2 Motion by Directors Bonin, O'Connor, Fasana and Ridley-Thomas

Developing an Active Transportation Finance Strategy

Planning &Programming Committee July 16, 2014

Metro is considering adopting a 10-year Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP)that reiterates its commitment from the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)to invest in a rapid expansion of fixed-guideway transit and modernization of our freeway system.

The SRTP provides an investment strategy for all revenues controlled by Metro, including Propositions A and C, , and state and federal funds, to ensure the timely delivery of transportation projects throughout the county.

The Highway and Transit programs in the SRTP undergo a rigorous planning and needs assessment process that aid Metro in defining both the projects and the resources necessary to meet identified needs. However, the same process is not applied to the active transportation program.

Metro plans to spend close to a billion dollars on walk/bike projects in the next ten years absent a comprehensive planning process or an assessment of countywide needs.

Further, the draft SRTP does not adequately reflect MTA's Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy and joint work program with SCAG to expedite active transportation funding and implement the recently adopted First-Last Mile Strategic Plan.

While the SRTP does integrate sustainable principles and practices into planning activities using an evolving set of performance metrics, critical sustainability metrics, including safety and accessibility measures for walking and biking are not included in the plan.

The SRTP as drafted demonstrates shortcomings in countywide walk and bike planning that Metro should address to ensure that the full range of sustainable mobility options are incorporated into countywide planning efforts.

THEREFORE MOVE that the MTA Board direct the CEO to:

A. Develop an Active Transportation Finance Strategy for County by January 2015 that: 1. Defines performance metrics to measure improvements for walking and biking, including: access to walking and biking infrastructure, access to education and encouragement programs, rates of Metro customers walking and biking to transit, collision and injury/fatality rates and greenhouse gas reductions from active transportation

2. Sets benchmarks based on the developed performance metrics and identifies what level of annual investment is necessary to meet those goals

3. Inventories available funding sources to meet the investment need

4. Recommends possible changes to Metro, state, and federal policies to increase access fio existing fiunding sources if the need exceeds available funding, including but not limited to an analysis of the funding priorities of Metro's Call for Projects and the state Active Transportation Program.

B. Report back in October on what steps are necessary to incorporate walking and biking in Metro's travel demand model, with an assessment of best practices by other regional transportation agencies for accounting for active transportation with interim off-model approaches, and expanding data sets to include all trips not just commute data. Motion by:

Councilmember Paul Krekorian, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Supervisor Michael Antonovich, Supervisor Zev Yaroslaysky, Director John Fasana and Director Ara Najarian

San Fernando/San Gabriel Valley High Capacity Transit Corridor

July 16, 2014

The Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) has been a tremendous success, with ridership approaching 30,000 aday —far reaching original projections. With its popularity and based on its current capacity, it is time to look at how we can enhance service, performance and ridership. Some options include signal prioritization, enhanced grade separations, as well as conversion to rail.

While the Orange Line serves an important role in connecting riders across the Valley to transit, there is a need to look at the possibility of expanding and connecting our network to Burbank, Glendale, Eagle Rock and Pasadena in order to have a continuous link between the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys. Additionally, with recent completion of the Regional Intermodal Transit Center (RITC) and enhanced service to Bob Hope Airport, one of the most critical remaining missing links of the current system is a more direct connection between North Hollywood Station and the Bob Hope Airport.

Such a line could not only meet the substantial transit needs of that corridor, but could also service the Bob Hope Airport and create a vital train-to-plane link that would be transformational for the entire region.

In advance of a potential ballot measure and the passage of AB 577 (Nazarian) into law which allows for the construction of Light Rail in the Southeast San Fernando Valley

THEREFORE MOVE that the Board instruct the CEO to report back to the Board at the next board meeting with recommendations for:

A. To develop and fund a feasibility study — including construction and engineering concepts, ridership and environmental estimates — to examine options for enhancing service and ridership on the Orange Line to decrease travel time and reduce traffic interruption, including:

1. BRT upgrades assessment — in addition more articulated buses 2. BRT to low/high floor Light Rail Vehicle (LRT) Conversion Assessment 3. Signal prioritization for the current BRT; 4. Grade separations and options 5. Cost-Effectiveness of Improvements 6. Potential Implementation Strategies which include adding this corridor into the strategic portion of MTA's Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP)

B. To develop and fund a feasibility study — including construction and engineering concepts, ridership and environmental estimates — of a San Fernando/San Gabriel Valley High Capacity Transit Corridor which would examine:

1. Connecting the Gold Line Foothill Extension with planned service to the San Bernardino County Line to the RITC at the Bob Hope Airport, to the Red/Orange Line in North Hollywood and on through to the Orange Line ending in Warner Center in one rail transit line. 2. Connecting North Hollywood Station and Bob Hope Airport, including rail and bus options that could include the extension of the Orange Line and/or the Red Line to the Bob Hope Airport. 3. Build on existing MTA staff and others feasibility studies and take next steps toward implementing a BRT through this corridor 4. Cost-Effectiveness of Improvements 5. Potential Implementation Strategies which include adding this corridor into the strategic portion of MTA's Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP)

FURTHER MOVE that the Board direct the CEO to work with the San Fernando Valley Council of Governments (SFVCOG), the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG)and affected jurisdictions including the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, City of Los Angeles, City of Glendale, City of Burbank, and City of Pasadena to achieve these goals.

FURTHER MOVE that the Board direct the CEO to identify possible funding for all these aforementioned studies.

### The LRTP Update vs. Ballot Initiative Dilemma July 16, 2014

Amendment to the SFV/SGV High Capacity Transit Corridor Motion

By Directors O'Connor, Dubois and Knabe

The motion before us today clearly makes the case for the need to address the growing Orange Line ridership. The lifting of the ban on at-grade light rail in this corridor makes it only logical that Metro should seek to undertake a feasibility study for the conversion of the Orange Line BRT to a light rail project at some point in time. The fact remains, however, that feasibility studies will not provide funding commitments until the project is included in an updated LRTP. The question then becomes: (a) under what process should feasibility studies such as those described in the Motion be conducted, and (b) where do they belong in the existing queue of Metro Long Range Transportation Plan budgeted and approved transit project studies?

Meanwhile, Metro staff is bringing before us this month updates of the Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP), staff is undertaking the Board directed subregional Mobility Matrix Studies, and concurrently proceeding with Ballot Initiative "outreach" efforts with the TAC Working Group and establishing an Executive Committee with the COGS, Caltrans and Metrolink as part of an effort to draft a potential new Transportation sales tax Ballot Initiative that could possibly go before the voters as early as 2016.

Within that context, this Motion brings into focus questions as to the efficacy of undertaking the preparation of any new sales tax Ballot Initiative outside the Long Range Transportation Plan Update planning process.

It is questionable how a new Ballot Initiative can balance the need to complete the regional investments approved in Measure R, bring forward the projects identified in the 2009 LRTP Strategic Plan in Tiers 1 and 2, manage to incorporate "new" projects seeking feasibility study-funding without running the risk of becoming a de facto subregional-centric "shopping cart" of projects that fails to reflect Metro's commitment to developing sustainable mobility programs such as the Active Transportation Agenda and Comp/ete Streets that address local and subregional congestion issues, and integrating State mandated sustainability strategies?

The challenges listed above coupled with those of developing new funding sources and re-balancing transportation priorities and funding need to be developed through a transparent, inclusive and innovative Long Range Plan planning process from which a new sales tax Ballot Initiative should emerge.

All of these issues described above need to be weighed in the context of the shortcomings of Measure R; primarily that the need for its counter-part, Measure J, lay in the fact that, for all its leadership and ambition, Measure R substantially underfunded and underestimated the costs of the transit and highway Expenditure Plan projects. This The LRTP Update vs. Ballot Initiative Dilemma July 16, 2014

ambitious Motion reinforces the imperative that any new sales tax Ballot Initiative must contain projects whose costs are carefully estimated and fully funded if we are to garner the support of the subregions, cities and voting public.

WE, THEREFORE, MOVE to amend the High Capacity Corridor Motion to instruct the CEO to return in September, 2014 with a report back to the Board on

A. A plan to update the 2009 LRTP which would add future projects in the strategic unfunded plan tiers 1 and 2;

1. including the feasibility of complying with the instructions outlined in the Motion and similar advanced planning or other feasibility studies for the Strategic Plan or new initiatives;

B. That Metro staff return with recommendations to re-focus current Ballot Initiative energies and resources towards the update of the 2009 LRTP,

1. including a plan to incorporate subregional priorities developed through the subregional mobility matrix studies, using the joint work program to better link SCAG's 2016 RTP process with a Metro LRTP update; and

C. A timeframe under which the updated LRTP could be completed.

2 c

8 ' Recommended Plan , ' , , '

$IN MILLIONS OPEN YEAR ' [ o;CA L~TEC TO YEAR OF H PENDITURE Buses' Metro Bu s Fleet of 2,911 1 $ 10,084.8 2005-2040 Mun i Bus Fleet of1,596 24 8,246.4 2005-2040 Transit Corridors 5 Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension $ 899 OPEN Expositio n Light Rail Transit (LRT) Phase I 862 2010/2011 (from 7th Street Metro Center to Culver City) San Fern ando Valley North-South Metro Orange Lrne Canoga Extension 1•1 22 1 2013 San Fern ando Valley East North-South Rapidways tRJ 170 2018 Exposrtion LRT Phase II : Culver City to Santa Monica 1•1 1,300 -1 ,632'. 201 5 Exposrtion LRT Phase II Bikeway 10 2015 Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway 124 201 5 Metro Gold line Foothill LRT Extension 6•10·1RJ 851 201 7 Crenshaw fLAX Transit Corridor (LRT) 10·<"' 1,715 2018 Metro Green line LRT Extension to LAX (AvrationjCentury 8/ to Lot C) <•1 330 2028 (depend111g on LAX contnbullon) '"' 1,073 201 9 Westsrde Subway Extension (Metro Purple line) IRl Segment 1 to Fairfax 1,950 2019 Segment 2 to Century C1ty 2.450 2026 Segment 3 to Westwood 1,61 5 2036 South Bay Metro Green line Extension (Redondo Beach 81t o South Bay Corridor) 1•1 555 2035 Metro Gold line Eastside Tra nsit Co rridor Phase 2 <•l 2,490 2035 San Fernando Valley 1-405 Corridor Connectron (mode is TBD) 3·'"1 2,468 2039 West Santa An a Branch ROW Corridorl"l 649' 2027 High-Speed Rail l os Angeles/Anaheim corridor's) $ 3,000 2019 Los Angeles/Palmdale corridor (T) TBO TBD Sa n DregofLos Angeles corridor TB O TBD (via Inland Empire up the 15/215 to the 60f 10corridor) (T) Other Miscellaneous Public Transportation Projects Access Services Incorporated (paratransrl)-Metro subsrdy $ 4,775 2005-2040 Safety Net (Immediate Needs) Program 386 2005-2040 Metrolink-subsrdy" <•> 4,545 2005-2040 Rail rehabilitatio n and replacement ' 9,206 2005-2040 Union bus division' 95 2005-2012 Planning for Transit Projects Short-Term 25 2011 -2012 Longer-Term 50 2025-2028 Transit co ntingencyfnew rail yards/additional rail cars 5 225 2010-2012 Rai l System Improvements 5·<"1 754 2010-2040 Eastside Light Ra il Access (Gold Line) s,(Rl 30 2013 New airport bus division 5 156 2019-2022 Metro and Munrcipal Regional Clean Fuel Bus Capital Facilities 150 2010-2039 and Rolli ng Stock (Me tro's share to be used for clean fuel buses) s.IRJ 1 2,91 1 40·Foot Equ1valent Metro Buses m 2040 The actual number of buses operated IS 2,41 1 2 1,596 40-Foot Equ1valent Mum Buses in 2040 The actual num ber of buses operated 1s 1,660. 3 Technology to be determmed cost assumes LRT • Does not mclude Mum Operators Meas ure R potent1a l acq u15 1t1ons 5 Cap1t.ll costs only 6 Measure Rfun ds est1mated to fu nd m1t1al segment, mcludmg yard and veh1cles 7 Fiscal Yea r Ouly to june) 1 LISted by Open Yea r. 9 Incl udes operatoons, rehabilitation and cap1tal; does not mclude Metrohnk fares and other non- Metro funds. 1° F1rst pnonty for new fundong to close any fund1ng gaps. IR) Projects mcl uded m Measure R lSi Project cond1t1oned upon obtammg federal/state fund1ng. (T) Fund1ng IS for plannong only to be paid for by others • Part ~al cost mcludes fund s subject to approval of MeasureR Subreg1onal eq Uit y ass umptions. Assumes Pubhc-Pnvate Paotnerships and{or other new fu nds. •• Fmal cost IS to be determ1ned. H1ghe r cost would 1ema1 n conSistent w1th MeasureR. strategic unrun.ded ~~a~ · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tier 1: Currently Under Planning Study/Environmentally Cleared/Route Refinement StudyfPreviously Studied Burbank/Glendale LRT from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station Crenshaw Boulevard Corridor Extension (beyond segment funded by Measure R) Metro Gold Line Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Branch (alignment not funded by Measure R) Metro Gold Line Foothill LRT Extension (beyond segment fun ded by Measure R) 2 Metro Green Lme LRT Extension between Norwalk Stat1on and Norwalk Metrolink Station (Elevated or Underground Light Rail) South Bay Metro Green Line Extension (beyond segment funded by Measure R) Westside Subway Exten sion (beyond segment funded by Measure R) Tier 2: Candidates for Further Project Definition Metro Green Line LRT Extension from LAX to Expo Santa Monica Station Metro Reel Line Extension from North Holl ywood Station to Burbank Ai rport Metrolink Station "S il ver" Line LRT between Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station and City of La Puente SR-134 Transit Corridor between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Metro Gold Line Del Mar Stat1on Streetcar Circulator Systems (for example, Streetcar, San Pedro, ·and others) Ve1mont Corridor Subway "Yellow" Line LRT between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Stat1on and Regional Connector Countywide Transit Programs Additional Metro and other Bus and Ra il Capital System Improvements (Rail cars, yards, buses) Additional Metrollnk Expansion Beyond Funded Plan Add1t1onal Sub-regional and other projects not mcluded 1n Metro's performance evaluation (see Techniwl Document) Bus Expansion Corridors Beyond Funded Plan 1 Losted on alphabetocal order. 2 Forst pnonty for new fu ndong to close any fundong gaps

Operating Funds -As with many transit agencies nationwide, Metro is faced with an operating deficit as a result of a reduction in operating subsidies, fare revenue, Transit Capital Recommendations and other factors. With the passage of Measure R, the $IN MILLIONS voters of Los Angeles County have provided an opportunity fSCAlATEO TO '!'EAR OF £XPENOITUAE to fund significant improvements to mobility throughout Constrained Plan the region. However, Measure R's success will be $15.7 mfyr in 2009 dollars contingent on building from a solid, stable, and Strategic Plan sustainable transit base. $8.1 mfyr in 2009 doll ars

Creating a coordinated and integrated transit system Local Return Program requires significant collaboration with key stakeholders. The Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return Therefore, Metro Operations has established a Blue Programs are funded from two half-cent sales tax measures Ribbon Committee consisting of service providers that Los Angeles County voters approved in 1980 and (municipal operators, local cities, and Metro governance 1990, respectively. Twenty-five percent of Proposition A councils) as well as beneficiaries (Metro's Citizens revenues, twenty percent of Proposition C revenues, and Advisory Council, employers, educators, etc.). This fifteen percent revenues of MeasureR designated for the committee will help guide the development of a regional Local Return Program are returned to the Cities and transit service concept to improve the integration of Unincorporated Los Angeles County, so that they may services between Metro bus and rail, and the municipal be used for developing and for improving public transit, operators and Metrolink. paratransit and related transportation infrastructure.

The Strategic Plan element also identifies that more funds The Local Return Programs support fixed-route shuttles, are needed to provide an optimal level of bus yard and demand-responsive dial-a-ride and other specialized facility modernization for Metro and municipal operators. services. TI1ese local transit services provide an essential community-based link to the regional transportation network. Many of the locally funded systems submit their data for inclusion in the National Transit Database which brings additional Federal Section 5307 funding to the region. r rt

1 1 1 I ! : I I I 1 ! ! ! : : I : ' Recommended Plan'1 ~ i I I I i i 1 1 1 $ IN MII.LIONS OPEN YEAR ' £ SCA L~T£ D 10 'rEAR O F EXP~N O I T URE Freeway l mprovements and Gap Closures· Extend SR-90 Freeway to halfway between Culver Bl & Mindanao Way $ 20 OPEN

1-710 Freeway Improvements: Pacific Coast Hwy to Downtown Long Beach 7 O PEN SR-138 Widening (rema ining 7 segments) 217.1 2007-2020 SR-71 Freeway: 1-'10 to Miss1on Bl 115 2027 SR-71 Freeway: Mission Bl to Rio Rancho Rd 330 2029 1-5 North Capacity Enhancements'·'" 5,2 71 . Phase I - from SR-14 to Pi co Cyn 2014 Phase II - from Pico Cyn to Parker Rd 2025 Phase Ill- from Parke r Rd to Kern County 2039 SR-138 Capacity Enhancements (additional segments) ' i'i 325 2012-2020 SR-71 0 North Extension (tunn el) -Preliminary estimate 5,636 2025+ to be refined in future analysis/studies 1·''1 1-710 South a nd for Early Action Projects "'l 1-710 Early Action ProJeCts 687 2022 1-710 South 6,264 2025 High Desert Comdor (environmental) 1·1' 1 33 2014 High Desert Corridor (construction) 3,031 2020 Carpool Lanes 1-5 Carpool Lanes: SR-14 to SR-118 $ 134 OPEN SR-14 Carpool La nes Pearblossom Hwy to Avenue P-8 40.8 OPEN 1-405 Carpool Lanes: 1-105 to SR-90 so OPEN 1-405 NB Carpool Lane: Greenleaf St to Burbank Bl 6.4 OPEN 1-405 SB Carpool/Auxiliary Lane: Waterford St to 1-10 so OPEN SR-60 Carpool Lanes 1-605 to Brea Canyon Rd 153.3 2010 1-405 Carpool Lanes: SR-90 to 1-10 169.5 2010 1-5 Carpool Lanes: SR-11 8 to SR-170 250.9 2012 1-5 Carpool Lanes: SR-170 to S R-134 (includes SR- 170 direct connector) '' ' 699.7 2012 1-1 0 Carpool Lanes: 1-605 to Puente Av 168.6 2012 1-405 NB Carpool Lanes: 1-10 to US-101 1,034 2013 1-10 Carpool Lanes: Puente Av to Citrus Av 182.8 2015 1-1 0 Carpool Lanes: Citrus Av to SR-57 170 2015 1-5 Carpool & Mixed-Flow Lanes: 1-605 to O range County Line 1' 1 1,240.5 2017 SR-14 Carpool Lanes: Avenue P-8 to Avenue L 120 2027 Freeway lnterchang1!S US-101 Freeway & Ramp Realignment to Center St $ 40.9 OPEN 1-5/SR-126 Interchange Reconstruction (Phase.s J and JJ) 72.2 2010 1-5/Carmenita Rd Inte rchange lrnprovementl'l 379.7 2015 SR-57/ SR-60 Mixed-Flow Interchange 475 2029 1-405,1-110, 1-105 and SR-91 Ramp and Interchange Improvements in South Bay "'·l' l 1,512 2014+

1-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges in Gateway Cities 1·6 1•1 3,200 2015-2025 Carpool Connectors SR-57/ SR-60: Carpool Lane Direct Connector $ 70.5 OPEN 1-405/US-101 : Connector Gap Closure near Greenleaf St 45 .7 OPEN 1-5/ SR-14: Carpool Lane Direct Connector'"' 161.1 2013 1-5/ 1-405: Carpool Lane Partial Connector 330 2029 Other Freeway Improvements Countywide Soundwalls (Metro regional list and Monterey ParkjSR-60) t.u.r•; $ 2,400 2005-2039 Highway Operationai Improvements in Arroyo Ve rdugo Subregion ""6·<•> 260 201 4+ 4 Highway Operatronal lmprovements in Las Virgenesf Malibu Subregion 1· ·6 ('1 253 2014+ Freeway Rehabilitation Caltrans-admmistered SHOPP $ 6,302 2005-2040 Highway Operations Freeway Service Patrol $ 1,026 2005-2040 SAFE 303 2005-2040 Goods Movement Alameda Comdor East (Metro Funds) Phase I $ 281 2005-2019 Alameda Corndor East Grade Separatrons Phase 111·•<•1 1,123 2005-2017 BNSF Grade Separations m Gateway Cities ,.,,., 270 2017+ 1" Grade Separation Remarnrng three Grade Separatrons 1 L IS t ~d by Open Year IRI ProJects mcluded 1n Measure R 2 F1scal Y~ar Uul y to Ju ne) • Subreg1onal COGs proJect lists and constructron costs ore pendmg 1 The Plan assumes other local. State and federal fundmg 1nclud ing opportun>t1es to fund w1th ' Includes MeasureR fu nd mg of$250 million fees. publlc-pnvate partnersh1ps or tolls. See Techmcal Document for more fundmg details 6 ProJects not mapped on F1gure R • Cost est1mate 1ncludes truck lanes only.

f li,... IJ( ' strategic unr~ncteci ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tier 1: Currently Under Planning Study/Environmentally Cleared/Previously Studied 1-5 Carpool and Mixed-Flow Lanes: 1-605 to 1-710 1-5 North Capacrty Enhancements (additiOnal funding bryond Measute R) SR-14. 1-5 to Kern County Lrne (Mixed-flow improvements) US-101 Corr idor: Add carpool lane in each direction between SR-27 (Topanga Canyon Bl) and SR-2 m Downtown Los Angeles and restripe fo r mrxed-flow lane in each drrectron between SR-27 and Ve ntura County Lrne US-101 Add carpool lane m each directron between SR-27 and the Ventura County Line (Thrs would be m addrtion to the mixed-flow lane proposed m the project abor•e) SR-138 1-5 to SR-14 (Add 2 mixed-flow lanes m each directron) Addrtronal Soundwalls Beyond Funded Plan Tier 2 : Candidates for Further Project Definition 1-5/SR-2 Interchange 1-5/ 1-1 0 Interchange 1-5/SR-14 Inter change 1-5/SR-134 Interchange 1-5 / 1-405 Interchange 1-10/1-605 (partiaii-IOV connector - from east to south andfiom west to south) 1-10 Carpool Lanes Lincoln Bl to 1-5 SR-5 7 Carpool Lanes: SR-60 to 1-210 SR-60/1-605 (partial HOV connector - from east to south and from east to north) SR-60 Carpool Lanes: US-101 to 1-605 SR-91 /I -ll 0 (partial HOV connector -from east to south and fro m east to north) US-1 01 /SR-170/SR-134 (complete two connectors) Interchange US-1 01/SR-1 70 Interchange 1-405/US-101 Interchange 1-605 Carpool Lanes: 1-210 to 1-10 Addrtronal Caltrans corndors not mcluded m Metro's performance evaluatron (see Techmcal Document) Additional Sub-regronal and other projects not included in Metro's performance evaluation (see Techn ical Document) 1 L1s ted 1n alphabet1cal order

towing, connection to an automobile club, and reporting Soundwall Retrofit Program freeway hazards. SAFE will also be implementing the Another challenge facing Metro will be to construct Los Angeles regional 5n Traveler Information System. freeway soundwall retrofit projects, where warranted, The goal of 5n is to provide users with information to for major highway projects to reduce freeway noise make informed travel decisions through an automated levels. Currently, there are 23 0 miles of freeway that phone system and companion website. are eligible for soundwalls, which could cost over $2.4 billion to design and build. Metro will use its Types of information available include real-time "Soundwall Implementation Policy" to prioritize funding freeway traffic, transit, rideshare and other general traffic and construction. To expedite construction of sound walls, information. SAFE and Metro will continue to evaluate $220 million from Measure R will be utilized for delivery other motorist aid services and projects for potential of soundwall projects. The Soundwall Retrofit Program implementation within Los Angeles County. requires an additional $r.2 billion as part of a funding strategy to secure potential federal, state, and local resources for soundwall design and construction.

VIII. REPORTS ITEM C I-405 HOV Lane Feasibility Study - Additional HOT Lane Projects

Page 13

Transportation Committee Meeting Agenda August 6, 2014

TO: Transportation Committee

FROM: Diane Dubois, MTA Director

BY: Karen Heit, Transportation Deputy

SUBJECT: I-405 HOV Lane Feasibility Study – Additional HOT Lane Projects

Issue

In May, staff from MTA’s consultant Parson Brinckerhoff (PB) made a presentation on the feasibility of implementing a HOT (High Occupancy Toll) Lane on the I-405 to complement what was assumed to occur in Orange County. The purpose of the study was to analyze the impacts on the I-405 in Los Angeles County and to explore the possibility of matching a HOT Lane in La County.

The study put forth four Alternatives, they are:

• Alternative 1— I-405 Corridor Single HOT/Express Lane • Alternative 2 — I-405 Corridor Dual HOT/Express Lanes • Alternative 3 — I-605 and I-105 HOT Lanes without Direct Connectors • Alternative 4 — I-605 and 1-105 HOT Lanes with Direct Connectors

The study recommends moving Alternative 3 forward to the Preliminary Concept of Operations as it scored the highest. The report recommends that the I-105 segment be built in advance for Alternative 3 and that the I-605 segment be deferred until the direct connectors can be built.

The SR-91/I-605/I-405 Committee as well as the Gateway COG Board expressed concern over Alterative 3. The primary concern about this Alternative was the potential impact of weaving on the I-605 that would occur without the construction of direct HOV connectors (Alternative 4).

Given this concern, Directors Garcetti, Bonin, Fasana Dupont-Walker and myself authored a Motion to move forward with Project Approval/Environmental Documents (PA/ED) for the I-105 segment of the Alternative 3 only and to expand the I-110 Express Lane south of the I-405/I-100 interchange. Creation of a HOT Lane on the I-105 will provide relief commuters along the I-105 by providing them with the option of paying to use the carpool lane. The issue of connecting to the I-605 via direct connectors can be studied at a later date.

The COG and the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Committee will continue to have input on this study as it moves forward.

Page 14

Transportation Committee Meeting Agenda August 6, 2014

Attachments

A – Motion Item #37 B – Handout Item #37

Page 15

MOTION BY:

Mayor Eric Garcetti, Councilman Mike Bonin, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Director Diane DuBois, Director John Fasana and Director Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker

Ad-Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee

July 16, 2014

Item— I-105 & I-110 ExpressLanes Study

l MTA's ExpressLanes program provides daily commuters with travel options when using the I-10 and I-110 freeways.

Since the start of full operations, drivers acquired 259,000 transponders, greatly exceeding the Expresslanes program's goat of 100,000.

And during the first year, revenue originally forecasted at $8 to $10 million has surpassed by actual revenue of $19 million.

The popularity of this program and the revenue generation provides revenues to reinvest in bus service and within the surrounding communities.

Considering its overall success, the expansion of MTA ExpressLanes program could create seamless integration with nearby corridors and provide more local transportation revenue for the region.

One natural expansion of the ExpressLanes that should be further studied is along the I-105 Freeway (between the I-605 to I-405/LAX).

Starting with this segment first is consistent with the MTA's consultant report that recommends phasing of Alternative 3.

Caltrans also states that the conversion of the ExpressLanes along the I- 105 freeway would likely increase capacity.

Further studies should also include the extension of the existing I-110 ExpressLanes facility to the I-405 Freeway.

1 According to MTA staff, the ExpressLanes from the I-110 to the I-105 is supported by public feedback received during the public comment period in March/April of this year.

This includes Business Associations, goods movement and delivery companies, tourist associations, etc.

WE THEREFORE MOVE that the MTA Board direct the CEO to:

A. begin the development of a Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) study for conversion of 105 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT)lanes between the I-605 to the I-405/LAX segment;

B. begin the development of a PA/ED study to expand the I-110 ExpressLanes south to the 1-405/1-110 interchange;

C. coordinate all efforts with the Gateway Council of Governments, City of Los Angeles, South Bay Council of Governments, Caltrans and other key coordinator stakeholders; and

D. provide an interim progress report during the January 2015 Board cycle. Item #37

I-405 Freeway (OC Line to LAX) HOV to HOT Conversion Feasibility Study

Ad Hoc Congestion Reduction Committee Meeting July 16, 2014 Study Purpose

• Purpose: Board motion to evaluate feasibility of Express Lanes on I-405 between OC Line and LAX; and define an initial concept of operations • Considerations: – Continuity and Inter-County Coordination with OCTA’s I-405 Improvement Project – Coordination with Gateways Cities COG and South Bay Cities COG – Federal performance requirement for HOV lanes per MAP-21 23 USC § 166 (d) Stakeholder Activity

1. Convened 4 stakeholder meetings during the course of the study – stakeholders include reps from Metro, SBCCOG, GCCOG, cities and Muni transit agencies, Auto Club, Caltrans Dist 7 and 12, CHP, SCAG, FHWA 2. Met with GCCOG staff to coordinate with Strategic Transportation Plan 3. Presentations to the GCCOG 91/I- 605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots TAC, 91/605/405 Corridor Cities Committee, Transportation Committee, Board of Directors 4. Presentation to the SBCCOG Infrastructure Working Group Conceptual Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

I-405

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

I-105/ I-605 Overall Ratings (HOV2+ Toll Free + Cost Minimization Scenarios) – With Connector Costs Included

3.4 2.6 3.9 3.8 *Includes $350 million for cost of HOV connectors Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Alternative 3 Provides Express Lane System Connectivity • Alternative 3 provides the greatest improvement in Express Lane system connectivity. • Connects with existing I-110 ExpressLanes and extends the I-105 HOV/Express Lane transition lanes. • Connections to Metro Bus/Rail, Norwalk Station and several park-and- ride lots along I-105. • Sufficient room to add second Express Lane since I-105 built to full standards and portions have tolling infrastructure. • Ties in with existing back-office operations Next Steps

•OCTA Actions: – Voted twice on I-405 Alternative (Oct. 2012 and Dec. 2013) – Both times voted against HOT Alternative in favor of one General Purposed Lane in each direction – Caltrans expected to select its preferred Alternative in May 2014 – Next step – await Caltrans decision • Receive and File Study • Other Regional Efforts: – SANBAG exploring I-10 ExpressLanes to the LA County Line