local Funding Private -Public Partnership (Match S or Other) Fundin TIER I PR JE T 1. R-14 To be reviewed and updated annually Avenue D to L 2.. SR -138 Bypass To be renewed and updated a�ually SR -138. SR -14 to 1-5 3, High Speed Rail To be reviewed and updated annually (construction) 4. High Desert Corridor (P-8 To be reviewed and updated annually from 90th/100th to San Bernardino County Line) ' 5. SR -122 (0th/100th Street. To be reviewed and updated annually NIS Corridor) 6. San Francisquito Convection To be reviewed and updated annually ie North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Develop "cost -benefit" funding criteria for federal funding and programming. O Over the past few years, both Congress and the Administration have requested/required that projects seeking federal funding participation include an analysis of "cost -benefit" factors for such components as fuel economy, air quality, local funding component, etc. Additionally, the Administration now requires that projects receiving federal funding conduct a "Major Investment Study" (MIS) to ensure that federal dollars are being invested appropriately in projects of O maximum value. Applies to: All Packages • Maintain and enhance funding and programming status as part of MTA plans and programs O — "Long Range Plan"/Call for Projects. Several North Los Angeles County subregion projects are included in the MTA Long Range Plan (SR -14 HOV lanes, I-5 HOV lanes, Metrolink, Park and Rides, Route 126 Arterial Widening Only/Gap Closure, Route 138 Avenue T to 90th Gap Closure, Route 138 Widening/Gap Closure). Additionally, many have ranked highly in previous MTA "Call for Projects" analyses. O It is imperative that, as the regional funding agency for Los Angeles County, the MTA continue to show the North Los Angeles County subregion projects, particularly the SR -14 HOV lanes as a top priority for funding. In light of the fact that the MTA may already be revisiting their Long Range Plan, either through a re-evaluation or through a shorter -term implementation program (5 -Year Implementation Plan approach), the North Los Angeles County subregion needs to continue to keep their projects high on the priority list for MTA investment. Additionally, the O subregion should provide input to the HOV System Integration Plan, currently underway by MTA. Recent MTA trends suggest that they may be deemphasizing funding for park-and-ride projects, leaving the financing to the local jurisdictions. (FY 1995-96 Call for Projects allocated O approximately six million dollars for Transit Capital Improvements, including park-and-ride projects, as compared to over ,$100 million for most other highway -related improvement categories.) Should this category be eliminated in the next Call for Projects, the North Los Angeles County subregion should consider packaging park-and-ride projects as an overall intermodal concept. A park-and-ride project, in combination with the HOV lanes, a Metrolink station and/or commuter bus stop, could ultimately be a more competitive project. O Applies to: All Packages 10 Ensure inclusion in RTIP of all elements of each "package" inclusive of any required air quality analysis needed for inclusion. In order to receive many types of transportation funding, projects must be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) analysis prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG updates the RTIP regularly, soliciting input from county transportation commissions and local governments.. North Los Angeles County subregion projects included in the RTIP are listed in Table 4-2. It appears that the SR 14, I-5 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C Table 4-2 North County Projects Included in the RTIP RTIP PROJECT YEAR FUNDED AMOUNT FUNDED FUNDS 'PACKAGE 1: ROUTE 14 PROJECTS _ 1 ROUTE 14: RTES TO SAN FERNANDO RD TO SAND CANYON, ESCONI DIDO TO PEA RRLOSSOM,. PEARBLOSSOM HILLS TO AVE P-8 HOV LANE, 6 TO 8 LANES /98. 92/93 to 9.7___ $10766,000 PC25, CMAQ, RSTP; STSM_ 2 3ROUTE]4:NEARSOLEMINT,GOLUENVALLEYRDTOVIAPRINCESSAOVERLAYPAVEMENT .. -.. 4ROUTE ROUTE 14: NEAR SANTA CLARITA FROM SAN FERNANDO RD TO SAND CANYON RD. ADD HOV LANES TO EXISTING 6 LANE FWY. MODIFY SAND CYN RD (03841)) _._.- -- ------------- 14; NEAR SOLEMINT, SANTA CLARA RIVER TO SOLEUAD CYN RD MEUTAN AARRIER -VIA 94/95 92/93,9,05 2 .--_---- 92p)3, 93ry4 ___0 -.___. .$33,524,000 $1,417,1)()0 -- . $2,650,000 RSTP, STSM NII ,. - -- NH _ - 5 ROUTE 14: AT REALIGN INTERCHANGE FRONTAGE ROAD 92/93, 93/94 SI,020,000 OCAL_ROUTE __6 ROUTE14:., NEAR SANTA CLARITA FROM SAND CANYON RD. TO ESCONDIDO CANYON RD ADD 2 H_OV LANES TO EXISTING 4 -LN FWY WITH TRUCK CLIMBING LANES (03881) 94ffi, 95/96 $29,050,000 -LOCAL--- CMAQ, RSTP, STSM _ 7 ROUTE.14:. 0.6 MILE SIO MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RD, MEDIAN BARRIER 92/93, 94195 $3,329,000 NH _8 ROUTE 14: SAND CYN RD TO ESCONDIDO ADD 2 HOV LANES W/TRUCK CLIMBING LANES 9293.94/95 $32,039,000 _ __9 R�OUTE 14: FROM ESCONDIDO CYN RD TO PEARBLOSSOM HW Y, HOV LANES 4 TO 6 LANES (1348) 97/98.98/99 .$45,083,000 _ PC25, RSTP, STSM -10�ROUTE 14: FROM PEARBLOSSOM H WY TO AVE P.8 HOV LANES 4 TO 6 LANES (54.5-60.7)(1347) 98/99 $29,072,000 PC25 �� Subtotal $28s 1s0000 --- PAf CKAGE 2: I-5 HOV PROJECTS 1 ---- -_- 2�)UTES:. --------_96/()7._9_7/9_8__,_99/(,K)--- RGDTE 5: RTE 170 TO RTE. 14 HOV LANE 10-12 LANES - ---- -- — FROM RT 118 TO RT 14 FROM 1(I TO 12 LANES HOV LANE -S-(1344) ----- 97)(8.98)(9 $37,094,(HH) ---- -STS 535,tl(18,000 -- PC25 `------ -, S_TSM_ - 31ROUTE 5: I-5/RTE 14 METROLINK CORR. ACCESS/SIGNAL INTERCONNECT' _ 92/93 5230,000 Subtotal $73,132,000 _PC25 _ PACKAGE3: INTERMODAL PROJECTS _ 1 PARK -AND -RID& RTE 5 RTE 126 PARK -N -RIDE SANTA CLARITA 50 SPACES 98/99 5114,000 PC25 _ 2 PARK-AND-RIDE: RTE 5 RTE 126 PARK -N -RIDE SANTA CLARITA 100 SPACES 94/95 $218,000 PC25 - 3 PARK-AND-RIDE: PARK-AND-RIDE SANTA CLARITA BERMITE PROPERTY 50 SPACES 98/�>9 $130,000 _ LOCM 4�RFSTRIPINC,BVSTALCSIGNS PARK-AND-RIDE: I-5/RTE 14 METROLINK CORRIDOR ACCESS WIDEN/TRAFFIC SIGNALI7.ATION 9.2/93_ PC25________ fl'ARK-AND-RIDE: 51RTE14PARK-N-RIDE RTE 126 W/O RTE 14 PARK-N-RIUE NEWHALL ROUTE ]26 NEWHALL WESTOF LOT 50SPACES 98/(.)() _5500,000 $105,000 PC 25 6:. PARK-AND-RIDE: RTE 14/126 INTERCONNECT PARK & RIDE 92/93 S1,686,000 PCH) 71PARK-AND-RIDE: RT 14 RTE 5 TO SAN FERNANDO PARK -N -RIDE SANTA CLARITA 62 SP. 95/95 $1;300,000 PC 25 8 PARK-AND-RIDE: RTE.14 @ARC. K PARK -N -RIDE LANCASTER 50 SPACES 98/99 $109,000 PC 25 _ _ 9 PARK-AND-RIDE:- RT 14 AVE S PARK -N -RIDE PALMDALE 400 SPACES PHASE II. 94/05 $1,3,0W 1'C 25 10 PAAND-RIDE: RT 14 PEARBLOSSOM PARK -N -RIDE LOT 10 SPACES 95196 .5300,000 PC 25 _ 11 PARK-AND-RIDE: RT 14 RED ROVER PARK -N -RIDE 150 SPACES 95/96 $209,000 PC 25 12 METROLINK: LOS ANGELES TO SANTA CLARITA 93,94.95" 3,94, 95$37,22,20 LOCAL 13 METROLINK: SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT CENTER (962015) 95/96 $279,20 PC25 14 METROLINK: SANTA CLARTTA/PRTNCESS METROLINK (962022) 95/96, 9607 1 $421,0001PC25 0 0 Q O O O C O O O O Table 4-2 (cont.) North County Projects Included in the RTIP YEAR RTIP PROJECT FUNDED AMOUNT FUNDED FUNDS PACKAGE 3: INTERMODAL PROJECTS (Continued) 15 METROLINK: I-5/RTE 14 METROLINK CORRIDOR, ACCESS SOLEDAD CYN WIDEN EXISTING BRIDGE TO 3 LANES IN EACH DIRECTION 92/93 $1,250,000 PC25 16 METROLINK: SANTA CLARITA-PALMDALE COMMUTER RAIL 93, 94, 95 $120,000,000 LOCAL 17 - - — METROLINK: LANCASTER METROLINK STATION (1996 CALL FOR PROJECTS) (962282)_ 95,)6,96/97 $421,000 PC25 -- Subtotal _ $1665 541 000 _ PACKAGE 4: TDM/SIGNALIZATION PROJECTS 1 COMMUTERBUS: ANTELOPE VALLEY COMMUTER BUS EXPAN. 92/93 $1,840,000 CMAQ 2 COMMUTER BUS: ANTELOPE VALLEY TRANSIT FY96-99 OPERATING ASSISTANCE (50200) 95/96,97/98, 98/99 $23,510,000 FARE, FTA9, PROP A, PROP A UR 3 COMMUTER BUS: CAPITAL ASSISTANCE, LEASE PAYMENT (50201) 95196, 9708, 98/99 $3,622,000 FTA9 PROP /R__ Subtotal $28,972,000 _A_L_ _ PACKAGE 6: RTE 126 IMPROVEMENTS _ 1 2 ROUTE 126: NEAR CASTAIC JUNCTION, RTE 126 FROM VENTURA CO LINE TO 0.6 MILES WEST OF ROUTE WIDEN TO LANES (0670A) 94/95, 95,96 $32,707,(X)0 $2,837,0(X) $559,000 LOCAL, NH - NH PVT OU RTE 126: NEAR CASTAIC JUNCTION, FROM VENTURA COLINE TOD.6-MILES WEST OFROUTE 5 PROGRAM RIGHT OF WAY (0670A) 94/15 ROUTE 126: NEAR SANTA CLARITA, CHIQUITO CYN RD TO CASTAIC CREEK PRELIM___ ENGINEERING ONLY 92/93 3 Subtotal $36,103,000 _ PACKAGE 7: SR 138 IMPROVEMENTS 1 ROUTE 138: 10TH STTO 30TH STREET EAST, WIDEN 4 -LANE ARTERIAL HWY TO CITY 6 LANES —92/93.98/99 $1,350,000 NH, CITY _ 2 ROUTE 138: 12TH STETO RTE 118 HWY, REHAB ROADWAY 92,93, 95196 $6,571,000 NH 3 ROUTE 138: PALMDALE AVE P-8 50TH ST EXISTING 2 LANES INTERCHANGE, 8 92/93 $11,223,000 FDP 4 ROUTE 138: PALMDALE BL. RTE 138, 10TH ST W TO 30TH ST WIDEN 4 TO 6 LANES. 97/98 $1;209,000 OTHER 5 ROUTE 138: 87TH ST E TO 121ST ST E, RESURFACE EXISTING ROADWAY & UPGRADE BRIDGE 92P93, 95/96 $1,347,000 NH 6 ROUTE 138: 106TH STTO LONGVIEW RD, PASSING LANES CHANNELIZATION 92/93 $2,592,000 LOCAL, NH 7ROUTE138: AVE TTOLONGVIEW RD, WIDEN 2 -LANE ARTERIAL HWY TO4LANES 92/93,98/99 $22,032,000 NH 8 ROUTE 138: NEAR PEARBLOSSOM, AVETTO RTE 18, PASS. LANES, WIDEN BRIDGE, CHANNELIZE 92/93 $4,678,000 LOCAL, NH 9 ROUTE 138:. PEARBLOSSOM HWY, AVETTO ANGELES FOREST ROADWAY, WIDENING. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FUNDS (450008) 94/95 $482,000 RSTP, LOCAL 10 ROUTE 138: RTE 18, SAN BERNARDINO CO. LINE/RTE 138 OVERLAY OR RECYCLE 92/93, 95/96 $4,578,000 Subtotal $5610623 000 TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDINGI 1 $644,961,000 0 O 0 0 (7) C) Table 4-2 (cont.) C Q o O n North County Projects Included in the RTIP _ NOTES: CITY: LOCALFUNDS _ CMAQ,., FEDERAL AIR QUALITY FUNDS- CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AIR QUALM FARE: FARE BOX FDP: FEDERAL DEMO PROJECT FTA9: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIONSECTION 9 NH: NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM --- PROP A: PROPOSITION A PROP A IJR: PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN PC10: PROP C IO%SETASIDE PC25: PROP C 25% SETASIDE PVT: PRIVATE FUNDS LOCAL: LOCALFUNDS LOCM: LOCALMATCH RSTP: REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION STSM: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT G North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan HOV, Route 126, and SR 138 projects are included. However, each project description should 0 be carefully reviewed to ensure all. components of the packages are covered. The specific intermodal and TDM projects may not be included in their current description and may require an RTIP amendment. Additionally, the High Speed Rail did not appear to be included in the RTIP or any of the amendments. G Applies to: All Packages Prepare/pursue all "pre -construction" studies and approvals (PSR, environmental clearance, PS&E), utilizing local, regional and federal funds. As a precursor to funding through the STIP or MTA funds, projects and/or programs need to be G "project ready" by having completed environmental clearance and preparatory studies, and when appropriate, such as in the cases of the HOV projects and improvements on Routes 126 and 138, completed Project Study Reports (PSR) and Project Reports (PR). It is important that necessary environmental clearances and design/engineering work be completed or programmed for completion in order to increase the competitive edge of North Los Angeles County improvements. G Applies to: SR 14 HOV projects, I-5 HOY Projects, TDM/Signalization Projects, SR 126 Projects, and SR 138 Projects • Prepare for re -authorization of federal surface transportation act by preparing informational cost -benefit information, status of local agency funds, and status of programming by State and Regional agencies. G The ISTEA authorization expires in two years; however, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman, Bud Shuster, has suggested that ISTEA be re -authorized a year early, in 1996. Preparing for this highly competitive, yet potentially rewarding process, with key projects which could attract federal funding is important. C As noted above, an overall cost -benefit or "investment" approach demonstrating the value of federal investment from a public policy and/or financial standpoint will be the focus of federal investment decisions.. Further, the days of dozens upon dozens of so-called "demonstration projects" are over. G As noted in Appendix 4A, Background on Federal Funding & Reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), opportunities for funding and implementation exist for those entities that participate and compete. In order to do so effectively, a solid gameplan should be developed based upon the packaging of improvements for which funding is sought. G Additionally, as part of this process, it is advisable to review the benefits of other innovative funding approaches (revolving loan fund, line of credit, infrastructure bank, etc.) that could be repaid by either public or private sources. Applies to: SR 14 HOY Projects, I-5 HOV Projects and SR 126 Projects 40 U North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan • Meet with Congressional representative and key Committee chairs/staffs with specific request O to be made by local Congressional representative. A key to achieving the objectives at the federal level, either through reauthorization or otherwise, will be to gain the support of local Congressional officials. Sponsorship by the local Congressperson is very important in an environment of stiff competition. As soon as there is agreement upon the specific request(s) which are being made at the federal level, meetings with G Congressional representatives and their staffs should occur. Applies to: SR 14 HOV Projects, I-5 HOV Projects, and SR 126 Projects • Participate in State Task Force Hearings on SEP — track recommendations. G Hearings by Secretary Dunphy's task force will take place around the state through November, 1995, This task force will make recommendations on how state transportation funding should be restructured in the future as the California Transportation Commission faces an almost $5 billion deficit in the STIP and approaches their second two-year funding cycle without the ability to program any new projects. 0 Participation by the North Los Angeles County subregion in these deliberations will provide the subregion insight into the direction in which state transportation is headed, while at the same time provide an opportunity to point out to the Secretary and the task force the critical importance of this improvement program to the Southern California region, For example, State TSM funds are at risk of being eliminated. Voicing a concern to either maintain such a program or replace it with another TSM program could ultimately help the subregion implement the North Los Angeles O County subregion Signal System. Another opportunity provided by active participation in the task force would the ability to work directly with the Legislature and CTC staff in including North Los Angeles County subregion projects on state bond initiatives. For example, the High Speed Rail project could be listed with other rail projects in the next State Rail Bond initiative. O Applies to: All Packages • Work with MTA staff and Board on innovative funding approaches (i.e., Revolving Loan from State, etc.) for "fast forwarding" improvements. Recently, MTA has been encouraging local cities and agencies to utilize their Propositions A and C Local Returns to advance the funding for specific transportation projects.: This funding is later reimbursed or "matched" by MTA. Such arrangements enable cities to jumpstart their projects, thus avoiding costly delays due to lack of immediate regional or sate funds. Additionally, some cities with identified long-term projects have "banked" their local return funds in order to make their projects more viable and competitive. The Senate Appropriations Bill (SB 1265) provides for funds for the State Infrastructure Bank. Once this Bill becomes law, specific procedures on how the funds would ultimately be allocated to the cities or specific projects will be defined. This is anticipated to occur in the next several months and the North Los Angeles County subregion should continue to track the progress. Q Applies to: All Packages C� 41 O North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation. Plan • Investigate and/or possibly pursue private sector funding and participation in program via G "pricing" or "toll road" options. A may to investigate is via contact with engineering and construction firms (e.g., Bechtel, Perot, etc.). North Los Angeles County subregion should work with Caltrans, SCAG, and MTA to investigate whether privatization projects such as SR 91 and other Orange County toll roads are viable for the area. Additionally, Cities should examine the potential for pm peak hour toll use for single - occupancy vehicles as is proposed for SR 91, Applies to: SR 14 HOV Projects Monitor and provide input to MTA's HOV/Park-and-Ride System Integration Plan MTA. has initiated a Countywide study of HOV facilities, Park-and-ride lots, HOV ramp connections and transit enhancements which is intended to result in a system -wide integration plan for all of these inter -related components of the HOV system. The Subregion to monitor the progress of this study and provide input to it and feedback on its recommendations. The HOV volume data presented in Chapter 2 of this report illustrates the large number of HOVs forecast p in the Route 14 and I-5 Corridors, particularly in the vicinity of their junction. These volumes are of sufficient magnitude to justify two lanes for HOVs. The subregion should request that the System Integration Plan consider potential alternative design for the Route 14 HOV lanes that might allow them to operate as reversible lanes, providing two lanes in the peak direction. A reversible facility like this is currently in operation on I-15 in San Diego County; G Applies to: SR 14 and 1-5 HOV Projects, and related facilities Analyze and pursue leveraging of local funds through "trusts" and bonding of steady revenue streams to attract greater capital from other sources. Q Cities should investigate the ability to both pool and leverage their local return and gas tax subventions. (A listing of transportation funding apportionments for the subregion's cities is included in Table 4-3). A model of such a program is Orange County's Commuter Urban Rail Endowment (CURE), a fund established with Measure M local return funds, North Los Angeles County subregion could use a portion of their Proposition A and C local returns to leverage via a trust fund endowment. Applies to: All Packages Work with other state and regional agencies to pursue funding opportunities. O North Los Angeles County subregion should explore the funding opportunities from other sources. For example, ISTEA's Section 8 funds are allocated to SCAG for the construction, acquisition or improvements of mass transportation systems, facilities, and equipment. The subregion could petition SCAG to do a study for the High Speed Rail project similar to the one done for Union Station Passenger Terminal Study. Applies to: All Packages Ci 42 0 0 0 0 0 ? C) 0 0 0 0 Table 4-3 Transportation Funding Apportionments for North Los Angeles County Cities LANCASTER PALMDALE SANTA CLARITA ANTELOPE VALLEY POPULATION 115,524 98,314 128,766 % OF COUNTY POPULATION 1.07%1.40% - - _ $712,694 $567,513 ----]--25% CMP LOCAL RETURN (2105) (1992/93) $493,882 $377,801 GAS TAX (2106) (1992/93) $394,749 $303,096 GAS TAX (2107) (1992/93) $831,721 $636,235 $1,200,211 _ GAS TAX (2107.5) (1992/93) $10,000 $7,500 $10,000 VEHICLE LICENSE FEE (1992/93) $3,535,124 $2,704,235 $5,101,339 _ GAS TAX SUBTOTALS $5,265,476 $4,028,867 $7,591,757 PROP A LOCAL RETURN FY 1996 (ESTIMATE) $1,167,852 $993,874 $1,301,718 PROP C LOCAL RETURN FY 1996 (ESTIMATE) $959,087 $816,209 51,069,023 TDA ARTICLE 3 FY 96 (ESTIMATE) _$42,618 —$2,261,559 $36,269 $1,818,751 $47,503 $2,626,605 TDA ARTICLE 8 APPORTIONMENT FY 96_-- - - ELIGIBLE OPERATOR BUS TRANSIT FUNDING ESTIMATES FY96 $860,857 $765,345 FEDERAL OPERATING (SECTION 9) $182,205 TOTALS $9,696,592 $7,6932970 $13,679,668 $765,345 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Establish a North Los Angeles County Subregion Transportation Coalition. Identify a North Los Angeles County subregion coalition of cities that comprise a task force of local officials that will work with federal and state officials in the restructuring of funding priorities and processes to ensure that cities are not further negatively impacted or left out of key decisions. C Applies to: All Packages C [A • Coordinate with Southern California Regional Rail Authority on Metrolink Improvements Several of the Metrolink projects described involve station facilities. The SCRRA has a formal procedure for establishment and construction of new facilities. The procedure incorporates jurisdictional guidelines as well as the engineering and operational standards for construction. The basic steps are described below. Phase I—The local jurisdiction identifies community goals relative to a station site; identifies possible sites; and with SCRRA involvement, selects the site. Phase II—After site application approval by SCRRA, design of the platform and site facilities can proceed. The local jurisdiction can perform this design itself or elect to have Metrolink perform this task. Metrolink recommends that the design of at least the platform be handled (by Metrolink) to avoid design errors, omissions, or unnecessary work. Phase III—Conceptual plans are prepared and reviewed. When approved, the concept is considered "frozen", and no changes to the basic station layout are anticipated. Phase IV—Final design plans, specifications, and estimates are prepared, and reviewed for sign -off by Metrolink engineering, operations, and contracts departments. Phase V—After all approvals are obtained a contractor is selected, As with the design process, the local jurisdiction may elect to use its own contractor or have Metrolink retain a contractor. Phase VI—The new station and facilities are constructed. Applies to: Intermodal Projects Note: The above detailed steps should be continually reviewed for modifications, additions and deletions due to the constant change in the transportation funding environment. The above is C intended as an outline of the steps that currently make sense with regard to funding the various improvement projects for the North Los Angeles County Subregion, but is also part of a dynamic process which requires constant attention and updating. As the short-term projects are implemented, the subregion should begin formulating a plan to fund the mid-term projects. Many of the ideas outlined in the steps above can be re -visited and applied to new Q and changing funding sources. Direct involvement and communication on the federal, state, and regional levels will enable the subregion to stay current with the changing transportation environment. O 44 0 North Los Angeles Country Mobility Implementation Plan 5.0 RELATED SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTS This Chapter of the report discusses implementation issues associated with the related short-term improvements that may not fall within the focused Route 14/1-5 Corridor. 5.1 TSM Projects The primary Transportation System Management (TSM) project included in the subregional plan is the implementation of a North Los Angeles County signal system which would extend across jurisdictional boundaries and enhance communication and coordination between jurisdictions with regard to traffic conditions on arterials. The ten-year program of improvements includes 31 separate projects at a total cost of $27.8 million. The MTA is the primary source of funding for such signal systems throughout the County, allocating funds through the Call For Projects. In the 1996 - 1999 Call For Projects, MTA received 100 applications for signal synchronization and bus speed enhancement projects and allocated $144 million to them, of which the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale received $3.0 million for components of the North LA County Signal System project. The subregion will continue to seek funding for the other elements of the signal system through future Calls. In future applications for funding, the subregion should package the projects to maximize their regional significance (e.g., projects that extend across jurisdictional boundaries) and consider jointly sponsoring them with the County and/or Caltrans. Signal system projects which also enhance transit operations should also be emphasized in future funding applications. O 5.2 Travel Forecasting Coordination As was discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, there are many different entities involved in travel demand forecasting in the North Los Angeles County Subregion and many different regional, subregional and CJ local models being run. There is a need to better coordinate travel demand forecasting efforts to provide forecasts that all participants in the subregional planning and project implementation efforts can utilize. The discussions of socioeconomic forecasts will likely be ongoing between the Subregion, individual jurisdictions and SCAG, but the approach to modeling, particularly cordon values where the different models intersect/overlap, and especially atthe regional cordon points (at northern County boundary on CJ 1-5 and Route 14), is a technical issue that should be resolvable through on-going technical discussions.. It is suggested that a Modeling Coordination Group be formed in the Subregion, with representatives of each of the agencies involved in modeling invited to participate in the technical discussions. This group could be organized similarto one of the several other modeling task forces which meet in various subregions of southern California. In addition to the jurisdictions in the Subregion, it would be important to encourage participation of SCAG and Caltrans modeling staff, as well as San Bernardino and Kern © County staff, as they are key to discussions of inter -regional and inter -county traffic forecasts, which dramatically effect the North Los Angeles County Subregion. This Model Coordination Group could meet quarterly, or on an as -needed basis, with a different jurisdiction hosting the meetings each time. C 0 45 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 5.3 Highway Projects C> The related short-term highway projects that were not included in the packages of improvements in Chapter 4 are those which were identified as Subregionally Significant Projects in Chapter 3, but which were not Regionally significant, in that they do not extend beyond the boundaries of an individual jurisdiction. These included: Avenue L arterial widening in Lancaster State Route 126 widening in Santa Clarita in two segments; Magic Mountain Parkway from Valencia Avenue to Bouquet Canyon Road and San Fernando Road from 15th Street to Lyon Avenue Both of these serve as major access corridors to the Route 14/I-5 Corridor. The SR 126 projects are included in the STIP, with the San Fernando Road segment currently under construction. Other arterial highway projects in all of the jurisdictions should continue to be implemented as development proceeds to maintain access to the freeway corridors. The impact fees/development fees in place in the jurisdictions will be a primary source of funding for these projects. 5.4. Bus Transit Projects U A strategic review of the bus transit systems provided the following conclusion: • There is a significant potential for increased car/van pooling within the corridor and subregion. This potential has to be exploited. • The local intraurban transit services are not presently achieving levels of ridership that. G suggests the short term possibility of dramatic increases in ridership, should local service be improved. • Improving local transit service in a general way, as much as it might be required or justified, will not address subregional, inter -community transit needs. This is not to suggest that improvements in local service should be discontinued, rather it suggests that C3 improvements in local services (i.e., routes and schedules) should be integrated where feasible with improvements that address subregional/regional needs. L�7 • The local transit agencies, i.e., Santa Clarita and AVTA, are generating their greatest financial successes today by providing commuter services that compete with and to a lesser extent complement Metrolink services. • Metrolink services are programmed for continuing operation in the foreseeable future and these services do address well defined regional/subregional needs. The local transit agencies should not compete to address these needs with their present resources. Addressing these regional needs with local revenues (even with Regional/Federal subsidies) could be perceived as resulting in significant reductions in local services unless dramatic increases in local funding were to be made. M Q North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Federal operating subsidies are likely to decrease rather than increase. C> The above findings and conclusions taken collectively suggest the implementation of a strategic program which encourages the integration of local transit services with regional/commuter services. This strategy will exploit the present existing and latent regional demands and address these needs in the most cost effective way—where the focus on cost effectiveness is from a local point of view. The following is a listing of strategic actions proposed, in order of priority, for the corridor: C • Improve the park-and-ride lots with emphasis being given to the lots in Santa Clarita, Newhall, Lancaster, and Palmdale. • Identify and actively encourage the improvement in operation of the Metrolink service—specifically as it affects the region. C� • Review and revise local bus routes and schedules with the goal of integrating the local service into the Metrolink operation where this is feasible and not counter productive to local needs. • Focus the commuter bus operations on those elements of subregion/regional travel that are not being adequately addressed or will not be adequately addressed in the short term by Metrolink. • Attempt to integrate the park and ride, car/van pool and Metrolink operations with advanced technologies. These could include advanced fare payment systems, improved bus/rail C transfer meets, centralized dispatch/shared ride operation for collection/distribution of commuters, increased corporate involvement in system funding and collection/distribution, etc. These technology thrusts are presently being encouraged and even promoted at the Federal level, and State and Regional level funding is a realistic possibility. O 5.5. Rail Transit Projects 5.5.1 Amtrak Currently Amtrak Passenger Service does not operate south of Bakersfield. Amtrak Service continuing Q the San Joaquin Valley trains to Los Angeles (via SPTC / Metrolink trackage) is identified as Project NLA -25 in this Study, A serious constraint to this service is the density of freight rail traffic on this line between Mojave and Bakersfield. Between Mojave and Bakersfield, ATSF (Santa Fe) freight trains operate over the SPTC tracks, in addition to the SPTC trains. This line traverses the Tehachapi Mountains and consists of gradients in excess of 2 percent and heavy curvature, including the "Tehachapi O Loop". The alignment of the Tehachapi Loop is continuously curving and crosses over itself as the tracks gain elevation and navigate through the mountains. Due to the adverse topography, trains speeds are low and more subject to operational difficulties. An analysis of train operation is desirable to determine track, signal, and dispatching improvements necessary (if any) in order to operate a reasonably fast and reliable passenger service while maintaining the freight CJ traffic. 0 47 [e, C North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan This service has been included in the Caltrans Rail Plan and Proposition 116 funding, but funds have not been allocated at this time. South of Lancaster this service wnuld share tracks with Metrolink trains and therefore further utilize improvements that were constructed for Metrolink. The Santa Clarita Transit Center could accommodate this service. For an additional stop at Lancaster or Palmdale enhanced station facilities would be necessary, in order to properly promote and accommodate Amtrak service. 5.5.2 SPTC Santa Paula Branch The Santa Paula Branch originally ran 32 miles from the Saugus Line at Santa Clarita to the Coast Line at Ventura. The right-of-way generally parallels Route 126. This former Southern Pacific line is not heavily used. Currently, there is a short line rail operator that uses the line at the Ventura end. The east end of the line has been abandoned and the last two miles of tracks have been removed. Recently, substantial commercial development has occurred within the R/W at the very east end. Most of the remainder of the line, including four historical station sites are still in existence. Project NLA -12 Acquire RIW Santa Paula Branch: Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) Q has pursued purchasing the RIW in Ventura County from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The VCTC has endorsed a tentative agreement whereupon the R/W and four station sites would be purchased for $8.5 million. VCTC will use $1 million in local funds, $3.5 million in Federal funds and $4 million in state funds for the purchase. VCI'C staff is hoping to complete the purchase transaction by the end of 1995. G VCTC has programmed $200,000 for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for a recreational trail in the R/W. VCTC's long term plan is to use the R/W for both recreational and passenger train purposes. In Los Angeles County the right-of-way has been abandoned and ownership of the property has reverted to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (NLFC). According to City sources the NLFC has agreed to preserve the RIW west of the 5 Freeway but is anticipating that the City will identify an alternative route east of the I-5 Freeway. NLFC has prepared a preliminary alignment analysis that shows the RIW running along the Santa Clara River and then rejoining the historical R/W east of the 5 Freeway. The City of Santa Clarita requested planning funds from the MTA to investigate alignment and potential "Diesel Motor Unit" (DMU) operations over this new R/W. MTA did not approve the grant request but (✓ may pursue the alignment study for the City. The south bank of the Santa Clara river is utilized by Southern California Edison for power transmission and is under the approval jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Further study and agency coordination will be required for establishing a new corridor. DMU's are self contained passenger rail cars powered by an on board diesel engine. While their capacity O is not nearly as great as locomotive powered commuter trains, they are more flexible in operation and maintenance; and at the lower ridership levels, more economical. A DMU Operations Study is underway for the City of Glendale: The outcome of that study will be a basis from which Ventura—Santa Clarita DMU operation can be considered. t7 The acquisition of theR/W, currently underway is described as project NLA -12; the actual operation of the line is identified as a separate project and included in the schedule spreadsheet. 48 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 5.5.3 SPTC Conventional Freight In cooperation with Metrolink trains, the SPTC continues to operate a significant number of conventional freight trains on the line, including container and oil unit trains. The number of trains operated on any given day will vary depending on business demand and operations (or unforeseen circumstances) on other parts of the SPTC system. The SPTC intends to continue to operate on this line although the major portion of freight moves east through Colton and, when necessary, between Colton and Palmdale Junction C via the "Palmdale Cut-off". The purpose of the Palmdale Cut -Off is to avoid the L. A. area and the Saugus Line for trains not otherwise required to go to L. A. The Palmdale Cut-off runs from SPTC Colton Yards through Cajon Pass and west somewhat parallel to Highway 138 to rejoin the Saugus Line near Sierra Highway and Avenue R in Palmdale. The Palmdale Cut -Off was constructed in the 1960's to provide this relief. While the east -west trains can utilize the Cut -Off the L.A. - Bay Area trains will r continue to use the Saugus Line. SPTC also operates local industry service on this line. Typically, two local switchers a day will operate over various portions of the route, delivering and picking up freight cars from on line industries. This too, will vary with business demands. C) The SPTC expects freight service to remain relatively constant on this line, and has no plans to upgrade the line for freight purposes. Any upgrades that may be done for the primary purpose of enhancing Metrolink operations will have the secondary benefit of also enhancing SPTC freight operations. 5.5.4 Alameda Corridor G The preliminary engineering and design phases of this major freight railroad project is underway for the Los Angeles area. The AlamedaCorridor Project will consolidate the freight of the ATSF, UPRR and SPTC moving out of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. This project will improve the speed and capacity of the freight line from the Ports immeasurably. G The Alameda Corridor is being designed to handle peak operations of nearly 100 trains per day. This will consist mostly of trains moving east and west, to and from the Ports areas. The Saugus Line is not part of this corridor, nor does it directly interchange with it. While the Saugus Line will continue to handle current levels and perhaps even some increase, the direct impacts of the Alameda Corridor will be minor. The majority of "Alameda Corridor Trains" will be east -west movements. Therefore, the Alameda Corridor will not directly increase nor decrease freight traffic on the Saugus line. O The Alameda Corridor will have an overall positive economic effect on the entire L.A. area.. Like any significant economic development in the L.A. area, the Alameda Corridor will likely have some long range effect on mobility in North L.A. County. However, as can be seen from the above description, the Alameda Corridor will not have a significant impact on the planning of rail infrastructure projects and Ct service for North L.A. County and the Saugus Line. 5.5.5 High Speed Ground Transportation The term "High Speed Ground Transportation" (HSGP) refers generally to a high speed electrified passenger railroad, operating at speeds approaching 200 mph. Two HSGT Routes in North LA County have been proposed recently. One is an Intercity line from Los Angeles Union Station to Bakersfield, running through North Los Angeles County. The other is a high speed connection between Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to the developing airport at Palmdale. Although different in purpose both U 49 Q North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan systems would be similar as far as the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita areas are concerned. Neither system has advanced beyond the conceptual planning stages, therefore no details are available. A feasibility study of the LA to Bakersfield system has been prepared for Caltrans. That study has been reviewed as part of this Mobility Plan. A HSGT System would traverse North LA County on a alignment generally following the existing Southern Pacific Metrolink line. Considerable additional right-of-way would be required south of C Palmdale since the existing line consists of many sharp curves through Soledad Canyon. This winding alignment is a serious speed constraint in SPTC and Metrolink operations and would be totally unacceptable for HSGE Although sharper curves are unacceptable, HSGT can accept gradients much greater than conventional rail. The short, light, electrified HSGT trains can develop power sufficient to overcome steep grades at speed. Through Palmdale and Lancaster to Rosamond the existing SPTC alignment is nearly tangent with low gradients, making it ideal for,HSGT. In addition to a conservative alignment, it is generally considered necessary to provide HSGr with dedicated, grade separated and isolated trackway. This is especially necessary in "high speed" areas. Areas adjacent to stations (i.e., low speed areas) could probably be constructed to typical conventional railroad criteria, with sharper curves, grade crossings and a less isolated trackway. For the purposes of p this discussion, "low speed" for HSGT means not faster than 50 to 70 mph, which is typical for conventional trains also operating in the area. Depending on HSGr technology employed it may be feasible to share conventional trackways in congested areas. Right-of-way limitations may mandate sharing of trackways and even the actual track approaching Union Station. If the capability to use conventional track is incorporated into the HSGT system, it may also be advantageous in the Palmdale/ Lancaster area, where HSGr trains will be slowing for a station stop anyway. T} Allowing HSGT trains to operate at lower speeds over tracks proximate to those of SPTC and Metrolink has the advantage of not requiring a separate trackway and/or imposing aerial structures through Palmdale and Lancaster. Grade separations benefitting all rail systems can be more readily constructed. It can also simplify the design of an integrated HSGr station and transfer facility. It is noted that "shared" right-of- way, trackways or trackage is not without negative aspects. For instance, clearance of the HSGr catenary system over conventional equipment must be addressed. It may also be required to de -energized the HSGs catenary while conventional equipment operates under it. Compatibility of HSGr equipment and conventional railroad track; signal, and safety systems must be resolved. Operating the HSG` at less than "high speed" any longer than absolutely necessary defeats its purpose. These considerations, positive and negative should be incorporated into any Alternatives Analyses undertaken, Outside of the G Palmdale/Lancaster area, HSGT will require a dedicated and isolated highspeed trackway to realize the full benefits possible. South from Palmdale to Santa Clarita, this will necessitate the acquisition of sufficient right-of-way to construct a less circuitous alignment. The alignment investigated in the study prepared for Caltrans generally follows the existing track, but smoothes out the curves. The study suggests that a right-of-way width of approximately 60 feet is necessary. Considering construction access, grading, and security requirements, and the need for inspection, maintenance, and emergency access, 60 feet is likely the minimum right-of-way width required, a 100 foot width is probably desirable. Some existing right-of- way can be incorporated, but a considerable portion will need to be acquired. Assuming a 100 foot width between Palmdale and Santa Clarita an acquisition of 400 to 500 acres would be required. Dependent U on the exact alignment and gradient, portions of the right-of-way acquired for HSGs may be suitable for incorporation of a conventional rail line in addition to the dedicated HSGr Trackway. In this way "line changes" utilizing the HSGT right-of-way could be constructed, improving SPTC and Metrolink O 50 G North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan operations (especially Metrolink speeds), thus maximizing benefit from the right-of-way acquisition. These line changes would remain independent of the HSGr trackway and should not be confused with the low speed shared trackage noted previously. North of Lancaster, the proposed alignment follows the generally tangent SPTC right-of-way to Rosamond, across the LA County / Kern County line. U The acquisition of theright-of-way required for the HSGr system, and the actual constructionof the HSGr system have been identified as separate Projects (NLA -21 and NLA -30, respectively) and are included in the Project Description and Priority Ranking Section of this Study. 5.5.6 Construction Phasing Complements/Conflicts G The 13 rail related projects reviewed are for the most part separate and complementary to one another and can be implemented individually. The non -rail projects identified also will have little impact on the rail projects. No one rail project will preclude or diminish the desirability of another. It may be desirable to have certain projects on line prior to others, but it would not be mandatory. For instance, it would desirable to have Tunnel 25 (see Figure 2-3) rehabilitated prior to the initiation of Amtrak service, but G it is not mandatory. The exception to this is the case of the Santa Paula Branch right-of-way, and the HSGr right-of-way. Obviously, the right-of-way must be secured prior to construction or operation. Construction phasing of elements within each individual project are not addressed here. The general concept is that rail service must be maintained during the duration of the construction. In some cases this can be accomplished by constructing a temporary "shoo -fly" track around the work area, leaving the G actual work area accessible at all times. ("Shoo -fly" refers to a detour track built around a construction zone which enables train service to continue.) Another method is to perform the work during "non -rush hour "windows", with the requirement that the track be returned to useable condition before the end of each window. Because of morning and afternoon rush hours, windows on commuter railroads are usually at night and on weekends. Either method is effective, depending on the specific circumstances of the O individual project. One project which will have considerable phasing issues is the rehabilitation of Tunnel 25. The tunnel is over a mile long, single track, with access only at the ends. Construction of a shoo -fly track around the tunnel construction is not possible. p The other projects will likely have no more than typical phasing issues, which are routinely resolved using the methods common in projects involving operating railroad track. IO 10 51 I North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan 6.0 SUBREGIONAL PARK-AND-RIDE MASTER PLAN G This chapter describes the results of a study of the park-and-ride lots in the North LA County area, including the Antelope Valley cities of Lancaster and Palmdale and surrounding area, and the Santa Clarita Valley area. G 6.1 Existing Supply and Demand Three categories of park-and-ride lots were studied including regional, Antelope Valley bus pick-up and drop-off points, and undesignated parking areas. The, first category of park-and-ride lot includes the O regional lots. This category includes both parking lots provided by MTA and/or Caltrans for ride share commuters and parking lots for riders of Metrolink rail. The facilities are generally either single use lots or joint use lots. Single use lots are built expressly for the purpose of providing parking for ride share and public transit users and are typically paved, marked, fenced and have private security personnel either on-site or on patrol. Joint use lots are a group of parking spaces at a commercial establishment that, by agreement with the owners, are set aside for Park -and -Ride or commuter parking. Joint use lots are G paved and marked, but security is typically not provided, unless provided by the store owners. All of the regional lots are signed and were found with relative ease. A list of all Park -and -Ride lots was provided by Caltrans. Each lot was then surveyed in the field to determine size, location, condition, and occupancy. G The second category of facility includes areas identified as pick-up and drop-off points for patrons of Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA). These locations are ser aside on existing parking facilities, either private, as in joint use lots, or on -street. No security is provided and lot condition varies from location to location. AVTA operates in the Lancaster/Palmdale area and provides service to downtown Los Angeles and other points in the Los Angeles area. O The third type of park-and-ride facility is the undesignated or unofficial lot. These lots include on -street parking or parking in existing commercial lots which are not officially sanctioned by any public or private transit agency. Commuters park at these locations at their own risk. No security is provided, no permission has been granted for parking on private property, and no liability is assumed by any transit operator. The transit operators generally agree that this type of parking is to be discouraged. A list of undesignated sites was compiled from conversations with representatives of the transit operators and cities. All of these sites were visited. A group of parked vehicles would usually identify a site, however, many of the sites were difficult to identify due to a lack of vehicles parked at a given location. A number of the sites are located in commercial center parking lots and are often in a part of the lot Q farthest from the usual customer parking area, making some of them relatively easy to identify. The results of the Park -and -Ride Lot survey are summarized in Table 6-1. The table lists the lots by a common name, official regional lot number, Highway route generally serviced, address, city lot is located in, property owner, number of bicycle racks/lockers, lot status/operator, total number of parking stalls, number of stalls occupied at time of survey, and a calculated percentage of stalls occupied. The sites C? included in the survey are shown on Figure 6-1. O 52 o c c 0 c Table 6-1 PARK & RIDE LOT INVENTORY RSG Neva LotNeme R.81omd 'Loto Route N. I MP. Let Mdroa- Ct Oweer hof Blke Laeke. Stam. RN stellk --Ped Stella, %Used C9mmebM1 fm. REGIONAL 10 Pearbloe.an 65 14 54.2 Ste. 14 Sien H . LA Coup State 0 CT 213 193 90.6% 11 Vioreot GoddAd. 101 14 54.6550 W. SiemH Acton Mett lick 0 MTL TV 200 800% over0ow asea ava8abldu de mCFP 12 Palmdde Ave. S. 61 14 59.5 Avenue S/ I Blmk Eut of Rh. 14 Palmdale Ci 4 Ci /AVT 624 780 125.0%additional 416 6 Ci 13 Pabndde Ave. S. 14 59.5 Avenue S/Wet ofRtc. 14 Pelmdde Ci Ct /AVf 500 300 m Ci fm 14 Pabndele Ci Hd N 14 59.59N St/belween .9& -10 Palmdale Ci 0 Ci J00 57 19.0% 15 Wal-Mart Pehndale 59 14 61.3320 West Avenin P PaMdile Wel-Man 0 CT 200 140 700%. 16 PahndaleT IN 14 61310th St Wet Aw.P Palmdale T et 0 CT ad 40 90.9% 17 ION WestlAw KB South 40 14 66.2 ION SL Wet & Ave K8 Lercett. City of taocutu 01 C1/AVT 130 w 70.8% 18 ION West/Aw K8 431 14 66.2 ION St. West & Aw KS Lancaster Cjtyoff,ammtm 0 City 1 608 3381 55.6%. 19 Aw K a 0.Me 14 41 14 66.7 1601 W. Aw, K Q Route 14 Lenwster Slate 0 CT IIB 30 254% 20 iemuler Metrolink 14 66.8 44742 Siem Highmy La.ler MetroliNe 0 MTL 200 m 410% 21 15th St EW R Awl 42 14 68.9 SNSL Eut @ Ave 1 I.eneeler cit,.fterczoter 0 City 175 2 1.1% 27 FL Tejon 14 Peimdale 350 . N 96"97 CFP 2371 0o , 'ori Ondesi ted Area 119 TOTAL -AVTELOPE VALLEY o 2,862 2,073 ]2A% TOTAL. ANTELOPE VALLEYt99 7778 ChaneH--199 91s I The Oki Ro 103 5 50.3 1.5 Pim Caron Road & The Old Road LA Coun Pdvete 0 Cr 389 0 0.0% Clm aaa 2 Coll of Ne Cary, 87 5 52.4 25000 Valence Blvd. Velencie SC CoII e D tfid 0 CT IN 67 670% eMuorml 100 to be d000ete,i loo 3 MCBeen (retort 102 5 52.5 Me Been Perkwa Del Monte Dr, .. Santa Clerim Ci /Private 0 Ci /SCT 300 H] 37.0% Closed 7/2895 -sw 4 NewhaO-Eut Lot 54 14 27.1 20100 W. Sen Fvnendo Rd. I 26YE of Floe 14 Newhall State 0 CT1 32 S4 168.8% 5 NewhW-Wet Lot 55 14 27.120516 Sen F.& Rd. W of Rte 14 NewMll Sento Clem 0 CT/SCT m N 180.0% 6 Oak Creek 56 14 27.123610 Seo F..& Rd. IRmi W. of Rte 14 Nev,W State 8 CT 130 m 338% 7 Golden VW 14 29.5 Rte 14 Golden V W Road lob Sere Cloite State 0 CT 336 I 4]6% 9 Price Club 78 14 31.1 18649 Vis Pd.. ft Siem Hy. Senta C id Price Club 0 CT 110 108 98.2 9 Lothem Chinch 9 14 31,9 27265 Luther R. Canyw romtry Betidehcm LUNeren Church 0 CT 40 8 200% 22 Senh Cheite Transit Co-. 79 126 7S 22122 SOIW W Cy, Rd. Sere Clans Metrolink 0 MI7JSCf 492 2% 60.2% 23 MwI Theta m IN T8 23415 W. Cmana Of, Valencia Blvd. Vdencia Mum Theater 0 CT/SCT 171 61 34.5% 24 Poeleessa Metrob k 126 9.5 192111 Via Prinoeset Settle Glome Metrolink 0 MTL. 420 175 41.7% 25 Serb Cleoid Park& Me 126 L Orchud VdIeSe Santa CWits cityasonmcmte 0 C' /SCf 263 62 D,6% to be closed ml -ua 26 Wiley ceryoo 5 Sent. CIarU m96 CFP 201 'ai (UdUign.UeJ Arun Ile TOTAL. SANTA CLARITA VALLEY od 2,839 154 47.7X TOTAL- SANTA CLARITA VALLEY a99 1,98] Chart eN- 199 .11 CT Caitrem MTL Metrolink City CityowoetlaneYovo,,eralod AVT Aoldoo Voley T.,t A.thortly SCT Sante Cente T.it yN-0]LW.WK3RmE%Id 0 0 0 a n a 0 o a a o Figure 6-1 IG North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Supply and demand for park-and-ride facilities was determined by a physical on-site survey of each of G the major Park -and -Ride facilities. For purposes of this report, the major facilities are defined as those provided by MTA and Caltrans, as the boundaries of those facilities are definable and incorporate a determinate number of parking spaces. There are 24 major park-and-ride facilities in the North Los Angeles County study area. These facilities are listed on Table 6-1 and located on the map (Figure 6-1). Table 6-1 also lists the percentage of use, or demand, for each major site. This demand is represented by the percentage of the total number of spaces occupied at the time of the survey and ranges from a high O of 168% to a low of 1.1%. One site was in the process of demolition and was closed (demand = 0.0%). Figure 6-1 shows the locations of the major park-and-ride sites and is color coded by percent of spaces occupied. A number of temporary park-and-ride facilities were set up to accommodate the demand for park-and-ride O facilities following the January 1994 earthquake using temporary funding sources provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These facilities were scheduled to be closed in summer of 1995, when the FEMA funding expired: ID IG IU 10 C) The Old Road 0 Pico Canyon Rd. LA County 389 spaces (closed at time of Proposed overflow area and upgrade Ft. Tejon Park -and -Ride Lot survey) McBean Pkwy @ Del Monte Dr. Santa Clarita 300 spaces Santa Clarita Park -and -Ride, Lyons Ave. ® Santa Clarita 263 spaces Orchard Village Proposed by Cities Palmdale Ave./Avenue S east of SR 14 6.2 Planned Improvements A number of existing park-and-ride facilities are being identified for expansion. These facilities are identified below; 1996/97 Call for Projects Vmcent/Acton Metrolink Park -and -Ride Lot Acton Proposed overflow area and upgrade Ft. Tejon Park -and -Ride Lot Palmdale 350 spaces proposed Wiley Canyon Park -and -Ride Lot Santa Clarita Number of proposed spaces unknown (low Priority) Proposed by Cities Palmdale Ave./Avenue S east of SR 14 Palmdale Additional 416 spaces - Construction contract awarded Palmdale Ave./Avenue S west of SR 14 Palmdale New 500 spaces - Construction contract awarded College of the Canyons Santa Clarity Additional 100 of the existing spaces to be set aside for Park -and -Ride 55 IC IC IC 10 10 10 North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan The following table summarizes the number of available spaces at the major park-and-ride facilities: Available, May 1995 2,862 2,839 To be closed summer 1995 0 952 Proposed additional spaces 1997 916 100 Projected number of spaces in 1997 3,778 1,987 It should be noted that a new 600 -space lot had previously been planned at the Newhall -East location (20100 W. San Fernando Road, east of Rte. 14) by Los Angeles County, but has subsequently been dropped. 6.3 Demand Forecasts and Additional Needs The demand for park-and-ride facilities was forecast using three different forecast models. The traffic volume projections were derived from various sources and were compiled in the North Los Angeles County Subregional Mobility Implementation Plan, Task 1 Report. The results of averaging the various projections to determine a typical percentage increase of traffic volumes indicate a 95% increase in traffic volume in the Antelope Valley by the year 2015 and an 86% increase in the Santa Clarita Valley. The second method used to determine the change in park-and-ride demand was by using projected population data. Projections from SCAG and from the local jurisdictions were averaged to obtain a usable projection. The population information came from data contained in a December, 1994 memorandum from Cordoba Corporation to the North Los Angeles County Subregional Mobility Implementation Plan Technical Advisory Committee. Q The third method of projecting park-and-ride demand is based on data concerning shared ride growth factors. This data was obtained from the 1994 RME Subregional Performance Indicators for North Los Angeles County Report by SCAG. As ridesharing increases, it is logical that the demand for park-and- ride facilities would show a corresponding growth in demand. The data used was based on home to work mode split by trip origin. 10 Io 10 Home -Work Shared Ride Mode Split 1990 2015 % Base Year SCAG Change North LA County 7.46% 17.53% 135% 56 In North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan Table 6-2 summarizes the results of the three analyses and provides a projected number of additional park-and-ride spaces needed to meet 2015 demand. 6.4 Implementation Priorities and Plan Based on traffic volume projections, the number of park-and-ride spaces provided, including those O proposed and those eliminated by the year 2015, will not be sufficient for the Santa Clarita Valley area. Though the Santa Clarita Valley presently has an excess supply of park-and-ride spaces, expansion plans will not be sufficient to keep pace with the growth in demand for park-and-ride spaces. The projections based on population data indicate no need for additional park-and-ride spaces in the Santa Clarita Valley. However, due to a more direct correlation with ridesharing characteristics, traffic -based projections are © a better indicator of future park-and-ride need. Therefore, the analysis suggests that from 500 to 1,000 additional park-and-ride spaces will be required by 2015. Park-and-ride facilities in the Lancaster and Palmdale areas are typically well -used. This area is predicted to experience rapid growth in the next 20 years and will experience a shortage in available park-and-ride spaces by the year 2015. Even considering the present plans for expansion of existing facilities and the �j proposed addition of new facilities, the analysis suggests that from 500 to 1,500 additional park-and-ride spaces will be required by 2015. Recommendations Regarding Locations for Additional Park -and -Ride Facilities Based on existing park-and-ride utilization it is recommended that the majority of the additional park-and- ride spaces needed in the Santa Clarita Valley be located along the Route 14 corridor. This will also complement the planned Route 14 HOV lanes. Once these lanes are implemented, the demand for additional park-and-ride capacity along this corridor should increase considerably. A more detailed analysis was performed of the park-and-ride space needs for the Antelope Valley to Q determine, in general terms, where the additional 500 to 1,500 spaces should be located. The Antelope Valley was divided into three subareas: Lancaster, Palmdale and Los Angeles County, south of Palmdale (Acton). The HOV volume projections developed and discussed in Chapter 2 were analyzed to determine the relative increase in HOV's from one subarea to the next. A total of 9,000 HOV's (15,000 minus 6,000) are projected to travel from the Antelope Valley (south of Avenue F) to the south via SR -14 during the morning peak period. Of the 9,000 HOV's, 5,000 (56 percent) are expected to come from Q Lancaster, 3,000 (33 percent) from Palmdale, and 1,000 (11 percent) from Acton and surrounding Los Angeles County area. 1© 10 The total 2015 demand for the entire Antelope Valley ranges between 4,040 and 5,330 (3,778 plus 264 to 1,550) per Table 6-2. The 2015 demand was then multiplied by the percentage of park -and -riders in each subarea to determine the number of spaces needed to meet the 2015 demand by subarea. The 2015 demand for each subarea was compared to the number of available spaces, and the number of additional spaces determined. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 6-3 below. The Lancaster subarea is the one with the largest shortfall of planned park-and-ride spaces. 57 IG North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan G Table 6-2 PARK AND RIDE LOT DEMAND SUMMARY rem IG IG 10 * Volume growth factors are based on data Gom North Los Angeles County SubregionalAfobiliry Implementation Plan, Task 1. Develop Forecast Database, Draft Report; Table 2; Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc.; December 8, 1994.. O ** Population growth factors are based on data from Memorandum To North Los Angeles County Subregional Mobility Implementation Plan Technical Advisory Committee, From Cordoba Corporation, Dated December 12, 1994, Table 2.1. *'a Shared ride growth factors arc based on data Gom 1994 RMESubregional Performance Indicators for NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Table 2; SCAG, May, 1993. 0 58 No. oi' i No. of Additional Projected Spaces Spaces Needed Used Used' Available IoMee120I5 1995 2015 a/ Increase 1997 Demand Averaged Volume Data Santa Clarita Valley 1,354 2,518 86% 1,987 531 Antelope Valley 2,073 4,042 95% 3,778 264 Population Data** Santa Clarita Valley 1,354 1,841 36% 1,987 -146 Antelope Valley 2,073 5,328 157% 3,778 1,550 CAG Shared Ride Data SantaClaritaValley 1,354 3,182 135% 1,987 1,195 Antelope Valley 2,073 4,872 135% 3,778 1,094 * Volume growth factors are based on data Gom North Los Angeles County SubregionalAfobiliry Implementation Plan, Task 1. Develop Forecast Database, Draft Report; Table 2; Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc.; December 8, 1994.. O ** Population growth factors are based on data from Memorandum To North Los Angeles County Subregional Mobility Implementation Plan Technical Advisory Committee, From Cordoba Corporation, Dated December 12, 1994, Table 2.1. *'a Shared ride growth factors arc based on data Gom 1994 RMESubregional Performance Indicators for NORTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Table 2; SCAG, May, 1993. 0 58 10 IN North Los Angeles County Mobility Implementation Plan TABLE 6-3 PARK-AND-RIDE NEEDS BY JURISDICTION F;\USERS\94V94-030\DDC\FINAL. RPT K&