Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEV SHUTTLEm 11111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* EV Shuttle II I II II II I II I I II I II II II II I II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SHUTTLE BUS / TROLLEY TRAIN STUDY BALBOA PENINSULA VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ATE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE CO., INC. I 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 This study is'Phase I of a potential two phase study which has analyzed various Balboa Peninsula land use alternatives, 1 resulting trip characteristics and traffic impacts and an examination of various transit alternatives with an assessment of how these transit options would fare at mitigating the forecast traffic volumes. Buildout of the City of Newport Beach Balboa Peninsula General Plan is forecasted to generate over 130,000 average daily trips on and off the peninsula -during average winter weekday. This compares to less than 70,000 average winter daily trips which currently exists. With the added beach traffic during the summer, weekday traffic is forecasted to climb to 160,000. Capacity on and off the peninsula via Newport and Balboa Boulevards plus minor additional capacity via the ferry is, ' however, approximately 92,000 average daily trips. Severe Balboa. Peninsula traffic congestion will therefore exist throughout the year. ' LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Three peninsula land use alternatives were analyzed as follows, with each generating a different level of traffic: 1. Capacity Constraint: Land use is constrained by winter weekday external trip generation at a level which does not exceed the design capacity of the roadway system on and off the peninsula. ' 2. Master Plan Buildout: No constraints are placed on future development other than current zoning limits. 11 I I 3. Trend: Continuation of recent development approvals. The differences in dwelling units and commercial/office square footage between the existing and the three land use alternatives are as follows: Existing Capacity Constraint Master Planned Buildout Trend TRIP ESTIMATION Dwelling Commercial/Office Units Square Feet (Million) 6,340 .9 6,400 1.4 6,700 6.3 6,500 1.5 The existing land use on the peninsula is currently generating 86,000 average daily winter trip ends per day. A doubling of I I 1 trip generation would occur with the development of the Buildout Alternative to approximately 167,500, Total trip generation for the Capacity Constraint and the Trend Alternatives are less, 104,700 and 111,300 respectively. ' Newport Beach and particularly the Balboa Peninsula are additionally impacted by the beach and tourist traffic during summers and weekends. These relationships for the existing and ' three alternatives are as follows. For comparison purposes the forecast daily design capacity of the Newport and Balboa Boulevard is 92,000. Winter Summer Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Existing 68,500 61,500 96,300 91,800 Capacity Constraint 83,400 74,900 111200 105300 Master Planned Buildout 131,500 118,000 159:300 148:400 Trend 89,600 80,400 117,400 110,800 As can be seen in the above figures under the buildout ' alternative, winter traffic will be greater than current summer traffic and will exceed commonly accepted volume/capacity ratios. In review of the various trip purposes, two primary market segments which might be effectively captured through a shuttle ' system were identified. In addition, these market segments are of a size that significant impacts on traffic levels could be achieved. These are the beach/tourist visitors during the summer I period, and the work trip which originates off of the peninsula and travels to the peninsula. TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The four general transit alternatives considered for application 1 of service on and off of the Peninsula are: 1. � Continuation of Existing OCTD Service 2. Shuttle Bus in Mixed Traffic 3. Shuttle Bus With Exclusive Lanes 4. Light Rail Transit REMOTE PARKING FOR TRANSIT SHUTTLE SYSTEM Any of the transit shuttle systems are dependent on the ' availability of parking on the periphery of the study area. The most logical site in the study area that can accommodate a peripheral parking facility is the Caltrans-owned parcel on the ' north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Hoag Hospital, however, is in the process of acquiring this parcel from Caltrans for expansion purposes. Therefore, in order to provide remote parking and hence consider a transit shuttle program, the City of Newport Beach will be required to -negotiate joint use of this property. ii I 1 PENINSULA PARKING ' In review of the existing traffic for winter -summer and weekday -weekend conditions, it became evident that parking is a major component of travel on the Balboa Peninsula. Particularly during summer -weekend conditions, parking is filled to capacity causing significant congestion as users circulate the peninsula streets in an effort to find an available space. This high parking demand primarily impacts the residents as those that leave the peninsula on a summer -weekend may not have the opportunity to return until after the beach/tourist parkers have left the peninsula at the end of the day. There are slightly over 7,000 peninsula public parking spaces. These are defined as metered and unmetered on -street curb and ' off-street parking lot spaces. Approximately 75% or 5350 of the public parking spaces are unmetered, many of which are located in the residential neighborhoods. Because of the competition of parking demand between resident and beach user during the summer periods, either some form of parking management control or pricing may be warranted in conjunction with a remote parking facility and a connecting transit service SELECTION OF COMBINED LAND USE AND TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ' Three winter alternatives were investigated -- one each for the capacity constraint, trend, and master plan buildout land use plans. For the capacity constraint alternative, traffic volumes at the screenline and elsewhere in the study area are increased but traffic congestion levels are judged to be acceptable, although somewhat worse in selected locations than for existing 1 conditions. The supply of parking spaces is adequate to meet demands although localized imbalances in the central area might exist depending on the nature of new development projects. Since traffic and parking conditions are acceptable, the development of a transit shuttle system and remote parking facilities for selected trips to the central area is not warranted. II I For the trend land use alternative, it becomes necessary to encourage remote parking with a shuttle bus connection to the central area for 200-300 employees and others making trips requiring longer term parking. Traffic volumes at the study area screenline are approaching maximum capacity but traffic congestion levels are generally acceptable. The third winter alternative is for the master plan buildout land use alternative. The results show that this alternative is not feasible,, resulting in traffic volumes which substantially exceed street capacity levels, unacceptable traffic congestion, and major capital expenditures for remote parking and transit system development in an attempt to alleviate traffic and parking conditions. Analysis result's indicate that this land use alternative should be discarded from consideration for the study area's development. II iii Three summer alternatives were investigated --one for the capacity constraint land use plan and two for trend land use development. In the case of the Capacity Constraint land use alternative implementation of remote parking facilities in conjunction with bus shuttle, operating in mixed traffic serving the peninsula is needed to adequately mitigate traffic volumes and congestion. In the case of the trend land use alternative with a shuttle in mixed traffic and assuming a residential parking permit program traffic volumes on and off the peninsula are forecasted to be at' a maximum acceptable traffic level. The capacity of the shuttle bus system coupled with the limited number of remote parking space which would be required could result in a 12 to 13 percent reduction in beach use. The trend land use alternative with a shuttle bus operating on exclusive lanes will result in the -elimination of an estimated 800 street.parking spaces along Balboa and Newport Boulevards. Due to transit system capacity and limitation of remote parking, a greater reduction in beach use, as compared to the previous alternative would result. CONCLUSIONS The first phase of the Balboa Peninsula Bus/Trolley Study concludes that: o The capacity constraint and trend growth land use alternatives can potentially be balanced with the planned highway system. o A transit shuttle system could effectively address highway cappacity deficiencies if transit demand is 1 artificially induced with remote parking areas and peninsula parking management programs. o The Conceptual Recommended Alternative (Figure 7-1) be selected for further refinement in Phase II. If the City Council elects to continue with the transit shuttle and the second phase of the study the primary objectives would be I to: o Refine the preferred transit system land use 1 alternative, o Develop a comprehensive transit implementation program, and ' o Provide necessary environmental documentation to'support implementation of the preferred' alternative. 11 iv ' SHUTTLE BUS AND TROLLEY TRAIN STUDY FOR BALBOA PENINSULA ' Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Van Dell and Associates, Inc. ATE Management and Service Co., Inc. Butler Roach Group, Inc. February 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Executive Summary i 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Land Use Alternatives 2-1 Zone System 2-2 City Traffic Model 2-4, Land Use Alternatives 2-9 3. Trip Estimation 3-1' Market Segmentation 3-1 Internal -External Peninsula Travel 3-3 Trip Type 3-6 Summer -Winter and Weekday -Weekend Comparisons 3-9 4. Definition of Transit System Alternatives 4-1 Summary of Existing OCTD Service. 4-3 Bus Transit Alternatives 4-6 Light Rail Transit Alternatives 4-15 5. Right -of -Way and Parking Assessment 5-1 Community Impact Consideration 5-2 Alternative System Alignments 5-4 Peninsula Parking 5-10 Remote Parking for Transit Shuttle System 5-13, 6. Combined Land Use and Transit System Alternatives 6-1 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study 6-2 Characteristics of Selected Alternatives 6-5 7. Combined Alternatives Evaluation and Recommendation 7-1 Winter Alternatives 7-1 Summer Alternatives 7-4 Conclusions 7-7' i =1 I ' FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 2-1 Zone System 2-3 2-2 Trip Generation Calibration for 2-8 Existing Land Use 2-3 Land Use Alternative Comparisons 2-10 2-4 Socioeconomic Alternatives Land 2-12 Use Comparisons 3-1 Alternative Land Use Trip End Generation 3-2 3-2 Peninsula Trip Distribution 3-5 3-3 Trip Types 3-3 3-4 Existing Balboa Peninsula Hourly Traffic 3-12 3-5 Alternative External Peninsula Traffic 3-15 4-1 Red Car Operating In Downtown Los Angeles 4-2 4-2 Bus Utilization in Mixed Traffic 4-8 4-3 Vans and Small Buses 4-11- 4-4 Conventional Buses 4-12 4-5 High Capacity Buses 4-13 4-6 LRT in Mixed Traffic 4-18 4-7 LRT in Exclusive Median Lanes 4-20 4-8 LRT Vehicles 4-23 4-9 Seattle Waterfront Trolley 4-25 5-1 Bus or Light Rail Transit Operating at Grade 5-3 In Median of Major Arterial 5-2 Route Segments 5-5 7-1 Conceptual Recommended Alternative 7-9 TABLES Table No. Page No. 3-1 Trip Distribution By Trip Type 3-8 3-2 Existing External Peninsula ADT Comparisons 3-11 4-1 OCTD Service Frequencies 4-5 5-1 Balboa Peninsula District Parking Summary 5-11 6-1 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study 6-3 7-1 Evaluation Summary of Selected Alternatives 7-2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach serves a wide range of recreational, commercial, industrial, and residential activities. Each year, hundreds of thousands of visitors use the peninsula's beaches and water facilities. Although the peninsula area is of older development in comparison with southern Orange County, the area continues to grow through redevelopment of residential and commercial properties. This redevelopment concerns the city as to whether existing or planned transportation systems can adequately accommodate the projected growth. Existing transportation systems include both the peninsula's highway system as well as public transportation services provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). This report constitutes Phase I of a possible two phase study of land use alternatives, traffic impacts and potential trnasit opportunities for the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach. This Phase I Shuttle Bus and Trolley Train Study had three basic components. In the first component three land use scenarios were defined in terms of socioeconomic and trip generation characteristics. The three land use plans ranged from a master plan buildout concept (highest in intensity) down to a highway capacity constraint plan. Additionally, a plan known as trend growth was developed. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department staff provided the socioeconomic data for both the master plan buildout and trend growth plans. These land use plans were also compared to the existing development on the peninusla. Trip -making characteristics of each alternative land use plan was evaluated to identify potential market segments (i.e., commute, shop, work or beach/tourist) in which transit systems might facilitate the transportation needs. The second basic study component was to define alternate transit system concepts potentially appliable to the peninsula as well as expandable for consideration to any future intra-city transit system., The alternate transit systems considered in this study are: o Existing OCTD service o shuttle Bus operation serving local peninsula trips in mixed traffic or exclusive lanes with remote parking facilities. o Light rail or streetcar technology serving local peninsula trips on exclusive right-of-way with remote parking facilities. The third and final component of the Phase I study was to assemble the land use concepts and transit system alternatives into six combined land use and transit system scenarios for evaluation. These overall scenarios were evaluated based on right-of-way impacts, development impacts, traffic levels of service, capital and operating costs and transit ridership. Findings and recommendations from a transportation planning perspective are provided. The recommendations pertain to land use, in terms of trip generation characteristics, and a transit system alternative to accommodate that land use concept. If the Newport Beach City Council selects a preferred alternative and elects to proceed with Phase 2 of this study, the alternative will be refined and a workable implementation program will be developed.. This second phase would include a detailed transit capital and operating plan, refined land use and development plan and CEQA compliance. 1-2 ' CHAPTER 2 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ' One of the major reasons for conducting the Newport Peninsula Shuttle Bus/Trolley Train Study stemmed from the results of the City's Traffic Model. This model forecast that if the peninsula ' were to be developed to the limits permissable under existing zoning, traffic on Newport Boulevard would exceed 100,.000 average ' daily trips (ADT). The planned capacity of this facility is 45,000 ADT. Because of the significant correlation of land use ' and traffic generation, a major effort in this study was on the assessment of land use on the Balboa Peninsula. ' This assessment addressed three land use scenarios plus a comparison to the existing land use. These land use scenarios ' are described as follows: ' 1. Capacity Constraint 2. Master Plan Buildout ' 3. Trends ' The Master Plan Buildout and Trends alternative were prepared by city staff. The Capacity Constraint land use alternative was ' developed by the study team. As would be indicated from the land use generic names, each land use alternative generates a different level of traffic. The ' selection of the capacity constraint alternative was based on the planned street system capacity translated into winter -weekday development potential. For purposes of defining this ' alternative, capacity was based on Orange County average daily traffic arterial standards applied•to the facilities providing ' access to the Peninsula. The assumed capacity locations are as follows: 7, n ' Newport Boulevard - 5 Lane 45,000 Balboa Boulevard - 4 Lane 36,000 Ferry (estimated) 3,000 Total 84,000 The total available average daily traffic capacity on and off the Peninsula was therefore assumed at 84,000 trips. It should be noted that Newport Boulevard is assumed as a five -lane facility ' although currently it is only four lanes. This difference reflects the city's plans to construct a third out -bound lane on this facility. ' In the establishment of the capacity constraint land use ' alternative within the capacity limits, winter -weekday trip generation was used which assumed minimal beach activity. As ' will be described later in this report, the alternatives were evaluated for summer and winter as well as weekday and weekend ' conditions. The buildout alternative generates the greatest amount of traffic ' as no constraints are placed on the future development other than current zoning limits. Although other factors such as the economic market, off-street parking requirements, floor area ratios, etc., would likely restrict this land use alternative ' from occurring, it does illustrates a worst case condition that could result. 1 The trend land use alternative portrays a more realistic picture of what would likely occur if the trend in recent development approvals prevails. This alternative represents the mid -range land use for transportation/transit testing which is greater than ' the capacity constraint, and less than the Master Plan Buildout. ' ZONE SYSTEM ' Land use and traffic projections were aggregated into Zones Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) as defined in•'the city's traffic 2-2 e &A 1Via"1WX101010 model and as presented in Figure 2-1. As can be seen there are a total of 15 traffic analysis zones on the peninsula. For discussion purposes these zones were aggregated into five districts. These districts were defined by similar land use or travel characteristics by arterial catchment areas. The Ocean Front District represents the Ocean Front and Newport Island neighborhoods which primarily access the peninsula via Balboa Boulevard. Central Newport includes Cannery Village, Lido Peninsula, Newport Balboa, and the Via Lido neighborhoods. This area is primarily non-residential with access on and off the Balboa Peninsula via Newport Boulevard. McFadden Square and Bay Front represent the McFadden District which is located at the confluence of the Newport and Balboa Boulevards. Lido Isle is a district to itself. Although not a part of the actual Balboa Peninsula it does take access via the peninsula and is therefore important in the evaluation of the circulation issues. The final of the five districts is defined in this study as the Peninsula. This district represents everything south of McFadden Square, including Peninsula Point, Central Balboa and the area between McFadden Square and Central Balboa. CITY TRAFFIC MODEL Land use alternative trip generation is based on the city's traffic model. In essence this model applies trip generation rates to the various land uses to determine the total number of trips generated. This model also generates key socioeconomic data by these land use units to permit the generation of trips by type. The generated socio-economic data includes population, retail employees and total employees. Through a series of regression equations and using as a control the total number of trips generated by land use, trip types are defined. These trips include home -based work, home -based other 2-4 0 and non -home based. As their names would imply home -based work are trips which travel between home and work. Home -based other travel between home and a non -work destination. Non -home based are trips which do not have either end of the trip at home. These three trip types are further defined into trip production and trip attractions. A trip production is where the trip is being produced. The trip attraction where the trip is being attracted. To illustrate this concept a home -based work production trip end is the home and the home -based work attraction is the place of employment. Trips are also defined as internal and external to the peninsula. An internal -internal -trip is produced on the peninsula and attracted on the peninsula. An internal -external trip is a trip produced on the peninsula with the attraction end of the trip off the peninsula. An external -internal trip is the reverse, where trips originate elsewhere and travel to the peninsula. Model Calibration for Peninsula Study The trip generation rates and assignment process used in this analysis is based on the city's traffic model. In order to determine whether the model accurately forecasts travel on the Peninsula, the model's trip generation rates were applied to the existing land use and compared to the current traffic counts. The results of this process indicated that the model is significantly overforecasting trips on the peninsula. It was therefore necessary to determine why the model's trip generation rates are not applicable for the peninsula and whether this differential would prevail in -the future. As part of a field review of the area and discussions with city staff there appear to be four primary issues which explain the over . projection of existing land use trip generation as compared to current traffic counts. These are described as follows: 2-5 Economic Vitality: In a number of,zones such as the Cannery, Mcfadden Square, and Central Balboa the trip generation is not reaching levels predicted from the trip generation rates. Part of this is explained given the existing commercial economic vitality of the uses in this area. Many of these commercial uses concentrate on the summer tourist and beach crowds for their economic vitality and have minimum trip generation during the winter periods. In addition, turnover of'commercial establishments in certain areas such as Cannery Village have not allowed the economic vitality of the commercial uses to mature. Typical trends indicate that in many instances vacant commercial spaces are only leased and operated during the summer months and remain vacant to the following spring. Parking: A major reason Balboa Peninsula does not generate the traffic characteristics of other portions of the city is the general lack of parking during the summer periods. Trips are avoided or combined with other trips so as to not have'to deal with finding a place to park on the peninsula. In addition, residents are reluctant to give up a parking space with the risk of losing it when returning. Although parking impact on trip generation occurs primarily during the summer period, psychological establishment of travel patterns probably extends to the winter periods. Life Style: The Peninsula is uniquely different from the rest of the City of Newport Beach and with this difference life style is also different. Residents in many cases walk to restaurants, shopping, etc., whicb would be a drive trip elsewhere. Geograghic Shape: The Balboa Peninsula's linear, limited access shape limits certain trip making, given the distance it takes for peninsula residents to travel off the peninsula and patrons external to the peninsula to travel to the peninsula. In addition, many of the peninsula residents consolidate their 2-6 0 external peninsula trips with other trips, such as the return home from work. In order to calibrate the city's trip generation model for the peninsula, a determination had to be made as to which of the above mentioned travel components would prevail. Life style and the geographic shape were determined not to change. Parking, although a critical factor during the summer periods, has less of an influence on trip characteristics during the winter periods. Economic vitality of some of the commercial establishments was the only factor that could be accounted for in which it may change in the future. with,the assistance of city staff, land uses by areas considered to currently have low economic vitality were determined. Special trip generation rates were therefore developed and applied to these existing land uses in order to determine a revised total trip generation. The total number of daily trips that are being generated, based on the revised land use trip generation model for the existing 1 land use, is 104,000 average daily trip ends. Based on the trip assignment process approximately 77.5 percent of the trip ends generated are part of a trip that is external to the peninsula. Applying this factor times the total generated trips results in 81,300 trips on and off the peninsula. As presented in Figure 2-2, current counts for travel on and off the peninsula are only 68,000 ADT. Based on this comparison the overall land use trip generation model is over generating traffic by approximately 20 percent. I I I 2-7 FIGURE 2-2 TRIP GENERATION CALIBRATION FOR EXISTING LAND USE ol p co 1�� r � co 0 NON HOME BASE HOME BASED OTHER HOAyIE - - - - - - BASED' WORK CITY MODEL CALIBRATED. EXTERNAL EXTERNAL TRAFFIC TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VOLUME FORECAST PENINSULA STUDY In order to calibrate the model, trip generation had to be reduced by 20 percent. As previously discussed the issue was whether to reduce overall trip generation and therefore trip types (home -based work, home -based non -work and non home -based) equally or selectively reduce the trip types which most likely reflect the reduced rates characteristic of the peninsula. In review of the various trip types under investigation the study team assumed the home? -based work trip would prevail similiarly as elsewhere in the city. It was therefore determined that regardless of the reduction of overall trip generation the work trip would remain in the'same level of magnitude as the land use and socioeconomic variables would indicate. As also can be seen in Figure 2-2 the trip generation regression equations were modified to only reflect the reduction of the home -based other and the non home -based trip. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Dwelling unit and commercial square foot totals for the existing conditions and the three land use alternatives under investigation are presented in Figure 2-3. As illustrated, little change is projected for the total number of dwelling units for the three land use alternatives compared to the existing land use. Similiarly, little change is projected for the Capacity Constraint and Trend Alternatives for total commercial and office square footage as compared to existing. A significant increase (500%) is projected if the area redevelops to the maximum as permitted under the existing zoning. In review of the distribution of the intensification of land use the primary increases occur in the Central Balboa District when comparing the Existing, Capacity Constraint, and Trend Alternatives with the -Master Plan Buildout Alternative. 2-9 FIGURE 2-3 LAND USE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS 6,340 6,400 6,700 6,500 DWELLING UNITS .9 1.4 6.3 1.5 COMMERCIAL & OFFICE SQUARE FEET (Million) EXISTING CAPACITY CONSTRAINT MASTER PLANNED BUILDOUT TREND Socioeconomic Data An alternative to land use trip generation for projecting trips is via socioeconomic data applied to developed trip generation regression equations. The difference is that the socioeconomic regression operations generate trips by type (i.e. have home base work, etc.).whereas land use only generates total trips. In Figure 2-4, population, retail employees and total employees, for the existing and three land use alternatives are presented. Similiar to the consistent levels of dwelling units between the existing and three alternatives, population is relatively even, with all three alternatives projected at approximately 16,000 population. Moderate increases are forecasted for the retail and total employees between existing and Capacity Constraint and Trends from existing alternatives. The Master Plan Buildout Alternative is a significant departure from existing increasing total employees from the current 2,400 to over 17,000. The primary impacts from the increase in employees is the relationship of the work trip and peak hour traffic. 9 2-11 FIGURE 2-4' SOCIOECONOMIC ALTERNATIVE LAND USE COMPARISONS EXISTING 1704101 : 1.�. ►1 RETAIL EMPLOYEES TOTAL EMPLOYEES CAPACITY CONSTRAINT MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT llkiLt(z I1 I! CHAPTER 3 TRIP ESTIMATION Trip generation in this study was projected from both land use and socio-economic data. Total average daily trip generation by district and for the existing and three land use alternatives is presented in Figure 3-1. The existing land use on the peninsula is currently generating 86;000 average daily winter trip ends per day of which 68,000 travel external to and from the peninsula. A doubling of trip generation would occur with the development of the Master Plan Buildout Alternative to approximately 167,500. Total trip generation for the Capacity Constraint and the Trend Alternatives are less, 104,700 and 111,300 respectively. In addition to total trip generation, Figure 3-1 also illustrates trip generation by district. There is no difference between the existing and three land use alternatives for the Lido Isle District. Minor increases are projected for the Capacity Constraints and Trend Alternatives for the other four districts. Significant increases would occur under the Master Plan Build -out Alternative. MARKET SEGMENTATION Total trips are one measure of existing or potential congestion on and off of the Balboa Peninsula. However in order to examine potential solutions, it is necessary to look more closely at the travel patterns that create these travel volumes. One of the primary objectives of this study was to analyze the problem situation in the broader context. The approach was to develop a market segment analysis of Balboa Peninsula travel and hence define the principal travel component(s) that contribute to the traffic problem. 3-1 FIGURE 3-1 ALTERNATIVE LAND USE TRIP END GENERATION COMPARISON BY DISTRICT (1,000's) OCEAN FRONT MCFADDEN SQUARE LIDO ISLE I TOTAL ao 10.6 15.8 21.3 16.7 28.1 33.5 69.0 36.6 8.1 11.0 21.6 13,5 7.5. 7.5 7.5 7.5 31.7 36.8 48.2 86.2 104.7 167.5 EXISTING CAPACITY MASTER CONSTRAINT PLAN BUILDOUT 37.9 112.2 TREND This market segmentation analysis involved defining the various components of travel on the peninsula and describing .the pertinent characteristics of each. The characteristics of the peninsula travel are defined as follows: o Trip Distribution (trip origins and destinations) o Trip Type (Home -Based Work, Home -Based Other, Non Home - Based)' o Resident/Visitor Trip Maker (Resident of the area versus those visiting the beachs, shops, etc.) In addition to the market segments described above and unique to the Balboa Peninsula, travel patterns also vary significantly between the two seasons and weekday and weekend. In the development of transportation and transit improvements all sets of travel demands must be accommodated. The main findings regarding the winter travel characteristics of the peninsula for the three land use alternatives are presented in the following text.' Detailed zonal and district trip generation, and trip tables by trip type are presented in the technical appendices. Later in this chapter summer and weekday -weekend traffic relationships will be presented. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PENINSULA TRAVEL A basic market segmentation descriptor is the relationship of each trip to the peninsula.' This is defined according to three primary components of travel: 1. Internal -Internal - trips which are both produced and attracted within the peninsula. 2. Internal -External - trips which are produced on the peninsula but travel off the peninsula 3. External -Internal - trips which are produced off the peninsula but travel to it. 3-3 Cm The methodologies for trip distribution are from the city's traffic model. Based on the calibration of the trip generation model, the generated trip productions and attractions were rebalanced for the existing and three land use alternatives under investigation. Total trip generation by alternative and the trip distribution travel component are presented in Figure 3-2. As illustrated in Figure 3-2, significant trip increases occur for all trip types when comparing the existing conditions to the Master Plan Buildout Alternative. This is particularly evident in the external to internal travel component, and will have a direct impact to the congestion of the Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard peninsula access. The significant increase in the Master Plan Buildout Alternative is directly related to the increase of commercial and office land use and in particular the employee population. Total travel on and off the peninsula is the addition of the Internal -External and the External -Internal travel components. Whereas the Capacity Constraint land use was assumed to be limited to the assumed 84,000 average daily trip capacity of the peninsula access roads, the Trend and the Master Plan Buildout alternatives increase this volume to 89,600 and 131,400 respectively. It should also be mentioned that the total volumes presented in Figure 3-2 represent the total number of trips and not trip ends. As trip ends are both produced and attracted on the peninsula, the total number of trip ends for the Internal -Internal travel component require doubling. Total trip ends are therefore, Existing-86,250, Capacity Constraint-104,600, Master Plan Buildout 168,000 and Trend-111,300. 3-4 I 1 i 1 1 1 1 l INTERI INTERI 'INTERI EXTEF EXTEA INTER! 1 II FIGURE 3-2 PENINSULA TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXISTING CAPACITY CONSTRAINT MASTER PLAN. BUILDOUT TREND TRIP TYPE Trips are generated and assigned by trip types. These trip types are derived in order to understand the nature of traffic, peaking, potential transit capture, etc. The existing and three alternatives total trip -generation by type are presented in Figure 3-3. In review of the home based work trip, it is interesting to note that the home based work trips do not vary significantly between the existing land use and the Capacity Constraint and Trend Alternatives. This results primarily from a consistent dwelling unit and population total when comparing these alternatives. The reason for the increase in the Master Plan Buildout Alternative is not the dwelling unit side of the trip but the work attraction of the trip. The Home -Based Other Trip has a significant increase in trips from the Existing to the Master Plan Buildout. This increase is partially controlled by dwelling unit, however is primarily a result of the commercial retail and office development. Trip Distribution by Trip Types The merging of the trip distribution and trip type travel market segment, creates a multi -purpose trip table. A trip table describes the spatial relationship of a trip traveling from one zone to all other zones, and by type of trip. The trip tables prepared for this study have been condensed from traffic analysis zones and districts and are presented in Table 3-1. Key findings from this table illustrate the significant increase in Master Plan Buildout trip types for the external to internal travel component. If a goal of the city is to control travel onto the peninsula from the outside communities, Table 3-1 demonstrates that the Master -Plan Buildout is not a preferred alternative. 3-6 1 77 NON HOME 40,000 BASED HOME BASED 25,500 OTHER, 9 FIGURE 3-3 TRIP TYPES 49,900 30,400 73,800 . • . s 35,000 HOME •:`•S ';• BASED 12,000 13,800 WORK EXISTING CAPACITY CONSTRAINT 1 55,500 31,200 14,20Q MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT TREND to 9 .1q 4J U) x w +J 0 >j•r+ -p ro U -V rd to R+ 0 UU 9 +p H 0 ao ro u -� U) f z TABLE 3-1 TRIP DISTIBUTION BY TRIP TYPE Internal - Internal - External - I Internal External Internal TOTAL Home Based Work 400 8,400 3,200 12,000 Home Based Other 4,600 10,000 10,900 25,500' Non Home Based 3,700 18,150 18,200 40,050 TOTAL 8,700 36,550 132,300 77,550 Home Based Work 550 8,500 4,750 13,800 Home Based Other 51350 11,250 13,800 30,400 Non Home Based 4,750 22,500 22,600 49,850 TOTAL 110,650 42,250 141,150 1 94,050 Home Based Work 1,600 7,350 26,100 35,050 Home Based Other 6,550 9,400 24,900 40,850 Non Home Based 10 100 32,050 31,650 73,800 TOTAL 18,250 48,800 82,650 149,700 Home Based Work 600 7,900 5,700 Home Based Other 5,200 11,200 14,850 31,250 Non Home Based 5,500 24,900 25,050 55,450 TOTAL 11,300 44,000 45,600 100,900 I As previously mentioned, a major portion of these increases in external to internal trips is projected to occur because of the significant growth forecasted in the Central Newport District. Another significant area of impact is the McFadden Square District. In conclusion, significant average daily trips will be generated for the Master Plan Buildout land use alternative during the typical winter weekday. This future winter condition will be substantially higher than the existing summer weekend condition. Also areas currently impacted by the lack of parking and traffic capacity will further be impacted with the implementation of the Capacity Constraint and Trend Land Use alternatives. Areas which will experience the majority of these impacts include McFadden Square and Central Balboa. SUMMER -WINTER AND WEEKDAY -WEEKEND COMPARISON The discussions to this point have been focused on the traditional market segmentation of the typical weekday trip. For purposes of this study this has been defined as the Winter -Weekday. Newport Beach and particularly the Balboa Penisula, however, are significantly impacted by the beach and tourist traffic. Traffic Models, such as the city's and as used in this study, do not reflect this specific character of the Balboa Peninsula. Instead, review of the travel patterns and an understanding of the magnitude of the beach attendance can best segment this portion of the travel market for projecting future trips. In order to present the basic concept of trip differences for these various conditions under existing conditions, Table 3-2 is presented. As illustrated the current traffic on and off the peninsula is 68,500 trips during the winter weekday. The average daily trips on and off the peninsula for the winter weekend is slightly less at 61,500. 3-9 As would be expected the trips increase significantly during the summer periods with traffic on and off the peninsula of 96,300 and 91,800 for weekday and weekend respectively. In order to understand the peaking characteristics of traffic on and off the Balboa Peninsula, inbound and outbound hourly traffic counts for the winter -summer and weekday - weekend periods were obtained from the city and are presented in Figure 3-4. In review of this data, it was found that traffic distribution -over time of day is relatively flat for both inbound and outbound conditions. This differs significantly from the typical arterial which tends to have a high directional peak during the AM period and a high opposite directional peak during the PM peak hour. The significance of this information is that the traffic volumes on Balboa and Newport boulevards result in a better utilization of existing capacity and, therefore, capacity levels on these facilities are higher than the county levels. In review of the Balboa Peninsula peaking characteristics, it is the study team's opinion that average daily traffic capacity on and off the peninsula is estimated to be approximately 10% higher or 92,000 ADT as compared to the County ADT standard of 84,000. '1 3-10 30 Table 3-2 EXISTING EXTERNAL PENINSULA ADT COMPARISONS Winter Summer Summer Percent r � r r r r r r r r +ems r r r r r• r r r FIGURE 3-4 EXISTING BALBOA PENINSULA HOURLY TRAFFIC Volumes in Thousands 4— Weekday L - 3 Total ADT: 689500 4) 40-0 C 2 Y ■ Total-ADT: 96,300 3 6 9 INBOUND 4— Weekend - 3- Total ADT: 619500 2- 1L- � 2-- ---= OUTBOUND z 000 Total ADT: 91,800 ' Beach Attendance As part of this study, the Marine Department was contacted in order to obtain estimates of beach attendance during the various weekday -weekend and winter -summer scenarios. Estimates are made daily using various techniques such as parking lot utilization and person -on -beach density. Observations further indicated that persons attending the beach tend to have a high auto occupancy and vehicles per parking space turn over two to three times per day. In review of the beach attendance counts the following table was prepared to reflect January and July periods. Extremely high counts, such as the July 4th weekend and low counts, such as January rainy weather were omitted in order to reflect average conditions. This table is presented as follows: Summer Winter ' Weekday 62,500 3,300 Weekend 801000 16,700 In review of the summer weekday and weekend counts these estimates appear to check. The differential of winter and summer weekend counts is approximately 30,000 two-way trips or 15,000 ' round trips. Given that many of the dwelling units on the peninsula are rentals with a high concentration of beach users coupled with a substantialy large number of otter resident ' owners who frequent the beaches either from the peninsula or from Balboa Island, the assumption was made that 30,000 of the 80,000 ' summer weekend beach attendance were from these sources. If the remaining 50,000 arrived via the 15,000 auto trips, the auto occupancies would be in the range of approximately 3.3, which is within reason for this type of trip. 3-13 Summer -Winter Weekday -Weekend Land Use Trip Generation In order to project the ultimate summer -winter weekend -weekday trip generation for the three land use alternatives, two assumptions were made. The first was that summer beach attendance would not increase and the second was that the non - summer weekend -weekday relationship between the total counts would prevail. Total counts onto and off of the Balboa Peninsula are presented in Figure 3-5. 3-14 FIGURE 3-5 INTERNAL - EXTERNAL AND EXTERNAL - INTERNAL PENINSULA TRAFFIC 92,000 ADT cD 0 o rto N cq O co O O Z O O ' r pF NBE rn co 0 00 co u� va o JV p p p Z� W 0 W W W Y. W w W W ZW w w` w IL Q WINTER SUMMER. WINTER SUMMER 0 O V r r - co O O r O O O O r co r r O r Q Z 4 Z W w W w 3 3:: 3 3 WINTER SUMMER 0 0 w Y Y. Y Y 3 3 3 3 WINTER SUMMER EXISTING CAPACITY MASTER PLAN. TREND CONSTRAINT BUILDOUT CHAPTER 4 DEFINITION OF TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Transit system alternatives have been defined for the study area ' involving both bus and rail vehicle technologies. Bus transit is a familiar mode of transportation in Orange County, and the study area is presently served by four bus lines operated by the Orange County Transit District. For this study, expanded bus service is being considered as an alternative approach for satisfying the travel needs of selected groups. Both the possibility of expanded conventional bus service and other specialized ' shuttle -type services that might use specially -designed equipment will be addressed. Additionally, light rail system alternatives ' (which might be more readily recognized if referred to as 'streetcar' or 'trolley' systems,•although there are ' distinguishing differences which will be addressed later) will be considered for the study area. Until the 1950's, 'Red Car' ' trains of the Pacific Electric Company operated into the study area, running from Los Angeles and Long Beach parallel to the Pacific Coast Highway. The trains operated on what is now ' Seashore Avenue and along Balboa Boulevard to a terminal at the Balboa Pier, with service being cut back around 1950 to a ' terminal at Seashore Avenue and 33rd Street. Thus, both the bus and rail system alternatives being examined are not new for the study area. ' In the following sections of this chapter, the characteristics of existing OCTD bus services are reviewed and then both bus and light rail transit system alternatives are discussed with ' attention to defining key operating characteristics and strategies applicable to the study area•. 1 1 4-1 FIGURE 4-1 RED CAR OPERATING IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES V 1I „I nV SUMMARY OF EXISTING OCTD BUS OPERATIONS SERVING THE STUDY AREA As a starting point, it is useful to review existing OCTD services in the study area. Four bus lines are presently operated into the study area providing local service as well as service directly and via transfer to other points throughout Orange County (and into Los Angeles County). The four bus lines are: 1 Long Beach - San Clemente via Pacific Coast Highway - serves central Newport Beach (32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard) only; 43 Brea./La Habra - Newport Beach -- terminates at 23rd Street and Balboa Boulevard with service along Harbor Boulevard to La Habra, Fullerton, Brea, and other cities; 53 Orange - Balboa -- operates from Orange, along Main Street through Santa Ana, then through Costa Mesa, to Central Balboa at the Balboa Pier; and 65 Tustin - Balboa -- operates from Tustin, to UC Irvine, then to Newport Center, and along Pacific Coast Highway to its terminal at the Balboa Pier. Table 4-1 summarizes the service frequencies on these four lines in the study area. From this summary, the average frequency of service (expressed as the average number of minutes between buses) both in the central area and along the peninsula may be calculated as follows: 4-3 'fir. 1 L Central Area (Balboa Blvd. at 32nd St.) Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods 5(a) Weekday midday 6 Saturday 9 Sunday 9 Peninsula (Balboa Blvd. at Alvarado St.) 11 (a) 13 20 20 Note: (a) Average number of minutes between buses in each direction. In comparison with service levels throughout the county, the study area should be considered as being well served at the present time. Tabulation of selected bus ridership counts made by the OCTD indicate that approximately 3,000 passengers use study -area bus services each weekday. On Saturdays, ridership is estimated to be 1700 passengers and on Sundays, approximately 1200 passengers. These estimates are based on counts made in all seasons. Rough indications from the tabulated count data suggest that weekend ridership on lines serving the peninsula may be up to 50 percent higher in the summer months while ridership on weekdays on all lines and on other study area lines on weekends does not significantly vary throughout the year. In the study area on weekdays, an average of nine passengers board or alight each trip. On Saturdays, there are approximately ten passenger boardings and alightings per trip, and about seven 4-4 TABLE 4-1 OCTD STUDY AREA SERVICE FREQUENCIES AVERAGE MINUTES BETWEEN BUSES SERVICE' TYPE WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY SATURDAY 1 43 53 65 30/35 12 15/20 30/35 W, 20 30 An SOURCE: Public time tables ise District 4-` SUNDAY 60 20/30 30 An passengers board or alight each trip on Sundays. This is based on OCTD ridership count data tabulated for this study. While heavier ridership occurs during selected time periods, it may be concluded that the level of service provided by the OCTD is more than adequate to meet existing ridership demands in the study area. BUS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Bus transit services could be effectively employed for providing 'shuttle' services to the study area for both trips made within the study area and also.serving remote parking facilities located east of the Pacific Coast Highway. While the design of possible alternatives will be addressed in detail in later chapters of this report, this section examines selected operating characteristics of bus transit systems which will serve as background for system design discussions. Bus Transit Rights -of -Way For shuttle bus transit operation to serve the study area, three options need to be considered as follows: o bus operation in mixed traffic; o mixed modal operation with bus priority systems; and o exclusive�busways. Conventional bus service such as that operated by the OCTD in the study area follows fixed routes and schedules, is subject to traffic interference, and usually stops at every block. Bus operation in mixed traffic in large cities is reported at average trip speeds as slow as three to eight miles per hour (3-8 mph) during peak periods although higher average speeds -of ten to �7 4-6 39 twelve miles per hour (10-12 mph) are more typical for OCTD operations. Variations in average operating speeds are primarily dependent on the number of stops per trip, local level of traffic congestion, and traffic legal speed limits. The average speed of bus services operating in mixed traffic directly affects the levels of service and operating costs of this mode. The relationship between the number of round trips per route as a function of trip length and average bus speeds is shown in Figure 4:-2, which illustrates the advantages of attaining higher bus operating speeds for better equipment and manpower utilization. Higher average speeds are obtained by applying bus priority strategies or utilizing exclusive busways. Bus Priority Lanes Bus priority lanes are currently in use in many cities. This approach was designed to minimize traffic interference to buses by providing the semi -exclusive use of curb lanes during peak hours to buses traveling in the peak flow direction. Use of these lanes is typically restricted to right -turning vehicles in the last city block before a right turn. The removal of automobile traffic and parking in the curb lanes combined with fewer stops can contribute to higher operating speeds. However, stops for passenger loading and unloading, traffic signals, and queuing behind right turning vehicles remain obstacles that restrict operating speeds and limit the capacity of bus priority lanes. Contra -Flow Bus Lanes The contra -flow bus lane technique was designed to reduce the apparent interference of right turning vehicles affecting operational speeds of bus priority lanes. The contra -flow bus lane concept, usually implemented on one-way streets, permits bus flow on curb lanes in a direction opposite to normal traffic flow. 4-7 FIGURE 4-2 BUS UTILIZATION IN MIXED TRAFFIC OPERATION 6 � 5 O Y. Q 4 W z O w 3 IL to IL F-. 2 0 z m O ac , 01 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 ONE WAY TRIP LENGTH (MILES) In some cities, use of the lanes by car pools and emergency vehicles is also permitted. Experience has shown that operational speed of buses operating in contra -flow bus lanes is higher than that attained on priority bus lanes which allow a higher throughput of buses per hour and capacity for transporting passengers. Traffic Light Preemption Systems Additional techniques have been designed to upgrade the operating speed of buses operating in mixed traffic, bus priority lanes, and contra -flow -lanes by reducing the number of stops usually required at traffic lights. The traffic signal preemption concept requires installation of on -board and wayside equipment. The wayside detectors are designed to detect signals emitted by the approaching bus requesting 'green' time. A computerized wayside control may grant the requested additional green light for the buses if the queue on the other legs of the intersection is below a certain limit. Thus, this approach may provide for the uninterrupted flow of transit vehicles through intersections along a route. Exclusive Busways Exclusive busways are special lanes separated from all traffic interferences and designed for use by buses (and possibly pool and emergency vehicles) only. Exclusive busways may utilize private rights -of -way, be constructed on a freeway's median, or along side freeway lanes which are separated by fixed barriers from other traffic lanes. Operating policies for busways vary from one transit operator to another; however the exclusive busway provides the capability of bypassing bottlenecks and other high queue areas' operating speeds and reducing travel time for passengers. 1 4-9 Bus Transit Vehicles For study area shuttle services, a variety of types of bus equipment could be considered including the following. o Vans and small buses -- with a seated passenger capacity varying from 8 to about 30 passengers, vehicles of this type could be custom designed for shuttle -type operations or be of conventional design (see Figure 4-3). o Conventional transit buses -- typically either 35 or 40 feet in length, conventional transit buses of either the 'new look' or 'advanced' design could be employed. Depending on seating configurations, vehicle capacity range from 35 to 50 seated passengers (see Figure 4-4). o High capacity transit buses -- either articulated or double -decked buses could be considered, offering seated. passenger capacities of up to 80 passengers (see Figure 4-5). o High capacity sightseeing vehicles -- these vehicles feature open sides to permit passenger viewing and provide for up to 80 seated passengers and while they can be operated in mixed traffic, are perhaps better suited for operating in protected conditions. The use of various types of bus equipment presents a number of trade-off's that cannot be resolved in this phase of the study. These trade-off's relate to the following: o Capacity -- larger (and more expensive) equipment provides higher capacities without substantially higher per -vehicle operating costs. If the demand is present and attractive service frequencies can be maintained, 4-10 i13 FIGURE 4-3 VANS AND SMALL BUSES I FIGURE 4-4 I CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT BUSES ,t I L II fj II Il 11 i J LI TRADITIONAL ADVANCED DESIGN I •y M M dN t i2y +per■ /y, 'larger vehicles are more cost-effective to operate. On the other hand, if demand is not sufficient to support attractive headways, high capacity vehicles should not be considered. o Purchase price -- the cost of purchasing the vehicles listed above ranges from about $12,000 to over $250,000 per vehicle. While the vehicle's size (and passenger carrying capacity) are key factors affecting the differences in price, the type of manufacturing used in building the vehicle is also an important consideration. Heavy duty transit vehicles are built for 'rough' operating'conditions with a life expectancy of 23 or more years. Other vehicles are built using truck and van components that result in shorter useful lives and lower initial purchase costs. o Appearance -- each of the types of equipment have a different appearance and other characteristics which influences how the vehicle is perceived by both passengers and observers. System Costs The capital costs associated with the development of bus transit systems include the costs of bus equipment (including related on -bus equipment such as radios and fareboxes if required), bus storage and maintenance facilities, bus stops and stop furniture, and constructing reserved or exclusive bus lanes including signing and signal systems as may be required. As already noted for bus purchase costs, these costs will vary significantly depending on the specification of system.operating characteristics, and will be estimated as required for specific alternatives later in this study. 4-14 Bus transit operating costs can also vary significantly depending on a variety of factors. To illustrate typical bus transit operating costs, OCTD bus services averaged $1.97 per• vehicle mile or $32.06 per vehicle hour in FY 1980 which can be considered as being representative of operating costs for Southern California operators. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Light rail system technology involves steel -wheeled vehicles running on steel rails. The use of 'steel wheels on steel rail' techology for urban transit dates back to the early 1800's. The development of electrically propelled streetcars in the late 1800's was the stimulus that encouraged wide use of early light rail or streetcar systems in the United States and western European countries. In the 1920's, over 60,000 miles of track were operated by street railway and interurban systems through out the United States. But with increasing competition from the automobile and bus transit, these systems disappeared from urban areas except for a few cities (San Francisco, Boston, Cleveland, Newark, New Orleans, and in Canada, Toronto) by the 1960's. But by the 1970's, renewed interest in rail transit developed, spurred by increasing levels of street and highway traffic congestion, higher costs for energy and the increasing awareness of its limited availability, disappointment over the ability of bus transit to attract ridership, and uncertainty regarding 'futuristic' transportation technologies being suggested for urban areas. Further, limited funding resources indicated the need for less costly rail transit alternatives (in comparison with San Francisco's BART and Washington's METRO) that would permit more cities to begin building rail transit systems. In response to this need, the light rail transit approach combining elements of both the streetcar and more expensive rail transit systems was developed. In the following sections, the characteristics of light rail transit are described as background 1 4-15 'II for assessing its feasibility for study areas' shuttle operations. Light Rail Transit Rights -of -Way The light rail transit (LRT) concept holds the potential of taking advantage of a wide variety of rights -of -way, from operating in mixed traffic on streets to high speed operations on exclusive rights -of -way. This versatility creates the potential for reduced capital investment and fast construction as well as the opportunity for system improvements being phased over a number of years. LRT's attractiveness as a transit mode alternative lies in the flexible manner in which it can exploit rigbt-of-way opportunities, and in the cost savings which can accrue from the selection of appropriate right-of-way design treatments. A discussion of LRT rights -of -way and station treatments as currently employed in both European and a number of North American cities and applicable for the study area follows. LRT systems or system elements may be characterized by the degree of exclusiveness of operations in the right-of-way. This factor represents the primary determinant of system performance; for example, a higher degree of exclusive right-of-way will result in higher average schedule speeds for a given alignment and spacing of stations. On the other hand, the achievement of greater exclusiveness of operation may require considerably higher capital expenditure since subway or elevated guideway development may be necessary to achieve high speed and exclusive operations. Segments of any LRT network will fall into one of three categories, defined by their degree of exclusiveness. o In shared right-of-way, LRT operates in mixed traffic with autos and buses. This type of operation is characteristic of streetcar service and has only limited applications for modern light rail systems.• II 4-16 o In semi -exclusive or reserved rights -of -way, LRT operation is separated from other traffic except at grade crossings where interference may be encountered. This category is very broad, and includes multi -modal transitway for joint use by light rail vehicles and buses, and curbed lanes in street medians. o In an exclusive right-of-way, LRT operation is fully separated with vehicular or pedestrian crossings prohibited, possibly requiring subway or elevated guideway development. Generally, only segments of an LRT network fall into this category as part of a total system including sections with various degrees of exclusiveness. For the study area, right-of-way opportunities for LRT operations are limited to at -grade operations in existing major streets -- Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. While these opportunities will be addressed in more"detail later, three operating modes may be invoked to implement light rail transit services in these rights -of -way. Street Operation in Mixed Traffic Operation of rail vehicles on streets in mixed traffic is the 'lowest' level of rail system operation. A light rail system operating primarily in mixed traffic may be more correctly referred to as.a streetcar mode. Generally, such rail systems provide similar levels of service to that of buses in streets. However, they have the additional disadvantage of being unable to maneuver and pass by traffic resulting in poor schedule reliability. Most cities that have maintained an upgraded streetcar system have provided some form of priority treatment to improve operating performance and reliability. LRT street operation in mixed traffic is depicted in Figure 4-6. 1 4-17 5D FIGURE 4-6 LRT OPERATIONS IN MIXED STREET TRAFFIC mi a Reserved Transit Lanes -in Streets Where there is sufficient street width in each direction, the next step of priority treatment for light rail operations is provision of a reserved transit lanes from which automobile traffic is prohibited, but which is separated by pavement markings or mountable curbing only. In some cities, buses are permitted joint use of LRT reserved lanes. This type of - operation limits the maximum speed limit of all vehicles and requires special control devices at intersections where transit vehicles may mix with auto traffic. Dedicated Street Right -of -Way Where at least three traffic lanes are available in each direction or a median exists, the potential for semi -.exclusive right-of-way may be attained by full protection of the two center traffic lanes or median from auto and pedestrian traffic. This may be done by the use of curbs and raised median area, by fencing, or by the use of other barriers. This approach is illustrated in Figure 4-7. LRT development of this type offers significant opportunities for improved service. Operating speed performance may be increased over mixed traffic and reserved lane operations since potential traffic interference and safety hazard are minimized. Average schedule speeds will not reach those possible on exclusive rights -of -way but may be twice the speeds obtained over mixed traffic or reserved lane sections. 4-19 FIGURE 4-7. LRT OPERATIONS IN EXCLUSIVE MEDIAN LANES �❑8 r I r 53 Priority Treatment at Intersections The most critical points on transit lines are usually at intersections. It is at these locations that turning movements, pedestrian crossings and the merging of lines may create the greatest conflict and delay.' Therefore, LRT operations in reserved or dedicated rights -of -way may be enhanced by providing for its priority treatment at such intersections. Priority at intersections is achieved in one or a combination of the following ways: o Elimination of conflicts with auto traffic at intersecting cross streets through signal preemption strategies; o Elimination of parallel conflicts with auto traffic, particularly at left turn lanes; o Prohibition of cross traffic; and o Grade separation of the transit right-of-way Special signal systems tpgether with certain traffic movement prohibitions represent a low investment means of providing priority at intersections, although they are usually not as effective as full separation which is considerably more costly. Where no priority is given at intersections, delays for transit vehicles may often be reduced significantly be locating stops on the near or far side of the intersection in a pattern designed to be coordinated with the signal system. Additionally, efficient door design and fare collection arrangements to provide rapid boarding and alighting of large passenger volumes can enhance operations in this case. 4-21 Light Rail Transit Stations The type of light rail station most appropriate for the study area would be a low cost platform with a protective canopy although opportunities for more elaborate stations built in conjunction with new development projects could be considered at selected locations (e.g., McFadden Square), Platform stations in existing arterials are limited in size by available space in the street and, therefore, are much like a conventional bus stop. In designing the platform stations, several factors influence the type of station that will be provided at a particular location including passenger volume and flow, method of fare collection, interface with other modes, and environmental and urban design considerations. Light Rail Transit Vehicles Light rail vehicles are normally classified by the number of axles and number of articulations. On most modern designs, the number of axles relates to the vehicle's articulation -- 4-axle vehicles being non -articulated and 6-axle vehicles having one articulation. More specifically, the body configurations are as follows. o The non -articulated vehicle is a motorized car generally with a total of four axles. The majority of vehicles built before the late 1950's including the American PCC vehicle, were.non-articulated. Typically, a vehicle of this type seats approximately 50 passengers with a total capacity of up to about $0 passengers. o The single -articulated vehicle is composed of two car sections with a hinge -like connector which allows pivotal movement in both the horizontal and vertical planes. This design concept makes it possible to build larger vehicles able to negotiate tight curves. 4-22 FIGURE 4-8 LRT VEHICLES 4-AXLE NON -ARTICULATED (ANTWERP,BELGIUM) 6-AXLE ARTICULATED (MANNHEIM,WEST GERMANY) II Passengers have free access through the articulation joint. Most single articulated cars have a total of six axles. Vehicles of this type may carry up to 140 passengers with seating for 60-70 passengers. Both types of vehicles are illustrated in Figures 4-8. Light rail vehicles are currently supplied in the United States by several manufacturers. All new vehicles delivered in 1982 and currently scheduled for delivery have been built by European, Japanese, and Canadian manufacturers. Both 4-axle non -articulated and 6-axle vehicles have been supplied or are presently being built for transit operators in Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Portland, Philadelphia, and San Diego (as well as for Canadian operators in Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton). In view of the small number of vehicles which will probably be required for LRT operations in the study area, it is also possible that older vehicles could be acquired and rehabilitated for service. While some problems with on -going vehicle maintenance (particularly with regard to the availability of spare parts) may be anticipated with this approach, it requires a significantly lower initial capital investment even when rehabilitation costs are taken into account. Further, the older vehicles can provide an 'old fashioned' appearance which may make the system an 'attraction' in itself and serve to generate additional ridership. Both the cities of Seattle and Detroit have recently employed this approach for acquiring vehicles. o For its 1.6-mile waterfront trolley shuttle, Seattle acquired four 1927-model non -articulated 4-axle cars from Melbourne (see Figure 4-9), three of which have been refurbished (one vehicle is being used for spare parts) for revenue operations. 1 4-24 o Detroit operates a 1-mile trolley line in its downtown area using seven narrow-gauge 2-axle cars acquired from Portugal. System Costs Capital costs represent the investment necessary to initiate light rail transit service. They include the cost of acquiring the land on which the transit system will be built, preparing a suitable roadbed or permanent way on which to lay the track/installing the track itself (consisting of ties, rail and associated hardware), constructing stations, constructing a power supply system, purchasing vehicles, building maintenance and storage facilities for the vehicles, and the engineering and administration costs associated with each of these items. Capital costs for LRT systems development vary significantly when data for recently -built systems in the United States and Canada are examined. But, these differences can be explained with an understanding of each system's design and operating characteristics including the right-of-way used, extent of reserved or exclusive right-of-way operations, operating speeds, and features incorporated in the design. As background for understanding this variation, consider the following examples of construction costs for selected projects which are of particular interest for this study. o San Diego -- San Diego's 16-mile system was built at -grade using an available railroad right-of-way for most of its length at an average cost of $5.4 million per mile. The system is currently being upgraded for double -track operations which will increase its average per -mile capital cost to about $7.7 million. o Seattle -- Seattle's 1.6-mile waterfront trolley system operates on upgraded railroad tracks. It is mostly 4-26 one-way track with passing tracks at selected locations. Total capital costs were approximately $2.2 million per mile in 1981-82 dollars. o Orange County Transit District -- The OCTD's 'minimum operable segment' (or starter line) consists of at -grade operations over approximately 14 miles of double -tracked exclusive right-of-way. Capital costs in 1982 dollars ' are estimated to be $16.4 million per mile. ' Each of these examples involves primarily at -grade LRT operations as would be developed for the study area, but capital costs range ' from $2.2 million to $16.4 million per mile. For evaluating LRT alternatives for the study area, it is judged that capital costs should be expected to fall in the middle of this range but only rough cost estimates are possible at this time. Estimated costs for planning purposes are based on the following assumptions. ' 1. At -grade double track operations in existing street ' rights -of -way. 2. Operating speeds restricted to 25-30 miles per hour which will serve to simplify train control system ' requirements. 3. No major utility relocations, structures, or other ' costly construction treatments (more detailed studies are required to verify this assumption). Based on these assumptions, the following system development cost ' factors (in 1983 dollars not including engineering and contingency costs) may be applied: o Per mile (for right-of-way preparation and trackwork, electrification, control systems and signalization) -- ' $3.8 million to $5.9 million per mile; ' 4-27 6P I o Per vehicle (including maintenance and storage. facilitise) -- $0:2 million to $1.5 million per vehicle depending on whether new or rehabilitated vehicles are employed; and o Per station -- from $100,000 to $400,000 per station. In considering LRT system alternatives, operating costs also need to be taken into account. Operating costs also show considerable variation when data from existing operating systems are tabulated, due to a variety of factors including labor costs and work rule provisions, operating speeds and other conditions, and higher maintenance costs related to the use of older equipment in some cases. Per vehicle mile, costs range from about $3 to over $12 with most existing systems being in the range of $4-$6 per vehicle mile. Per vehicle hour, costs range in a similar manner ,from about $30 to nearly $100 per vehicle hour. 11 ' ' 4-Z N CHAPTER 5 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARKING ASSESSMENT Chapter 4 described the importance of using reserved or exclusive rights -of -way for either bus or light rail transit operations to - the maximum possible extent in order to avoid conflicts with -auto traffic and maintain high transit operating speeds. In the study area, this can only be achieved by utilizing existing arterial street rights -of -way which presents important traffic, parking, and community impact considerations. To identify feasible rights -of -way for transit operations, the study team toured the study area noting areas that presented opportunities for transit system development as well as areas where system development was judged to be problematic. Based on this investigation, it was determined that right-of-way alternatives for shuttle transit services in the study area are limited to the existing rights -of -way of Balboa and Newport boulevards. This conclusion regarding potential transit rights -of -way should not be surprising. First, Balboa and Newport boulevards are the major transportation arterials of the study area which provide sufficient width and continuity to permit reserved or exclusive lane transit operations. Further, since both streets are presently carrying large traffic volumes, certain 'negative' impacts of transit system development and operations (such as visual and noise intrusion) become of considerably less importance. Other street rights -of -way (such as Seashore Drive in West Newport and Bay Avenue in the Central Peninsula) were con$id(�red for transit operations but presented, in the study team's judgment, unacceptable negative impacts on the existing area as well as limitations for efficient transit operations due to the rigbt-of-way alignment and width.. In this chapter, a summary of the study team's assessment of key community impact considerations is presented followed by a discussion of possible system development rights -of -way utilizing 5-1 e-I I Newport and Balboa boulevards. Lastly, the proposed transit systems are dependent on the extent of restricting peninsula parking and parking on the periphery of the study area which, based on the study team's investigations and results of recently -completed studies, should be considered at the Caltrans-owned parcel on the north side of the Pacific Coast Highway east of Superior. COMMUNITY IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS The identification of a transit technology and routing requires an awareness of various system physical characteristics which may have positive and negative impacts on persons living or working near, and using transit services. The potential community impacts due to reserved or exclusive right-of-way transit operations in major street rights -of -way are summarized in Figures 5-1. More specifically, at - grade bus or LRT operations introduces impact considerations of varying magnitude and potential importance for community residents, including: o visual intrusion -- including the disruptive effect of noise barrier walls, safety fencing, and overhead catenary lines; o noise in excess of ambient levels; o disruption of through and cross street traffic -- due to transit operations in existing traffic lanes; o pedestrian barrier -- of particular concern in view of the high level of beach activity in the study area; o disruption during construction; o air.pollutant concentrations in excess of ambient levels -- particularly where frequent bus operations and involved; o station area changes -- including both positive changes in connection with major activity centers (such as McFadden Square on the Balboa Pier) and potentially disruptive changes in residential areas; and 5-2 M = M W FIGURE 5-1 1" M M BUS OR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT OPERATING AT GRADE IN MEDIAN OF MAJOR ARTERIAL access to transit vehicles As difficult for those system would not lack of grade with mobility problems obscure commercial separation causes unless right-of-way is signs conflict with other depressed or platforms vehicular traffic raised and ramped at stations in most cases OQ O lanes of traffic can remain W maintain 10 foot or greater sidewalk stations require more space taken in median - a minimum of a' more -for platform safety barrier or her transit right- -way designation is cessary to prevent affic from entering e right-of-way pedestrians must cross traffic lanes for access to trains parking or traffic capacity of street is lowered o LRT operations may cause vibration problems to adjoining properties. For the study area, the potential for both positive and negative community impacts should guide system development planning. More specifically, transit system development should be planned to account for the following aspects. o The potential for reinforcing activity centers at McFadden Square and the Balboa Pier (and possibly in the Via Lido and Cannery Village areas) with transit system 'stations' could be significant, based on the experience in other cities where transit systems have effectively served to shape development patterns. o The residential character of the Peninsula Point, Central Peninsula, and West Newport areas should be preserved. Transit operations in these areas is viewed, as being disruptive (except along the major traffic -carrying streets). In finalizing system alternatives for the study area, community impact considerations have been taken into account based on the particularly unique characteristics of the study area. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM ALIGNMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA For the proposed study area shuttle system using reserved or exclusive right-of-way, two alignments or toutings are reasonable. These routings are depicted in Figure 5-2 and maybe described as follows: 5-4 C � z-9 3unsi:j S1N31ME)3S 3inod MM `00 3=AWB GNV 1?MMVNVn 31V "ON 863LVIDOSSV amv Tm N" vinSNIN3d VOSIVS Aan1S NIVHI A3110HI isna 31llnHs HOV381HOdM3N AO ADD I I , I I QD 009 a 00ir .000 - AVG IHOdM3N NV300 01=110Vd SIN3NO38 311WO1808d (ZED CIN3E)31 A-B-C-D-H-I-J-K From a potential remote parking lot or facilities.east of Pacific Coast Highway via Balboa Boulevard to Balboa Pier (approximately 3.5 one-way miles). A-E-F-G-H-I-J-K From a potential remote parking lot or facilities east of Pacific Coast Highway via Newport Boulevard to McFadden Square then via Balboa Boulevard to Balboa Pier (approximately 3.1 one-way miles). The route segments which have been shaded•in Figure 5-2 are judged to be problematic for reserved or exclusive transit operations. A brief description of each segment including those identified as being problem segments follows for Balboa Boulevard and then for Newport Boulevard. Balboa Boulevard This is a critical problem area from the remote parking lot to Balboa Boulevard. Vehicles exiting the lot must operate in Pacific Coast Highway before turning into Balboa Boulevard. Without major structures that would require new right-of-way in the vicinity of 44th Street, it is likely that this section could only be made operable by special signals to control Coast Highway traffic plus•major reconstruction of the Coast Highway -Balboa Peninsula intersection that would probably involve use of already developed land on the southwest corner of this intersection. EO 1 RM C-D D-H 16,01 This section of Balboa Boulevard from the Coast Highway to 32nd Avenue has two traffic lanes in each direction plus parking along the center median in the east/bound direction. Balboa Boulevard widens to two traffic lanes in each direction plus a center turning lane and curb parking on both sides from 32nd Street to the McFadden Square area. In the vicinity of McFadden Square, Balboa Boulevard merges with Newport Boulevard presenting a confusing pattern of traffic movements. This has been identified as a difficult section due to the complex traffic movement requirements which need to be accommodated in conjunction with transit operations. Future development plans for the McFadden Square area should incorporate elements to address traffic patterns in this area. From McFadden Square to Alvarado Street, Balboa Boulevard is two traffic lanes in each direction plus parking along both the center median and curb on both sides: Left turn movements are permitted only at selected intersections. 5-7 If 1 I-J . From Alvarado Street to approximately Adams Street, 1 Balboa Boulevard narrows to two traffic lanes plus curb parking in each -direction. 1 J-K From approximately Adams Street to a terminal facility in the vicinity of the Balboa Pier has been identified as a potentially problematic area for reserved or exclusive lane transit operations due to uncertainty regarding locating the terminal, providing access and egress from this terminal, and the high level of commercial business activity in this area. Newport Boulevard A-E This segment from the remote parking area to Newport Boulevard on the west side of the Coast Highway may not be feasible without expensive rebuilding of the existing interchange to accommodate transit operations. E-F Newport Boulevard from its interchange with the Coast Highway to about 30th Street provides four traffic ' lanes, two in each direction plus one or more turning lanes and/or curb parking. Traffic turning movements through this business area are heavy and complex which 1 may make transit operations in a reserved or exclusive right-of-way infeasible. 5-8 �1 F=G From 30th Street to.25th Street, Newport Boulevard operates as• a pair of one-way streets each with two traffic lanes and curb parking on each side. South of 25th Street, Newport Boulevard enters the McFadden Square area already noted as being a problematic segment. Based on this preliminary analysis, exclusive or reserved right-of-way transit operations along Newport Boulevard would be substantially more costly and present operational problems through the Newport Beach central business area that makes its feasibility questionable. Bus or rail transit operations in mixed traffic (possibly with selected priority treatments where possible) could -be considered for these segments although rail operations for the A-F segment would still require expensive rebuilding of the existing Newport Boulevard -Pacific Coast Highway interchange. Further examination of the Balboa Boulevard alignment is appropriate at this point. This alignment as illustrated in Figure 5-2 is approximately 3.5 miles in length. Along its length, different types of route segments have been identified. Nearly three-quarters (approximately 2.6 miles) of the proposed routing involves the use of four and six arterial streets where there appear to be no major obstacles to system development provided that traffic, parking, and environmental impacts can be accommodated. The remaining 0.9 miles of the proposed routing is considered to be problematic for reserved or exclusive lane transit operations. However, mixed traffic operations along segments D-H and J-K should be possible without adversely' affecting system performance to a large degree. For segment A-B', bus transit operations in mixed traffic with special signalization treatments and possibly some modifications to the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway appear to be feasible (although further studies should be undertaken to confirm this judgment). Light rail transit operations might be 5-9 n I 1h accommodated in a similar manner for this segment but further investigation of this approach, is clearly necessary. PENINSULA PARKING In review of the existing traffic for winter -summer and weekday - weekend conditions, it became evident that parking is a major component of travel on the Balboa Peninsula. Particularly during summer - weekend conditions, parking is filled to capacity causing significant congestion as users circulate the peninsula streets in an effort to find an available space. This high parking demand primarily impacts the residents as those that leave the peninsula on a summer -weekend may not have the opportunity to return until after the beach/tourist parkers have left the peninsula at the end of the day. An understanding of the existing parking supply was identified as being essential in analyzing peninsula travel. In order to identify peninsula parking supply,the study team reviewed previous peninsula parking studies, conducted field surveys and reviewed the city's aerial photographs of the peninsula. These spaces were inventoried for both public and private parking spaces and are presented in Table 5-1. As illustrated on Table 5-1, there are slightly over 7,000 peninsula public parking spaces. These are defined as metered and unmetered on -street curb and off-street parking lot spaces. Approximately 75% or 5350 of the public parking spaces are unmetered located primarily in the residential portions of the Ocean Front and peninsula districts. Metered public parking is primarily located in the Central Newport and McFadden Square districts with some metered parking along Newport Boulevard in the Peninsula District. 5-10 71 "No W W M M M- � so W M no" W so No M M= M DISTRICT Ocean Front Central Newport McFadden Square Peninsula Total** TABLE 5-1 BALBOA PENINSULA DISTRICT PARKING SUMMARY PUBLIC PARKING Sub -Total Metered UnMetered Public PRIVATE.* TOTAL -------- 1,150 1,150 20 1,170 850 550 1,400 2,300 3,700 600 150 750 400 1,150 350 3,500 3,850 450 4,300 1,800 5,350 7,150 3,170 10,320 Metered: Includes on -street curb and off-street parking lots Unmetered: Includes on -street curb and off-street parking lots Private: Includes customer and employee parking areas and restricted private parking facilities such as the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. Does not include residential off-street or garage parking. * Private parking does, not include private garage spaces ** Lido Isle parking not included Private employee and customer lots are located in the commerical areas of Central Newport and McFadden Square. Given the significant number of free parking spaces close to the beach it is easy to recognize the popularity of Newport Beach by the summer beach users and tourists. Although there are a significant number of public parking facilities, parking demand exceeds supply during the summer week -end period. This results from the competition for these' finite spaces between the peninsula resident and the beach user. This condition is not as prevalent during the summer weekday period as many of the peninsula residents leave the peninsula for work, etc., and therefore free -up many of the public free spaces. Discussions with city staff and local residents indicate that during the winter parking supply generally exceeds demand except in isolated locations. Because of the competition of parking demand between resident and beach user during the summer periods, either some form of parking control or pricing may be warranted in conjunction with the selected land use and transit alternative. In -Lieu Parking The City of Newport Beach currently allows commercial businesses to provide all or a portion of their required commercial off-street parking in a municipal lot by paying an annual fee of $150 per space, assuming a municipal parking lot is within reasonable proximity to the commercial business. Given the relatively high cost of land in Central Balboa, the City Planning Department conducted a 'In -Lieu' Parking Study in March 1981 to determine whether this $150 annual fee was in line with the value of providing said parking. This analysis indicated that an annual fee commensurate with peninsula land 5-12 values, construction costs, etc., are actually in the range of $1,000 to $3,000. Given the high land cost, the high end of the range reflected a small surface parking lot. The lower end of the range reflected a large parking structure. In comparing the current in -lieu parking fee with the actual cost to provide said parking, a significant disparity exists. It would therefore appear reasonable that the in -lieu fees could be increased to cover the value of the parking at a minimum. If a portion of the in -lieu parking were to be provided at a remote lot and serviced by transit, then the in -lieu fee could cover a portion of the transit capital and operating costs. REMOTE PARKING FOR TRANSIT SHUTTLE SYSTEM The proposed transit shuttle system is dependent on the availability of parking spaces on the periphery of the study area. The most logical site in the study area that can accommodate a peripheral parking facility is the Caltrans-owned parcel on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Hoag Hospital, however, is in the process of acquiring this parcel from Caltrans for expansion purposes. Therefore in order to provide remote parking and hence consider a transit shuttle program, the City of Newport Beach will be required to negotiate joint use of this property. The study team's preliminary investigation determined that the net useable acreage could provide approximately 1200 surface parking spaces, with allowances for two access points, a facility for transit system passenger loading and unloading, and additional space allocated for transit vehicle storage. No provision was made for transit vehicle maintenance or administration facilities. Integrating this site into the proposed transit shuttle system appears to have several constraints. As already noted, grading limitations as well as traffic circulation virtually eliminate any viable direct 5-13 access to Newport Boulevard east of Pacific Coast Highway. Accessing Newport Boulevard would most likely be via a new signalized ft exit/entrance at Pacific Coast Highway, and a left turn, to southbound Pacific Coast Highway to Newport Boulevard on -ramp. Accessing the site from eastbound Newport Boulevard would be somewhat circuitous along the Newport Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway interchange system. Accessing Balboa Boulevard could be accomplished via the exit/entrance on Pacific Coast Highway, mentioned above, with a left turn required in each direction of travel. In addition, the site could access Balboa Boulevard from an entrance at the new alignment of Superior Avenue; however, this entrance could have considerable grading and cost considerations. In short, site access and egress deserves more detailed investigation should it be determined to proceed with implementation of the proposed shuttle transit system. 5-14 II II CHAPTER 6 COMBINED LAND USE AND TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Building on the definitions of land use alternatives, transit system alternatives, right-of-way and environmental assessment and the trip projection and market segmentation analysis presented in the preceding chapters, a series of combined land use and transit system alternatives were developed for detailed investigation. Only a limited number of alternatives could be examined within the scope of the study, and six alternatives were decided upon that would encompass all key factors for assessing the feasibility of shuttle transit services on the Balboa Peninsula. Over 60 combined alternatives were identified as being possible. Alternatives are possible for various combinations of: o Land use -- capacity constraint, trend, and master plan buildout; o Season -- winter or summer; o Shuttle system -- none (except for expanded regional services), downtown -oriented bus services, shuttle bus services operating in mixed traffic, shuttle bus or light rail transit services operating in partially or fully reserved right-of-way. (shuttle system alternatives could be managed and operated by the OCTD, the City, or other appropriate agency or private contractor); and o Parking management program -- none, or program designed to complement transit system alternatives. Clearly, not all possible combinations need to be addressed. Based on the analysis results of the preceding chapters, the study team narrowed the number of possible alternatives to those which appeared to be the most feasible. 6-1 In narrowing the number of alternatives to be considered, the study team applied its _judgment concerning several key issues. Most importantly, it was.determined that shuttle transit services could only be effectively employed to attract selected types of trips. Since the shuttle transit system alternatives under consideration would only provide service to the peninsula area, study area residents would be an extremely difficult group to capture with transit service. In other words, the volume of intra-peninsula trips that could be attracted to shuttle transit services would not significantly affect traffic conditions, and external trips made by residents would not be served by the transit systems under consideration. However, work trips made to the study area and other trips involving longer -term parking including beach and tourist trips might be effectively captured by shuttle transit services without adversely affecting the employees, beach and tourist visitors, and others making these trips. Further, the volume of these trips would be sufficiently large that significant impacts on traffic levels could be achieved as desired. The study team also concluded that an effective parking management program should also be considered in conjunction with shuttle transit services, designed to complement the effectiveness of the proposed transit services. The parking management concept may be similar in nature to current systems in operation on Newport Island. Additional components for application to the study area would be the consideration of permits for employees and special considerations for the short term parking needs of commercial and tourist -oriented businesses. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY As already noted, six alternatives were selected for further investigation. Each of these six alternatives is summarized in the following paragraphs and presented in Table 6-1. 6-2 M ae 00ar as r r m NOUNoft o rw so r, M on r ■s TABLE 6-1 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY CENTRAL PENINSULA NEWPORT PENINSULA RESERVED PARKING LAND USE SEASON SHUTTLE SHUTTLE RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT* Capacity. I Constraint Winter None None No No II Capacity Summer None Bus No Yes Constraint III Trend Winter Van None No Yes IV Trend Summer Van Bus No Yes V Trend Summer Van Bus Yes No Light VI Master Plan Winter No Rail Yes Yes Buildout Transit *•Increase in In -Lieu Parking Fees recommended for all alternaltives. Capacity Constraint Land Use Two alternatives were defined for this land use alternative, one for the winter season and one for the summer season. In this case, traffic growth is controlled by limiting land use development so that resultant traffic volumes (during the winter months) can be accommodated by the street network operating at its capacity. In the summer months, it is proposed that a shuttle bus system be operated on weekdays and weekends (in conjunction with parking management controls) to accommodate beach -related and tourist activities. Regional bus services will be expanded as appropriate to handle increased passenger demands in accordance with county -wide service policies and standards. In summary, two alternatives have been defined in conjunction with the capacity constrained land use development scenerio. Restricted land use development will serve to limit traffic growth in the winter months while shuttle bus services operating in mixed traffic from remote parking facilities to the study area have been included for the summer months. Trend Land Use This is considered to be the most likely scenerio for future land use development, and also is believed to permit the study area to grow in accordance with the city's current objectives for balanced development. Three alternatives have been defined for trend land use development as follows. o Winter -- regiopal bus service plus shuttle bus services oriented to the central business area in conjunction with central area parking controls. With remote parking north of the Pacific Coast Highway, this alternative has been designed to intercept employees and others requiring longer -term parking in the central'area. This approach is similar to that defined in the 1977 Wilbur 6-4 Smith and Associates Central Newport Beach Parking Study. o Summer -- regional bus service plus shuttle bus services (operating in mixed traffic) serving both the central area for employees and peninsula for beach visitors and tourists are included in this alternative to relieve traffic congestion conditions on both weekdays and weekends. A parking management program would be designed to reinforce the shuttle transit concept, restricting parking in the study area for certain types of trips. o Summer -- this alternative is the same as the one described above, except that the shuttle bus system is operated in a partially or fully reserved right-of-way and only limited parking controls are instituted in the study area. Master Plan Buildout Land Use One alternative was defined for the Master Plan Buildout Land Use Alternative. The traffic volumes associated with this land use development are high and require major transportation system improvements to be implemented. For this final alternative, winter conditions were assumed with development of a light rail transit system operating in partially or fully reserved right-of-way together with complementary parking controls in the study area. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES Six alternatives have been specified as described in the preceding section. In detailing the characteristics of the alternatives, system performance results were approximated and then successively refined with system characteristics also being refined as appropriate. Thus, the characteristics of each 6-5 alternative presented in this section have been developed after one or two 'cycles' of evaluation analysis. Transit Services All of the alternatives assume that regional bus services will continue to operate as presently is done, with service levels modified as appropriate in accordance with ridership levels and operating standards. It is possible that regional bus services could be modified to interface with shuttle services at the remote parking lot but this was not studied. In short, the study team does not anticipate substantial growth in regional bus ridership and, correspondingly, service changes should be expected to be modest. Shuttle transit services vary for each alternative specified in this chapter. Routing Bus or rail transit services designed to accommodate beach visitors and tourists will generally operate along Balboa Boulevard from the Caltrans parcel (to be used for remote parking) to the Balboa Pier as described in an earlier chapter. Peninsula shuttle services might be routed through the central area via Newport Boulevard to provide access to parking spaces in the central area as well as to serve employees and others requiring longer term parking on summer weekdays who may be using the remote parking facilities shuttle bus services. They may also be implemented specifically for employees and others requiring longer term parking. In this case, buses will operate from the Caltrans parcel via Newport Boulevard through the central area to 32nd Avenue or possibly McFadden Square. Days/Hours Peninsula shuttle services are assumed to operate on weekdays and weekends, generally for approximately 12 hours per day from June through August. Central area shuttle services would be operated on weekdays only, generally for approximately 12 hours per day. Vehicles For peninsula shuttle services designed for beach visitors or tourists, high capacity sightseeing or transit vehicles have been specified. For central area shuttle services, smaller vehicles providing a seated passenger capacity of 10-15 appear to be appropriate. As will be seen in the following chapter, the designation of high capacity equipment for peninsula shuttle services is to provide the necessary passenger carrying capacity.. Frequency of Service For all alternatives, it has been assumed that service frequencies will not be longer than five minutes between vehicles in the same direction. It is believed that service frequencies of this level are necessary for shuttle services to be perceived by users as being sufficiently convenient to encourage continued use. On the other hand and perhaps more importantly, minimum frequencies have also been specified which will serve to limit the capacity of the shuttle system. For selected alternatives, the capacity of the shuttle transit system does become a limiting factor (rather than parking availability or traffic volumes at the Pacific Coast Highway study area screenline). While it is recognized that several factors affect specification of minimum frequencies, it has been assumed as two minutes for buses operating in mixed traffic, one and one-half minutes for buses in W reserved rights -of -way, and two minutes for LRT or trolley vehicles operating in partially or fully reserved rights -of -way. Parking Management Parking Management contains five essential elements. These are: 1. Conversion of some unmetered parking spaces to metered; 2. Modify current pricing and time limits; 3. Institute a parking by permit program; 4. Increase in -lieu fees to•cover actual cost of providing parking spaces; and 5. Construct a remote parking facility at the Pacific Coast - Highway Caltrans parcel. Preliminary suggested changes in these elements are as follows. Actual recommendations will depend upon selected land use and transit alternative. o Convert all parking spaces on Newport Boulevard south of McFadden Square,to metered parking. This would increase the percent of metered to total parking in the Peninsula District from 10 to 50 percent. At Balboa Pier parking area, during the summer period, continue with attendant collection of a fee commensurate with local state beaches (approximately $3.00). o Convert unmetered parking spaces on Balboa Boulevard to metered parking. o Increase metered parking cost and parking time limit in commercial areas. o In the residential area within the Ocean Front and Peninsula District, implement a residential parking permit program similar to other programs within the city M. - (Newport Island). Eligibility for receiving/purchasing a parking permit could be extended to the entire City. o Increase in -lieu parking fees from $150 annually to a minimum of $3,000 to offset the cost to actually supply in -lieu parking or provide shuttle to remote lot. o Implement a remote parking facility at the Pacific Coast Highway Caltrans parcel. The number of spaces required depends upon (1) land use alternative, (2) transit CHAPTER 7 COMBINED ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 7-1 summarizes the study team's evaluation of the six selected land use and transit system alternatives. A brief discussion of the evaluation results for both the winter and summer alternatives follows to highlight key conclusions. WINTER ALTERNATIVES Three winter alternatives were investigated -- one each for the capacity constraint, trend, and master plan buildout land use plans. For the capacity constraint alternative, traffic volumes at the screenline and elsewhere in the study area are increased but traffic congestion levels are judged to be acceptable albeit perhaps somewhat worse in selected locations than for existing conditons. The supply of parking spaces is adequate to meet demands although localized imbalances in the central area might exist depending on the nature of new development projects. Since traffic and parking conditions are acceptable, the development of a transit shuttle system and remote parking facilities for selected trips to the central area is not warranted. For the trend land use alternative, it becomes necessary to encourage remote parking with a shuttle bus connection to the central area for 200-300 employees and others making trips requiring longer term parking. This shuttle bus system could also serve as a circulator bus service in the central area for general public use. Traffic volumes at the study area screenline are approaching maximum capacity but traffic congestion levels are generally acceptable. Elsewhere in the study area, traffic congestion will be worse than for the capacity constraint land use alternatives but problem areas should be localized depending on the nature and location of new development projects. 7-1 I 1 I I 11 I 1 I TABLE 7-1 EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR SELECTED LAND USE AND TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES I II III IV V VI ' Capacity Capacity Trend Trend Trend Master Plan E Constraint Constraint •Buildout Winter Summer Winter Summer Summer Winter MIXED NCENTRALARMEA X X RESERVE X F-WAY RESERVE X RIGHTF-WAY AREA X X X SHUTTLE CORDON =AFFIC V 84 106 90 106 106 110 (THOUSAND LEVEL OF TRAFFICAcceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable CONGESTIO DESIGN DAILY RID -0- 12,000 500 20,000 30,000 44,000 (THOUSAND CAPITAL ($ MILLIO-0- 12.5 3.5 24.5 40.3 168.60 ANNUALIZE CAPITAL AND] _0_ 2.0 0.9 4.0 6.3 25.4 OPERATING REMOTE PARKING _ 300 300 1700 2300 10,400 SPACES BEACH VISITOR _ _ _ 5500 7700 - R-EDUCTION PARKING SPACES _ _ _ - 800 800 REMOVED t I For this second winter alternative, the need for remote parking is dictated by pressures on available parking in the central area. While adequate parking may be available, it was judged that imbalances in the demand for and supply of parking spaces within the central area would necessitate either providing additional spaces in the central area or remote parking as defined for this alternative. However, it should be noted that this analysis has been based on several assumptions, and a more detailed investigation of central area development and parking characteristics is probably warranted before proceeding with ' implementation. Table 7-1 shows the capital costs for developing the remote parking facilities and shuttle bus system, and also the annual cost of operating the system for nine months and amortized share of the capital cost (amounting to an estimated ' cost of $0.9 million). The third winter alternative is for the master plan buildout land use alternative. The results summarized in Table 7-1 clearly show that this alternative is not feasible, resulting in traffic ' volumes which substantially exceed street capacity levels, unacceptable traffic congestion, and major capital expenditures for remote parking and transit system development in an attempt to alleviate traffic and parking conditions. Analysis results indicate that this land use alternative should be discarded from consideration for the study area's development. Key Winter Findings and Conclusions Study analysis has indicated that development of limited remote parking facilities with central area shuttle bus service should be considered as land use development approaches that called for in the trend plan. Fundings will be required for implementing this approach and, based on preliminary estimates developed in this study, it appears that in -lieu parking charges of $3,000 annually would be adequate for complete funding. Again, it should be noted that a number of assumptions were made in ' 7-3 I carrying out this analysis, and more detailed consideration of ' central area development plans including limits on the number of in lieu parking spaces is probably warranted before proceeding ' with implementation of the remote parking and transit•system development program. SUMMER ALTERNATIVES Three summer alternatives were investigated -- one for the capacity constraint land use plan and two for trend land use development. Each of these alternatives is reviewed below. ' Capacity Constraint ' In this case, implementation of remote parking facilities in conjunction with bus shuttle operations serving the peninsula is needed to avoid excessive traffic volumes and congestion. Study area parking for beach and related trips is also not sufficient but controlling traffic volumes and congestion is the primary ' determinant of remote parking and transit service requirements. ' Table 7-1 summarizes the key evaluation results related to this alternative. It is estimated that providing 800 parking spaces at the Caltrans parcel would be adequate and with effective parking management and transit services to the peninsula, traffic ' volumes and congestion would be controlled within acceptable limits. Capital costs are estimated to be 812.5 million, two-thirds of which is for the development of remote parking facilities. Annualized capital costs plus operating costs only for the summer months are estimated to be $2.0 million annually. It is reasonable that some portion of the costs of the parking facilities and transit system operations be charged directly to beach users. For the summer months, it is estimated that nearly 1 million autos are parked in the study area by beach users (an 1 7-4 average of about 11,000 each day for the three summer months). On this basis, parking charges for beach users of approximately, $2.00 per day would be sufficient to cover the costs of parking facilities development and transit system operations. This charge (subject to more detailed refinement of parking management and pricing strategies) is in line with charges currently made at other beaches in the vicinity. Trend (Shuttle in Mixed Traffic) This is one of two alternatives defined for the trend land use plan. In establishing this alternative, it differs from its companion alternative for trend shuttle bus system operates in mixed traffic rather than in a reserved or exclusive right-of-way. For this alternative, both traffic and parking conditions in the study area were found to be determinants of remote parking requirements with the former being the primary determinant. However, the capacity of the shuttle bus system for transporting beach visitors and tourists limited the number of remote parking spaces which could be provided, resulting in an estimated 5500 beach visitors (or about 12-13 percent of the estimated number of beach users from outside the study area) not being able to use the beach. Traffic volumes at the study area screenline are at maximum capacity levels, and traffic congestion conditions should be acceptable except for selected locations which may be problematic. Effective parking management in conjunction with careful land use development planning should serve to minimize potential traffic congestion problems. Parking in the study area will be approaching its capacity with possible localized problems. The central area shuttle bus system specified for the trend land use alternative will be operated through the summer months as an element of this combined alternative. 11 7-5 II The capital costs for development of 1700 remote parking spaces and shuttle bus system are estimated to be $24.5 million as shown in Table 7-1. Annualized capital costs and summer operating costs are estimated at $4.0 million. If paid for by parking charges levied on beach users (about 850,000 autos parked by beach users for this alternative), this would require a daily parking charge of about $4.70 which would probably serve to discourage beach use. Thus, if current beach activity is to be maintained with remote parking and transit shuttle, an additional source of funding must be identified for this alternative. i Trend (Shuttle on Exclusive Lane) As already noted, this alternative differs from the preceding one ' in that shuttle bus service is operated on an exclusive or reserved right-of-way to the maximum extent possible. This difference introduces two key factors into the analysis --first, ' the level of service provided by the shuttle bus system should be higher (a concern of both Alternatives II and IV is that the ' shuttle bus system operating in mixed traffic will 'break down' in localized traffic congestion, affecting the system's ability ' to operate effectively and serving to significantly discourage beach use); and second, development of an exclusive right-of-way will result in the elimination of an estimated 800 street parking spaces along Balboa and Newport Boulevards which will necessitate increased remote parking and transit system capacity. Table 7-1 shows the results of this alternative which are similar in many respects to those already presented for the first trend land use alternative, except that costs are higher for its implementation and an estimated 7700'beach users cannot be accommodated due to transit system capacity limitations. For ' this alternative, annualized capital costs and bus operating costs for the summer months amount to about $7.75 per auto parked II ' 7-6 by beach users over the summer months. As for the first trend land use alternative, other sources of funding support would be needed to implement this alternative if reasonable beach parking rates were to be maintained. Key Summer Findings and Conclusions It is clear from this study analysis for the summer alternatives that the city should undertake a combined program of remote parking, shuttle transit services, and parking management if continued development of the study area is to be permitted while avoiding unacceptable levels of traffic congestion. Further, study analysis demonstrates that special attention will be needed if such a strategy is to be effectively developed and funded under trend land use conditions without resulting in decreased beach usage by non-residents of the study area. The two alternatives investigated for trend land use development during the summer months indicated a number of the trade-offs and issues which need to be considered further in this regard, and at this point, both policy guidance from the city coupled with follow-up actions to initiate remote parking, shuttle transit services, and parking management on a limited basis during the summer months in the study area are needed to provide a sound foundation for the study area's future development. CONCLUSIONS The first phase of the Balboa Peninsula Bus/Trolley Study concludes that: o The capacity constraint and trend growth land use alternatives can potentially be balanced with the planned highway system. o A transit shuttle system could effectively address highway capacity deficiencies if transit demand is artificially induced with remote parking areas and peninsula parking management programs. 7-7 o The Conceptual Recommended Alternative (Figure 7-1) be selected for further refinement in Phase II. If the City Council elects to continue with the transit shuttle and the second phase of the study the primary objectives would be to: o Refine the preferred transit system land use alternative, o Develop a comprehensive transit implementation program, and o Provide necessary environmental documentation to support implementation of the preferred alternative. o The Conceptual Recommended Alternative (Figure 7-1) be selected for further refinement in Phase II. If the City Council elects to continue with the transit shuttle and the second phase of the study the primary objectives would be to; o Refine the preferred transit system land use alternative, o Develop a comprehensive transit implementation program, and o Provide necessary environmental documentation to support implementation of the preferred alternative. MM 7: :iel00wiIOMI1► Rkial10 Trimble, Daniel From: Diane Kotler [commuting @ anaheim.net] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:33 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Cc: Wood, Sharon Subject: Re: 2000/01 federal appropriation plan Trimble, Daniel wrote: > Diane, > Thank you for getting this effort started again. A joint request still > appears to be the best way to ensure adequate political support for both > city's proposals. How would you like to proceed? > Dan Trimble > City of Newport Beach > -----Original Message----- • From: Diane Kotler [mailto:commuting@anaheim.net] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 19991:09 PM > To: Wood, Sharon > Cc: daviski @sce.com; (smith@atnetwork.org; > dtrimble@city.newport-beach.ca.us > Subject: 2000/01 federal approroation plan > Well, it is time that we begin to think about our electric bus projects > and try to develop our request(s) early in the legislative process. I > will be developing a legislative program for Anaheim, and would like to > know if you are still interested in submitting a joint (Orange County) > request. Thank you, Diana I am glad to hear that your are interested. I will put some thoughts on paper next week and forward it for your consideration and we will go from their. Thanks. Electric Car Glow Fades, But Calif. Mandate Looms M A http://dailynews.yahoo.con/heaanes/sc/.../nm/19990503/sc/environment autos_4.html Home - Yahool - My Ya ool - Helo ;;•r p;;• i ;•r ti ; Z in-_- . ......0 ..... a %. Home I Full Coverage I Top Stories I Business I Tech I Politics I world I Local I Entertainment I ap= fids"A"R FYAhool News Science Headlines Monday May 312:33 AM ET Electric Car Glow Fades, But Calif. Mandate Looms By Deena Beasley LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's dream of clean -running cars powered by electric batteries may be fading, as at least one major automaker and a utility are abandoning the still -emerging market. But although Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and Edison International (NYSE:EIX - news), the parent of the Southern California Edison electric utility, are having second thoughts about electric cars, California is still requiring that zero -emission vehicles account for 10 percent of cars for sale in the state by 2003. Currently, only cars powered by electric batteries meet those standards, although new technologies, such as fuel cells, have shown promise. Several automakers, including GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE:DAJ - news) and Toyota Motor Corp. (Nasdaq:TOYOY - news ,market electric -powered cars, mostly under leasing programs. And environment -friendly autos remain near the top of the auto industry's agenda, spurred in large part by government mandates to boost fuel economy and cut tailpipe emissions. Some companies, like Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F - news and General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - news), are even moving ahead with plans to sell electric vehicles using next -generation nickel metal hydride batteries. Consumer demand for electric cars, however, has been muted. Despite the huge amounts of money spent on research, marketing and even tax incentives, less than 3,000 of the battery -fueled cars are on the road in the United States, And even though battery -powered cars have no tailpipe emissions, some critics argue that the gains are more than offset by emissions from the power plants -- many fueled by coal -- that generate the electricity that runs the cars. Smog -plagued California decided several years ago that by 2003 at least 10 percent of cars offered for sale in the state by major manufacturers had to be completely pollution -free. But efforts to encourage the new technology and establish a network of charging stations were dealt a blow this week. Edison International said Thursday it would close the books on its three -year -old Edison EV unit, which 1 of 3 513199 4.43 PM Electric Car Glow Fades, But Calif. Mandate Looms http://dailynews.yahoo.con/headlines/sc/.../nm/19990503/sc/environment autos_4.htm1 was set up to install electric battery charging stations in California and Arizona. "We came to the realization that the EV market just isn't growing as fast as we initially expected. It doesn't make sense for Edison to continue," Gloria Quinn, a spokeswomen for Edison EV, said. Japan's Honda would certainly appear to agree with that assessment. The Japanese automaker's U.S. division said Thursday that Honda was no longer making its EV Plus electric car. Honda leased about 300 of the electric vehicles -- with about half going to fleet -type operations rather than individuals -- a goal it had committed to when the cars were introduced two years ago, Honda spokesman Art Garner said. "I think we hoped for a stronger consumer demand for the vehicle. People like the car who leased it, but the drawback is, obviously, the range," Garner said. The average driving range for an electric car with a lead -acid battery is about 75 miles between charges. Another oft -quoted problem with EVs is their high cost -- the EV Plus leased for an all-inclusive $455 a month. The Honda move has angered the state's air regulators. The California Air Resources Board is "so unhappy with what Honda is doing, our legal department is looking into our options," said spokesman Rich Varenchick. He maintained that the Japanese carmaker not only agreed to lease 300 vehicles, but also committed to keeping up with customer demand for the autos. "People are still calling Honda dealerships to lease EVs and are being told they are not available," Varenchick said. Honda is one of several automakers that plan to soon introduce a low -emission, high -mileage car powered by a hybrid gasoline -electric engine to the U.S. market. But the Air Board spokesman noted that hybrid engines, which use an on -board battery charged by a gasoline engine and by energy captured from braking the car, do not meet the state's zero -emissions mandate. Fuel cells -- which use hydrogen -based fuels to generate power electrochemically, producing only heat and water as byproducts -- are being used in a number of prototype vehicles, but commercial production of a fuel cell -powered car is not expected for several more years. Edison said it is working to wind up operations at its battery charging stations in three to six months, although it hopes to find new operators. Edison EV operated about 250 public charging stations and several thousand private residence and government fleet stations, Quinn said. 2of3 5/3/99 4:43 PM Electric Car Glow Fades, But Calif. Mandate Looms hitp://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/sc/.../nm/19990503/sc%nvironment_autos_4,htm1 (J Search News Stories 0 Search News Photos May 021 Ma�01 1 Apr 301 Apr 291 Apr 281 Apr 271 Apr 261 Apr 251 Apr 241 Apr 23 Home I Full Coverage I Ton Stories I Business I Tech I Politics I World I Local I Entertainment I Snorts I® Questions or Comments Copyright © 1999 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. 3of3 Los Angeles Times Highway 1 http://www.latimes.con-WHOMEINEWS/HIGHWAYlfiat—ev990429.httn Thursday, April 29, 1999 Honda Unit Stops Making Battery -Powered Electric Car ■ Autos: Decision signals new focus on other alternative fuels. It also raises concern among state regulators and environmentalists. By JOHN O'DELL, Times Staff Writer Highway 1 RELATED Il Honda Unit Stops Making Battery -Powered Electric Car IM What You'll Be Driving RM-r.. t:.. . . ■ - Despite Progress. Obstacles Still Remain for Fuel -Cell Vehicles INSIDE Behind the Wheel Your W heels The Highway 1 List Good Carma Two Wheel Ride merican Honda Motor Co. has quietly stopped production of its EV Plus, becoming the first major auto maker to acknowledge that it sees no future in marketing costly battery -powered electric cars. After spending ' hundreds of millions 14r» of dollars to develop storage battery technology, the auto industry is starting to pull the plug. Honda's decision to drop out of the battery pack is one of the strongest In May of 1997, Miller Honda of Van Nuys fleet manager Dwayne Johnson prepares a Honda EV indications yet that Plus electric car for Its debut. this once -promising JOEL P. LUGAVERE/LosAngeles Times technology is failing to win over consumers. Instead of working on battery electrics, Honda wants to join the rest of the industry in focusing its efforts on such technologies as fuel cells --which produce electricity directly and don't need heavy, expensive batteries that have limited driving range. Honda's pullback could touch off a battle with the California Air Resources Board. "We're highly disappointed in Honda," CARB's chief deputy director, Tom Cackette, said Wednesday. "We are concerned that this violates their agreement with the board to continue to produce battery -electric vehicles if customer demand warrants it." He added that the board will investigate. At least one environmental group is also taking issue with Honda's position. The company "has shown a lack of good faith about environmental laws," said Roland Hwang, a San Francisco -based analyst with the Union of 1 of 3 4/29/9910:25 AM Los Angeles Times Highway I http://www.latimes.com/HOMEINEWS/HIGHWAY14aLev990429.htm Concerned Scientists. But Honda executives "don't believe we're in violation," company spokesman Art Garner said. "The program has met both the letter and the spirit of the agreement. Our commitment was to lease 300 electric vehicles over three years, and we've done that." Torrance -based American Honda, often lauded for its leadership in producing low -emission vehicles, says the EV Plus has outlived its usefulness as a research platform and that it was unsuccessful in developing public demand. Most leases were to businesses and government agencies required by law to use lower -emission vehicles. The decision to stop making the EV Plus "sends a lot of signals," said Thad Malesh, senior analyst and alternate -fuels specialist at J.D. Power & Associates in Agoura Hills. "They are certainly being more honest that anyone else about [battery -dependent] electrics." In another blow to the battery -electric movement, Edison International, concerned about the poor public acceptance of the vehicles, confirmed Wednesday that it is closing its Edison EV subsidiary, which has installed 250 charging stations in California and Arizona. Even Toyota Motor Sales USA, which has committed to continued development of its battery -powered RAV4 electric, says the autos have no real appeal for consumers because of high•cost and limited range. But these developments don't mean the industry is veering off the "green" highway. Auto makers, in fact, are stepping up efforts to create commercially acceptable zero -emission vehicles in order to meet clean -air mandates in California, New York and several other states. California air -quality rules require that up to 10% of all new cars sold by the seven leading car companies in this state's market be classified as zero -emission vehicles, or ZEVs, starting in 2003. A new class of "super -ultra -low -emission" vehicles can be used to offset a big chunk of the zero -emission requirement, but each company must have a minimum of 4% of its new cars meet ZEV standards. That's at least 54,000 vehicles --more than 7,000 for Honda alone --based on 1998 California car sales. Yet fewer than 2,400 battery electric cars and trucks have been sold or leased in the U.S. in the last three years, most of them in California. Although the vehicles generally draw praise from users for reliability and comfort, their utility is limited by storage battery technology, the key reason auto makers are now concentrating on fuel cells. Battery packs add hundreds of pounds to a vehicle's weight and can cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace (battery life ranges from three to six years). Then there's the high cost (EV leases average $450 a month) and the short range (few EVs in real -world use can go more than 2 of 3 4/29/9910:25 AM Los Angeles Times Highway i http.✓/www.latimes.conVHOME/NEWS/HIGHWAYlAat_ev990429.htm -C- , M 75 miles between charges). Most auto makers don't expect an alternative to batteries to be ready until after the 2003 California deadline, so they have adopted attitudes like that of Toyota. It intends to continue producing the RAW electric sport -utility for several more years and plans to lease 1,000 of them. There are 500 in use now. In addition to Toyota, such major auto makers as General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Nissan say they will continue to develop battery -electric vehicles while pursuing other technologies. With its decision to discontinue the EV Plus, Honda may be signaling that it has an alternative zero -emissions vehicle in the pipeline, industry watchers say. Honda is enthusiastic about its new VV hybrid gasoline -electric vehicle. The $19,500 two-seater, to go on sale in the U.S. next year, uses an electric motor to boost a small gas engine. It gets 70 miles per gallon of gas and is classified as an ultra -low -emissions car. Copyright Los Angeles Times News �o I Site Index ► Go 3 of 3 4/29/99 10:25 AM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.httn TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century Moving Americans into the 21st Century TEA-21 Home I DOT Home TITLE <<NOTE: Federal Transit Act of 1998. Grants. Inter- governmental relations. Loans.>> III --FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5101 note.>> This title may be cited as the "Federal Transit Act of 1998'' SEC. 3002. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE. Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of title 49, United States Code. SEC. 3003. DEFINITIONS. Section 5302 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 5302. Definitions (a) In General. --In this chapter, the following definitions apply: (1) Capital project. --The term capital project' means a project for-- " (A) acquiring, constructing, supervising, or inspecting equipment or a facility for use in mass transportation, expenses incidental to the acquisition or construction (including designing, engineering, location surveying, mapping, and acquiring rights -of - way), payments for the capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements, transit - related intelligent transportation systems, relocation assistance, acquiring replacement housing sites, and acquiring, constructing, relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing; (B) rehabilitating a bus; (C) remanufacturing a bus, (D) overhauling rail rolling stock; (E) preventive maintenance; (F) leasing equipment or a facility for use in mass transportation, subject to regulations that the Secretary prescribes limiting the leasing arrangements to those that are more cost-effective than purchase or construction; (G) a mass transportation improvement that enhances economic development or incorporates private investment, including commercial and residential development, pedestrian and bicycle access to a mass transportation facility, and the renovation and improvement of historic transportation facilities, because the improvement enhances the effectiveness of a mass transportation project and is related physically or functionally to that mass transportation project, or establishes new or enhanced coordination between mass transportation and other transportation, and provides a fair share of revenue for mass transportation that will 1 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htin be used for mass transportation-- " (i) including property acquisition, demolition of existing structures, site preparation, utilities, building foundations, walkways, open space, safety and security equipment and facilities (including lighting, surveillance and related intelligent transportation system applications), facilities that incorporate community services such as daycare and health care, and a capital project for, and improving, equipment or a facility for an intermodal transfer facility or transportation mall, except that a person making an agreement to occupy space in a facility under this subparagraph shall pay a reasonable share of the costs of the facility through rental payments and other means; and (ii) excluding construction of a commercial revenue -producing facility or a part of a public facility not related to mass transportation; (H) the introduction of new technology, through innovative and improved products, into mass transportation; or "(I) the provision of nonfixed route paratransit transportation services in accordance with section 223 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12143), but only for grant recipients that are in compliance with applicable requirements of that Act, including both fixed route and demand responsive service, and only for amounts not to exceed 10 percent of such recipient's annual formula apportionment under sections 5307 and 5311. " (2) Chief executive officer of a state. --The term 'chief executive officer of a State' includes the designee of the chief executive officer. " (3) Emergency regulation. --The term emergency regulation' means a regulation -- -(A) that is effective temporarily before the expiration of the otherwise specified periods of time for public notice and comment under section 5334(b); and (B) prescribed by the Secretary as the result of a finding that a delay in the effective date of the regulation-- " (i) would injure seriously an important public interest; " (ii) would frustrate substantially legislative policy and intent; or " (iii) would damage seriously a person or class without serving an important public interest. (4) Fixed guideway. --The term 'fixed guideway' means a mass transportation facility-- " (A) using and occupying a separate right-of-way or rail for the exclusive use of mass transportation and other high occupancy vehicles; or " (B) using a fixed catenary system and a right-of- way usable by other forms of transportation. " (5) Handicapped individual. --The term 'handicapped individual' means an individual who, because of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other incapacity or temporary or permanent disability (including an individual who is a wheelchair user or has semiambulatory capability), cannot use effectively, without special facilities, planning, or design, mass transportation service or a mass transportation facility. " (6) Local governmental authority. --The term %local 2 of 58 3/25199 100 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2M2400iii.htin governmental authority' includes -- -(A) a political subdivision of a State; " (B) an authority of at least 1 State or political subdivision of a State; (C) an Indian tribe; and (D) a public corporation, board, or commission established under the laws of a State. " (7) Mass transportation. --The term 'mass transportation' means transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or sightseeing transportation. " (8) Net project cost. --The term 'net project cost' means the part of a project that reasonably cannot be financed from revenues. " (9) New bus model. --The term 'new bus model' means a bus model (including a model using alternative fuel) -- -(A) that has not been used in mass transportation in the United States before the date of production of the model; or " (B) used in mass transportation in the United States, but being produced with a major change in configuration or components. " (10) Public transportation. --The term 'public transportation' means mass transportation. " (11) Regulation. --The term 'regulation' means any part of a statement of general or particular applicability of the Secretary designed to carry out, interpret, or prescribe law or policy in carrying out this chapter. " (12) Secretary. --The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of Transportation. " (13) State. --The term 'State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. " (14) Transit. --The term 'transit' means mass transportation. " (15) Transit enhancement. --The term 'transit enhancement' means, with respect to any project or an area to be served by a project, projects that are designed to enhance mass transportation service or use and that are physically or functionally related to transit facilities. Eligible projects are-- " (A) historic preservation, rehabilitation, and operation of historic mass transportation buildings, structures, and facilities (including historic bus and railroad facilities); (B) bus shelters; " (C) landscaping and other scenic beautification, including tables, benches, trash receptacles, and street lights; (D) public art; (E) pedestrian access and walkways; (F) bicycle access, including bicycle storage facilities and installing equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles; (G) transit connections to parks within the recipient's transit service area; (H) signage; and " (I) enhanced access for persons with disabilities to mass transportation. " (16) Urban area. --The term 'urban area' means an area that includes a municipality or other built-up place that the Secretary, after considering local patterns and trends of urban growth, decides is appropriate for a local mass transportation system to serve individuals in the locality. 3 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Ttunsportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.ffiwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm " (17) Urbanized area. --The term 'urbanized area' means an area-- " (A) encompassing at least an urbanized area within a State that the Secretary of Commerce designates; and " (B) designated as an urbanized area within boundaries fixed by State and local officials and approved by the Secretary. (b) Authority To Modify 'Handicapped Individual'. --The Secretary may by regulation modify the definition of the term 'handicapped individual' in subsection (a)(5) as it applies to section 5307 (d) (1) (D) . " . SEC. 3004. METROPOLITAN PLANNING. (a) General Requirements; Scope of Planning Process. --Section 5303 is amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following: (a) General Requirements.-- " (1) Development of plans and programs. --To carry out section 5301(a), metropolitan planning organizations designated under subsection (c), in cooperation with the States and mass transportation operators, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State. " (2) Contents. --The plans and programs developed under paragraph (1) for each metropolitan area shall provide for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan area and as an integral part of an intermodal transportation system for the State and the United States. " (3) Process. --The process for developing the plans and programs shall provide for consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the transportation problems to be addressed. (b) Scope of Planning Process.-- "(1) In general. --The metropolitan transportation planning process for a metropolitan area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will -- "(A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (B) increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (C) increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight; " (D) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life; " (E) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; " (F) promote efficient system management and operation; and " (G) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. " (2) Failure to consider factors. --The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (1) shall not be reviewable by any court under this title, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 5 in any matter affecting a transportation plan, a transportation improvement plan, a project or strategy, or the certification of a planning 4 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm process.''. (b) Designating Metropolitan Planning Organizations. --Section 5303(c) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(A)-- (A) by striking "representing'' and inserting "that together represent " ; and (B) by striking "as defined by the Secretary of commerce)'' and inserting "or cities, as defined by the Bureau of the Census)'' ; (2) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by striking "In a metropolitan area" and all that follows through "shall include— and inserting Each policy board of a metropolitan planning organization that serves an area designated as a transportation management area when designated or redesignated under this subsection shall consist of " ; and (B) by striking "officials of authorities'' and inserting "officials of public agencies''; (3) in paragraph (3) by striking "in an urbanized area" and all that follows through "of the urbanized area— and inserting "within an existing metropolitan planning area only if the chief executive officer of the State and the existing metropolitan organization determine that the size and complexity of the existing metropolitan planning area " ; and (4) in paragraph (5)-- (A) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking "representing'' and inserting "that together represent " ; and (ii) by striking "as defined by the Secretary of Commerce)'' and inserting "or cities, as defined by the Bureau of the Census) " ; (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking "as defined by the Secretary of Commerce) " and inserting "or cities, as defined by the Bureau of the Census) " ; and (C) by adding at the end the following: " (D) Designations of metropolitan planning organizations, whether made under this section or under any other provision of law, shall remain in effect until redesignation under this paragraph. " . (c) Metropolitan Area Boundaries. --Section 5303(d) is amended-- (1) in the subsection heading by inserting "Planning'' before "Area''; (2) in the first sentence -- (A) by striking "To carry out'' and inserting the following: " (1) In general. --To carry out " ; and (B) by inserting "planning" before "area''; (3) by striking the second sentence and all that follows and inserting the following: "(2) Included area. --Each metropolitan planning area -- "(A) shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period; and (B) may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census. "(3) Existing metropolitan planning areas in nonattainment.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in the case of an urbanized area designated as a nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area in existence as of the date of enactment of this paragraph shall be 5 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm retained, except that the boundaries may be adjusted by agreement of the chief executive officer of the State and any affected metropolitan planning organizations, in the manner described in subsection (c)(5). "(4) New metropolitan planning areas in nonattainment.--In the case of an urbanized area designated after the date of enactment of this paragraph as a nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act, the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area-- " (A) shall be established in the manner described in subsection (c)(1); (B) shall encompass the areas described in paragraph (2)(A); '(C) may encompass the areas described in paragraph (2)(B); and " (D) may address any nonattainment area identified under the Clean Air Act for ozone or carbon monoxide.''; and (4) by aligning paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection) with paragraphs (2) through (4) (as inserted by paragraph (3) of this subsection). (d) Coordination. --Section 5303(e) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by inserting "or compact'' after "agreement'' the first place it appears''; and (B) by striking "making the agreement effective'' and inserting "making the agreements and compacts effective''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(4) The Secretary shall encourage each metropolitan planning organization to coordinate, to the maximum extent practicable, the design and delivery of transportation services within the metropolitan planning area that are provided -- "(A) by recipients of assistance under this chapter; and (B) by governmental agencies and non-profit organizations (including representatives of the agencies and organizations) that receive Governmental assistance from a source other than the Department of Transportation to provide non -emergency transportation services.''. (e) Developing Long -Range Transportation Plans. --Section 5303(f) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)-- (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking "United States and regional transportation functions'' and inserting "national, regional, and metropolitan transportation functions''; (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following: " (iii) recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs;''; and (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: (C) identify transportation strategies necessary-- " (i) to ensure preservation, including requirements for management, operation, modernization, and rehabilitation, of the existing and future transportation system; and (ii) to use existing transportation facilities most efficiently to relieve congestion, to efficiently serve the mobility needs of people and goods, and to enhance access within the metropolitan planning area; and''; 6 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (2) in paragraph (2) by striking "as they are related to a 20-year forecast period'' and inserting "and any State or local goals developed within the cooperative metropolitan planning process as they relate to a 20-year forecast period and to other forecast periods as determined by the participants in the planning process''; (3) in paragraph (4)-- (A) by inserting after "employees,'' the following: "freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services,''; and (B) by inserting after "private providers of transportation,'' the following: "representatives of users of public transit,''; (4) in paragraph (5)(A) by inserting "published or otherwise'' before "made readily available''; (5) in the subsection heading by striking "Long -Range Plans'' and inserting "Long -Range Transportation Plans''; and (6) by striking "long-range plans'' each place it appears and inserting "long-range transportation plans''. SEC. 3005. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. (a) Development and Update. --The second sentence of section 5304(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "the organization'' and inserting "the metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the chief executive officer of the State and any affected mass transportation operator,''; (2) by inserting after "employees,'' the following: "other affected employee representatives, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services,''; and (3) by inserting after "private providers of transportation,'' the following: "representatives of users of public transit, ''. (b) Contents. --Section 5304(b)(2) is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: (C) identifies innovative financing techniques to finance projects, programs, and strategies, which may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the approved transportation improvement program if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.''. (c) Project Selection. --Section 5304(c) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: " (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 5305(d)(1) and in addition to the transportation improvement program development required under subsection (b), the selection of federally funded projects for implementation in metropolitan areas shall be carried out, from the approved transportation improvement program -- ..(A) by-- (i) in the case of projects under title 23, the State; and (ii) in the case of projects under this chapter, the designated transit funding recipients; and (B) in cooperation with the metropolitan planning organization.''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, action by the Secretary shall not be required to advance a project included in the approved transportation improvement program in place of another project 7 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fbwa.dot.gov/tea2M2400iii.htm in the program. " (4) Selection of projects from illustrative list. --Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2)(C), a State or metropolitan planning organization shall not be required to select any project from the illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial plan under subsection (b)(2)(C). " (5) Publication. --(A) A transportation improvement program involving Government participation shall be published or otherwise made readily available by the metropolitan planning organization for public review. (B) An annual listing of projects for which Government funds have been obligated in the preceding year shall be published or otherwise made available by the metropolitan planning organization for public review. The listing shall be consistent with the categories identified in the transportation improvement program. " (6) Regionally significant projects proposed for funding under chapter 2 of title 23 shall be identified individually in the transportation improvement program. All other projects funded under chapter 2 of title 23 shall be grouped in 1 line item or identified individually in the transportation improvement program.''. SEC. 3006. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AREAS. (a) Designation. --Section 5305(a) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: "(2) any other area, if requested by the chief executive officer and the metropolitan planning organization designated for the area. ''. (b) Transportation Plans and Programs. --Section 5305(b) is amended by inserting "affected'' before "mass transportation operators''. (c) Congestion Management System. --Section 5305(c) is amended by striking "The Secretary'' and all that follows through the final period. (d) Project Selection. --Section 5305(d)(1)(A) is amended by inserting "and any affected mass transportation operator'' after "the State''. (e) Certification. --Section 5305(e) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: " (2)(A) If a metropolitan planning process is not certified, the Secretary may withhold not more than 20 percent of the apportioned funds attributable to the transportation management area under this chapter and title 23. (B) Any apportionments withheld under subparagraph (A) shall be restored to the metropolitan area at such time as the metropolitan planning organization is certified by the Secretary.''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: " (4) In making certification determinations under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide for public involvement appropriate to the metropolitan area under review. ''. (f) Continuation of Current Review Practice. --Section 5305 is amended by adding at the end the following: (h) Continuation of Current Review Practice. --Since plans and programs described in this section are subject to a reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual projects included in the plans and programs are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the Secretary concerning plans and programs described in this section have not been reviewed under such Act as of January 1, 1997, any decision by the Secretary concerning a plan or program described in this section shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). ''. 8 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act For the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm SEC. 3007. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS. (a) Section Heading.-- (1) Amendment to section 5307.--Section 5307 is amended by striking the section heading and inserting the following: "Sec. 5307. Urbanized area formula grants'' (2) Conforming amendment. --The item relating to section 5307 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended to read as follows: 5307. Urbanized area formula grants.'' (b) Definitions. --Section 5307(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "In this section--'' and inserting "In this section, the following definitions apply: " ; (2) by inserting "Associated capital maintenance items. -- The term" after " (1) "; and (3) by inserting "Designated recipient. --The term'' after "(2)". (c) General Authority. --Section 5307(b) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking " , improvement, and operating costs'' and inserting "and improvement costs''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: "The Secretary may also make grants under this section to finance the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in mass transportation in an urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000." ; (2) in paragraph (2)(A)-- (A) by inserting " , in writing,'' after "approved" ; and (B) by striking "and'' at the end; (3) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting and " ; (4) in paragraph (2) by adding at the end the following: " (C) the metropolitan planning organization in approving the use under subparagraph (A) determines that the local transit needs are being addressed.''; (5) by striking paragraphs (3) and (5); and (6) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3). (d) Advance Construction. --Section 5307(g)(3) is amended by striking "the amount by which'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting "the most favorable financing terms reasonably available for the project at the time of borrowing. The applicant <<NOTE: Certification.>> shall certify, in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable financing terms.''. (e) Coordination of Reviews. --Section 5307(i)(2) is amended by adding at the end the following: "To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall coordinate such reviews with any related State or local reviews. " . (f) Transit Enhancement Activities. --Section 5307(k) is amended to read as follows: " (k) Transit Enhancement Activities.-- " (1) In general. --One percent of the funds apportioned to urbanized areas with a population of at least 200,000 under section 5336 for a fiscal year shall be made available for transit enhancement activities in accordance with section 5302(a)(15). 9 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2M2400!ii.htm " (2) Period of availability. --Funds apportioned under paragraph (1) shall be available for obligation for 3 years following the fiscal year in which the funds are apportioned. Funds that are not obligated at the end of such period shall be reapportioned under the urbanized area formula program of section 5336. " (3) Report. --A recipient of funds apportioned under paragraph (1) shall submit, as part of the recipient's annual certification to the Secretary, a report listing the projects carried out during the fiscal year with those funds." . (g) Conforming Amendments. --Section 5307(n)(2) is amended by inserting "5319, " after "5318, " . SEC. 3008. CLEAN FUELS FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM. (a) In General. --Section 5308 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 5308. Clean fuels formula grant program -(a) Definitions. --in this section-- "(1) the term clean fuel vehicle' means a vehicle that -- -(A) is powered by-- (i) compressed natural gas; (ii) liquefied natural gas; (iii) biodiesel fuels; "(iv) batteries; (v) alcohol -based fuels; (vi) hybrid electric; (vii) fuel cell; ' (viii) clean diesel, to under this section; or the extent allowed "(ix) other low or zero emissions technology; and (B) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has certified sufficiently reduces harmful emissions; " (2) the term designated recipient' has the same meaning as in section 5307(a)(2); and " (3) the term 'eligible project' -- "(A) means a project for-- " (i) purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses, including buses that employ a lightweight composite primary structure; (ii) constructing or leasing clean fuel buses or electrical recharging facilities and related equipment; (iii) improving existing mass transportation facilities to accommodate clean fuel buses; "(iv) repowering pre-1993 engines with clean fuel technology that meets the current urban bus emission standards; or (v) retrofitting or rebuilding pre-1993 engines if before half life to rebuild; and (B) in the discretion of the Secretary, may include projects relating to clean fuel, biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero emissions technology vehicles that exhibit equivalent or superior emissions reductions to existing clean fuel or hybrid electric technologies. " (b) Authority. --The Secretary shall make grants in accordance with this section to designated recipients to finance eligible projects. ­ (c) Application.-- " (1) In general. --Not later than January 1 of each year, any designated recipient seeking to apply for a grant under this section for an eligible project shall submit an application to 10 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/h2400iii.htm the Secretary, in such form and in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall establish by regulation. "(2) Certification required. --An application submitted under paragraph (1) shall contain a certification by the applicant that the grantee will operate vehicles purchased with a grant under this section only with clean fuels. " (d) Apportionment of Funds.-- " (1) Formula. --Not later than February 1 of each year, the Secretary shall apportion amounts made available to carry out this section to designated recipients submitting applications under subsection (c), of which -- "(A) two-thirds shall be apportioned to designated recipients with eligible projects in urban areas with a population of at least 1,000,000, of which-- " (i) 50 percent shall be apportioned, such that each such designated recipient receives a grant in an amount equal to the ratio between -- "(I) the number of vehicles in the bus fleet of the eligible project of the designated recipient, weighted by severity of nonattainment for the area in which the eligible project is located, as provided in paragraph (2); and " (II) the total number of vehicles in the bus fleets of all eligible projects in areas with a population of at least 1,000,000 funded under this section, weighted by severity of nonattainment for all areas in which those eligible projects are located, as provided in paragraph (2); and " (ii) 50 percent shall be apportioned, such that each such designated recipient receives a grant in an amount equal to the ratio between -- "(I) the number of bus passenger miles (as that term is defined in section 5336(c)) of the eligible project of the designated recipient, weighted by severity of nonattainment of the area in which the eligible project is located, as provided in paragraph (2); and " (II) the total number of bus passenger miles of all eligible projects in areas with a population of at least 1,000,000 funded under this section, weighted by severity of nonattainment of all areas in which those eligible projects are located, as provided in paragraph (2); and " (B) one-third shall be apportioned to designated recipients with eligible projects in urban areas with a population of less than 1,000,000, of which-- " (i) 50 percent shall be apportioned, such that each such designated recipient receives a grant in an amount equal to the ratio between-- " (I) the number of vehicles in the bus fleet of the eligible project of the designated recipient, weighted by severity of nonattainment for the area in which the eligible project is located, as provided in paragraph (2); and "(II) the total number of vehicles 11 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century bttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2M2400iii.htm in the bus fleets of all eligible projects in areas with a population of less than 1,000,000 funded under this section, weighted by severity of nonattainment for all areas in which those eligible projects are located, as provided in paragraph (2); and " (ii) 50 percent shall be apportioned, such that each such designated recipient receives a grant in an amount equal to the ratio between-- " (I) the number of bus passenger miles (as that term is defined in section 5336(c)) of the eligible project of the designated recipient, weighted by severity of nonattainment of the area in which the eligible project is located, as provided in paragraph (2); and " (II) the total number of bus passenger miles of all eligible projects in areas with a population of less than 1,000,000 funded under this section, weighted by severity of nonattainment of all areas in which those eligible projects are located, as provided in paragraph (2). "(2) Weighting of severity of nonattainment.-- " (A) In general. --For purposes of paragraph (1), subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the number of clean fuel vehicles in the fleet, or the number of passenger miles, shall be multiplied by a factor of-- " (i) 1.0 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is a maintenance area (as that term is defined in section 101 of title 23) for ozone or carbon monoxide; " (ii) 1.1 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is classified as-- " (I) a marginal ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 at seq.); or " (II) a marginal carbon monoxide nonattainment area under subpart 3 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.); " (iii) 1.2 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is classified as-- " (I) a moderate ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.); or " (II) a moderate carbon monoxide nonattainment area under subpart 3 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 at seq.); "(iv) 1.3 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is classified as-- " (I) a serious ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.); or " (II) a serious carbon monoxide nonattainment area under subpart 3 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.); 12 of 58 3/25199 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/h2400iii.htm " (v) 1.4 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is classified as-- " (I) a severe ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 at seq.); or " (II) a severe carbon monoxide nonattainment area under subpart 3 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 at seq.); or " (vi) 1.5 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is classified as-- " (I) an extreme ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 at seq.); or " (II) an extreme carbon monoxide nonattainment area under subpart 3 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.). " (B) Additional adjustment for carbon monoxide areas. --If, in addition to being classified as a nonattainment or maintenance area (as that term is defined in section 101 of title 23) for ozone under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.), the area was also classified under subpart 3 of part D of title I of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.) as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide, the weighted nonattainment or maintenance area fleet and passenger miles for the eligible project, as calculated under subparagraph (A), shall be further multiplied by a factor of 1.2. "(3) Maximum grant amount.-- " (A) In general. --The amount of a grant made to a designated recipient under this section shall not exceed the lesser of-- " (i) for an eligible project in an area -- "(I) with a population of less than 1,000,000, $15,000,000; and "(II) with a population of at least 1,000,000, $25,000,000; or (ii) 80 percent of the total cost of the eligible project. " (B) Reapportionment. --Any amounts that would otherwise be apportioned to a designated recipient under this subsection that exceed the amount described in subparagraph (A) shall be reapportioned among other designated recipients in accordance with paragraph (1). " (e) Additional Requirements.-- " (1) Limitation on uses. --Not less than 5 percent of the amount made available by or appropriated under section 5338 in each fiscal year to carry out this section shall be available for any eligible projects for which an application is received from a designated recipient, for-- " (A) the purchase or construction of hybrid electric or battery -powered buses; or " (B) facilities specifically designed to service those buses. "(2) Clean diesel buses. --Not more than $50,000,000 of the amount made available by or appropriated under section 5338 in each fiscal year to carry out this section may be made available to fund clean diesel buses. "(3) Bus retrofitting and replacement. --Not more than 5 percent of the amount made available by or appropriated under 13 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.thwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400!ii.htm section 5338 in each fiscal year to carry out this section may be made available to fund retrofitting or replacement of the engines of buses that do not meet the clean air standards of the Environmental Protection Agency, as in effect on the date on which the application for such retrofitting or replacement is submitted under subsection (c)(1). " (f) Availability of Funds. --Any amount made available or appropriated under this section-- " (1) shall remain available to a project for 1 year after the fiscal year for which the amount is made available or appropriated; and " (2) that remains unobligated at the end of the period described in paragraph (1), shall be added to the amount made available in the following fiscal year.''. (b) Clerical Amendment. --The analysis for chapter 53 is amended by striking the item relating to section 5308 and inserting the following: 5308. Clean fuels formula grant Program.'' SEC. 3009. CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS AND LOANS. (a) Section Heading. --Section 5309 is amended in the section heading by striking "Discretionary'' and inserting "Capital investment''. (b) Conforming Amendment. --The item relating to section 5309 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by striking "Discretionary'' and inserting "Capital investment " . (c) General Authority. --Section 5309(a)(1) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and (2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following: '(E) capital projects to modernize existing fixed guideway systems; " (F) capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus - related facilities;". (d) Consideration of Decreased Commuter Rail Transportation. -- Section 5309(c) is amended to read as follows: (c) [Reserved.] " . (e) Criteria for Grants and Loans for Fixed Guideway Systems. -- Section 5309(e) is amended to read as follows: (e) Criteria for Grants and Loans for Fixed Guideway Systems.-- " (1) In general. --The Secretary may approve a grant or loan under this section for a capital project for a new fixed guideway system or extension of an existing fixed guideway system only if the Secretary determines that the proposed project is-- " (A) based on the results of an alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering; " (B) justified based on a comprehensive review of its mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, and operating efficiencies; and " (C) supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the system or extension. " (2) Alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering. --In evaluating a project under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall analyze and consider the results of the alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering for the project. " (3) Project justification. --In evaluating a project under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall-- 14 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm " (A) consider the direct and indirect costs of relevant alternatives; (B) consider factors such as congestion relief, improved mobility, air pollution, noise pollution, energy consumption, and all associated ancillary and mitigation costs necessary to carry out each alternative analyzed, and recognize reductions in local infrastructure costs achieved through compact land use development; " (C) identify and consider mass transportation supportive existing land use policies and future patterns, and the cost of urban sprawl; " (D) consider the degree to which the project increases the mobility of the mass transportation dependent population or promotes economic development; " (E) consider population density and current transit ridership in the corridor; " (F) consider the technical capability of the grant recipient to construct the project; " (G) adjust the project justification to reflect differences in local land, construction, and operating costs; and " (H) consider other factors that the Secretary determines appropriate to carry out this chapter. " (4) Local financial commitment. -- "(A) Evaluation of project. --In evaluating a project under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall require that-- " (i) the proposed project plan provides for the availability of contingency amounts that the Secretary determines to be reasonable to cover unanticipated cost increases; " (ii) each proposed local source of capital and operating financing is stable, reliable, and available within the proposed project timetable; and ',(iii) local resources are available to operate the overall proposed mass transportation system (including essential feeder bus and other services necessary to achieve the projected ridership levels) without requiring a reduction in existing mass transportation services to operate the proposed project. (B) Considerations. --In assessing the stability, reliability, and availability of proposed sources of local financing under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consider-- " (i) existing grant commitments; " (ii) the degree to which financing sources are dedicated to the purposes proposed; (iii) any debt obligation that exists or is proposed by the recipient for the proposed project or other mass transportation purpose; and "(iv) the extent to which the project has a local financial commitment that exceeds the required non -Federal share of the cost of the project. " (5) Regulations. --Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Federal Transit Act of 1998, the Secretary shall issue regulations on the manner in which the Secretary will evaluate and rate the projects based on the results of alternatives analysis, project justification, and the degree of local financial commitment, as required under this subsection. " (6) Project evaluation and rating. --A proposed project may advance from alternatives analysis to preliminary engineering, 15 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm and may advance from preliminary engineering to final design and construction, only if the Secretary finds that the project meets the requirements of this section and there is a reasonable likelihood that the project will continue to meet such requirements. In making such findings, the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the project as 'highly recommended', 'recommended', or not 'recommended', based on the results of alternatives analysis, the project justification criteria, and the degree of local financial commitment, as required under this subsection. In rating the projects, the Secretary shall provide, in addition to the overall project rating, individual ratings for each criteria established under the regulations issued under paragraph (5). '(7) Full funding grant agreement. --A project financed under this subsection shall be carried out through a full funding grant agreement. The Secretary shall enter into a full funding grant agreement based on the evaluations and ratings required under this subsection. The Secretary shall not enter into a full funding grant agreement for a project unless that project is authorized for final design and construction. " (8) Limitations on applicability. -- "(A) Projects with a section 5309 federal share of less than $25,000,000.--A project for a new fixed guideway system or extension of an existing fixed guideway system is not subject to the requirements of this subsection, and the simultaneous evaluation of similar projects in at least 2 corridors in a metropolitan area may not be limited, if the assistance provided under this section with respect to the project is less than $25,000,000. (B) Projects in nonattainment areas. --The simultaneous evaluation of projects in at least 2 corridors in a metropolitan area may not be limited and the Secretary shall make decisions under this subsection with expedited procedures that will promote carrying out an approved State Implementation Plan in a timely way if a project is-- " (i) located in a nonattainment area; " (ii) a transportation control measure (as defined by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 at seq.)); and " (iii) required to carry out the State Implementation Plan. " (C) Projects financed with highway funds. --This subsection does not apply to a part of a project financed completely with amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account). " (D) Previously issued letter of intent or full funding grant agreement. --This subsection does not apply to projects for which the Secretary has issued a letter of intent or entered into a full funding grant agreement before the date of enactment of the Federal Transit Act of 1998 . " . (f) Letters of Intent and Full Funding Grant Agreements. --Section 5309(g) is amended-- (1) in the subsection heading by striking "financing'' and inserting " funding" ; (2) by striking "full financing'' each place it appears and inserting "full funding (3) in paragraph (1)(B)-- (A) by striking " 30 days'' and inserting " 60 days " ; (B) by inserting before the first comma "or 16 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century bttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm entering into a full funding grant agreement " ; and (C) by striking "issuance of the letter.'' and inserting "letter or agreement. The Secretaryshall include with the notification a copy of the proposed letter or agreement as well as the evaluations and ratings for the project." ; and (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ­ 50 percent'' and all that follows through "obligated)'' and inserting "an amount equivalent to the total authorizations under section 5338(b) for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 " . (g) Allocating Amounts. --Section 5309(m) is amended to read as follows: (m) Allocating Amounts.-- " (1) In general. --Of the amounts made available by or appropriated under section 5338 for grants and loans under this section for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003-- "(A) 40 percent shall be available for fixed guideway modernization; (B) 40 percent shall be available for capital projects for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems; and " (C) 20 percent shall be available to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus -related facilities. " (2) Limitation on amounts available for activities other than final design and construction. --Not more than 8 percent of the amounts made available in each fiscal year by paragraph (1)(B) shall be available for activities other than final design and construction. " (3) Bus and bus facility grants. -- -(A) Consideration. --In making grants under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall consider the age of buses, bus fleets, related equipment, and bus -related facilities. " (B) Funding for bus testing facility. --Of the amounts made available under paragraph (1)(C), $3,000,000 shall be available in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out section 5318. "(4) Funding for clean fuels. --Of the amounts made available under paragraph (1)(C), $50,000,000 shall be available in each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to carry out section 5308. " (5) Funding for ferry boat systems.-- " (A) Of the amounts made available under paragraph (1)(B), $10,400,000 shall be available in each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for capital projects in Alaska or Hawaii, for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to fixed guideway systems that are ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities, or that are approaches to ferry terminal facilities. " (B) Of the amounts appropriated under section 5338(h)(5), $3,600,000 shall be available in each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for capital projects in Alaska or Hawaii, for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to fixed guideway systems that are ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities, or that are approaches to ferry terminal facilities.''. (h) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Repeal. --Section 5309(f) is amended to read as follows: " (f) [Reserved. ] " . (2) Cross reference. --Section 5328(a)(2) is amended by 17 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.thwa.dot.goy/tea2l/h2400iii.htm striking " 5309(e) "5309 (e) " . (3) References is amended-- (1)-(6) of this title'' and inserting to full funding grant agreements. --Chapter 53 (A) in section 5320-- (i) by striking "full financing'' each place it appears and inserting "full funding " ; and (ii) in subsection (e) in the subsection heading, by striking "Financing'' and inserting " Funding " • and (B) in section 5328(a)(4) by striking "full financing'' each place it appears and inserting "full funding" . (i) Reports. --Section 5309 is amended by adding at the end the following: (o) Reports.-- '(1) Funding levels and allocations of funds for fixed guideway systems. -- -(A) Annual report. --Not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report that includes a proposal on the allocation of amounts to be made available to finance grants and loans for capital projects for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems among applicants for those amounts. (B) Recommendations on funding. --The annual report under this paragraph shall include evaluations and ratings, as required under subsection (e), for each project that is authorized or has received funds under this section since the date of enactment of the Federal Transit Act of 1998 or October 1 of the preceding fiscal year, whichever date is earlier. The report shall also include recommendations of projects for funding based on the evaluations and ratings and on existing commitments and anticipated funding levels for the next 3 fiscal years and for the next 10 fiscal years based on information currently available to the Secretary. " (2) Supplemental report on new starts. --The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the 31st day of August of each year that describes the Secretary's evaluation and rating of each project that has completed alternatives analysis or preliminary engineering since the date of the last report. The report shall include all relevant information that supports the evaluation and rating of each project, including a summary of each project's financial plan. "(3) Annual gao review. --The General Accounting Office shall -- -(A) conduct an annual review of-- " (i) the processes and procedures for evaluating and rating projects and recommending projects; and (ii) the Secretary's implementation of such processes and procedures; and (B) shall report to Congress on the results of such review by April 30 of each year." . (j) Project Defined. --Section 5309 is amended by adding at the end the following: '(p) Project Defined. --In this section, the term project' means, with respect to a new fixed guideway system or extension to an existing fixed guideway system, a minimum operable segment of the project." . 18 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.govltea2l/h2400!ii.htm SEC. 3010. DOLLAR VALUE OF MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5309 note.>> (a) In General. --The Secretary shall not consider the dollar value of mobility improvements, as specified in the report required under section 5309(o) (as added by this Act), in evaluating projects under section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, in developing regulations, or in carrying out any other duty of the Secretary. (b) Study.-- (1) In general. --The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of the dollar value of mobility improvements and the relationship of mobility improvements to the overall transportation justification of a new fixed guideway system or extension to an existing system. (2) Report. --Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the results of the study under paragraph (1), including an analysis of the factors relevant to determining the dollar value of mobility improvements. SEC. 3011. LOCAL SHARE. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5307 note.>> (a) In General. --Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, a recipient of assistance under section 5307 or 5309 of title 49, United States Code, may use, as part of the local matching funds for a capital project (as defined in section 5302(a) of title 49, United States Code), the proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds. (b) Maintenance of Effort. --The Secretary shall approve of the use of the proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds for the remainder of the net project cost (as defined in section 5302(a) of title 49, United States Code) only if the aggregate amount of financial support for mass transportation in the urbanized area from the State and affected local governmental authorities during the next 3 fiscal years, as programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program under section 135 of title 23, United States Code, is not less than the aggregate amount provided by the State and affected local governmental authorities in the urbanized area during the preceding 3 fiscal years. (c) Report.-- (1) In general. --Not later than January 1, 2003, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, a report on the recipients described in subsection (a) that have used, as part of the local matching funds for a capital project, the proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds, during the period described in subsection (a). (2) Contents of report. --The report required by this subsection shall include -- (A) information on each project undertaken, the amount of the revenue bonds issued, and the status of repayment of the bonds; and (B) any recommendations of the Secretary regarding the application of this section. SEC. 3012. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. (a) Fixed Guideway Technology. --The Secretary shall make grants for the study, design, and demonstration of fixed guideway technology. Of the amounts made available by or appropriated under section 5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall make funds available 19 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.thwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm for the following projects in not less than the amounts specified for the fiscal year: (1) North Orange -South Seminole County, FL $750,000 for fiscal year 1999. (2) Galveston, TX fixed guideway activities $750,000 for fiscal year 1999. (3) Washoe County, NV Transit Technology, $1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. (b) Bus Technology. --The Secretary shall make grants for the study, design, and demonstration of bus technology. Of the amounts made available by or appropriated under section 5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall make funds available for the following projects in not less than the amounts specified for the fiscal year: (1) META, MA Advanced Electric Transit Buses and Related Infrastructure, $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. (2) Palm Springs, CA Fuel Cell Buses, $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. (3) Gloucester, MA Intermodal Technology Center, $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. (c) Advanced Propulsion Control System.-- (1) In general. --Of the amounts made available by or appropriated under section 5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (in this subsection referred to as "SEPTA''), to be used only for the completion of the program to develop and deploy a new Advanced Propulsion Control System begun under the Request for Technical Proposals for Project 5-2814-2. (2) Action required by septa. --This subsection shall take effect only if SEPTA issues a request for cost proposals to the 4 selectees from the full and open competition under SEPTA's Request for Technical Proposals for Project 5-2814-2 not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 3013. FORMULA GRANTS AND LOANS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. (a) Section Heading. --Section 5310 is amended in the section heading by striking "Grants'' and inserting "Formula grants''. (b) Conforming Amendment. --The item relating to section 5310 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by inserting "formula'' before "grants''. SEC. 3014. FORMULA PROGRAM FOR OTHER THAN URBANIZED AREAS. (a) In General. --Section 5311 is amended-- (1) in the section heading, by striking "Financial assistance— and inserting "Formula grants''; and (2) in subsection (f)(1) by striking " 10 percent of the amount made available in the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and''. (b) Conforming Amendment. --The item relating to section 5311 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by striking "Financial assistance— and inserting "Formula grant''. SEC. 3015. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND TRAINING PROJECTS. (a) In General. --Section 5312 is amended by adding at the end the following: " (d) Joint Partnership Program for Deployment of Innovation.-- 20 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Trimsportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot,gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm " (1) Definition of consortium. --In this subsection, the term 'consortium'-- " (A) means 1 or more public or private organizations located in the United States that provide mass transportation service to the public and 1 or more businesses, including small- and medium-sized businesses, incorporated in a State, offering goods or services or willing to offer goods and services to mass transportation operators; and " (B) may include, as additional members, public or private research organizations located in the United States, or State or local governmental authorities. " (2) General authority. --The Secretary may, under terms and conditions that the Secretary prescribes, enter into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other agreements with consortia selected in accordance with paragraph (4), to promote the early deployment of innovation in mass transportation services, management, operational practices, or technology that has broad applicability. This paragraph shall be carried out in consultation with the transit industry by competitively selected consortia that will share costs, risks, and rewards of early deployment of innovation. " (3) Consortium contribution. --A consortium assisted under this subsection shall provide not less than 50 percent of the costs of any joint partnership project. Any business, organization, person, or governmental body may contribute funds to a joint partnership project. " (4) Notice requirement. --The Secretary shall periodically give public notice of the technical areas for which joint partnerships are solicited, required qualifications of consortia desiring to participate, the method of selection and evaluation criteria to be used in selecting participating consortia and projects, and the process by which innovation projects described in paragraph (1) will be awarded. " (5) Use of revenues. --The Secretary shall accept, to the maximum extent practicable, a portion of the revenues resulting from sales of an innovation project funded under this section. Such revenues shall be accounted for separately within the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and shall be available to the Secretary for activities under this subsection. Annual revenues that are less than $1,000,000 shall be available for obligation without further appropriation and shall not be subject to any obligation limitation. " (e) International Mass Transportation Program.-- " (1) Activities. --The Secretary is authorized to engage in activities to inform the United States domestic mass transportation community about technological innovations available in the international marketplace and activities that may afford domestic businesses the opportunity to become globally competitive in the export of mass transportation products and services. Such activities may include -- "(A) development, monitoring, assessment, and dissemination domestically of information about worldwide mass transportation market opportunities; (B) cooperation with foreign public sector entities in research, development, demonstration, training, and other forms of technology transfer and exchange of experts and information; " (C) advocacy, in international mass transportation markets, of firms, products, and services available from the United States; " (D) informing the international market about the technical quality of mass transportation products and services through participation in seminars, expositions, 21 of58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.ffiwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm and similar activities; and (E) offering those Federal Transit Administration technical services which cannot be readily obtained from the United States private sector to foreign public authorities planning or undertaking mass transportation projects if the cost of these services will be recovered under the terms of each project. "(2) Cooperation. --The Secretary may carry out activities under this subsection in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State or local agencies, public and private nonprofit institutions, government laboratories, foreign governments, or any other organization the Secretary determines is appropriate. "(3) Funding. --The funds available to carry out this subsection shall include revenues paid to the Secretary by any cooperating organization or person. Such revenues shall be accounted for separately within the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and shall be available to the Secretary to carry out activities under this subsection, including promotional materials, travel, reception, and representation expenses necessary to carry out such activities. Annual revenues that are less than $1,000,000 shall be available for obligation without further appropriation and shall not be subject to any obligation limitation. Not later than January 1 of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall publish a report on the activities under this paragraph funded from the account. " . (b) Fuel Cell Bus and Bus Facilities Program. --Of the funds made available for each fiscal year to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code, $4,850,000 shall be available to carry out the fuel cell powered transit bus program and the intermodal transportation fuel cell bus maintenance facility. (c) Advanced Technology Pilot Project.-- <<NOTE: 49 USC 322 note.>> (1) In general. --The Secretary shall make grants for the development of low speed magnetic levitation technology for public transportation purposes in urban areas to demonstrate energy efficiency, congestion mitigation, and safety benefits. (2) Funding. --Of the amounts made available under section 5001(a)(2) of this Act for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003, $5,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to carry out this subsection. (3) Federal share. --The Federal share payable on account of activities carried out using a grant made under this subsection shall be 80 percent of the cost of such activities. SEC. 3016. NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS. Section 5314(a)(2) is amended by striking " $2,000,000 " and inserting " $3,000,000 " . SEC. 3017. NATIONAL TRANSIT INSTITUTE. (a) In General. --Section 5315(a) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (5) by inserting "and architectural design'' before the semicolon at the end; (2) in paragraph (7) by striking "carrying out'' and inserting "delivering" ; (3) in paragraph (11) by inserting " , construction management, insurance, and risk management'' before the semicolon at the end; (4) in paragraph (13) by striking "and'' at the end; (5) in paragraph (14) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (6) by adding at the end the following: " (15) innovative finance; and " (16) workplace safety." . 22 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21lh2400iii.htm (b) Conforming Amendment. --The item relating to section 5315 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by striking "Mass transportation'' and inserting "transit''. SEC. 3018. BUS TESTING FACILITIES. (a) Operation and Maintenance. --Section 5318(b) is amended-- (1) by striking ' make a contract with" and inserting "enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with, or make a grant to,''; (2) by inserting 'nor organization'' after "person''; (3) by inserting " , cooperative agreement, or grant'' after "The contract"; and (4) by inserting "mass transportation'' after "and other" . (b) Availability of Amounts. --Section 5318(d) is amended by striking "make a contract with'' and inserting "enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with, or make a grant to, " . SEC. 3019. BICYCLE FACILITIES. Section 5319 is amended by striking "under this section is for 90 percent of the cost of the project'' and inserting "made eligible by this section is for 90 percent of the cost of the project, except that, if the grant or any portion of the grant is made with funds required to be expended under section 5307(k) and the project involves providing bicycle access to mass transportation, that grant or portion of that grant shall be at a Federal share of 95 percent " . SEC. 3020. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON ASSISTANCE. (a) Technical Amendment. --Section 5323(d) is amended by striking "Buying and Operating Buses.--'' and inserting "Condition on Charter Bus Transportation Service.—". (b) Buy America. --Section 5323(j)(7) is amended to read as follows: " (7) Opportunity to correct inadvertent error. --The Secretary may allow a manufacturer or supplier of steel, iron, or manufactured goods to correct after bid opening any certification of noncompliance or failure to properly complete the certification (but not including failure to sign the certification) under this subsection if such manufacturer or supplier attests under penalty of perjury that such manufacturer or supplier submitted an incorrect certification as a result of an inadvertent or clerical error. The burden of establishing inadvertent or clerical error is on the manufacturer or supplier. " . (c) Government's Share. --Section 5323(i) is amended to read as follows: (i) Government Share of Costs for Certain Projects. --A grant for a project to be assisted under this chapter that involves acquiring vehicle -related equipment required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) or vehicle -related equipment (including clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle -related equipment) for purposes of complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air Act, is for 90 percent of the net project cost of such equipment attributable to compliance with those Acts. The Secretary shall have discretion to determine, through practicable administrative procedures, the costs of such equipment attributable to compliance with those Acts . " . (d) HHS and Public Transit Service. --Section 5323 is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (1) as subsections (1) and (m), respectively; and 23 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM I Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following: " (k) Participation of Governmental Agencies in Design and Delivery of Transportation Services. --To the extent feasible, governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that receive assistance from Government sources (other than the Department of Transportation) for nonemergency transportation services-- "(1) shall participate and coordinate with recipients of assistance under this chapter in the design and delivery of transportation services; and "(2) shall be included in the planning for those services.'' (e) Submission of Certifications. --Section 5323 is amended by adding at the end the following: (n) Submission of Certifications. --A certification required under this chapter and any additional certification or assurance required by law or regulation to be submitted to the Secretary may be consolidated into a single document to be submitted annually as part of a grant application under this chapter. <<NOTE: Publication.>> The Secretary shall publish annually a list of all certifications required under this chapter with the publication required under section 5336(e)(2). " . (f) Grant Requirements. --Section 5323 is amended by adding at the end the following: (o) Grant Requirements. --The grant requirements under sections 5307 and 5309 apply to any project under this chapter that receives any assistance or other financing under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998. ''. SEC. 3021. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5307 note.>> PILOT PROGRAM FOR INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FROM MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND. (a) In General. --The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to determine the benefits of using funds from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for intercity passenger rail. Any assistance provided to the State of Oklahoma under sections 5307 and 5311 of title 49, United States Code, during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 may be used for capital improvements to, and operating assistance for, intercity passenger rail service. (b) Report.-- (1) In general. --Not later than October 1, 2002, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the pilot program established under this section. (2) Contents. --The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include -- (A) an evaluation of the effect of the pilot program on alternative forms of transportation within the State of Oklahoma; (B) an evaluation of the effect of the program on operators of mass transportation and their passengers; (C) a calculation of the amount of Federal assistance provided under this section transferred for the provision of intercity passenger rail service; and (D) an estimate of the benefits to intercity passenger rail service, including the number of passengers served, the number of route miles covered, and the number of localities served by intercity passenger rail service. SEC. 3022. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. (a) Efficient Procurement. --Section 5325 is amended-- 24 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century hup://www.thwa.doLgov/tea21/h24OOiii.htm (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c); (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b); and (3) by adding at the end the following: (c) Efficient Procurement. --A recipient may award a procurement contract under this chapter to other than the lowest bidder when the award furthers an objective consistent with the purposes of this chapter, including improved long-term operating efficiency and lower long-term costs." . SEC. 3023. SPECIAL PROCUREMENTS. (a) Turnkey System Projects. --Section 5326(a) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: "(1) Turnkey system project defined. --In this subsection, the term 'turnkey system project' means a project under which a recipient enters into a contract with a seller, firm, or consortium of firms to design and build a mass transportation system or an operable segment thereof that meets specific performance criteria. Such project may also include an option to finance, or operate for a period of time, the system or segment or any combination of designing, building, operating, or maintaining such system or segment. " ; (2) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by inserting "Selection of turnkey proj- ects.--" after " (2) "; and (B) by inserting "or an operable segment of a mass transportation system'' after "transportation system " ; (3) in paragraph (3) by inserting "Demonstrations.—" after "(3)"; and (4) by aligning paragraphs (2) and (3) with paragraph (1) of such section, as amended by paragraph (1) of this section. (b) Technical Amendment. --Section 5326 is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: ­(c) Acquiring Rolling Stock. --A recipient of financial assistance under this chapter may enter into a contract to expend that assistance to acquire rolling stock-- "(1) based on -- (A) initial capital costs; or (B) performance, standardization, life cycle costs, and other factors; or "(2) with a party selected through a competitive procurement process. " (d) Procuring Associated Capital Maintenance Items. --A recipient of assistance under section 5307 procuring an associated capital maintenance item under section 5307(b) may enter into a contract directly with the original manufacturer or supplier of the item to be replaced, without receiving prior approval of the Secretary, if the recipient first certifies in writing to the Secretary that-- "(1) the manufacturer or supplier is the only source for the item; and '(2) the price of the item is no more than the price that similar customers pay for the item. " . (c) Conforming Amendment. --Section 5334(b)(4) is amended by striking " 5323(a)(2), (c) and (e), 5324(c), and 5325 of this title'' and inserting " 5323(a)(2), 5323(c), 5323(e), 5324(c), 5325(a), 5325(b), 5326(c), and 5326(d) " . SEC. 3024. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW. (a) Limitation on Use of Available Amounts. --Section 5327(c)(2) is amended-- 25 of58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (1) by striking "make contracts'' and inserting "enter into contracts''; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence the following: "and to provide technical assistance to correct deficiencies identified in compliance reviews and audits carried out under this section''. (b) Financial Plan. --Section 5327 is amended by adding at the end the following: " (f) Financial Plan. --A recipient of financial assistance for a project under this chapter with an estimated total cost of $1,000,000,000 or more shall submit to the Secretary an annual financial plan for the project. The plan shall be based on detailed annual estimates of the cost to complete the remaining elements of the project and on reasonable assumptions, as determined by the Secretary, of future increases in the cost to complete the project.''. SEC. 3025. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. (a) Training and Conference Costs. --Section 5334(a) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (8) by striking "and'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and inserting " ; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: " (10) collect fees to cover the costs of training or conferences, including costs of promotional materials, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration to promote mass transportation and credit amounts collected to the appropriation concerned.''. (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Section heading. --The heading for section 5334 is amended by inserting "provisions'' after "Administrative''. (2) Table of sections. --The item relating to section 5334 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by inserting 11 provisions'' after "Administrative''. (c) Proceeds From Sale of Transit Assets. --Section 5334(g) is amended by adding at the end the following: " (4) Proceeds from the sale of transit assets. -- -(A) In general. --When real property, equipment, or supplies acquired with assistance under this chapter are no longer needed for mass transportation purposes as determined under the applicable assistance agreement, the Secretary may authorize the sale, transfer, or lease of the assets under conditions determined by the Secretary and subject to the requirements of this subsection. (B) Use. --The net income from asset sales, uses, or leases (including lease renewals) under this subsection shall be used by the recipient to reduce the gross project cost of other capital projects carried out under this chapter. (C) Relationship to other authority. --The authority of the Secretary under this subsection is in addition to existing authorities controlling allocation or use of recipient income otherwise permissible in law or regulation in effect prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph.''. SEC. 3026. REPORTS AND AUDITS. (a) National Transit Database. --Section 5335(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "Reporting System and Uniform System of Accounts and Records'' and inserting "National Transit Database''; and 26 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http:1/www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (2) in paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking "by uniform categories,'' and inserting "using uniform categories " ; and (B) by striking "and a uniform system of accounts and records'' and inserting "and using a uniform system of accounts" . (b) Reports. --Section 5335 is amended-- (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c); and (2) by redesignating,subsection (d) as subsection (b). SEC. 3027. APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORMULA GRANTS. (a) In General. --Section 5336 is amended in the section heading by striking "block grants'' and inserting "formula grants". (b) Repeal. --Section 5336(d) is amended to read as follows: " (d) [Reserved. ] " . (c) <<NOTE: 49 USC 5307 note.>> Continuation of Operating Assistance to Certain Larger Urbanized Areas.-- (1) Provision of assistance. --Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period described in paragraph (2), the Secretary may continue to provide assistance under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, to finance the operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in mass transportation in any urbanized area (as that term is defined in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code) with a population of at least 200,000, if the Secretary determines that -- (A) the number of the total bus revenue vehicle - miles operated in or directly serving the area is less than 600,000; and (B) the number of buses operated in or directly serving the area does not exceed 15. (2) Period described. --For purposes of paragraph (1), the period described in this paragraph is the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the earlier of -- (A) 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act; and (B) the date on which the Secretary determines that-- (i) the number of the total bus revenue vehicle -miles operated in or directly serving the area is greater than or equal to 600,000; and (ii) the number of buses operated in or directly serving the area exceeds 15. SEC. 3028. APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION. (a) Distribution. --Section 5337(a) is amended to read as follows: "(a) Distribution. --The Secretary shall apportion amounts made available for fixed guideway modernization under section 5309 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 as follows: " (1) The first $497,700,000 shall be apportioned in the following urbanized areas as follows: :�(A) Baltimore, $8,372,000. (B) Boston, $38,948,000. (C) Chicago/Northwestern Indiana, $78,169,000. (D) Cleveland, $9,509,500. (E) New Orleans, $1,730,588. (F) New York, $176,034,461. (G) Northeastern New Jersey, $50,604,653. (H) Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey, $58,924,764. (I) Pittsburgh, $13,662,463. (J) San Francisco, $33,989,571. (K) Southwestern Connecticut, $27,755,000. 27 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21Po2400iii.htm " (2) The next $70,000,000 shall be apportioned as follows: "(A) 50 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph (1), as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A). '(B) 50 percent in other urbanized areas eligible for assistance under section 5336(b)(2)(A) to which amounts were apportioned under this section for fiscal year 1997, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. " (3) The next $5,700,000 shall be apportioned in the following urbanized areas as follows: "(A) Pittsburgh, 61.76 percent. (B) Cleveland, 10.73 percent. " (C) New Orleans, 5.79 percent. " (D) 21.72 percent in urbanized areas to which paragraph (2)(B)(ii) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. " (4) The next $186,600,000 shall be apportioned in each urbanized area to which paragraph (1) applies and in each urbanized area to which paragraph (2)(B) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. " (5) The next $70,000,000 shall be apportioned as follows: (A) 65 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph (1), as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. (B) 35 percent to other urbanized areas eligible for assistance under section 5336(b)(2)(A) if the areas contain fixed guideway systems placed in revenue service at least 7 years before the fiscal year in which amounts are made available and in any urbanized area if, before the first day of the fiscal year, the area satisfies the Secretary that the area has modernization needs that cannot adequately be met with amounts received under section 5336(b)(2)(A), as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. " (6) The next $50,000,000 shall be apportioned as follows: " (A) 60 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph (1), as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. (B) 40 percent to urbanized areas to which paragraph (5)(B) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. "(7) Remaining amounts shall be apportioned as follows: (A) 50 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph (1), as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section. (B) 50 percent to urbanized areas to which paragraph (5)(B) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section.''. (b) Route Segments To Be Included in Apportionment Formulas. -- Section 5337 is amended by adding at the end the following: (e) Route Segments To Be Included in Apportionment Formulas.-- " (1) 1997 standard. --Amounts apportioned under paragraphs (2)(B), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) shall have attributable to each urbanized area only the number of fixed guideway revenue miles of service and number of fixed guideway route miles for segments of fixed guideway systems used to determine apportionments for fiscal year 1997. " (2) Other standards. --Amounts apportioned under paragraphs (5) through (7) of subsection (a) shall have attributable to each urbanized area only the number of fixed guideway revenue miles of service and number of fixed guideway route -miles for segments of fixed guideway systems placed in revenue service at least 7 years before the fiscal year in which amounts are made available.''. 28 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm SEC. 3029. AUTHORIZATIONS. (a) In General. --Section 5338 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 5338. Authorizations "(a) Formula Grants.-- " (1) Fiscal year 1998.-- "(A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out sections 5307, 5310, and 5311, $2,260,000,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5307, 5310, and 5311, $240,000,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (C) Allocation of funds. --Of the aggregate of amounts made available by and appropriated under this paragraph for a fiscal year-- " (i) $4,849,950 shall be available to the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations under section 5307; " (ii) $62,219,389 shall be available to provide transportation services to elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities under section 531,0; " (iii) $134,077,934 shall be available to provide financial assistance for other than urbanized areas under section 5311; and "(iv) $2,298,852,727 shall be available to provide financial assistance for urbanized areas under section 5307. " (2) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.-- "(A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out sections 5307, 5308, 5310, and 5311-- (i) $2,280,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $2,478,400,000 for fiscal year 2000; " (iii) $2,676,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $2,873,600,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $3,071,200,000 for fiscal year 2003. " (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5307, 5308, 5310, and 5311-- " (i) $570,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; " (ii) $619,600,000 for fiscal year 2000; " (iii) $669,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, "(iv) $718,400,000 for fiscal year 2002; and (v) $767,800,000 for fiscal year 2003. (C) Allocation of funds. --Of the aggregate of amounts made available by and appropriated under this paragraph for a fiscal year-- " (i) $4,849,950 shall be available to the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations under section 5307; " (ii) $50,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 5308; and " (iii) of the remaining amount-- " (I) 2.4 percent shall be available to provide transportation services to elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities under section 5310; 29 of58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.goy/tea21lh2400iii.htm " (II) 6.37 percent shall be available to provide financial assistance for other than urbanized areas under section 5311; and " (III) 91.23 percent shall be available to provide financial assistance for urbanized areas under section 5307. " (b) Capital Program Grants and Loans.-- '(1) Fiscal year 1998.--There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out section 5309, $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (2) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.-- " (A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out section 5309-- (i) $1,805,600,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $1,960,800,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $2,116,800,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $2,272,800,000 for fiscal year 2002; and (v) $2,428,800,000 for fiscal year 2003. " (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 5309-- " (i) $451,400,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $490,200,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $529,200,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $568,200,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $607,200,000 for fiscal year 2003. " (c) Planning.-- " (1) Fiscal year 1998.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5313(b), $47,750,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (2) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.-- "(A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5313(b)-- (i) $43,200,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $46,400,000 for fiscal year 2000; "(iii) $51,200,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $52,800,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $57,600,000 for fiscal year 2003. " (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5313(b)-- (i) $10,800,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $11,600,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $12,800,000 for fiscal year 2001, "(iv) $13,200,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $14,400,000 for fiscal year 2003. (C) Allocation of funds. --Of the funds made available by or appropriated under this paragraph for a fiscal year-- " (i) 82.72 percent shall be available for metropolitan planning under sections 5303, 5304, and 5305; and " (ii) 17.28 percent shall be available for State planning under section 5313(b). '(d) Research.-- 30 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm " (1) Fiscal year 1998.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322, $44,250,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (2) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.-- "(A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322-- " (i) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; " (ii) $37,600,000 for fiscal year 2000; " (iii) $37,600,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $39,200,000 for fiscal year 2002; and m $39,200,000 for fiscal year 2003. " (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322-- " (i) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, (ii) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $9,800,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $9,800,000 for fiscal year 2003. (C) Allocation of funds. --Of the funds made available by or appropriated under this paragraph for a fiscal year-- " (i) not less than $5,250,000 shall be available for providing rural transportation assistance under section 5311(b)(2); " (ii) not less than $8,250,000 shall be available for carrying out transit cooperative research programs under section 5313(a); " (iii) not less than $4,000,000 shall be available to carry out programs under the National Transit Institute under section 5315; and (iv) the remainder shall be available for carrying out national planning and research programs under sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, and 5322. " (e) University Transportation Research.-- " (1) Fiscal year 1998.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 5317(b) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (2) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.-- "(A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out section 5317(b), $4,800,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003. " (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 5317(b), $1,200,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003. " (f) Administration.-- " (1) Fiscal year 1998.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 5334, $45,738,000 for fiscal year 1998. " (2) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.-- "(A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out section 5334-- " (i) $43,200,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $48,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $51,200,000 for fiscal year 2001; 31 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2M24OOiii.htm "(iv) $53,600,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $58,400,000 for fiscal year 2003. (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 5334-- " (i) $10,800,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $12,800,000 for fiscal year 2001; "(iv) $13,400,000 for fiscal year 2002; and " (v) $14,600,000 for fiscal year 2003. " (g) Grants as Contractual Obligations.-- " (1) Grants financed from the highway trust fund. --A grant or contract approved by the Secretary, that is financed with amounts made available under subsection (a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), (b) (1), (b) (2) (A), (c) (2) (A), (d) (2) (A), (e) (2) (A), or (f) (2) (A) is a contractual obligation of the United States Government to pay the Government's share of the cost of the project. " (2) Grants financed from general funds. --A grant or contract, approved by the Secretary, that is financed with amounts made available under subsection (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), (b) (2) (B), (c) (2) (B), (d) (2) (B), (e) (2) (B), (f) (2) (B), or (h) is a contractual obligation of the Government to pay the Government's share of the cost of the project only to the extent that amounts are provided in advance in an appropriations Act. (h) Additional Amounts. --In addition to amounts made available by or appropriated under subsections (a) through (f), there are authorized to be appropriated-- " (1) to carry out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5313(b)-- (A) for fiscal year 1999, $32,000,000; (B) for fiscal year 2000, $33,000,000; (C) for fiscal year 2001, $34,000,000; " (D) for fiscal year 2002, $35,000,000; and " (E) for fiscal year 2003, $36,000,000; " (2) to carry out section 5307, $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; " (3) to carry out section 5308, $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; " (4) to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(A), $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; " (5) to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(B)-- (A) for fiscal year 1999, $600,000,000; " (B) for fiscal year 2000, $610,000,000; " (C) for fiscal year 2001, $620,000,000; " (D) for fiscal year 2002, $630,000,000; and (E) for fiscal year 2003, $630,000,000; " (6) to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(C), $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; " (7) to carry out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322-- (A) for fiscal year 1999, $31,000,000; (B) for fiscal year 2000, $31,000,000; (C) for fiscal year 2001, $33,000,000; (D) for fiscal year 2002, $33,000,000; and (E) for fiscal year 2003, $34,000,000; and " (8) to carry out section 5334-- " (A) for fiscal year 1999, $13,000,000; (B) for fiscal year 2000, $14,000,000; (C) for fiscal year 2001, $16,000,000; " (D) for fiscal year 2002, $17,000,000; and (E) for fiscal year 2003, $18,000,000. (i) Availability of Amounts. --Amounts made available by or 32 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm appropriated under subsections (a) through (e), and paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (h), shall remain available until expended. " . (b) Conforming Amendments. --Chapter 53 is amended as follows: (1) In sections 5303(h)(1), 5303(h)(2)(A), and 5303(h)(3)(A), by striking "section 5338(g)(1) " each place it appears and inserting "subsection (c) or (h)(1) of section 5338" . (2) In section 5303(h)(1) by striking " -5306" and inserting "and 5305 " . (3) In section 5303(h)(4) by striking "section 5338(g) " and inserting "subsection (c) or (h)(1) of section 5338 " . (4) In section 5313(a)(1) by striking "Fifty percent of the amounts made available under section 5338(g)(3) " and inserting "The amounts made available under paragraphs (1) and (2)(C)(ii) of section 5338(d) " . (5) In section 5313(b)(1) by striking "Fifty percent of the amounts made available under section 5338(g)(3) " and inserting "The amounts made available under paragraphs (1) and (2)(C)(ii) of section 5338(c) " . (6) In section 5314(a)(1) by striking "section 5338(g)(4) " and inserting "subsections (d) and (h)(7) of section 5338" . (7) In section 5317(e)(5)(C) by striking " 5338(e)(2) " and inserting " 5338(e) " . (8) In section 5318(d) by striking " 5338(j)(5) " and inserting "5309 (m) (1) (C) " . (9) In section 5333(b) by striking " 5338(j)(5) " each place it appears and inserting " 5338(b) " (10) In section 5336(a) by striking " 5338(f) " and inserting "5338(a)". (11) In section 5336(e)(1) by striking "section 5338(f) " and inserting "subsections (a) and (h)(2) of section 5338" . (12) In section 5337(e)(1) by striking "section 5338(f) " and inserting "subsections (b) and (h)(4) of section 5338 " . SEC. 3030. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS. (a) Final Design and Construction. --The following projects are authorized for final design and construction for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code: (1) Atlanta --Athens Commuter Rail. (2) Atlanta --Griffin Commuter Rail. (3) Atlanta --North Line Extension. (4) Austin--NW/North Central/SE--Airport LRT. (5) Baltimore --Central LRT Extension to Glen Burnie. (6) Boston--Massport Airport Intermodal Transit Connector. (7) Boston --North Shore Corridor and Blue Line Extension to Beverly. (8) Charlotte --South Corridor Transitway. (9) Chicago --Navy Pier -McCormick Place Busway. (10) Chicago --North Central Upgrade Commuter Rail. (11) Chicago --Ravenswood Line Extension. (12) Chicago --Southwest Extension. (13) Chicago --West Line Expansion. (14) Cleveland--Akron-Canton Commuter Rail. (15) Cleveland --Berea Metroline Extension. (16) Cleveland --Blue Line Extension. (17) Cleveland --Euclid Corridor Extension. (18) Cleveland--I-90 Corridor to Ashtabula County. (19) Cleveland --Waterfront Line Extension. (20) Dallas --North Central Extension. (21) Dallas --Ft. Worth RAILTRAN (Phase II). (22) Denver --East Corridor (Airport). (23) Denver --Southeast LRT (I-25 between 6th & Lincoln). 33 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2l/Ji2400iii.btm (24) Denver --Southwest LRT. (25) Denver --West Corridor LRT. (26) East St. Louis -St. Clair County--Mid-America Airport Corridor. (27) Ft. Lauderdale -West Palm Beach -Miami Tri-County Commuter Rail. (28) Galveston --Trolley Extension. (29) Hartford --Griffin Line. (30) Hollis--Ketchikan Ferry. (31) Houston --Regional Bus Plan --Phase I. (32) Kansas City--I-35 Commuter Rail. (33) Kansas City--Southtown Corridor. (34) Kenosha -Racine --Milwaukee Rail Extension. (35) Las Vegas Corridor. (36) Little Rock --River Rail. (37) Los Angeles--Metrolink San Bernadino Line. (38) Los Angeles--MOS-3. (39) Los Angeles--Metrolink (Union Station -Fullerton). (40) Louisville --Jefferson County Corridor. (41) MARC--Commuter Rail Improvements. (42) Maryland Light Rail Double Track. (43) Memphis --Medical Center Extension. (44) Miami --East-West Multimodal Corridor. (45) Miami --North 27th Avenue Corridor. (46) Miami --South Busway Extension. (47) Milwaukee --East-West Corridor. (48) Monterey County Commuter Rail. (49) Nashua, NH --Lowell, MA Commuter Rail. (50) Nashville --Commuter Rail. (51) New Orleans --Canal Streetcar. (52) New York--8th Avenue Subway Connector. (53) New York--Brooklyn--Staten Island Ferry. (54) New York --Long Island Railroad East Side Access. (55) New York --Staten Island Ferry --Whitehall Intermodal Terminal. (56) New York Susquehanna and Western Commuter Rail. (57) New Jersey Urban Core. (58) Norfolk --Virginia Beach Corridor. (59) Orange County--Fullerton--Irvine Corridor. (60) Orlando--I-4 Central Florida Light Rail System. (61) Philadelphia--Schuykill Valley Metro. (62) Phoenix --Fixed Guideway. (63) Colorado --Roaring Fork Valley Rail. (64) Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System. (65) Pittsburgh--MLK Busway Extension. (66) Portland--South-North Corridor. (67) Portland--Westside-Hillsboro Corridor. (68) Raleigh -Durham --Regional Transit Plan. (69) Sacramento --Folsom Extension. (70) Sacramento --Placer County Corridor. (71) Sacramento --South Corridor. (72) Salt Lake City --Light Rail (Airport to University of Utah). (73) Salt Lake City--Ogden-Provo Commuter Rail. (74) Salt Lake City --South LRT. (75) San Diego--Mid-Coast LRT Corridor. (76) San Diego --Mission Valley East Corridor. (77) San Diego--Oceanside--Escondido Corridor. (78) San Francisco--BART to San Francisco International Airport Extension. (79) San Francisco--Bayshore Corridor. (80) San Jose --Tasman Corridor Light Rail. (81) San Juan--Tren Urbano. (82) San Juan--Tren Urbano Extension to Minellas. 34 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century hup://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400!ii.htm (83) Santa Cruz --Fixed Guideway. (84) Seattle--Southworth High Speed Ferry. (85) Seattle --Sound Move Corridor. (86) South Boston --Piers Transitway. (87) St. Louis --Cross County Corridor. (88) Stockton--Altamont Commuter Rail. (89) Tampa Bay --Regional Rail. (90) Twin Cities--Northstar Corridor (Downtown Minneapolis - Anoka County -St. Cloud). (91) Twin Cities--Transitways Corridors. (92) Washington --Richmond Rail Corridor Improvements. (93) Washington, D.C.--Dulles Corridor Extension. (94) Washington, D.C.--Largo Extension. (95) West Trenton Line (West Trenton -Newark). (96) Westlake --Commuter Rail Link. (97) Pittsburgh North Shore -Central Business District Corridor. (98) Pittsburgh --Stage II Light Rail. (99) Boston--North-South Rail Link. (100) Spokane --South Valley Corridor Light Rail. (101) Miami --Palmetto Metrorail. (102) Morgantown --Personal Rapid Transit. (103) Santa Monica--Busway. (104) Northwest New Jersey --Northeast Rail Corridor. (105) Southeastern North Carolina Corridor. (106) Chicago --Douglas Branch. (107) San Joaquin --Regional Transit Corridor. (108) Albuquerque --High Capacity Corridor. (b) Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Engineering. --The following projects are authorized for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code: (1) Atlanta --Georgia 400 Multimodal Corridor. (2) Atlanta--MARTA Extension (S. De Kalb -Lindbergh). (3) Atlanta--MARTA I-285 Transit Corridor. (4) Atlanta--MARTA Marietta -Lawrenceville Corridor. (5) Atlanta--MARTA South De Kalb Comprehensive Transit Program. (6) Baltimore --Metropolitan Rail Corridor. (7) Baltimore --People Mover. (8) Bergen County Cross --County Light Rail. (9) Birmingham Transit Corridor. (10) Boston --Urban Ring. (11) Charleston--Monobeam. (12) Chicago --Comiskey Park Station. (13) Chicago --Inner Circumferential Commuter Rail. (14) Cumberland/Dauphin County Corridor 1 Commuter Rail. (15) Dallas --DART LRT Extensions. (16) Dallas --Las Colinas Corridor. (17) Dayton --Regional Riverfront Corridor. (18) El Paso --International Fixed Guideway (El Paso -Juarez). (19) Fremont --South Bay Corridor. (20) Houston --Advanced Transit Program. (21) Jacksonville --Fixed Guideway Corridor. (22) Knoxville --Electric Transit. (23) Lorain --Cleveland Commuter Rail. (24) Los Angeles--MOS-4 East Side Extension (II). (25) Los Angeles--MOS-4 San Fernando Valley East-West. (26) Los Angeles--LOSSAN (Del Mar -San Diego). (27) Maine High Speed Ferry Service. (28) Maryland Route 5 Corridor. (29) Memphis --Regional Rail Plan. (30) Miami --Kendall Corridor. (31) Miami --Northeast Corridor. 35 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM I Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (32) New Jersey Trans -Hudson Midtown Corridor. (33) New Orleans--Airport--CBD Commuter Rail. (34) New Orleans --Desire Streetcar. (35) New York--Astoria--East Elmhurst Extension. (36) New York--Broadway--Lafayette & Bleecker Street Transfer. (37) New York--Brooklyn--Manhattan Access. (38) New York --Lower Manhattan Access. (39) New York --Manhattan East Side Link. (40) New York --Midtown West Intermodal Terminal. (41) New York --Nassau Hub. (42) New York --North Shore Railroad. (43) New York --Queens West Light Rail Link. (44) New York --St. George's Ferry Intermodal Terminal. (45) Newburgh--LRT System. (46) North Front Range Corridor. (47) Northeast Indianapolis Corridor. (48) Oakland Airport--BART Connector. (49) Providence --Pawtucket Corridor. (50) Philadelphia --Broad Street Line Extension. (51) Philadelphia --Cross County Metro. (52) Philadelphia --Lower Marion Township. (53) Pinellas County --Mobility Initiative Project. (54) Redlands --San Bernardino Transportation Corridor. (55) Riverside --Perris Rail Passenger Service. (56) Salt Lake City --Draper Light Rail Extension. (57) Salt Lake City --West Jordan Light Rail Extension. (58) San Francisco--CalTrain Extension to Hollister. (59) Scranton --Laurel Line Intermodal Corridor. (60) SEATAC--Personal Rapid Transit. (61) Toledo--CBD to Zoo. (62) Union Township Station (Raritan Valley Line). (63) Washington County Corridor (Hastings -St. Paul). (64) Washington, D.C.--Georgetown-Ft. Lincoln. (65) Williamsburg --Newport News -Hampton LRT. (66) Cincinnati/N. Kentucky --Northeast Corridor. (67) Northeast Ohio --commuter rail. (68) California --North Bay Commuter Rail. (c) Project Authorizations.-- (1) In general. --Of the total amount made available by or authorized under section 5338(b) of title 49, United States Code, to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(B) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003: (A) $3,000,000,000 shall be available for the following projects: (i) Birmingham Transit Corridor, $87,500,000. (ii) San Diego -Mission Valley East Corridor, $325,000,000. (iii) Denver -Southeast LRT (I-25 between 6th and Lincoln), $10,000,000. (iv) Colorado --Roaring Fork Valley Rail, $40,000,000. (v) Hartford --Griffin Line, $33,000,000. (vi) Bridgeport--Intermodal Corridor, $34,000,000. (vii) New London --Waterfront Access, $10,000,000. (viii) Old Saybrook --Hartford Rail Extension, $10,000,000. (ix) Stamford --Fixed Guideway Connector, $18,000,000. (x) Orlando--I-4 Central Florida Light Rail System, $100,000,000. (xi) Miami --Palmetto Metrorail, $8,000,000. 36 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.thwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (xii) Tampa Bay --Regional Rail, $2,000,000. (xiii) Fort Lauderdale --West Palm Beach --Miami Tri-County Commuter Rail, $20,000,000. (xiv) Miami --East-West Multimodal Corridor, $20,000,000. (xv) Chicago--CTA Douglas Branch, $315,000,000. (xvi) Indianapolis Region Commuter Rail, $10,000,000. (xvii) Sioux City --Light Rail, $10,000,000. (xviii) MARC--Commuter Rail Improvements, $185,000,000. (xix) Baltimore --Light Rail Double Track, $120,000,000. (xx) Boston --North Shore Corridor and Blue Line Extension to Beverly, $50,000,000. (xxi) Twin Cities--Transitways Corridors, $120,000,000. (xxii) Twin Cities--Northstar Corridor (Downtown Minneapolis --Anoka County --St. Cloud), $6,000,000. (xxiii) I-35 Commuter Rail, $30,000,000. (xxiv) Las Vegas Corridor, $155,000,000. (xxv) New Jersey --Bergen County Cross County Light Rail, $5,000,000. (xxvi) New Jersey --Trans Hudson Midtown Corridor, $5,000,000. (xxvii) Santa Fe --Eldorado Rail Link, $10,000,000. (xxviii) Albuquerque Alvarado Intermodal Center, $5,000,000. (xxix) Albuquerque Light Rail, $90,000,000. (xxx) New York --Long Island Railroad East Side Access, $353,000,000. (xxxi) New York --Second Avenue Subway, $5,000,000. (xxxii) New York --Whitehall Ferry Terminal, $40,000,000. (xxxiii) New York --St. George's Ferry Intermodal Terminal, $20,000,000. (xxxiv) New York --Nassau Hub, $10,000,000. (xxxv) New Jersey --New York Midtown West Ferry Terminal, $16,300,000. (xxxvi) Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Corridor, $65,000,000. (xxxvii) Portland South --North Corridor, $25,000,000. (xxxviii) Philadelphia --Schuylkill Valley Metro, $75,000,000. (xxxix) Allegheny County Stage II Light Rail, $100,200,000. (xl) Philadelphia --Pittsburgh High Speed Rail, $10,000,000. (xli) Cumberland/Dauphin County Corridor 1 Commuter Rail, $20,000,000. (xlii) Pittsburgh North Shore --Central Business District, $20,000,000. (xliii) Providence --Boston Commuter, $10,000,000. (xliv) Rhode Island Integrated Intermodal Transportation, $25,000,000. (xlv) Dallas --North Central Extension, $188,000,000. (xlvi) Dallas --Southeast Corridor, $20,000,000. 37 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.thwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (xlvii) Dallas --Northwest Corridor, $12,000,000. (xlviii) Washington, D.C., Dulles Corridor Extension, $86,000,000. (xlix) Seattle --Tacoma Commuter Rail, $40,000,000. (1) San Joaquin Regional Intermodal Corridor, $14,000,000. (li) Railtran Corridor Light Rail, $12,000,000. (B) The remainder shall be available for projects listed in subsections (a) and (b). (2) Additional funds. -- (A) In general. --The total amount authorized in section 5338(h)(5) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 shall be available for projects listed in subsections (a) and (b). (B) Priority for salt lake city olympics.-- (i) In general. --Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 5338(h)(5), $640,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for the Salt Lake city Winter Olympic Games for the following projects: (I) North/South Light Rail. (II) Airport to University of Utah Light Rail. (III) Intermodal Facilities. (IV) Park and Ride Lots. (V) Bus Acquisition. (ii) Government share. --The Government share of the costs of projects assisted under this subparagraph shall not exceed 80 percent. For purposes of determining the nongovernmental share for projects authorized under this subparagraph, highway, aviation, and transit projects shall be considered to be a program of projects. (iii) Use of funds. --Funds provided under this subparagraph shall be available for planning and capital assistance. (3) High priority project. --The Long Island Rail Road East Side Access project shall be given priority consideration by the Secretary for funds made available under paragraph (1)(B). In addition, that project is authorized for construction with funds available under section 5338(h)(5) of title 49, United States Code. (d) Effect of Authorization.-- (1) In general. -- (A) Subsection (a) projects. --Projects authorized by subsection (a) for final design and construction are also authorized for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering. (B) Subsection (b) <<NOTE: Effective date.>> projects. --Effective October 1, 2000, projects authorized by subsection (b) for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering are also authorized for final design and construction. (2) Fixed guideway authorization. --The project authorized by subsection (a)(3) includes an additional 28 rapid rail cars and project scope changes from amounts authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. (3) Intermodal center authorizations. --Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each of the following projects are eligible for funding under section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code: 38 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (A) Huntington, West Virginia Intermodal Facility project. (B) Huntsville Intermodal Center project. (a) New Jersey Urban Core Project.-- (1) Allocations. --Section 3031(a) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2122) is amended by adding at the end the following: " (3) Allocations.-- " (A) Rail connection between penn station newark and broad street station, newark.--Of the amounts made available for the New Jersey Urban Core Project under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the Secretary shall set aside 10 percent, but not more than $5,000,000, per fiscal year for preliminary engineering, design, and construction of the rail connection between Penn Station, Newark and Broad Street Station, Newark. (B) Newark-newark international airport-elizabeth transit link. --Of the amounts made available for the New Jersey Urban Core Project under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the Secretary, after making the set aside under subparagraph (A), shall set aside 10 percent, but not more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year for preliminary engineering, design, and construction of the Newark - Newark International Airport -Elizabeth Transit Link, including construction of the auxiliary New Jersey Transit station, described in subsection (d). (C) Light rail connection and alignment within and serving the city of elizabeth.--Of the amounts made available for the New Jersey Urban Core Project under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the Secretary, after making the set -aside under subparagraphs (A) and (B), shall set aside 10 percent but not more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year for preliminary engineering, design, and construction of the light rail connection and alignment within and serving the city of Elizabeth as described in subsection (d)." . (2) Conforming amendments. --Section 3031(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2122) is amended -- (A) by striking "section 3(i) of the Federal Transit Act (relating to criteria for new starts) " and inserting "section 5309(e) of title 49, United States Code, " ; and (B) by striking ' ; except'' and all that follows through "such element " . (3) Elements of new jersey urban core project. --Section 3031(d) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2122) is amended -- (A) by inserting after "Secaucus Transfer'' the following: "(including relocation and construction of the Bergen County and Pascack Valley Rail Lines and the relocation of the Main/Bergen Connection with construction of a rail station and associated components to and at the contiguous New Jersey Meadowlands Sports complex)"; (B) by striking " , Newark -Newark International Airport -Elizabeth Transit Link'' and inserting "(including a connection from the Vince Lombardi Station to Saddlebrook and Edgewater), restoration of commuter rail service along the Northern Branch Line of the West Shore Line, Newark -Newark International 39 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm Airport -Elizabeth Transit Link (including construction of an auxiliary New Jersey Light Rail Transit station directly connected to and integrated with the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Station at Newark International Airport, providing access from the Newark -Newark International Airport -Elizabeth Light Rail Transit Link to the Newark International Airport) " ; and (C) by inserting after 'New York Penn Station Concourse,'' the following: "the restoration of commuter rail service in Lakewood to Freehold to Matawan or Jamesburg, New Jersey, as described in section 3035(p) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2131), a light rail extension of the Newark -Newark International Airport - Elizabeth Light Rail Transit Link from Elizabeth, New Jersey, to the towns of Cranford, Westfield, Fanwood, and Plainfield in Union County, New Jersey, and any appropriate light rail connections and alignments within the city of Elizabeth to be determined by the city of Elizabeth and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (and which shall include connecting midtown Elizabeth to Route 1 Park and Ride, the Elizabeth Car House Museum, Division Street, Singer Place, Ferry Terminal, Jersey Gardens Mall, Elizabeth Port to Lot D at Newark Airport) and any appropriate fixed guideway system in Passaic County, " . (f) Los Angeles MOS-3 Project.-- (1) In general. --For purposes of this section, the Los Angeles MOS-3 project referenced in subsection (a)(38) may include any fixed guideway project or projects selected by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for development in the transportation corridors to be served by the 3 extensions of MOS-3 of the Los Angeles County Metro Rail project, as described in section 3034(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. (2) Alternatives. --In considering fixed guideway alternatives and selecting any revised preferred alternative in the East Side or Mid City corridors of MOS-3, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall -- (A) fully evaluate the potential impact of the alternatives on the integrity of the neighborhoods in the corridor involved; (B) address the capacity of the alternatives to serve transit dependent riders; (C) identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low income populations, in accordance with the Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EO 12898; February 11, 1994); and (D) otherwise comply with all applicable Federal and State planning and environmental requirements. (g) Baltimore -Washington Transportation Improvements Program. -- Section 3035(nn) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2134) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)-- (A) by inserting ' , and alternatives for double tracking and related improvements'' after "Penn Station extensions''; (B) by inserting "shall provide for double tracking and related improvements and'' after "under this paragraph" ; and (C) by inserting after the first sentence the following: "Funds for projects under this paragraph 40 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm shall be provided at an 80 percent Government share. In applying the local share evaluation criteria in section 5309, of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall compare the aggregate expenditure of State and local funds, including Federal highway funds provided by the State of Maryland, for all phases of the Central Corridor Light Rail project.''; and (2) in paragraph (2)-- (A) in the first sentence, by inserting including capacity and efficiency improvements through construction of a Penn -Camden Connection, MARC maintenance and storage facilities, and other capacity related improvements, and the Silver Spring Intermodal Center'' before the period; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting "provide for construction of the Penn -Camden Connection, MARC maintenance and storage facilities, and other capacity related improvements, and the Silver Spring Intermodal Center, and shall'' after "shall''. SEC. 3031. PROJECTS FOR BUS AND BUS -RELATED FACILITIES. (a) Guaranteed Funding. --Of the amounts made available to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code, for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the Secretary shall make funds available for the following projects in not less than the amounts specified for the fiscal year: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1999 (in FY 2000 (in Project millions) millions) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Albuquerque, NM buses ..................... 1.250 1.250 2 . Alexandria, VA bus maintenance facility... 1.000 1.000 3 . Alexandria, VA King Street Station access. 1.100 0.000 N C Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority buses and transit system improvements.......... 0.842 0.842 Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority Logan Valley Mall Suburban Transfer Center..... 0.080 0.000 Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority Transit Center improvements .............. 0.424 0.000 7 Arkansas Highway and Transit Department buses .................................... 0.200 2.000 8 Armstrong County -Mid County, PA bus facilities and buses ..................... 0.150 0.150 0 41 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.hun Atlanta, GA MARTA buses ................... 1 0 Austin, TX buses .......................... 1 1 Babylon, NY Intermodal Center ............. 1 2 Birmingham -Jefferson County, AL buses..... 1 3 Boulder/Denver, CO RTD buses .............. 1 4 Bradford County, Endless Mountain Transportation Authority buses........... 1 5 Brookhaven Town, NY elderly and disabled busesand vans ........................... 1 6 Brooklyn -Staten Island, NY Mobility Enhancement buses ........................ 1 7 Broward County, FL buses .................. 1 8 Buffalo, NY Auditorium Intermodal Center.. 1 9 Buffalo, NY Crossroads Intermodal Station. 2 0 Cambria County, PA bus facilities and buses.................................... 2 1 Centre Area, PA Transportation Authority buses.................................... 2 2 Chambersburg, PA Transit Authority buses.. 2 3 Chambersburg, PA Transit Authority IntermodalCenter ........................ 2 4 Chester County, PA Paoli Transportation Center................................... 2 5 . Altoona, PA Pedestrian Crossover.......... 2 6 Cleveland, OH Triskett Garage bus maintenance facility ..................... 2 7 Crawford Area, PA Transportation buses.... 2 8 9.000 13.500 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 0.625 0.625 1.000 0.000 0.225 0.000 0.800 0.000 1.000 0.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 0.575 0.575 1.250 1.250 0.300 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 :OI 0.625 0.625 0.500 0.000 42 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century hup://www.ffiwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htin Culver City, CA CityBus buses ............. 2 9 Davis, CA Unitrans transit maintenance facility................................. 3 0 Dayton, OH Multimodal Transportation Center................................... 3 1 . Daytona, FL Intermodal Center ............. 3 2 Duluth, MN Transit Authority community circulation vehicles ..................... 3 3 Duluth, MN Transit Authority intelligent transportation systems ................... 3 4 . Duluth, MN Transit Authority Transit Hub.. 3 5 Dutchess County, NY Loop System buses..... 3 6 East Hampton, NY elderly and disabled busesand vans ........................... 3 7 Erie, PA Metropolitan Transit Authority buses.................................... 3 8 Everett, WA Multimodal Transportation Center................................... 3 9 Fayette County, PA Intermodal Facilities and buses ................................ 4 0 Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas Transit System buses ..................... 4 1 Fort Dodge, IA Intermodal Facility (Phase II) ...................................... 4 2 Gary, IN Transit Consortium buses......... 4 3 Grant County, WA buses and vans........... 4 4 Greensboro, NC Multimodal Center.......... 4 5 Greensboro, NC Transit Authority buses.... 4 6 Greensboro, NC Transit Authority small 1.250 1.250 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625 2.500 2.500 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.521 0.521 0.100 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.950 1.950 1.270 1.270 0.500 0.500 0.885 0.885 1.250 1.250 0.600 0.000 3.340 3.339 1.500 1.500 43 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.thwa.dot.gov/tea2M2400iii.htm busesand vans ........................... 4 7 Hartford, CT Transportation Access Project 4 8 Healdsburg, CA Intermodal Facility........ 4 9 Honolulu, HI bus facility and buses....... 5 0 Hot Springs, AR Transportation Depot and Plaza.................................... 5 1 . Humboldt, CA Intermodal Facility.......... 5 2 . Huntington, WV Intermodal Facility........ 5 3 Illinois statewide buses and bus -related equipment................................ 5 4 Indianapolis, IN buses .................... 5 5 Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus safetyand security ...................... 5 6 Ithaca, NY TCAT bus technology improvements......... I ................... 5 7 Lackawanna County, PA Transit System buses 5 8 Lakeland, FL Citrus Connection transit vehicles and related equipment........... 5 9 Lane County, OR Bus Rapid Transit......... 6 0 Lansing, MI CATA bus technology improvements............................. 6 1 Little Rock, AR Central Arkansas Transit buses .................................... 6 2 Livermore, CA automatic vehicle locator... 6 3 Long Island, NY CNG transit vehicles and facilities ............................... 6 4 Los Angeles County, CA Foothill Transit buses.................................... 0.321 0.000 0.800 0.000 1.000 1.000 2.250 2.250 0.560 0.560 1.000 0.000 8.000 12.000 6.800 8.200 5.000 5.000 1.000 1.000 1.250 1.250 0.600 0.600 1.250 1.250 4.400 4.400 0.600 0.000 0.300 0.300 1.000 1.000 1.250 1.250 1.625 1.250 44 of 58 3l25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm 6 5 New York, NY West 72nd St. Intermodal Station.................................. 6 6 Los Angeles, CA San Fernando Valley smart shuttle buses ............................ 6 7 Los Angeles, CA Union Station Gateway Intermodal Transit Center ................ 6 8 Maryland statewide bus facilities and buses.................................... 6 9 Rensslear, NY Rensslear Intermodal Bus Facility ................................. 7 0 . Mercer County, PA buses ................... 7 1 Miami Beach, FL Electric Shuttle Service.. 7 2 . Miami -Dade, FL buses ...................... 7 3 . Michigan statewide buses .................. 7 4 . Milwaukee County, WI buses ................ 7 5 Mineola/Hicksville, NY LIRR Intermodal Centers.................................. 7 6 . Modesto, CA bus maintenance facility...... 7 7 Monroe County, PA Transportation Authority buses.................................... 7 8 . Monterey, CA Monterey -Salinas buses....... 7 9 Morongo Basin, CA Transit Authority bus facility................................. 8 0 . New Haven, CT bus facility ................ 8 1 . New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses... 8 2 Newark, NJ Morris & Essex Station access andbuses ................................ 8 3 1.750 0.300 1.250 7.000 1.000 0.750 0.750 2.250 10.000 4.000 1.250 0.625 1.000 0.625 0.650 2.250 1.750 1.250 1.750 1.250 11.500 6.000 0.000 0.750 2.250 13.500 1.250 0.625 0.000 0.625 0.000 2.250 1.750 1.250 45 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century http://www.lhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm Northstar Corridor, MN Intermodal Facilities and buses ..................... 8 4 . Norwich, CT buses ......................... 8 5 Ogden, UT Intermodal Center ............... 8 6 Oklahoma statewide bus facilities and buses.................................... 8 7 Orlando, FL Downtown Intermodal Facility.. 8 8 Providence, RI buses and bus maintenance facility................................. 8 9 Perris, CA bus maintenance facility....... 9 0 Philadelphia, PA Frankford Transportation Center................................... 9 1 Philadelphia, PA Intermodal 30th Street Station.................................. 9 2 Portland, OR Tri-Met buses ................ 9 3 Pritchard, AL bus transfer facility....... 9 4 Reading, PA BARTA Intermodal Transportation Facility .................. 9 5 Red Rose, PA Transit Bus Terminal......... 9 6 . Richmond, VA GRTC bus maintenance facility 9 7 Riverhead, NY elderly and disabled buses andvans ................................. 9 8 Robinson, PA Towne Center Intermodal Facility................................. 9 9 Rome, NY Intermodal Center ................ 10 0 Sacramento, CA CNG buses .................. 10 1 San Francisco, CA Islais Creek Maintenance Facility................................. 6.000 2.250 0.800 5.000 2.500 2.250 1.250 5.000 1.250 1.750 0.500 1.750 1.000 1.250 0.125 1.500 0.400 1.250 1.250 10.000 2.250 0.800 5.000 2.500 3.294 1.250 5.000 1.250 1.750 0.000 1.750 0.000 1.250 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.250 1.250 46 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm 10 2 San Juan, Puerto Rico Intermodal access... 10 3 Santa Clarita, CA facilities and buses.... 10 4 Santa Cruz, CA bus facility ............... 10 5 Santa Rosa/Cotati, CA Intermodal Transportation Facilities ................ 10 6 Seattle, WA Intermodal Transportation Terminal................................. 10 7 Shelter Island, NY elderly and disabled busesand vans ........................... 10 8 Smithtown, NY elderly and disabled buses andvans ................................. 10 9 Somerset County, PA bus facilities and buses.................................... 11 0 South Amboy, NJ Regional Intermodal Transportation Initiative ................ 11 1 South Bend, IN Urban Intermodal Transportation Facility .................. 11 2 South Carolina statewide Virtual Transit Enterprise............................... 11 3 South Dakota statewide bus facilities and buses .................................... 11 4 Southampton, NY elderly and disabled buses andvans ................................. 11 5 Southold, NY elderly and disabled buses andvans ................................. 11 6 Springfield, MA Union Station ............. 11 7 St. Louis, MO Bi-state Intermodal Center.. 11 8 Denver, CO Stapleton Intermodal Center.... 11 9 Suffolk County, NY elderly and disabled 0.600 0.600 1.250 1.250 0.625 0.625 0.750 0.750 1.250 1.250 0.100 0.000 0.125 0.000 0.175 0.175 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.220 1.220 1.500 1.500 0.125 0.000 0.100 0.000 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 47 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm busesand vans ........................... 12 0 Texas statewide small urban and rural buses .................................... 12 1 Towamencin Township, PA Intermodal Bus Transportation Center .................... 12 2 Tuscaloosa, AL Intermodal Center.......... 12 3 . Ukiah, CA Transportation Center........... 12 4 Utah Transit Authority, UT Intermodal Facilities ............................... 12 5 Utah Transit Authority/Park City Transit, UTbuses ................................. 12 6 Utica, NY Union Station ................... 12 7 Utica and Rome, NY bus facilities and buses.................................... 12 8 Washington County, PA Intermodal Facilities............................... 12 9 Washington, D.C. Intermodal Transportation Center................................... 13 0 . Washoe County, NV transit improvements.... 13 1 . Waterbury, CT bus facility ................ 13 2 West Virginia statewide Intermodal Facility and buses ....................... 13 3 Westchester County, NY Bee -Line transit system fareboxes ......................... 13 4 Westchester County, NY Bee -Line transit system shuttle buses ..................... 13 5 Westchester County, NY DOT articulated buses.................................... 13 6 Westmoreland County, PA Intermodal Facility................................. 0.100 4.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 1.500 6.500 2.100 0.500 0.630 2.500 2.250 2.250 5.000 0.979 1.000 1.250 0.200 0.000 4.500 1.500 0.000 0.000 1.500 6.500 2.100 0.000 0.630 2.500 2.250 2.250 5.000 0.979 1.000 1.250 0.200 48 of 58 3/25l99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2lfiNO0iii.htm 13 7 . Wilkes-Barre, PA Intermodal Facility...... 13 8 . Williamsport, PA Bus Facility ............. 13 9 . Windsor, CA Intermodal Facility........... 14 0 Wisconsin statewide bus facilities and buses.................................... 14 1 Woodland Hills, CA Warner Center Transportation Hub ....................... 14 2 Worcester, MA Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center .................... 14 3 Lynchburg, VA buses ....................... 14 4 . Harrisonburg, VA buses .................... 14 5 . Roanoke, VA buses ......................... 14 6 . Allegheny County, PA buses ................ 14 7 . Mount Vernon, WA Multimodal Center........ 14 8 New Bedford/Fall River, MA Mobile Access tohealth care ........................... 14 9 Philadelphia, PA Regional Transportation System for Elderly and Disabled.......... 1.250 1.250 1.200 1.200 0.750 0.750 8.000 12.000 0.325 0.625 2.500 2.500 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.000 1.500 1.750 1.750 0.250 0.000 0.750 0.000 15 0 Clark County, NV Regional Transportation Commission ............................... 1.250 1.250 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (b) General Fund Authorization. --Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code, for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, there are authorized to be appropriated for the following projects: ------------------------ FY 1999 (in FY 2000 (in Project millions) millions) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Everett, WA Multimodal Transportation Center ................................... 1.000 1.000 49 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm 2 Rennslear, NY Rennslear Intermodal Bus Facility ................................. 4.000 0.000 3 Rochester, NY Rochester Central Bus Facility ................................. 12.500 12.500 4 Long Beach, NY Long Beach Central Bus Facility ................................. 0.750 0.750 5 Broome County, NY Buses and Related Equipment ................................ 2.700 2.700 6 Long Island, NY CNG Transit Vehicles and ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Facilities ............................... 3.050 3.050 SEC. 3032. CONTRACTING OUT STUDY. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5301 note.>> (a) Study. --Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the effect of contracting out mass transportation operation and administrative functions on cost, availability and level of service, efficiency, safety, quality of services provided to transit - dependent populations, and employer -employee relations. (b) Terms of Agreement. --The agreement entered into in subsection (a) shall provide that-- (1) the Transportation Research Board, in conducting the study, consider the number of grant recipients that have contracted out services, the size of the population served by such grant recipients, the basis for decisions regarding contracting out, and the extent to which contracting out was affected by the integration and coordination of resources of transit agencies and other Federal agencies and programs; and (2) the panel conducting the study shall include representatives of transit agencies, employees of transit agencies, private contractors, academic and policy analysts, and other interested persons. (c) Report. --Not later than 24 months after the date of entry into the agreement under subsection (a), the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing the results of the study. (d) Funding. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out this section $250,000 for fiscal year 1998. (e) Contractual Obligation. --Entry into an agreement to carry out this section that is financed with amounts made available under subsection (c) is a contractual obligation of the United States to pay the Government's share of the cost of the study. SEC. 3033. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA STUDY. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5336 note.>> (a) Study. --The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine whether the formula for apportioning funds to urbanized areas under section 5336 of title 49, United States Code, accurately reflects the transit needs of the urbanized areas and, if not, whether any changes should be made either to the formula or through some other mechanism to reflect the 50 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/h2400iii.hun fact that some urbanized areas with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 have transit systems that carry more passengers per mile or hour than the average of those transit systems in urbanized areas with a population over 200,000. (b) Report. --Not later than December 31, 1999, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under this section, together with any proposed changes to the method for apportioning funds to urbanized areas with a population over 50,000. SEC. 3034. COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. <<NOTE: 49 USC 301 note.>> (a) Study. --The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of Federal departments and agencies (other than the Department of Transportation) that receive Federal financial assistance for non -emergency transportation services. (b) Contents. --In conducting the study, the Comptroller General shall-- (1) identify each Federal department and agency (other than the Department of Transportation) that has received Federal financial assistance for non -emergency transportation services in any of the 3 fiscal years preceding the date of enactment of this Act; (2) identify the amount of such assistance received by each Federal department and agency in such fiscal years; and (3) identify the projects and activities funded using such financial assistance. (c) Report. --Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing the results of the study and any recommendations for enhanced coordination between the Department of Transportation and other Federal departments and agencies that provide funding for non -emergency transportation. SEC. 3035. FINAL ASSEMBLY OF BUSES. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5323 note.>> (a) In General. --All buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, that are purchased with Federal funds by recipients of assistance from the Federal Transit Administration shall conform with the Federal Transit Administration Guidance on Buy America Requirements, dated March 18, 1997. (b) Rule of Construction. --For purposes of this section, a bus shall be considered to be manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, if the manufacturing process for that bus is not completed on or before August 31, 1999. SEC. 3036. CLEAN FUEL VEHICLES. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5308 note.>> (a) Study. --The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of the various low and zero emission fuel technologies for transit vehicles, including compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biodiesel fuel, battery, alcohol based fuel, hybrid electric, fuel cell, and clean diesel to determine-- (1) the status of the development and use of such technologies; (2) the environmental benefits of such technologies under the Clean Air Act; and (3) the cost of such technologies and any associated equipment. 51 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (b) Report. --Not later than January 1, 2000, the Comptroller General shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the results of the study, together with recommendations for incentives to encourage the use of low and zero emission fuel technology for transit vehicles. SEC. 3037. JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5309 note.>> (a) Findings. --Congress finds that-- (1) two-thirds of all new jobs are in the suburbs, whereas three-quarters of welfare recipients live in rural areas or central cities; (2) even in metropolitan areas with excellent public transit systems, less than half of the jobs are accessible by transit; (3) in 1991, the median price of a new car was equivalent to 25 weeks of salary for the average worker, and considerably more for the low-income worker; (4) not less than 9,000,000 households and 10,000,000 Americans of driving age, most of whom are low-income workers, do not own cars; (5) 94 percent of welfare recipients do not own cars; (6) nearly 40 percent of workers with annual incomes below $10,000 do not commute by car; (7) many of the 2,000,000 Americans who will have their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families grants (under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)) terminated by the year 2002 will be unable to get to jobs they could otherwise hold; (8) increasing the transit options for low-income workers, especially those who are receiving or who have recently received welfare benefits, will increase the likelihood of those workers getting and keeping jobs; and (9) many residents of cities and rural areas would like to take advantage of mass transit to gain access to suburban employment opportunities. (b) Definitions. --In this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Eligible low-income individual. --The term "eligible low-income individual" means an individual whose family income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line (as that term is defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision required by that section) for a family of the size involved. (2) Eligible project and related terms. -- (A) In general. --The term "eligible project'' means an access to jobs project or a reverse commute project. (B) Access to jobs project. --The term "access to jobs project'' means a project relating to the development of transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. The Secretary may make access to jobs grants for-- (i) capital projects and to finance operating costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance items related to providing access to jobs under this section; (ii) promoting the use of transit by workers with nontraditional work schedules; (iii) promoting the use by appropriate agencies of transit vouchers for welfare 52 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm recipients and eligible low-income individuals under specific terms and conditions developed by the Secretary; and (iv) promoting the use of employer -provided transportation, including the transit pass benefit program under section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (C) Reverse commute project. --The term "reverse commute project'' means a project related to the development of transportation services designed to transport residents of urban areas, urbanized areas, and areas other than urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities, including any project to-- (i) subsidize the costs associated with adding reverse commute bus, train, carpool, van routes, or service from urban areas, urbanized areas, and areas other than urbanized areas, to suburban workplaces; (ii) subsidize the purchase or lease by a nonprofit organization or public agency of a van or bus dedicated to shuttling employees from their residences to a suburban workplace; or (iii) otherwise facilitate the provision of mass transportation services to suburban employment opportunities. (3) Existing transportation service providers. --The term existing transportation service providers'' means mass transportation operators and governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that receive assistance from Federal, State, or local sources for nonemergency transportation services. (4) Qualified entity. --The term "qualified entity'' means -- (A) with respect to any proposed eligible project in an urbanized area with a population of at least 200,000, the applicant or applicants selected by the appropriate metropolitan planning organization that meets the requirements of this section, including the planning and coordination requirements in subsection (i), from among local governmental authorities and agencies and nonprofit organizations; and (B) with respect to any proposed eligible project in an urbanized area with a population of at least 200,000, or an area other than an urbanized area, the applicant or applicants selected by the chief executive officer of the State in which the area is located that meets the requirements of this section, including the planning and coordination requirements in subsection (i), from among local governmental authorities and nonprofit organizations. (5) Welfare recipient. --The term "welfare recipient'' means an individual who receives or received aid or assistance under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (whether in effect before or after the effective date of the amendments made by title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2110)) at any time during the 3- year period before the date on which the applicant applies for a grant under this section. (c) General Authority.-- (1) In general. --The Secretary may make access to jobs grants and reverse commute grants under this section to assist qualified entities in financing eligible projects. (2) Coordination. --The Secretary shall coordinate activities under this section with related activities under programs of other Federal departments and agencies. 53 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm (d) Applications. --Each qualified entity seeking to receive a grant under this section for an eligible project shall submit to the Secretary an application in such form and in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall establish. (e) Prohibition. --Grants awarded under this section may not be used for planning or coordination activities. (f) Factors for Consideration. --In awarding grants under this section to applicants under subsection (d), the Secretary shall consider-- (1) the percentage of the population in the area to be served by the applicant that are welfare recipients; (2) in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance an access to jobs project, the need for additional services in the area to be served by the applicant (including bicycling) to transport welfare recipients and eligible low- income individuals to and from specified jobs, training, and other employment support services, and the extent to which the proposed services will address those needs; (3) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates -- (A) coordination with, and the financial commitment of, existing transportation service providers; and (B) coordination with the State agency that administers the State program funded under part A of title iv of the Social Security Act; (4) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates maximum utilization of existing transportation service providers and expands transit networks or hours of service, or both; (5) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates an innovative approach that is responsive to identified service needs; (6) the extent to which the applicant -- (A) in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance an access to jobs project, presents a regional transportation plan for addressing the transportation needs of welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals; and (B) identifies long-term financing strategies to support the services under this section; (7) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the community to be served has been consulted in the planning process; and (8) in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance a reverse commute project, the need for additional services identified in a regional transportation plan to transport individuals to suburban employment opportunities, and the extent to which the proposed services will address those needs. (g) Competitive Grant Selection. --The Secretary shall conduct a national solicitation for applications for grants under this section. Grantees shall be selected on a competitive basis. (h) Cost Sharing.-- (1) Maximum amount. --The amount of a grant under this section may not exceed 50 percent of the total project cost. (2) Nongovernmental share. -- (A) In general. --The portion of the total cost of an eligible project that is not funded under this section-- (i) shall be provided in cash from sources other than revenues from providing mass transportation, but may include amounts received under a service agreement; and (ii) may be derived from amounts appropriated to or made available to a department or agency of the Federal Government (other than the Department 54 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Tmnsportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htin to-- of Transportation) that are eligible to be expended for transportation. (B) Inapplicability. --For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the prohibitions on the use of funds for matching requirements under section 403(a)(5)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act shall not apply to Federal or State funds to be used for transportation services. (i) Planning Requirements.-- (1) in general. --The requirements of sections 5303 through 5306 of title 49, United States Code, apply to any grant made under this section. (2) Coordination. --Each application for a grant under this section shall reflect coordination with and the approval of affected transit grant recipients. The eligible access to jobs projects financed under this section shall be part of a coordinated public transit -human services transportation planning process. (j) Grant Requirements. --A grant under this section shall be subject (1) all of the terms and conditions to which a grant made under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, is subject; and (2) such other terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary. (k) Program Evaluation.-- (1) Comptroller general. --Beginning 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall -- (A) conduct a study to evaluate the grant program authorized under this section; and (B) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report describing the results of each study under subparagraph (A). (2) Department of transportation. --Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall -- (A) conduct a study to evaluate the access to jobs grant program authorized under this section; and (B) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report describing the results of the study under subparagraph (A). (1) Authorization and Allocation.-- (1) In general. -- (A) From the trust fund. --There shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out this section-- (i) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; (iv) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and (v) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. (B) From the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraph (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section-- (i) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 55 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/b2400!ii.htm (iv) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and (v) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. (C) Additional amounts from the general fund. --In addition to amounts made available under subparagraphs (A) and (B), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section-- (i) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; (ii) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (iii) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and (iv) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. (2) Set -aside for reverse commute projects. --Of amounts made available by or appropriated under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) to carry out this section in each fiscal year, not more than $10,000,000 shall be used for grants for reverse commute projects. (3) Allocation. --The amounts made available by or appropriated under paragraph (1) to carry out this section in each fiscal year shall be allocated as follows: (A) 60 percent shall be allocated for eligible projects in urbanized areas with populations of at least 200,000. (B) 20 percent shall be allocated for eligible projects in urbanized areas with populations of at least 200,000. (C) 20 percent shall be allocated for eligible projects in areas other than urbanized areas. SEC. 3038. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5310 note.>> RURAL TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM. (a) Definitions. --In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Intercity, fixed -route over -the -road bus service. --The term "intercity, fixed -route over -the -road bus service'' means regularly scheduled bus service for the general public, using an over -the -road bus, that -- (A) operates with limited stops over fixed routes connecting 2 or more urban areas not in close proximity; (B) has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers; and (C) makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points. (2) Other over -the -road bus service. --The term "other over - the -road bus service" means any other transportation using over -the -road buses including local fixed -route service, commuter service, and charter or tour service (including tour or excursion service that includes features in addition to bus transportation such as meals, lodging, admission to points of interest or special attractions or the services of a tour guide). (3) Over -the -road bus. --The term "over -the -road bus'' means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment. (b) General Authority. --The Secretary shall make grants under this section to operators of over -the -road buses to finance the incremental capital and training costs of complying with the Department of Transportation's final rule regarding accessibility of over -the -road buses required by section 306(a)(2)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12186(a)(2)(B)). (e) Grant Criteria. --In selecting applicants for grants under this section, the Secretary shall consider-- (1) the identified need for over -the -road bus accessibility for persons with disabilities in the areas served by the applicant; (2) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates 56 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea2l/h2400iii.htm innovative strategies and financial commitment to providing access to over -the -road buses to persons with disabilities; (3) the extent to which the over -the -road bus operator acquires equipment required by the final rule prior to any required time£rame in the final rule; (4) the extent to which financing the costs of complying with the Department of Transportation's final rule regarding accessibility of over -the -road buses presents a financial hardship for the applicant; and (5) the impact of accessibility requirements on the continuation of over -the -road bus service, with particular consideration of the impact of the requirements on service to rural areas and for low-income individuals. (d) Competitive Grant Selection. --The Secretary shall conduct a national solicitation for applications for grants under this section. Grantees shall be selected on a competitive basis. (e) Federal Share of Costs. --The Federal share of costs under this section shall be provided from funds made available to carry out this section. The Federal share of the costs for a project shall not exceed 50 percent of the project cost. (f) Grant Requirements. --A grant under this section shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions applicable to subrecipients who provide intercity bus transportation under section 5311(f) of title 49, United States Code, and such other terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe. (g) Funding.-- (1) Intercity, fixed -route over -the -road bus service. --Of amounts made available by or appropriated under section 5338(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code (before allocation under section 5338(a)(2)(C) of that title), the following amounts shall be available for operators of intercity, fixed - route over -the -road bus service to finance the incremental capital and training costs of the Department of Transportation's final rule regarding accessibility of over -the -road buses: (A) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999. (B) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. (C) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. (D) $5,250,000 for fiscal year 2002. (E) $5,250,000 for fiscal year 2003. (2) Other over -the -road bus service. --Of amounts made available by or appropriated under section 5338(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code (before allocation under section 5338(a)(2)(C) of that title), $6,800,000 shall be available for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003 for operators of other over -the -road bus service to finance the incremental capital and training costs of the Department of Transportation's final rule regarding accessibility of over -the -road buses. SEC. 3039. <<NOTE: 23 USC 138 note.>> STUDY OF TRANSIT NEEDS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND RELATED PUBLIC LANDS. (a) Purposes. --The purposes of this section are to encourage and promote the development of transportation systems for the betterment of the national parks and other units of the National Park System, national wildlife refuges, recreational areas, and other public lands in order to conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources and prevent adverse impact, relieve congestion, minimize transportation fuel consumption, reduce pollution (including noise and visual pollution), and enhance visitor mobility and accessibility and the visitor experience. (b) Study.-- (1) In general. --The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, shall undertake a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in national parks and related public lands managed by Federal land management agencies 57 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tea2M2400iii.him in order to carry out the purposes described in subsection (a). The study shall be submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate not later than January 1, 2000. (2) Study elements. --The study required by paragraph (1) shall -- (A) identify transportation strategies that improve the management of the national parks and related public lands; (B) identify national parks and related public lands with existing and potential problems of adverse impact, high congestion, and pollution, or which can benefit from alternative transportation modes; (C) assess the feasibility of alternative transportation modes; and (D) identify and estimate the costs of alternative transportation modes for each of the national parks and related public lands referred to in paragraph (1). SEC. 3040. OBLIGATION CEILING. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total of all obligations from amounts made available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund by, and amounts appropriated under, subsections (a) through (f) of section 5338 of title 49, United States Code, and subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 3037(1)(1) of this Act, shall not exceed-- (1) $5,315,000,000 in fiscal year 1999; (2) $5,798,000,000 in fiscal year 2000; (3) $6,271,000,000 in fiscal year 2001; (4) $6,746,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; and (5) $7,226,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. SEC. 3041. <<NOTE: 49 USC 5338 note.>> ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 1997. (a) In General. --Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall ensure that the total apportionments and allocations made to a designated grant recipient under section 5338 of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal year 1998 shall be reduced by the amount apportioned to such designated recipient pursuant to section 8 of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997 (111 Stat. 2559). (b) Fixed Guideway Modernization Adjustment. --In making the apportionments described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust the amount apportioned to each urbanized area for fixed guideway modernization for fiscal year 1998 to reflect the method for apportioning funds in section 5337(a) of title 49, United States Code. FHWA Home I TEA21 Home 1 Previous I Feedback © FHWA United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration 58 of 58 3/25/99 3:00 PM Newport Beach Electric Shuttle Background Newport Beach is located on the coast of California in Orange County, 14 miles (22 km) from Disneyland (Anaheim), 20 miles (32 km) south of Long Beach, 50 miles (80 km) south of Los Angeles, 64 miles (103 km) west of Palm Springs and 85 miles (136 km) north of San Diego. It is a city of booming retail, renowned oceanfront dining, distinctive housing, and is a popular destination for business and leisure travelers. Approximately 11 million people visit the Newport Beach destinations annually. Recent successful events include the First Annual Newport Beach International Film Festival featuring many categories of fine film over ten days, gathering film enthusiasts from around the world to scenic Newport Beach. Another fine event was the Toshiba Senior Golf Classic held at the lush Newport Beach Country Club. This event included such golf favorites as Lee Trevino and Dave Stockton and was broadcast on ESPN. Other recent events include the Davis Cup, the Nuveen Tennis Tour, and hosting of several Rose Bowl festivities. There are many opportunities for play in Newport Beach including: nature walks or bike rides along the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve; fishing excursions or whale watching from the Balboa Pavilion on the Newport Harbor; surfing or swimming at the many beaches; shopping at the open air Mediterranean -style Fashion Island; or enjoying the sunset from one of the two piers over the Pacific Ocean where dolphins play and pelicans dive for fish. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Additionally, foreign visitors to Orange County would be more likely to be dependent on public transportation. Finally, the shuttle would help improve access to popular public beaches where there is a limited supply of parking. Consortium The City of Newport Beach has partnered with the Newport Beach Conference and Visitor's Bureau (CVB), Southern California Edison, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and local businesses to develop a local shuttle service which would link the various local retail and tourist spots, while reducing local traffic congestion. Given the proposed route and the city's extensive experience with electric vehicles, the consortium seeks to introduce electric shuttles as the technology of choice. The City and CVB are currently cooperating with the City of Anaheim and private service providers to link tourist destinations in the northern part of Orange County to Fashion Island and Balboa Island. In order to reduce capital costs the Newport Beach consortium would join with Anaheim's consortium for the purchase of the vehicles. Project Scope The Newport Beach City Shuttle would complement the county bus service by linking local city attractions. The following destinations have been identified as possible destinations: ♦ Fashion Island (Shopping, Dining, & ♦ Balboa Island (Shopping, Dining, & Cinema) Galleries) ♦ Corona Del Mar Plaza (Shopping & Dining) ♦ Newport Pier (Dining, Beach, & Shopping) ♦ Corona Del Mar State Beach (Beach) ♦ Cannery Village (Dining & Shopping) ♦ Lido Marina Village (Shopping & Village) ♦ Newport Beach CVB (Visitor's Center, Dining, & Yachting) The Newport Beach City Shuttle will be a true public -private partnership. The City of Newport Beach is seeking operating funding from local businesses for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of electric shuttle applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with a route development feasibility study during 1999. The first electric shuttles will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period. Funding Funding is requested for the electric test fleet and associated infrastructure under the Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Equity Act for the 21'n Century, § 3008). • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Newport Beach and operated by private transportation providers in the Newport Beach area. • Three 20 to 35-foot electric heavy-duty vehicles will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 12 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 9 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 6,000 rides. Annually, 1 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at: 3 Shuttle Vehicles $ 750,000 Vehicle Infrastructure $ 150,000 Marketing Program $ 50,000 Training Program $ 25,000 Administration $ 250,000 Operation and Maintenance-lyr $ 667,500 Total Test Fleet $1,892,500 Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program Funding Request $1,5009000 Summary The benefits of the Newport Beach Electric Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced local atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; result in less visitor intrusion in residential neighborhoods; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. EDISON Electric Transportation Project Newport Beach City Shuttle — Route Proposal — February 11,1999 ROUTE PROPOSAL: A Circular Routing with Access on Ferry Attraction Access Stop Fashion Island Shopping Tour Bus Loading Zone Dining (off of Santa Rosa Cinema prior to Atrium Court) Corona Del Mar Plaza Shopping In front of Bristol Farms Dining Corona Del Mar Beach Beach Prior to entering State Beach Beach Parking at Jasmine Balboa Island Shopping Either immediately after Dining Crossing the bridge or at Galleries Park Avenue Ferry Crossing Route * enter Santa Rosa * stop prior to Atrium Court * exit San Miguel (Hard Rock Cafd) * right at Avocado * left into Plaza * exit left onto Avocado * left onto Coast Highway * right onto Marguerite Ave * right onto Ocean Blvd * stop at Jasmine * continue up Ocean Blvd * right at Femleaf (curve to left) * left onto Bayside Drive * left onto Marine Avenue * right onto Park Avenue * left onto Agate Avenue (NOTE: OK to have trolley go to front of line However, need specifications on weight & design of shuttle to assure access & safety) ROUTE PROPOSAL: A (cont.) Balboa Fun Zone Shopping Pahn Street & Balboa Blvd * proceed onto Palm Street (ferry exit) Balboa Pier / Beach Dining * right onto Balboa Blvd. Water Activities * proceed up Balboa Blvd. Arcade Rentals Beach Newport Pier Dining Balboa Blvd/Newport Blvd & 22"d St. * veer right onto Newport Blvd Beach * right onto 30t' St Shopping Cannery Village Dining Lafayette Ave & 31st St/Lido Park Dr. * left onto Lafayette Ave. Shopping * proceed up Lafayette Ave. * left onto Via Lido Lido Marina Village Shopping Via Lido & Via Oporto * proceed up Via Lido Dining * right onto Newport Blvd. * veer right onto West Coast Highway Newport Beach CVB Visitor Center West Coast Highway & Riverside * proceed down West Coast Highway Mariner's Mile Dining Yachting Newport Harbor Museum West Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. * proceed down West Coast Highway Nautical Museum Dining * left onto Newport Center Drive * right onto Newport Center Drive East * left onto Santa Rosa (into Fashion Island) z Orange s Anaheim 14 mllRs l\ZZ KmI W.0 John Waynev Aepon ° f O, OJ F, aon $`^ `ga 4 d Los $e,'�;°� flag An�aeles ea € "/ Q ' so mleoKml ° �k ato - e ti Newport Beach-:! V Corona'del or q P .sea IaDaaR°i yl Mariner's Corona del Mile Mar Fashion Cannery Island Village 9 6� F Q 6 a. p aron[ SaG, nsel � x ho- ze Coasf ��� Pacific an aOw� )y�tl7���� rj .11NIqlk N * NINORT BIAN A L I f 0 R N I A THE• (OIORFUI• [OAST® 3300 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 J T:714-722-1611 800-94-COAST F:714-722-1612 http://www.newport-beach.ca.us \_O MEN Balboa Beach Fun Zone Balboa Island PAO OJ=O JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT one Ne..J»n BeorA pt O nob \ 1FA� s o V¢ Laita�oe.l �a BOO \N qRY kee­­I� Q j l R ma»m Ne«Pon Reach Mamae Sulks .,,- .-s..u..rauw� ....url.u.u��.v.u.r..u...�.... _ ._- ..__ v..�,i •:� * n - - 1. IPe OJ AJ HosPn°I Rd 11Y// C +�, a 8 +``ate t i. aeOr Hoag Hoog s Hospt i I�Pats�oaoP- ` t�LOJ. �� � x- ranks for, r P� `- ne..�u. a,� CIiN� nHad»r �� y, c ® ors Nexport IRd. NNa ml Mu»u --Cl icinn Old �nl'o Wl tbm^s R,VPehu^ $ T e++m' r ��• 1 o w^dows ' GrestiM o - Linda Isle 111\\ Whichahea. Hombloxn on she Ror -OuRdd Hama �� V££ e«b.me rawa'4_. id. Channel -" Bt'C, , , �+ ` uG.C3 janna`i'�l =, xip.raa=> 'Shore Da t ...,HIsrlbndr ,- m�!/a� co^^ sllla Vy"-' s�`�c°'na�o�J_a�s7 sl l �l l _gxi• :rr, ii ;� $ $v o- w ^, ' " .' Collins _LIDO ISLAND II _ < t, bland Do il OG s <g—v^Lda sa„d t t. '` Bay ealbaar,p�//]}I Island s a° - .. y,t _ i tle Lrb P19, enl.e. x +ts a k"+a ». V / ,in t5=7..I�Ja0��V ®I _ uuuuu W� ,� S whrf Ray Am. aaca i W. �, Are I I I I Ir / M1OYr` M1x 5 ace,©1Y. I v� �® ss' Is�ol ,T ua �f T= = ❑ ❑ L Da�L ryyx ryx9 ryx +'� N _ s� u I..J IIIJJJ Balboa Blvd. ��N� he n I I s.� i ICI I. nu "nN Back Bay Ecological Reserve V /P I U ,s a° Newport Bay IjJ drAoWlwle x t 0 ° J �PC a/bo, 6% ^I I C 1 n o NI IH A O j sW4e ADO/�JJJ Re:he \ a OO OO �P J �O laaOO Paint, - Corona del MarBa I Cornea InsP urban Th_wed9e - Ik x s ;Newport Beach Conference & Visitor Bureau Membership ' RESTAURANTS Address City Phone Fax I Al 21 Oceanfront 2100 West Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 673-2100 (714) 675-2503 2 A2 Amelia's on Balboa Island 311 Marine Avenue Balboa Island (714) 673-6580 (714) 673-5395 3 A3 The Arches Restaurant - _ - - '' ` 3334 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 645-7077 (714) 645-4718 4 A4 Bal6oa'lslond Coffee Corn F__,'ti 322 Marine Avenue Balboa Island (714) 675-9300 (714) 675-9327 'P� 5 AS �e-'Bisho 201� 3333,WestCoast Highway Newport Beach (714) 637-1557 (714) 631-2956 6 A6 ---. Bob Burns Restaurant j £', 37 ?cshiori lsland Newport Beach (714) 664-2030 (714) 664-6621 7 A7 _"Britta's Cafe _ r - Ark 205 Main Street Balboa (714) 675-8146 (714) 723-7825 8 A44 t"Caffe Carlucao - (- - '-> 2201 West Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 675-7004 (714) 675-2370 _ 9 A8 The Cannery Restaurant - �3010 Lafayette Avenue Newport Beach (714) 675-5777 (714) 675-2510 L F, 13, 10 Chantedair Restaurant,- estaurant Inc '_, - ---` cA 18912'Marlhur Blvd. Irvine (714) 752-8001 (714) 955-1394 U �3 11 A70 Chili's Bar & Grill 3300 West Coast Highway, Ste B Newport Beach (714) 631-7515 (714) 631-0533 12 All Chimayo Grill 327 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 640-2700 (714) 640-1186 13 Al2 El Torito Grill -, 59 Fashion Island Newport Beach (714) 640-2875 (714) 640-7818 k- 14- A13 Emerald Forest Rest. Bar & Grill -- _, 309 Palm Street, *I- - - - -- - . Balboa -- (714) 723-5000 (714)"723-5542 15 A14 Five Crowns Restaurant 3801 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar (714) 760-0331 (714) 760-3987 16 A15 Gringo's Grill I I I Palm Street - Balboa (714) 723-6144 (714) 554-2201 17 A16 Hard Rock Cafe 451 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 640-8844 (714) 640-5385 { 18 A17 Hooters 2406 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 723-5800 (714) 723-1257 19 A18 John Dominis 2901 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 650-5112 (714) 650-2059 20 A19 Margaritaville 2332 West Coast Highway Newport, Beach ey (714) 631-8220, (714) 631-8146 as 21 A46 Mandarin House 810 East Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach . '- (714) 675-7687 ,v'-,' ,(714) 675-7597 22 A21 Muldoon's Irish Pub & Restaurant - 202 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach , (714) 640 1(714) 644-2159 �5,�(714)675-8449 23 ' A22 Newport Beach Brewery p ry 2920 Newport Blvd. wp .� Ne ort Beach - wp � (71a'673-2345 24 A23 Newport Landing 503 East Edgewater ," B61boa _ '`(7,14)-675-2390 n (714) 675-0682 25 A25 Pascal French Restaurant 1000 Bristol Street r Newport Beach . _. (714)752-0107 (714) 752-4942 26 Planet Hollywood 1641 West Sunflower Cast. Mesa j f i (714) 434-7827 (714) 668-1444 { H 28 A28 The Ritz 880 Newport Center Newport Beach L , (714j 720-1800! t (714) 720-3973 .I� 29 A29 Rothschild's 2407 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar (714) 673-3750 (714) 673-4083 30 A32 Rusty Pelican 2735 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 642-3431 (714) 642-0838 31 A33 Sapori Ristorante 1080 Bayside Drive Newport Beach (714) 644-4220 (714) 644-1932 32 A35 Tale of the Whale 400 Main Street Balboa (714) 673-4633 (714) 673-5085 33 A37 Trophy's Sports Grill 4221 Dolphin Striker Way Newport Beach (714) 756-8800 (714) 756-8850 34 A38 Tutto Mare 545 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 640-6333 (714) 640-1752 35 A43 Twin Palms 630 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 721-8288 (714) 721-8460 36 A39 Warehouse Restaurant 3450 Via Oporto Newport Beach (714) 673-4700 (714) 673-5120 37 A40 Windows on the Bay 2241 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 722-1400 (714) 722-1665 38 A41 Woody's Wharf 2318 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 675-0474 39 A42 Yankee Tavern 333 Bayside Drive Newport Beach (714) 675-5333 (714) 675-1642 ATTRACTIONS Address"v'r`i`.', '^.`'City Phone Fax 1 B16 Angel Cove Studio 340 Poi set a, �1 � `Y t CoronaDel Mar (714) 723-6023 (714) 721-8825 2 Bren Events Center , Univ6fiify of California Irvine Fne •t.,v (714) 824-5050 (714) 824-5097 3 62 Newport Harbor Art Museum t 860 San Clement Newport $ ach (714) 759-1122 (714) 759-5623 4 B3 Newport Harbor Nautical Museum 151 East Coast T-Iighway "'1 Newport Beach (714) 673-3377 (714) 955-2728 5 B4 Newport Sports Collection Foundation. $' 620 Newp6rrf c81nnrer Drive is ' Newport Beach (714) 721-9333 (714) 721-0999 ta, saw.;'40 6 Orange County Performing Arts CenterT-x600 Town CenteYDiwe .'� ' _ ¢'• Costa Mesa (714) 556-2122 (714) 556-0156 7 Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace '18001 Yorba Linda Blvd. &=' Fif * -Yorki-indo (714) 993-5075 (714) 528-0544 '�'* tom# kr v 8 Robert Mondavi Wine & Food Center 1570 Scenic Avenuet�.'"'s' m" j -, *'CostMesa (714) 979-4510 (714) 979-5616 9 67 Roger's Gardens - 2301 San Joaquin HX S Road Corona Del Mar (714) 640-5800 (714) 640-7528 10 B8 Sherman Library & Gardens 2547 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar (714) 673-2261 (714) 675-5458 11 The Spa at South Coast Plaza 695 Town Center Drive, Ste 180x Costa Mesa (714) 850-0050 (714) 850-0825 12 The Sports Club/Irvine 1980 Main Street Irvine (714) 975-8400 (714) 251-1336 13 Walt Disney Attractions 700 West Ball Road Anaheim (714) 781-1889 (714) 781-1849 14 B74 Rouse Fashion Island Management 550-A Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 721-2022 (714) 721-2023 15 B15 Pelican Hill Golf Club 22651 Pelican Hill Road South Newport Coast (714) 759-5190 (714) 640-0855 NIWPORT BfAfHRNIA THE (OIORFUt COASTS YACHT CHARTERS, WATER SPORTS Address City Phone Fax & SPEACIALTY SERVICES 1 Cl Adventures at Sea 3101 West Coast Highway, Ste 209 Newport Beach (800) 229-2412 (714) 548-8856 2 C2 American Yacht Charters 670 Lido Park Drive Newport Beach (714) 673-4453 (714) 673-0807 3 C3 Balboa Boat Rentals 510 East Edgewater Avenue Balboa (714) 673-7200 (714) 673-1320 4 C4 Catalina Passenger Service 400 Main Street Balboa (774) 673-5245 (714) 673-8340 5 C5 Daveys Locker Sportsfishing, Inc. 400 Main Street Balboa :: - -- (714) 673-1434 }',',''., (714) 673-5347 6 C16 Duffield Electric Boat Company 2001 West Coast Highway Newport Beach ;,-,F - " (714) 645-6427 (714) 645-8108 7 C6 Electra Cruises, Inc. 3431 Via Oporto, Unit D ; Newport Beach (714) 723-1069 (714) 723-5156 8 C7 Fun Zone Boat Company 700 East Edgewater Avenue `.Balboa - - - (714) 673-0240 (714) 673-8413 9 C8 Fun Zone Water Bikes 600 East Edgewater Avenue -_Balboa =-_ - "- (714) 673-5002 (714) 673-3768 10 C9 Hornblower Dining Yachts 2341 West Coast Highway - Newport Beach t (714) 646-0755 (774) 646-5924 a' 11 C10 Newport Yacht Charters 2801 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 673 3000 (714) 673-0825 12 C11 Orca Yacht Charters 2901 West Coast Hi hw Ste 220 9 ay, Newport Beach ewpo 774 650 6722+ (_,) (774) 650-6102 d tc 13 C12 Pacific Avalon Yacht Charters 3424 Via Oporto, #103 Newport Beach (714)` 673-8545 (7141 673-9120 14 C13 Pavilion Queen / Pavilion Paddy 400 Main Street Balboa (714) 673-5245 (714) 673-8340 15 C15 Walk on Water 503 East Edgewater Avenue Newport Beach (714) 675-6800 LODGING - Address City Phone Fax 1 DI The Balboa Bay Club 1221 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 645-5000 (714) 650-8986 2t D2 Balboa Inn 105 Main Sheet Balboa (714) 675-3412 (714) 673-4587 t� 3 D3 Best Western Bay Shores 1800 West Balboa Blvd Newport Beach (714) 675-3463 (714) 675-4977 4 D4 Dairyman's Oceeanfront Inn 2102 West Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 675-7300 (714) 675-7300 5 D5 Four Seasons Hotel 690 Newort Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 759-0808 (714) 760-8073 6 D6 Hyatt Newporter Resort U 07 Jamboree Road Newport Beach (714) 729-1234 (714) 644-2260 ���- 7 D7 Little Inn on the Bay ' 617 Lido Park Dnve - Newport Beach (714) 673-8800 (714) 673-8800 8 D8 Newport Beach Marriott Hotel , 900 Newport Center Drive o Newport Beach (714) 640-4000 (714) 640-4918 &Tennis Club N 9 D9 i Newport Beach Marriott Suites 500 Bayview Circle-~ Newport Beach (714) 854-4500 (714) 854-3072 10 D10 Newport Channel Inn 6030 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 642-3030 (714) 650-2666 c� j `•12300 11 Dl 1 Newport Classic Inn West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 722-2999 (714) 631-5659 i`7 12 D15 Newport Dunes Resort (ry park) 1131 Back Bay Drive Newport Beach (714) 729-3863 (714) 759-5685 13 D12 Portofino Beach Hotel ui 2306 West Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 673-7030 (714) 723-4370 14 D16 Rendezvous Inn Balboa s S 514 East Ocean6n- Newport Beach (714) 675-4104 (714) 848-2794 15 D13 Sheraton Newport Beach Hotel 4545 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 833-0570 (714) 833-0187 16 D14 The Sutton Place Hotel 4500 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 476-2001 (714) 250-7191 Orange s Anaheim Id mills 122 Kml W> nwaynev 8a dand n Im° T.a�nr'19Qyre Los Angqeles e ° 50. 18014n1 �k o c g DOJf C Newport Beach r Corona del Mar . y San Deg?, s a?, v� Coral San a„ NIWPORT BIACH f THE• (0L0RIUIr [OASTa 3300 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 T: 714-722-1611 800-94-COAST F:714-722-1612 http://www.newport-beach.ca.us T Mariner's Mile - Fashion Island Corona del Mar y 14, a, hlyg&,71Sgz V �[ Cannery Y'Ilage MW l Balboa Beach Fun Zone ^OOL Balboa Island �v 3 oJ2oP JOHN WAYNE ������ °°J c"> i AIRPORT Boy MEN GDP �� Ud1 7 t� i Yk# t .r ;rt Poi Fmr Nexpon Beodi Mamd Saki r # PjO �J S,oa Opel o / Y Oe gy�mm^^ F �O� Linda Isle fi :a rvarum,� ^ aan ,C nulfiddn ®� ° do hand 1M eal� oOif I Bar Shure �6 S° �6 Caan �YVlla Ld of 3�0Vy'x(/"`�>�J>/1cf°J / , cF•a/Har6orTe Island S7 ,,7 o 7 _ I _LIDO ISLANDIo s s IJ]°71103 e 11d' u ,a Sa^ °� Ya Ldo Saud ..a�x6% "R Ldo Pen wla y a� as x'4n''u6*"?o- Island ,'§ . " - io e yE Edge iur re a n au 1 1 , W. Edgew° I n Bay A.e eawm. Li Li � u ILAveJI —. iJJill ViAkL�J no ;'5 y let, .... ., 0Y" g41 Back Bay u Ecological Reserve iek d�Fa Wnela V 0 H AdM uuu wj Ncpw1 F6dnr Arm awmberd Ne pw=t m lik 8nj[nj[[[ YI I- G 7 Ba, ha Poml or Eas) / Newport Bay ❑CoB. Gk 3 � Irc ®N Im � X- "Ar len. IASHION ` ISLAND 1® Nkoloe Carporo 0 v Chab op \o ti aOa ( DP 1 /te mQV BNdio oCo �dayyda V �OO'y° T ERes( ry 2 Jj i '�o �aan el' I IaaRa= O Corona del Mar Big �rana Point pe 1 m � I I LIBe I Cn° The Wedge - Newport Beach C o n f e r e n c e � V i s i tor Bureau Membership 32 A35 Tale of the Whale 400 Main Street Balboa (714) 673-4633 (714) 673-5085 YACHT CHARTERS, WATER SPORTS Address City Phone Fax & SPEACIALTY SERVICES 33 A37 Trophy's Sports Grill 4221 Dolphin Striker Way Newport Beach (714) 756-8800 (714) 756-8850 1 Cl Adventures at Sea 3101 West Coast Highway, Ste 209 Newport Beach (800) 229-2412 (714) 548-8856 RESTAURANTS Address City Phone Fax 34 A38 Tutto Mare 545 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 640-6333 (714) 640-1752 Twin Palms 630 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach 774 721-8288 714 721-8460 2 C2 American Yacht Charters 670 Lido Park Drive Newport Beach (714) 673-4453 (714) 673-0807 35 A43 Tw 1 Al 21 Oceanfront 2100 West Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 673-2100 (714) 675-2503 P P ( ) ( ) 36 A39 Warehouse Restaurant 3450 Via Oporto Newport Beach (714) 673-4700 (714) 673-5120 3 C3 Balboa Boat Rentals 510 East Edgewater Avenue Balboa (714) 673-7200 (714) 673-1320 2 A2 Amelia's on Bal�oa Island 311 Marine Avenue Balboa Island (714) 673-6580 (714) 673-5395. _ ,- � *� ft� 4 C4 Catalina Passenger Service 400 Main Street Balboa f" 714) 673-5245 (714) 673-8340 kv A3 The Arihes kestaurannf 4 N 37 A40 Windows on the Bay 2241 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 722-1400 (714) 722-1665 3334 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 645-7077 (714) 645-4718 3 f '--; 38 A41 Wood s Wharf 2318 Newport Blvd. Ne ort Beach 714 675-0474 5 C5 Davey's Locker Sportsfishing, Inc. 400 Main Street Balboa t 'i n . - (714) 673.14Shv„ (714) 673-5341 4 A4 Balboallsland Coffe�eCoLnpa4ny 'E#322 Marine Avenue Balboa Island (714) 675-9300 (714) 675-9327 + ` 39 A42 Yankee Tavern 333 Bayside Drive Newport Beach (714) 675-5333 (714) 675-1642 b Cl b Duffield Electric Boat Company 2001 West Coast Highway Newport Beach .-3'"s (714)°6� 5`bd `1j714) 645-8108 5 AS v Bishot201 1n 3�3 ZWest Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 631-1551 (714) 631-2956 S *win� 7 C6 Electra Cruises, Inc. 3431 Via Oporto, Unit D NewportBeach-; (714) 723-1069 ° t(714) 723-5156 6 Ab Bool Burn.gRe"dthtT�'�&t ,'-; . 37 Fashion Island Newport Beach (714) 664-2030 (714) 664-6621 ATTRACTIONS Address i I� � -_ �Cr Phone Fax 8 C7 Fun Zone Baat Com an 700 East Ed ewater Avenue �� Balboa � r ��a i �14 673-0240 1'4 673-8413 _ ty P Y 9 _ € #xu lT( ) v4k 7 A7 ritta's Ca er 205 Main Street Balboa (714) 675-8146 (714) 723-7825 1 B16 Angel Cove Studio 340 Pomset is ' h ! Corona Del Mar (714) 723-6023 (714) 721-8825 9 C8 Fun Zone Water Bikes 600 East Edgewater Avenue . Balboa v t (<711y4 ¢ 3-5002 (714) 673-3768 'Fj ctF 8 A44 %Gaffe Carlucc10 2201 West Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach 714 675-7004 714 675-2370 2 Bren Events Center rUniversiy of California Irvine i Irvine °. 3 (714) 824-5050 (714) 824-5097 10 C9 Hornblower DiningYachts 2341 West Coast Highway 4� e ort Beach r 714 646-U 55 714 646-5924 " P 1 1 I I 94 s r "m� J )# 11 3 B2 Newport Harbor Art Museum 850 San Clement � Newport Beach (714) 759-1122 (7] A) 759-5623 1 T C70 Newport Yacht Charters 2801 West Coast Highway Newport Beach "# 714 673 3000 714 673-0825 9 A8 a Cannery Res au� 'E € ii101 O Lafayette Avenue Newport Beach (714) 675-5777 (714) 675-2510 - ewp 9 % p � a (v :) ,. ( ) i�it K ` 4 B3 Newport Harbor Nautical Museum t,'751 East -Coast Highw Newport Beach (714) 673-3377 (714) 955-2728 12 CI 1 Orca Yacht Charters 2901 West Coast Highway, �' 10 Chanteclair Restaurants Ilsnc.J € F-18912 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine (714) 752-8001 (714) 955-1394 +f 1�', g ay, Ste 220 Newport Beach )-r(774) 650 6Z22y (714) 650-6102 'r ) Tt 5 B4 Newport Sports Collection Foundation, rJ 620 Newport Center Drive I- Newport Beach (71 A) 721-9333 (714) 721-0999 ($ (+ 11 A10 Chili's Bar & Grill 3300 West Coast Highway, Ste B Newport Beach (714) 631-7515 (714) 631-0533 , a , jp '�' yr"`-t" r 13 C72 Pacific Avalon Yacht Charters 3424 Yo Oporto, #103 Newport Beach (714J`673-8545 (714) 673-9120 6 Orange County Performing Arts Centr'1600 Town Center Drive- _ _ Costa Mesa (714) 556-2122 (714) 556-0156 E* h a eg, ••'- N 14 C13 Pavilion Queen / Pavilion Paddy 400 Main Street Balboa (714) 673-5245 (714) 673-8340 12 All Chimayo Grill 327 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 640-2700 (714) 640-1186 7 Richard Nixon Library &Birthplace r 8001 Yorbd;Linda Bivd.Yogrba, Linda (714) 993-5075 (714) 528-0544 iU "+t rr art .p = o- ¢ �._ @ 15 C15 Walk on Water 503 East Edgewater Avenue Newport Beach (714) 675-6800 13 Al2 El Torito Grill 59 Fashion Island Newport Beach (714) 640-2875 (714) 640-7818 " b r • ,.; t rx. z a t 8 Robert Mondavi Wine & Food Center 1570 Scenic Avenue.+�t t Costa Mesa (714) 979-4510 (714) 979-5616 14 - A13 Emerald Forest Rest. Bar & Grill .. - -- 309 Palm Street, #H-„ - Balboa - (714) 723-5000 (714) 723-5542 9 - B7 Rogers Gardens - 2301 San Joaquir, HiRs Road, Corona Del Mar (714) 640-5800 (714) 640-7528 - - •" -- - -- - —�- _ LODGING Address City Phone Fax 15 A14 Five Crowns Restaurant 3801 East Coast Highway ' Corona Del Mar (714) 760-0331 (714) 760-3987 10 B8 Sherman Library & Gardens 2547 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar (714) 673-2261 (714) 675-5458 1 DI The Balboa Bay Club 1221 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 645-5000 (714) 650-8986 76 A75 Gringo's Grill 111 Palm Sheet Balboa (714) 723-6144 (774) 554-2201 11 The Spa at South Coast Plaza 695 Town Center Drive, Ste 180x Costa Mesa (714) 850-0050 (714) 850-0825 2 D2 Balboa Inn 105 Main Street Balboa (714) 675-3412 (714) 673-4587 17 A16 Hard Rock Cafe 451 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 640-6844 (714) 640-5385 12 The Sports Club/Irvine 1980 Main Street Irvine (714) 975-8400 (714) 251-1336 3 D3 Best Western Bay Shores 1800 West Balboa Blvd Newport Beach (714) 675-3463 (714) 675-4977 13 Walt Disney Attractions 700 West Ball Road Anaheim (714) 781-1889 (714) 781-1849 18 A17 Hooters 2406 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 723-5800 (714) 723-1257 14 B74 Rouse Fashion Island Management 550-A Newport Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 721-2022 (714) 727 -2023 4 D4 Doryman's Ocreanfront Inn 2102 West Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 675-7300 (714) 675-7300 19 A18 John Dominis 2901 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 650-5112 (714) 650-2059 5 D5 Four Seasons Hotel 690 Newort Center Drive Newport Beach (714) 759-0808 (714) 760-8073 15 B15 Pelican Hill Golf Club 22651 Pelican Hill Road South Newport Coast (71A) 759-5190 (714) 640-0855 20 A19 Margaritaville 2332 West Coast Highway Newport Beach'' f714) 631-8220, (714) 631-8146 y p t'"` � Newport ( ) (714) 644-2260 r b D6 Hatt New orter Resort e�' y1 ] 07rJ�amboree Road'+ Ne ort Beach 714 729-1234 i 21 A46 Mandarin House 810 East Balboa Blvd. Newport Beachri , '=iu 5 (714 6757687 s Z 714) 675-7597 7 D7 Little Inn on the Bay 617 Lido Park Dnve t -+_ Newport Beach (714) 673-8800 (714) 673-8800 22 A21 Muldoon's Irish Pub & Restaurant 202 Newport Center Drive NeN�port B ae ch"l, (714) 640-4T 1W� (714) 644-2159 8 D8 Newport Beach Marriott Hotel `F,'^D /900 Newport Center Drive ;;L .4 Newport Beach (714) 640-4000 (714) 640-4918 '-r'e•.,.� a`� &Tennis Club (f.�"';^t 23 A22 Newport Beach Brewery 2920 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach ,. k ss.�.(7714) 675-8449 (714) 673-2345 4`} 'w -'=-t ` 9 D9 Newport Beach Marriof Suites 500 Bayview Circle Newport Beach (714) 854-4500 (714) 854-3072 24 A23 Newport Landing 503 East Edgewater Balboa 1 _. Vr(7T4)'675-2390 (714) 675-0682Pit:/ 1 f f",� r * # fP* nhq,#q 10 D10 Newport Channel Inn "� , 6030 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 642-3030 (714) 650-2666 t 1 av #kk 7 - 25 A25 Pascal French Restaurant 1000 Bristol Street Newport Beach ; r 'V) 752-0107 (714) 752-4942 }' : € i ` ` - - -`t » !f**&& i ® 11 Dl l Newport Classic Inn ;,2360,West Coast HigWcy Newport Beach (714) 722-2999 (714) 631-5659 26 Planet Hollywood 1641 West Sunflower Costa Mesa § 4G'(714j 434.7827 (714) 668-1444 ( . a i i. _ f te r j FF 7 q-*A*t NINORTL 12 D15 Newport Dunes Resort (ry park) 1131 Back Bay Drive Newport Beach(714) 729-3863 (714) 759-5685 28 A28 The Ritz 880 New ort Center New ort Beach 4) L��� _ P P)„(714 720.1800 (714 720-3973 Tl J `'7 13 D72 Portofino Beach Hotel 2306 West Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 673-7030 (714) 723-4370 9 Y11' I) f A L I f: 0 R N I A ` L� u' 29 A29 Rothschild's 2407 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar 71v4 671-3750 714 673-4083 " ` 14 D16 Rendezvous Inn Balboa 514 East Oceanfront Newport Beach (714) 675-4104 (714) 848-2794 30 A32 Rusty Pelican 2735 West Coast Highway Newport Beach (714) 642-3431 (714) 642-0838 i H f - R L 0 R f U L • COASTS 15 D13 Sheraton Newport Beach Hotel 4545 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 833-0570 (714) 833-0187 31 A33 Sapori Ristorante 1080 Bayside Drive Newport Beach (714) 644-4220 (714) 644-1932 i 16 D14 The Sutton Place Hotel 4500 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach (714) 476-2001 (714) 250-7191 I ^v 4-,& 1► , I qqq NtwpoRT BiAcfl T-COLORfUL-LOASTl H 1— �u:gay.�,'y EDISON Electric Transportation Project Newport Beach City Shuffle —Route Proposal —February 11,1999 ROUTE PROPOSAL: B Cross Ferry on Foot Attraction Access Stop Route Balboa Pier / Beach Shopping Balboa Beach Parking Lot * left onto Main Street Balboa Fun Zone Dining * left onto Balboa Blvd. Water Activities Arcade Rentals Beach Newport Pier Cannery Village Lido Marina Village Newport Beach CVB Mariner's Mile Dining Beach Shopping Dining Shopping Shopping Dining Visitor Center Dining Yachting Balboa Blvd/Newport Blvd & 22"d St. * veer right onto Newport Blvd * right onto 30a' St Lafayette Ave & 31s` St/Lido Park Dr Via Lido & Via Oporto West Coast Highway & Riverside * left onto Lafayette Ave. * proceed up Lafayette Ave. * left onto Via Lido * proceed up Via Lido * right onto Newport Blvd. * veer right onto West Coast Highway * proceed down West Coast Highway ROUTE PROPOSAL: B (cont.) Newport Harbor Museum West Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. * proceed down West Coast Highway Nautical Museum Dining * left onto Newport Center Drive * right onto Newport Center Drive East * left onto Santa Rosa (into Fashion Island) Fashion Island Shopping Tour Bus Loading Zone * stop prior to Atrium Court Dining (off of Santa Rosa * exit San Miguel (Hard Rock Cafe) Cinema prior to Atrium Court) * right at Avocado Corona Del Mar Plaza Shopping In front of Bristol Farms * left into Plaza Dining * exit left onto Avocado * right onto Coast Highway Balboa Island Shopping Either immediately after * left onto Jamboree / Marine Avenue Dining Crossing the bridge or at * right onto Park Avenue Galleries Park Avenue * disembark at Agate Avenue Ferry Crossing Park Avenue & Agate Avenue NOTE: riders must cross ferry on foot The route would then back track. NOTE: This route does not include Corona Del Mar as a stop and does not allow passengers to ride across ferry via shuttle. ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION CITY OF ANAHEIM MARCH 23, 1998 1. SELF INTRODUCTIONS 2. STATUS OF OCTA INVOLVEMENT 3. PROJECT BRIEFINGS Anaheim Resort Intelligent Trans City of Newport 4. LEGISLATIVE ST: 5. NEXT STEPS Anaheim Resort Transportation - (ART) Background Anaheim currently hosts 15 million visitors annually and projected attendance is expected to increase 60% as a result of the Disneyland Resort and Sportstown developments and expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Employment projections indicate that more than 16,000 new jobs will be created as a result of these developments. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium A task force composed of representatives from the hospitality industry, the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Public Utility, First World Fiber Optic Network, Orange County Transportation Authority, Southern California Edison, transportation providers, and the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), a local non-profit transportation management association, is working to upgrade this system. The Task Force has been meeting since 1997 to develop a service vision and to build community support for ART. Project Scope The ART system will replace the conventional diesel and gasoline shuttle vehicles with a fleet of uniform, attractive alternative and electric fuel vehicles incorporated into a "Smart Shuttle" system using the latest intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. Natural gas vehicles will provide the backbone of the fleet, along with a supplemental fleet of progressive test vehicles. The test vehicle fleet will be comprised of pure electric and hybrid electric full-size transit vehicles. Innovative pure electric trams will also be deployed to serve the Convention Center -and adjacent properties. The ART Task Force will be integrating the transit system with state of the art intelligent transportation systems (ITS). For example, the system will employ state of the art dispatching, safety applications, and vehicle performance evaluation applications based on Advanced Vehicle Location technology. Smart Card technology will be used for collecting the nominal fares, to track system ridership, and to work with smart bus stop systems. This type of technology will expedite loading and enhance overall guest -experience. Another option being investigated would incorporate the transit Smart Cards into a resort area payment card. The transportation system will be networked with kiosk based technology to allow visitors access to destination information and transportation scheduling. This visitor information system will be extended to in -room access after the kiosk system is developed. The ART system will be a true public -private partnership. A local private operator is making a substantial investment in the alternative fuel equipment for the base fleet. The City of Anaheim and ATN will be partnering with this operator to access supplemental funds for incremental costs, infrastructure, and training. They City of Anaheim is seeking funding for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of ITS and alternative fuel applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with existing buses during 1999. The first 12 natural gas buses will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of approximately 35 natural gas and test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period before the June 2001 Disneyland second attraction opening. Systems Integration for the Intelligent Transportation System components should begin in the Fall of 1999. The system will be implemented in phases. Phase I will include a Smart Card based fare system, Automatic Vehicle Location based dispatch systems and Smart Bus Stops, and a kiosk -based visitor information system. Phase 2 will involve the addition of payment card options, AVL based safety and vehicle evaluation applications, and in -room access to the visitor information system. Procurement of hardware will begin in Spring 2000, with initial testing of systems to begin in Summer of 2000. Full implementation of phase 1 is scheduled for early 2001. Funding Funding is being sought for the electric and hybrid -electric test fleet and associated infrastructure and the Intelligent Transportation Systems. In summary, the vehicle portion of the ART system will operate as follows: • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Anaheim, administered by the Anaheim Transportation Network, and operated by private transportation providers in the Anaheim Resort. • Twelve 35-foot electric and hybrid natural gas/electric heavy-duty vehicles and four electric trams (each tram consists of 1 power car, 2 battery units, and 2 passenger cars) will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 22 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 16 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 24,000 rides. Annually, 24 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at • 12 Shuttle Vehicles $4,200,000 • Vehicle Infrastructure $ 500,000 • 4Trams $1$00,000 • Tram Infrastructure $ 10,000 • Marketing Program $ 250,000 • Training Program $ 100,000 • Administration $ 250,000 • Operation and Maintenance-lyr $2,670,000 Total Test Fleet $9,480,000 The ITS portions ofthe project will involve strong partnerships between the ATN, the City of Anaheim, the transportation and resort community, and First World Communications, our fiber-optic partner. Development of this system will require systems integration and software development, hardware procurement, and field testing. The initial cost of this integration, hardware, and software is estimated at $3.5 million, Summary The benefits of the Anaheim Resort Area Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced Resort atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. 2 Anaheim Resort Transportation Smart System- (ARTSS) Background Anaheim currently hosts 15 million visitors annually and projected attendance is expected to increase 60% as a result of the Disneyland Resort and Sportstown developments and expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Employment projections indicate that more than 16,000 new jobs will be created as a result of these developments. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium A task force composed of representatives from the hospitality industry, the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Public Utility, First World Fiber Optic Network, Orange County Transportation Authority, Southern California Edison, Southern California Economic Partnership, transportation providers, and the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), a local non-profit transportation management association, is working to upgrade this system. The Task Force has been meeting since 1997 to develop a service vision and to build community support for ART. Project Scope The ART system will replace the conventional diesel and gasoline shuttle vehicles with a fleet of uniform, attractive alternative and electric fuel vehicles incorporated into a "Smart Shuttle" system using the latest intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. Natural gas vehicles will provide the backbone of the fleet, along with a supplemental fleet of progressive electric buses and trams. The ART Task Force will be integrating the transit system with state of the art ITS system components. In summary, the ITS portion of the ART system will operate as follows: • ART Smart Systems is an integration of many ITS Subsystems technologies that employ a modular architecture to make it easy to integrate and to allow some flexibility in implementing the system. • The system will be linked by a communication network that has wireless and landline networks. • Smart Card technologies will be used for the ART transportation system and for access to other resort area transportation services, including taxi cabs, tours, and airport transportation. Connection to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus system will also be tested. • As a second phase, the transit Smart Cards may be expanded into a resort area payment card • The Smart Card system will be based on a radio frequency (RF) proximity card. A basic fare card system will be set up as either an electronic purse or as a credit card. • The AVL system will use spread spectrum wireless communications and state of the art computer aided dispatching, safety applications, and vehicle performance evaluation applications. • Bus stops will be equipped with changeable message signs and emergency service connections. Demand sensing capabilities will be phased in. • Visitor information services will be offered through a wide area network, web page, and interactive multi -media kiosk based system. This system will eventually be extended to in -room access. • The ART Smart System will be operated up to 22 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 16 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. The ART Smart System is fully committed to the National ITS Architecture, and will follow the guidelines where the user services are well defined. The system will be fully compatible with OCTA's regional TransitTip and TransitProbe ITS and traveler information projects. This system will be a true public -private partnership. A local private operator is making a substantial investment in the alternative fuel equipment for the base fleet, which will be complimented by the City of Anaheim's test fleet of advanced vehicles. This fleet will be a showcase system for the deployment of ITS in a public -private transit system partnership. Other transportation service providers in the area will be partnering with the project to offer Smart Card access to a wide range of transportation services. Coordination of AVL based dispatch capabilities will allow private operators to work closely with the City of Anaheim's Traffic Management Center to facilitate traffic flow throughout the City. The City of Anaheim and the ATN will partner with the First World Fiber Optic Network to lead the visitor information system portion of the project. Schedule Systems Integration for the Intelligent Transportation System components should begin in the summer of 1999. The system will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 will include a Smart Card based fare system, AVL based dispatch systems and Smart Bus Stops, and a kiosk -based visitor information system. Phase 2 will involve the addition of payment card options, AVL based safety and vehicle evaluation applications, and in -room access to the visitor information system. Procurement of hardware will begin in early 2000, with initial testing of systems to begin in summer of 2000. Full Implementation of Phase 1 is scheduled for early 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period before the June 2001 Disneyland Resort second attraction and Convention Center opening. Funding Funding is being sought for the electric and hybrid -electric test fleet, associated infrastructure, and the ITS tools. Development of the ART Smart System will require systems integration and software development, hardware procurement, and field-testing. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs are not requested. The initial cost of this integration, hardware, and software is estimated as follows: Phase 1 Systems Engineering Equipment(Vendor Services Subtotal Phase 1 Total Funding Requested $ 350,000 850,000 $1,200,000 $3,500,000 Phase 2 Systems Engineering Labor $ 300,000 Material & Vendor Services $2,000,000 Subtotal Phase 2 $2,300.000 Summary This project will advance the state-of-the-art by demonstrating new technologies for real-time transit demand sensing and mitigation, low-cost spread spectrum wireless network, smart bus stops, smart cards electronic payment system, kiosks, and in -room interactive cable TV providing real time transit availability and location to Anaheim visitors, residents, and employees. The most important benefit of this project will be the development of integrated platforms that transit districts throughout the state can use as a model for their open systems. This approach will allow transit operators to utilize ITS applications for fare collection, fleet management, and a host of other applications while still controlling costs and maintainability. Implementation of the system will increase transit ridership, enhance traffic management, and reduce vehicle trips in the Anaheim Resort. Trimble Daniel From: Diane Kotler[SMTP:commuting@anaheim.net] Reply To, commuting@anaheim.net Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 4:46 PM To: DTrimble@city.newport-beach.ca.us Cc: SWood@city.newport-beach.ca.us Subject: Federal Funding Requests Goog afternoon, I apologize if I left you feel neglected, it was not my intent. I have been trying to set-up a final strategy meeting between all parties and it looks like March 23 at 10:00 a.m. works for everyone. We will meet in the same conference room on the second floor of the City Hall East (200 S. Anaheim Blvd.) In addition to the capital electric transit procurement, we also will be going after TEA-21 ITS funds. The upcoming meeting will involve both efforts. Representatives from Edison and SCAG will be attending as well as the City's legislative staff. OCTA decided not to be involved with our projects. However, 1 am working with their staff to take a neutral position. They are open to this suggestion. Again, sorry for the long period of silence. Hope to see you on.March 23. Diana Trimble Daniel From: Diane Kotler[SMTP:commuting@anaheim.net] Reply To: commuting@anaheim.net Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 4:32 PM To: daviskl @sce.com Cc: westb@sce.com; Ismith@atnetwork; ccox@atnetwork; dtrimble@city.newport-beach.ca.us; swood@city.newport-beach.ca.us Subject: Meeting w/OCTA Good afternoon, The meeting with OCTA ended with the resolution that OCTA will look into an opportunity to combine their Clean Fuels Formula Grant request for the LNG facility with Anaheim and Newport Beach requests for electric transit service. This single request for the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program would be the Orange County's Alternative Fuel Program. OCTA, since funds would be passed through them, take a lead with our individual advocacy efforts supplimenting thier funding request. To ensure that OCTA comes back to us with a decision we are all looking for, I forwarded the following message to Dean Delgado today: "Thank you for meeting with us yesterday regarding the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program and potential joint participation. I did not bring this issue up at yersterday's meeting, but I think it is improtant in helping OCTA to make a decision about this partnership opportunity with Anaheim and Newport Beach. In the OCTA staff report dated December 14, 1998, which deals with the TEA 21 funding programs, bullet point B states: "Explore ways for the Authority and other Orange County transportation interests to participatin to the full extent possible in grant program funding, including Rail Modernization, Bus -Related Capital Investment, CLean Fuel Transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and Access to Jobs programs." Gary Johnson's suggestion for a joint Orange County Alternative Fuel Program funding request fits very well with this staff suggested and Board approved direction for TEA 21 funding. We hope that OCTA will take this into consideration and we look forward to a mutually benefitial outcome. We also had an opportunity to discuss our funding strategies with the LA representatives of FTA and FHWA. They are very supportive of our projects and concur that our programs qualify under the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program sections 5308 and 3008." 1 hope this will encourage OCTA to reach a favorable decision. It seems to me that "they want their cake and eat it too." I will follow up with Dean Delgado mid -next week and let you all know of the outcome. Meanwhile, if you have any other suggestions, idea, etc., please let me know. Thanks Diana Page 1 Trimble, Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 5:53 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: FW: Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program FYI From: Dlane Kotler(SMTP:commuting@anoheim.net) Reply To: commuting@anahelm.net Sent: Wednesday, February 24, f 999 4:30 PM To: ddelgodo@octa.net Cc: swood@city.newport-beach.ca.us Subject: Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program Good Afternoon Dean, Thank you for meeting with us yesterday regarding the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program and potential joint participation. I did not bring this issue up at yersterday's meeting, but I think it is improtant in helping OCTA to make a decision about this partnership opportunity with Anaheim and Newport Beach. In the OCTA Staff Report dated December 14, 1998, which deals with the TEA 21 funding programs, bullet point B states: "Explore ways for the Authority and other Orange County transportation interests to participatin to the full extent possible in grant program funding, including Rail Modernization, Bus -Related Capital Investment, CLean Fuel Transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and Access to Jobs programs." Gary Johnson's suggestion for a joint Orange County Alternative Fuel Program funding request fits very well with this staff suggested and Board approved direction for TEA 21 funding. We hope that OCTA will take this into consideration and we look forward to a mutually benefitial outcome. We also had an opportunity to discuss our funding strategies with the LA representatives of FTA and FHWA. They are very supportive of our projects and concur that our programs qualify under the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program sections 5308 and 3008. I will plan to follow up with you next week regarding OCTA's decision. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Diana Kotler City of Anaheim Diana Kotler City of Anaheim Page 1 Trimble Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 5:56 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: FW: Orange County electric shuttle projects From: Davis, Kyle(SMTP:DAVISKI@sce.com) Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 4:15 PM To: 'Kotler, Diana — City of Anaheim'; 'Mura, Grace T. — Newport Beach Conference & Visitors Bureau';'Wood, Sharon Z. — Newport Beach' Cc: Barone, Kim; Nelson, Steve K;'ccox@atnetwork.org' Subject: Orange County electric shuttle projects ■ ■ ART Project Newport Project Descriptlonl.doc Descrlption.doc Here are the one -pagers for the two projects: <<ART Project Descriptioni.doc>> <<Newport Project Description.doc>> We now need to schedule visits to each of the local Congressmen (e.g., their field office). These meetings should be organized by our local partners (e.g., City of Anaheim and Newport Beach), with support coming from the other partners. The goal is to get each Congressman to send a letter of support to 1) Senate Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee Chair, Richard Shelby and Frank Lautenberg who is the ranking Democrat; and 2) to Frank Wolf, House Transportation Appropriation Sub. Chair and Martin Sabo, ranking demo. I've sent copies of the materials to our DC office and IT let them know once we've met with the local offices. The one -pagers are looking good, but I'd like to point out to everyone that the federal program where we're seeking the earmark is the "Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, §3008). I'm curious to find out how the OCTA meeting went and whether the two groups would like to coordinate their respective meetings with the local Congressman's office? A larger coalition might be more effective. What does everyone think? From: West, Bill R Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 12:04 PM To: Gault, Polly L Cc: Ford, Amy; Davis, Kyle Subject: Bus Projects As foliowup to our meeting last month we have identified two shuttle bus projects which will be asking for funding in fiscal year 2000 budget. We are recommending the project sponsors talk to their Congressperson and get them to send a letter to both the 1) Senate Transportation Appropriation Sub. Chair, Richard Shelby and Fank Lautenberg who is the ranking Democrat; and 2) to . Frank Wolf, House Transportation Appropriation Sub. Chair and Page 1 Martin Sabo, ranking demo. The letters should ask that when dollars that have been appropriated and will be appropriated under the Clean Fuels Formula Grant program, would you provide dollars for these projects. Letters should be sent ASAP, or no latter then this month. The first project is in Congresswoman Sanchez' District and is for $9.5 million to fund the purchase of 12 shuttle buses. Federal share of the project is $4.7 million. The second project is in Congressman Cox's District and is for about $2.5 million. The project would provide an electric shuttle buse service in Newport Beach area. Let me know if we should be recommending anything more to them. I will let you know if the Sanchez or Cox decides to send the letters. Page 2 Anaheim Resort Transportation - (ART) Background Anaheim currently hosts 15 million visitors annually and projected attendance is expected to increase 60% as a result of the Disneyland Resort and Sportstown developments and expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Employment projections indicate that more than 16,000 new jobs will be created as a result of these developments. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium A task force composed of representatives from the hospitality industry, the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Public Utility, First World Fiber Optic Network, Orange County Transportation Authority, Southern California Edison, transportation providers, and the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), a local non-profit transportation management association, is working to upgrade this system. The Task Force has been meeting since 1997 to develop a service vision and to build community support for ART. Project Scope The ART system will replace the conventional diesel and gasoline shuttle vehicles with a fleet of uniform, attractive alternative and electric fuel vehicles incorporated into a "Smart Shuttle" system using the latest intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. Natural gas vehicles will provide the backbone of the fleet, along with a supplemental fleet of progressive test vehicles. The test vehicle fleet will be comprised of pure electric and hybrid electric full-size transit vehicles. Innovative pure electric trams will also be deployed to serve the Convention Center and adjacent properties. The ART Task Force will be integrating the transit system with state of the art intelligent transportation systems (ITS). For example, the system will employ state of the art dispatching, safety applications, and vehicle. performance evaluation applications based on Advanced Vehicle Location technology. Smart Card technology will be used for collecting the nominal fares, to track system ridership, and to work with smart bus stop systems. This type of technology will expedite loading and enhance overall guest -experience. Another option being investigated would incorporate the transit Smart Cards into a resort area payment card. The transportation system will be networked with kiosk based technology to allow visitors access to destination information and transportation scheduling. This visitor information system will be extended to in -room access after the kiosk system is developed. The ART system will be a true public - private partnership. A local private operator is making a substantial investment in the alternative fuel equipment for the base fleet. The City of Anaheim and ATN will be partnering with this operator to access supplemental funds for incremental costs, infrastructure, and training. They City of Anaheim is seeking funding for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of ITS and alternative fuel applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with existing buses during 1999. The first 12 natural gas buses will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of approximately 35 natural gas and test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period before the June 2001 Disneyland second attraction opening. Funding Funding is requested for the electric and hybrid test fleet and associated infrastructure under the Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Equity Act for the 215t Century, § 3008). In summary, this portion of the ART system will operate as follows: • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Anaheim, administered by the Anaheim Transportation Network, and operated by private transportation providers in the Anaheim Resort area. • Twelve 35-foot electric and hybrid natural gas/electric heavy-duty vehicles and four electric trams (each tram consists of 1 power car, 2 battery units, and 2 passenger cars) will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 22 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 16 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 24,000 rides. Annually, 24 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at: 12 Shuttle Vehicles $4,200,000 Vehicle Infrastructure $ 500,000 4 Trams $1,500,000 Tram Infrastructure $ 10,000 Marketing Program $ 250,000 Training Program $ 100,000 Administration $ 250,000 Operation and Maintenance-lyr $2,670,000 Total Test Fleet $9,480,000 Joint Partnership for Deployment of Innovation Funding Request $4,74%000 Note: The Test Fleet is only one portion of the complete ART system. Additional investments are being made for the Base Fleet and infrastructure and Intelligent Transportation System components of the project. These other components represent an additional investment of approximately $9 million in capital costs alone. Summary The benefits of the Anaheim Resort Area Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced Resort atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. 2 Newport Beach Electric Shuttle Background Newport Beach is located on the coast of California in Orange County, 14 miles (22 km) from Disneyland (Anaheim), 20 miles (32 km) south of Long Beach, 50 miles (80 km) south of Los Angeles, 64 miles (103 km) west of Palm Springs and 85 miles (136 km) north of San Diego. Newport Beach is known for its savvy corporate offices, mild Pacific coastal climate, and the nearby airport served by a dozen major air carriers and named after legendary resident John Wayne. It is a city of booming retail, renowned oceanfront dining, distinctive housing, and is a popular destination for business and leisure travelers. Recent successful events include the First Annual Newport Beach International Film Festival featuring many categories of fine film over ten days, gathering film enthusiasts from around the world to scenic Newport Beach. Another fine event was the Toshiba Senior Golf Classic held at the lush Newport Beach Country Club. This event included such golf favorites as Lee Trevino and Dave Stockton and was broadcast on ESPN. There are many reasons quality businesses choose Newport Beach. The business amenities such as the nearby major airport, close proximity to technologically proclaimed University of California at Irvine, a diversified and financially solid local economy, and business friendly City Hall add up to a winning location for small to large businesses. There are many opportunities for play in Newport Beach including nature walks or bike rides along the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, fishing excursions or whale watching from the Balboa Pavilion on the Newport Harbor, surfing or swimming at the many beaches, shopping at the open air Mediterranean -style Fashion Island, or enjoying the sunset from one of our two piers over the Pacific Ocean, where dolphins play and pelicans dive for fish. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium The City of Newport Beach has partnered with the Newport Beach Conference and Visitor's Bureau, Southern California Edison, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and local businesses to develop a local shuttle service which would link the various local retail and tourist spots, while reducing local traffic congestion. Given the proposed route and the city's extensive experience with electric vehicles, the consortium seeks to introduce electric shuttles as the technology of choice. Project Scope The Newport Beach City Shuttle would complement the county bus service by linking local city attractions. The following destinations have been identified as possible destinations: ♦ Fashion Island (Shopping, Dining, & Cinema) ♦ Corona Del Mar Plaza (Shopping & Dining) ♦ Corona Del Mar State Beach (Beach) ♦ Balboa Island (Shopping, Dining, & Galleries) ♦ Newport Pier (Dining, Beach, & Shopping) ♦ Cannery Village (Dining & Shopping) ♦ Lido Marina Village (Shopping & Village) ♦ Newport Beach CVB (Visitor's Center, Dining, & Yahting) The Newport Beach City Shuttle will be a true public -private partnership. The City of Newport Beach is seeking funding for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of electric shuttle applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with a route development feasibility study during 1999. The first electric shuttles will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period. Funding Funding is requested for the electric test fleet and associated infrastructure under the Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century, § 3008). • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Newport Beach and operated by private transportation providers in the Newport Beach area. • Three 20 to 35-foot electric heavy-duty vehicles will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 12 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 9 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 6,000 rides. Annually, 1 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at: 3 Shuttle Vehicles $ 750,000 Vehicle Infrastructure $ 150,000 Marketing Program $ 50,000 Training Program $ 25,000 Administration $ 250,000 Operation and Maintenance-lyr $ 667,500 Total Test Fleet $1,892,500 Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program Funding Request $1,500,000 Summary The benefits of the Newport Beach Electric Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced local atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. 2 Anaheim Resort Transportation - (ART) Background Anaheim currently hosts 15 million visitors annually and projected attendance is expected to increase 60% as a result of the Disneyland Resort and Sportstown developments and expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Employment projections indicate that more than 16,000 new jobs will be created as a result of these developments. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium A task force composed of representatives from the hospitality industry, the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Public Utility, First World Fiber Optic Network, Orange County Transportation Authority, Southern California Edison, transportation providers, and the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), a local non-profit transportation management association, is working to upgrade this system. The Task Force has been meeting since 1997 to develop a service vision and to build community support for ART. Project Scope The ART system will replace the conventional diesel and gasoline shuttle vehicles with a fleet of uniform, attractive alternative and electric fuel vehicles incorporated into a "Smart Shuttle" system using the latest intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. Natural gas vehicles will provide the backbone of the fleet, along with a supplemental fleet of progressive test vehicles. The test vehicle fleet will be comprised of pure electric and hybrid electric full-size transit vehicles. Innovative pure electric trams will also be deployed to serve the Convention Center and adjacent properties. The ART Task Force will be integrating the transit system with state of the art intelligent transportation systems (ITS). For example, the system will employ state of the art dispatching, safety applications, and vehicle performance evaluation applications based on Advanced Vehicle Location technology. Smart Card technology will be used for collecting the nominal fares, to track system ridership, and to work with smart bus stop systems. This type of technology will expedite loading and enhance overall guest -experience. Another option being investigated would incorporate the transit Smart Cards into a resort area payment card. The transportation system will be networked with kiosk based technology to allow visitors access to destination information and transportation scheduling. This visitor information system will be extended to in -room access after the kiosk system is developed. The ART system will be a true public -private partnership. A local private operator is making a substantial investment in the alternative fuel equipment for the base fleet. The City of Anaheim and ATN will be partnering with this operator to access supplemental funds for incremental costs, infrastructure, and training. They City of Anaheim is seeking funding for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of ITS and alternative fuel applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with existing buses during 1999. The first 12 natural gas buses will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of approximately 35 natural gas and test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period before the June 2001 Disneyland second attraction opening. Funding Funding is requested for the electric and hybrid -electric test fleet and associated infrastructure under the Joint Partnership for Deployment of Innovation Program. In summary, this portion of the ART system will operate as follows: • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Anaheim, administered by the Anaheim Transportation Network, and operated by private transportation providers in the Anaheim Resort area. • Twelve 35-foot electric and hybrid natural gas/electric heavy-duty vehicles and four electric trams (each tram consists of 1 power car, 2 battery units, and 2 passenger cars) will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 22 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 16 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 24,000 rides. Annually, 24 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at • 12 Shuttle Vehicles ' • ' $4,200,000 • Vehicle Infrastructure $ 500,000 • 4 Trams $1,500,000 • Tram Infrastructure $ 10,000 • Marketing Program $ 250,000 • Training Program $ 100,000 • Administration $ 250,000 • Operation and Maintenance- lyr $2,670,000 Total Test Fleet $9,480,000 Joint Partnership for Deployment of Innovation Funding Request $4,740,000 Note: The Test Fleet is only one portion of the complete ART system. Additional investments are being made for the Base Fleet and infrastructure and Intelligent Transportation System components of the project. These other components represent an additional investment of approximately $9 million in capital costs alone. Summary The benefits of the Anaheim Resort Area Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced Resort atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. 2 "k0 'r S� 1 , J.r" 1,awFl--il Newport Electric Transportation Shuttle (NET -Shuttle) Program Goals Reduce congestion on Balboa Blvd. and Coast Highway Improve air quality through use of zero emission or hybrid vehicles Connect activity and village centers Improve transit access to and from employment centers Improve transit access for residents and visitors Service Concept Activity Center Connector Existing Service Extender Consortium Partners CVB and hospitality industry City of Newport Beach Economic Development Committee Southern California Edison The Irvine Company Newport Beach Business Improvement Districts Balboa Village Marine Avenue Restaurant Association `(fit, ✓Vv�.�r 5 %l � '�— ? i- PYWV \ale r-t° a�P Funding Mix Vehicles and charging infrastructure would be purchased using state and federal grant funds. The City would also consider participating with the City of Anaheim in a joint purchase of the vehicles to reduce costs. Operating funds would come from the City, the CVB, and the BIDS as well as from revenue generated by ridership and ad sales. �p �wt < ��N 12crw�t,e1 Ccr-( vF n)�P*Ar g q l9. 6 qq. 3n-D Trimble, Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 3:18 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: FW: [EV1-CLUB] Funding Opportunity for Local Governments I'm not sure if this helps us, since the Federal $ will cover equipment, and it's operations $ we need, but take a look and let me know what you think. From: John Cox(SMTP:jcoxlr@emall.msn.com) Sent: Tuesday, February09, 19993:11 PM To: swood@city.newport-beach.ca.us Subject: FW: (EV1-CLUB) Funding Opportunity for Local Governments Hi Sharon: I thought you might find the following useful. John John C. Cox, Jr. President, CEO The Partnership 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909 396-5757 - 909 396-5754 icoxjr@the-partnership.org http://www.the-partnership.orci/ -----Original Message ----- From: owner-evi-club@its.caltech.edu rma!Ito:owner-evi-club@ its.ca!tech.edulOn Behalf Of Julee Malinowski-Ball Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 19991:20 PM To: evi-club@cco.caltech.edu Subject: [EV1-CLUB] Funding Opportunity for Local Governments ** Be sure to pass this information on to local government officials in your area to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles for public fleets and installtion of infrastructure. DATE: 2/9/99 TO: Local Government Officials and Clean Cities Stakeholders FROM: David L. Modisette, Executive Director, California Electric Transportaion Coalition (CaIETC) RE: Funding Opportunity for Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure! 1999 brings another opportunity for local governments to receive funding from the State of California to offset a portion of the cost to purchase or lease zero -emission electric vehicles and related re -charging infrastructure. Funding would come from the Legislature's annual appropriation of Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funds. Up to $10 million in PVEA funding was appropriated in 1997 for electric vehicles and infrastructure in Senate Bill 36B (Peace, D-El Cajon). This year there is $15 million dollars in PVEA funds available for appropriation, following negotiations between the Assembly, Senate and the Governor's Page 1 Trimble, Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 3:50 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: EV Shuttle I talked to John Cox, a former NB Council Member who is now head of Southern California Economic Partnership, a public -private partnership working on AQ and transportation issues. He advises that the money Edison is talking about going after is very competitive, which may explain OCTA's reluctance to help Anaheim. He had some ideas on Senate and Congress contacts who may be more helpfu on transportation issues than Christopher Cox. Also noted that getting a program started is tough, and requires a strong commitment from City staff, and a commitment to try the program for 3 years or so to get people used to it. He suggested contract operations, and had some ideas. He's sending SCEP's "Smart Shuttle Starter Kit." Finally, he thinks we might be better to wait til next year to apply, so we can pull things together better. Page 1 Trimble, Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 6:06 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: FW: [EVi-CLUB] Funding Opportunity for Local Governments Can't remember if I gave this to you. Sounds like an entirely different funding possibility. Please send me a copy of what you sent to Kyle. Thanks. From: John Cox(SMTP:Jcoxjr@email.msn.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 3:11 PM To: swood@clty.newport-beach.ca.us Subject: FW: (EVl-CLUB) Funding Opportunity for Local Governments Hi Sharon: I thought you might find the following useful. John John C. Cox, Jr. President, CEO The Partnership 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909 396-5757 - 909 396-5754 jcoxjr@the-partnership.org httl2://www.the-partnership.orci/ -----Original Message ----- From: owner-evi-club@its.caltech.edu fmailto:owner-evi-club@ its.caltech.edulOn Behalf Of Julee Malinowski-Ball Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 19991:20 PM To: evi-club@cco.caltech.edu Subject: [EVi-CLUB] Funding Opportunity for Local Governments ** Be sure to pass this information on to local government officials in your area to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles for public fleets and installtion of infrastructure. DATE: 2/9/99 TO: Local Government Officials and Clean Cities Stakeholders FROM: David L. Modisette, Executive Director, California Electric Transportaion Coalition (CaIETC) RE: Funding Opportunity for Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure! 1999 brings another opportunity for local governments to receive funding from the State of California to offset a portion of the cost to purchase or lease zero -emission electric vehicles and related re -charging infrastructure. Funding would come from the Legislature's annual appropriation of Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funds. Up to $10 million in PVEA funding was appropriated in 1997 for electric Page 1 vehicles and infrastructure in Senate Bill 368 (Peace, D-El Cajon). This year there is $15 million dollars in PVEA funds available for appropriation, following negotiations between the Assembly, Senate and the Governor's office on which projects and programs to fund. PVEA funds come from federal court judgments and settlements against major oil companies for consumer overcharges during years when there were price controls on petroleum. As a result these funds can only be used for projects which help reduce our dependence on petroleum and save energy. Electric vehicles are ideal candidates for this funding. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING A PORTION OF THESE FUNDS YOU SHOULD WRITE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS TODAYI Your request could be for funds to buy -down the cost of electric vehicles and infrastructure for your own fleets, or for local programs which buy -down the cost of these vehicles and infrastructure for individual consumers and businesses. This latter use is patterned after a program now being administered by the California Energy Commission, in which grants were provided to five participating local air districts (San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, and San Francisco). The South Coast Air Quality Management District administers a similar program of their own. I have attached a suggested draft letter which may assist you in preparing a request. Your request will have a better chance of being included in the legislative appropriation if it is relatively small. CalETC is recommending that each local government request in the range of $100,000 to $250,000. You should also send a copy of your letter to CaIETC. Please feel free to call me, or Jules Malinowski-Ball, at (916) 552-7077 if you would like any additional information or assistance. SAMPLE DRAFT LETTER for Local Governments Interested in Receiving PVEA Funding for Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure Please feel free to modify this to suit your own writing style. The Honorable (Your Senator(s) / Assemblymember'(s) Name) State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear (Senator / Assemblymember) : I kindly request that you seek an appropriation on behalf of the (name of local government) as part of this year's legislative appropriation of federal Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funding. The (name of local government) is interested in receiving between $100,00 - 250,000 in PVEA funds to buy -down the cost of electric vehicles and re -charging infrastructure. I understand there is $15 million available for legislative appropriation this year. I also understand that decisions on how to allocate these funds have traditionally taken place through a process in which individual legislators submit specific funding requests through their caucus, with final decisions made as part of a negotiation between the Assembly, Senate, and Governor's Office. Page 2 I'm sure that competition for these funds must be fierce. I hope you will submit this request on behalf of your district, and push to have it included in the final negotiation. Our local community is very interested in encouraging the use of electric ve hicles - not only as a way to reduce air pollution and decrease our dependence on foreign oil - but also because electric vehicle technologies can help create new industries and jobs in California. Thank you for your attention to this request. Please call me if I can provide any additional information or assistance. Sincerely, XXXX XXXXXX boo: California Electric Transportation Coalition (CaIETC) WHAT IS CaIETC? The California Electric Transportation Coalition (CaIETC) is a nonprofit, tax exempt business association formed in 1991 to support California's leadership role in the development and commercialization ,of electric vehicles and other forms of electric transportation. The members of CaIETC are: the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, A-Z Bus Sales, Advanced Lead -Acid Battery Consortium, Alameda Bureau of Electricity, CALSTART, Edison EV, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA. CaIETC acts as an information link and resource on electric transportation issues between the California legislature, State Agencies, targeted local governments and air districts, and the members of CaIETC. This communication link also includes private -sector organizations, including auto makers, environmental groups, business and labor organizations, and early market pioneers. CaIETC also advocates on behalf of existing and future pro-ZEV policies, programs, and funding. Equally important is the role CaIETC plays in serving as a communication link and resource among CaIETC members themselves. It ensures coordination and consistency, and takes maximum advantage of mutually beneficial activities. CaIETC has recently expanded to include a General Member category available to companies and organizations that have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to electric transportation. For more information, call or write us at the address listed. Page 3 office on which projects and programs to fund. PVEA funds come from federal court judgments and settlements against major oil companies for consumer overcharges during years when there were price controls on petroleum. As a result these funds can only be used for projects which help reduce our dependence on petroleum and save energy. Electric vehicles are ideal candidates for this funding. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING A PORTION OF THESE FUNDS YOU SHOULD WRITE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS TODAY! Your request could be for funds to buy -down the cost of electric vehicles and infrastructure for your own fleets, or for local programs which buy -down the cost of these vehicles and infrastructure for individual consumers and businesses. This latter use is patterned after a program now being administered by the California Energy Commission, in which grants were provided to five participating local air districts (San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, and San Francisco). The South Coast Air Quality Management District administers a similar program of their own. I have attached a suggested draft letter which may assist you in preparing a request. Your request will have a better chance of being included in the legislative appropriation if it is relatively small. CalETC-is recommending that each local government request in the range of $100,000 to $250,000. You should also send a copy of your letter to CaIETC. Please feel free to call me, or Jules Malinowski-Ball, at (916) 552-7077 if you would like any additional information or assistance. SAMPLE DRAFT LETTER for Local Governments Interested in Receiving PVEA Funding for Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure Please feel free to modify this to suit your own writing style. The Honorable (Your Senator(s) / Assemblymember'(s) Name) State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear (Senator / Assemblymember) : I kindly request that you seek an appropriation on behalf of the (name of local government) as part of this year's legislative appropriation of federal Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funding. The (name of local government) is interested in receiving between $100,00 - 250,000 in PVEA funds to buy -down the cost of electric vehicles and re -charging infrastructure. I understand there is $15 million available for legislative appropriation this year. I also understand that decisions on how to allocate these funds have traditionally taken place through a process in which individual legislators submit specific funding requests through their caucus, with final decisions made as part of a negotiation between the Assembly, Senate, and Governor's Office. I'm sure that competition for these funds must be fierce. I hope you will submit this request on behalf of your district, and push to have it included in the final negotiation. Page 2 Our local community is very interested in encouraging the use of electric ve hicles - not only as a way to reduce air pollution and decrease our dependence on foreign oil - but also because electric vehicle technologies can help create new industries and jobs in California. Thank you for your attention to this request. Please call me if I can provide any additional information or assistance. Sincerely, XXXX XXXXXX boo: California Electric Transportation Coalition (CaIETC) WHAT IS CaIETC? The California Electric Transportation Coalition (CaIETC) is a nonprofit, tax exempt business association formed in 1991 to support California's leadership role in the development and commercialization of electric vehicles and other forms of electric transportation, The members of CaIETC are: the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, A-Z Bus Sales, Advanced Lead -Acid Battery Consortium, Alameda Bureau of Electricity, CALSTART, Edison EV, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA. CaIETC acts as an information link and resource on electric transportation issues between the California legislature, State Agencies, targeted local governments and air districts, and the members of CaIETC. This communication link also includes private -sector organizations, including auto makers, environmental groups, business and labor organizations, and early market pioneers. CaIETC also advocates on behalf of existing and future pro-ZEV policies, programs, and funding. Equally important is the role CaIETC plays in serving as a communication link and resource among CaIETC members themselves. It ensures coordination and consistency, and takes maximum advantage of mutually beneficial activities. CaIETC has recently expanded to include a General Member category available to companies and organizations that have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to electric transportation. For more information, call or write us at the address listed. Page 3 Trimble Daniel From: Davis, Kyle[SMTP:DAVISKI @sce.com] Sent: Friday, February 26,1999 2:37 PM To: 'Diane Kotler' Cc: westb@sce.com; (smith@atnetwork; ccox@atnetwork; dtrimble@city.newport-beach.ca.us; swood @city. newport-beach.ca.us; Barone, Kim; Nelson, Steve K Subject: Electric Shuffle projects and meeting w/OCTA I'm sure that OCTA understands that the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program does have a specific earmark for electric or hybrid transit vehicles (e.g., 51%). 1 don't believe this would really hurt their chances to secure funding for the LNG bus fleet. Let me know what the two groups would like to do next, maybe meet with other OCTA officials? I'll defer to your feedback and those of my public affairs folks. Please let me know what OCTA's initial response ultimately turns out to be and we can go from there. From: Diane Kotler[SMTP:commuting@anaheim.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 4:32 PM To: Davis, Kyle Cc: westb@sce.com; Ismith@atnetwork; ccox@atnetwork; dtrimble@city.newport-beach.ca.us; swood@city.newport-beach.ca.us Subject: Meeting w/OCTA Good afternoon, The meeting with OCTA ended with the resolution that OCTA will look into an opportunity to combine their Clean Fuels Formula Grant request for the LNG facility with Anaheim and Newport Beach requests for electric transit service. This single request for the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program would be the Orange County's Alternative Fuel Program. OCTA, since funds would be passed through them, take a lead with our individual advocacy efforts suppiimenting thier funding request. To ensure that OCTA comes back to us with a decision we are all looking for, I forwarded the following message to Dean Delgado today: "Thank you for meeting with us yesterday regarding the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program and potential joint participation. I did not bring this issue up at yersterday's meeting, but I think it is Improtant in helping OCTA to make a decision about this partnership opportunity with Anaheim and Newport Beach. In the OCTA staff report dated December 14, 199B, which deals with the TEA 21 funding programs, bullet point states: Page 1 "Explore ways for the Authority and other Orange County transportation interests to participatin to the full extent possible in grant program funding, including Rail Modernization, Bus -Related Capital Investment, CLean Fuel Transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and Access to Jobs programs." Gary Johnson's suggestion for a joint Orange County Alternative Fuel Program funding request fits very well with this staff suggested and Board approved direction for TEA 21 funding. We hope that OCTA will take this into consideration and we look forward to a mutually benefitial outcome. the LA seems with me We also had an opportunity to discuss our funding strategies with representatives of FTA and FHWA. They are very supportive of our projects and concur that our programs qualify under the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program sections 5308 and 300B." I hope this will encourage OCTA to reach a favorable decision. It to me that "they want their cake and eat it too." I will follow up Dean Delgado mid -next week and let you all know of the outcome. Meanwhile, if you have any other suggestions, idea, etc., please let know. Thanks Diana Page 2 Trimble, Daniel From: Diane Kotler[SMTP:commuting@anaheim.net] Reply To: commuting@anaheim.net Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 8:42 AM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: Re: Legislation Trimble, Daniel wrote: > Diana, > Do you have a copy of the legislation for the alternative fuels program or > know where I could get a copy? > Thanks, > Dan Trimble Good morning Dan, Here is the e-mail address to the portion of TEA-21 that deals with the Clean Fuel Formula Grant Program. http:/Jwww.fhwa.dot.aov/tea2l/­h2400!ii.htm The Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program is under section 3008 and definitions and eligibility criteria are noted under Section 5308 Page 1 Trimble Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 199911:20 AM To: (smith@atnetwork.net;'commuting@anaheim.net' Cc: DAVISKi @sce.com; Wood, Sharon; huddy@the-partnership.org; Trimble, Daniel; murphy@scag.ca.gov; kthalman@anaheim.net; (parker@anaheim.net Subject: RE: Follow-up to the meeting Thanks for the update, Diane. I've received similar input from our Washington lobbyist, i.e., that it's late to be asking for support on a project in this funding cycle. I agree that we should be starting to lay the groundwork for next year, though, and hope we'll continue to coordinate on that. From: Diane Kotler(SMTP:commuting@anaheim.net) Reply To: commuting@anaheim.net Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 2:29 PM To: (smith@atnetwork.net Cc: DAVISKI@sce.com; swood@clty,newport-beach.ca.us; huddy@the-partnership.org; DTrlmble@clty.newport- beach.ca,us; murphy@scag.ca.go% kthalman@anaheim.net; (parker@anaheim.net Subject: Follow-up to the meeting Hello everyone, We had a chance to talk to our representative in Washington D.C. and a representative from the Loretta Sanchez Office. We were told that given that we will be coming in at the tail end of the request process, it would be a very extensive and time-consuming undertaling. In addition to the timing issue, this year we would be competing with another City request, which was made by the Mayor. Nevertheless, Loretta Sanchez will provide assistance, however, as we discussed last week, we will start with the "soft sell" this year and go for the entire amount next appropriation cycle. We are even hopeful that, despite this timing issue, there might be a token appropriation for our projects this fiscal year, given this strategy. This game plan for Anaheim does not preclude other agencies from taking the lead and us providing behind the scenes support. If Newport Beach with SCE decide to be the lead, a letter from Loretta Sanchez will be forthcoming. As far as the ITS is concerned, given a more aggressive time schedule and no match funding available, it is our hope that SCAG will be able to take the lead this cycle, with Anaheim leading the way next year. Please let me know what are your organization's strategies/thoughts. Thank you Diana Page 1 Trimble Daniel From: Diane Kotier[SMTP:commuting@anaheim.net] Reply To: commuting@anaheim.net Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 3:29 PM To: Ismith@atnetwork.net Cc: DAVISK1 @sce.com; swood@city.newport-beach.ca.us; huddy@the-partnership.org; DTrimble@city.newport-beach.ca.us; murphy@scag.ca.gov; kthalman@anaheim.net; (parker@anaheim.net Subject: Follow-up to the meeting Hello everyone, We had a chance to talk to our representative in Washington D.C. and a representative from the Loretta Sanchez Office. We were told that given that we will be coming in at the tail end of the request process, it would be a very extensive and time-consuming undertaling. In addition to the timing issue, this year we would be competing with another City request, which was made by the Mayor. Nevertheless, Loretta Sanchez will provide assistance, however, as we discussed last week, we will start with the "soft sell" this year and go for the entire amount next appropriation cycle. We are even hopeful that, despite this timing issue, there might be a token appropriation for our projects this fiscal year, given this strategy. This game plan for Anaheim does not preclude other agencies from taking the lead and us providing behind the scenes support. If Newport Beach with SCE decide to be the lead, a letter from Loretta Sanchez will be forthcoming. As far as the ITS is concerned, given a more aggressive time schedule and no match funding available, it is our hope that SCAG will be able to take the lead this cycle, with Anaheim leading the way next year. Please let me know what are your organization's strategies/thoughts. Thank you Diana Page 1 Trimble Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 3:54 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: RE: Edison EV Program Thanks. That means that should still be working on the shuttle application. I think you should get on the next Image Subcommittee agenda to try and get them involved. Also, I have another prospect for contributing to the operating costs - the Newport Dunes resort. From: Trimble, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 3:52 PM To: Wood, Sharon Subject: Edison EV Program Sharon, I spoke with Kyle Davis at Edison regarding the direction of their EV division after the announcement about closing one of their EV units. He said that it will only impact the unit that installs the charging stations. The private sector is now very competitive in this area and Edison may actually sell the unit to one of the companies or spin it off. Dan Trimble, Daniel From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 6:56 PM To: Trimble, Daniel Subject: FW: Orange County electric shuttle projects From: Davis, Kyle(SMTP:DAVISKI@sce.com) Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 4:15 PM To: 'Kotler, Diana — City of Anahelm'; 'Mura, Grace T. — Newport Beach Conference & Visitors Bureau'; 'Wood, Sharon Z. — Newport Beach' Cc: Barone, Kim; Nelson, Steve K: 'ccox@atnetwork.org' Subject: Orange County electric shuttle projects ■ ■ ART Project Newport Project Descrlptionl.doc Descripflon.doc Here are the one -pagers for the two projects: <<ART Project Descriptioni.doc>> <<Newport Project Description.doc>> We now need to schedule visits to each of the local Congressmen (e.g., their field office). These meetings should be organized by our local partners (e.g., City of Anaheim and Newport Beach), with support coming from the other partners. The goal is to get each Congressman to send a letter of support to 1) Senate Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee Chair, Richard Shelby and Frank Lautenberg who is the ranking Democrat; and 2) to Frank Wolf, House Transportation Appropriation Sub. Chair and Martin Sabo, ranking demo. I've sent copies of the materials to our DC office and I'll let them know once we've met with the local offices. The one -pagers are looking good, but I'd like to point out to everyone that the federal program where we're seeking the earmark is the "Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, §3008). I'm curious to find out how the OCTA meeting went and whether the two groups would like to coordinate their respective meetings with the local Congressman's office? A larger coalition might be more effective. What does everyone think? From: West, Bill R Sent: Thursday, February 11, 199912:04 PM To: Gault, Polly L Cc: Ford, Amy; Davis, Kyle Subject: Bus Projects As followup to our meeting last month we have identified two shuttle bus projects which will be asking for funding in fiscal year 2000 budget. We are recommending the project sponsors talk to their Congressperson and get them to send a letter to both the 1) Senate Transportation Appropriation Sub. Chair, Richard Shelby and Fank Lautenberg who is the ranking Democrat; and 2) to . Frank Wolf, House Transportation Appropriation Sub. Chair and Page 1 Martin Sabo, ranking demo. The letters should ask that when dollars that have been appropriated and will be appropriated under the Clean Fuels Formula Grant program, would you provide dollars for these projects. Letters should be sent ASAP, or no latter then this month. The first project is in Congresswoman Sanchez' District and is for $9.5 million to fund the purchase of 12 shuttle buses. Federal share of the project is $4.7 million. The second project is in Congressman Cox's District and is for about $2.5 million. The project would provide an electric shuttle buse service in Newport Beach area. Let me know if we should be recommending anything more to them. I will let you know if the Sanchez or Cox decides to send the letters. Newport Beach Electric Shuttle Background Newport Beach is located on the coast of California in Orange County, 14 miles (22 km) from Disneyland (Anaheim), 20 miles (32 km) south of Long Beach, 50 miles (80 km) south of Los Angeles, 64 miles (103 km) west of Palm Springs and 85 miles (136 km) north of San Diego. Newport Beach is known for its savvy corporate offices, mild Pacific coastal climate, and the nearby airport served by a dozen major air carriers and named after legendary resident John Wayne. It is a city of booming retail, renowned oceanfront dining, distinctive housing, and is a popular destination for business and leisure travelers. Recent successful events include the First Annual Newport Beach International Film Festival featuring many categories of fine film over ten days, gathering film enthusiasts from around the world to scenic Newport Beach. Another fine event was the Toshiba Senior Golf Classic held at the lush Newport Beach Country Club. This event included such golf favorites as Lee Trevino and Dave Stockton and was broadcast on ESPN. There are many reasons quality businesses choose Newport Beach. The business amenities such as the nearby major airport, close proximity to technologically proclaimed University of California at Irvine, a diversified and financially solid local economy, and business friendly City Hall add up to a winning location for small to large businesses. There are many opportunities for play in Newport Beach including nature walks or bike rides along the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, fishing excursions or whale watching from the Balboa Pavilion on the Newport Harbor, surfing or swimming at the many beaches, shopping at the open air Mediterranean -style Fashion Island, or enjoying the sunset from one of our two piers over the Pacific Ocean, where dolphins play and pelicans dive for fish. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium The City of Newport Beach has partnered with the Newport Beach Conference and Visitor's Bureau, Southern California Edison, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and local businesses to develop a local shuttle service which would link the various local retail and tourist spots, while reducing local traffic congestion. Given the proposed route and the city's extensive experience with electric vehicles, the consortium seeks to introduce electric shuttles as the technology of choice. Project Scope The Newport Beach City Shuttle would complement the county bus service by linking local city attractions. The following destinations have been identified as possible destinations: ♦ Fashion Island (Shopping, Dining, & Cinema) ♦ Corona Del Mar Plaza (Shopping & Dining) ♦ Corona Del Mar State Beach (Beach) ♦ Balboa Island (Shopping, Dining, & Galleries) ♦ Newport Pier (Dining, Beach, & Shopping) ♦ Cannery Village (Dining & Shopping) ♦ Lido Marina Village (Shopping & Village) ♦ Newport Beach CVB (Visitor's Center, Dining, & Yahting) The Newport Beach City Shuttle will be a true public -private partnership. The City of Newport Beach is seeking funding for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of electric shuttle applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with a route development feasibility study during 1999. The first electric shuttles will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period. Funding Funding is requested for the electric test fleet and associated infrastructure under the Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Equity Act for the 215` Century, § 3008). • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Newport Beach and operated by private transportation providers in the Newport Beach area. • Three 20 to 35-foot electric heavy-duty vehicles will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 12 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 9 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 6,000 rides. Annually, 1 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at: 3 Shuttle Vehicles $ 750,000 Vehicle Infrastructure $ 150,000 Marketing Program $ 50,000 Training Program $ 25,000 Administration $ 250,000 Operation and Maintenance- lyr $ 667,500 Total Test Fleet $19892,500 Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program Funding Request $1,5001000 Summary The benefits of the Newport Beach Electric Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced local atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. Oa Anaheim Resort Transportation - (ART) Background Anaheim currently hosts 15 million visitors annually and projected attendance is expected to increase 60% as a result of the Disneyland Resort and Sportstown developments and expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Employment projections indicate that more than 16,000 new jobs will be created as a result of these developments. The existing transit system is operated by a myriad of private transportation service providers serving resort hotels and motels. The shuttles currently operating vary widely in level of service, vehicle condition, and cleanliness. Traffic management coordination is next to impossible with the wide range of vehicles and operators. The existing public transit bus service does not adequately serve visitor needs or area employees working non-standard shifts. Consortium A task force composed of representatives from the hospitality industry, the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Public Utility, First World Fiber Optic Network, Orange County Transportation Authority, Southern California Edison, transportation providers, and the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), a local non-profit transportation management association, is working to upgrade this system. The Task Force has been meeting since 1997 to develop a service vision and to build community support for ART. Project Scope The ART system will replace the conventional diesel and gasoline shuttle vehicles with a fleet of uniform, attractive alternative and electric fuel vehicles incorporated into a "Smart Shuttle" system using the latest intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. Natural gas vehicles will provide the backbone of the fleet, along with a supplemental fleet of progressive test vehicles. The test vehicle fleet will be comprised of pure electric and hybrid electric full-size transit vehicles. Innovative pure electric trams will also be deployed to serve the Convention Center and adjacent properties. The ART Task Force will be integrating the transit system with state of the art intelligent transportation systems (ITS). For example, the system will employ state of the art dispatching, safety applications, and vehicle performance evaluation applications based on Advanced Vehicle Location technology. Smart Card technology will be used for collecting the nominal fares, to track system ridership, and to work with smart bus stop systems. This type of technology will expedite loading and enhance overall guest -experience. Another option being investigated would incorporate the transit Smart Cards into a resort area payment card. The transportation system will be networked with kiosk based technology to allow visitors access to destination information and transportation scheduling. This visitor information system will be extended to in -room access after the kiosk system is developed. The ART system will be a true public - private partnership. A local private operator is making a substantial investment in the alternative fuel equipment for the base fleet. The City of Anaheim and ATN will be partnering with this operator to access supplemental, funds for incremental costs, infrastructure, and training. They City of Anaheim is seeking funding for the test fleet of advanced vehicles. The community wide efforts will result in a local transit shuttle system that will utilize the latest advanced transportation technologies. This will be a showcase system for the deployment of ITS and alternative fuel applications in a public -private transit system partnership. Schedule Initial development of the service will begin with existing buses during 1999. The first 12 natural gas buses will be acquired for service trials in 2000. The full fleet of approximately 35 1 natural gas and test vehicles will need to be fully capitalized and operating by January 2001, to allow for a six-month demonstration period before the June 2001 Disneyland second attraction opening. Funding Funding is requested for the electric and hybrid test fleet and associated infrastructure under the Clean Fuels Formula Grants Program (Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century, § 3008). In summary, this portion of the ART system will operate as follows: • Test fleet vehicles will be owned by the City of Anaheim, administered by the Anaheim Transportation Network, and operated by private transportation providers in the Anaheim Resort area. • Twelve 35-foot electric and hybrid natural gas/electric heavy-duty vehicles and four electric trams (each tram consists of 1 power car, 2 battery units, and 2 passenger cars) will be purchased. • Fast -charging equipment and maintenance facility upgrades will be required. • Vehicles will be operated up to 22 hours a day in the peak summer months and approximately 16 hours per day in the winter to serve resort area guests and workers. • On peak days, the test fleet will provide up to 24,000 rides. Annually, 24 million guests will be exposed to these advanced technology vehicles. • Total Test Fleet Costs are estimated at: 12 Shuttle Vehicles $4,200,000 Vehicle Infrastructure $ 500,000 4 Trams $1,500,000 Tram Infrastructure $ 10,000 Marketing Program $ 250,000 Training Program $ 100,000 Administration $ 250,000 Operation and Maintenance-lyr $2,670,000 Total Test Fleet $9,480,000 Joint Partnership for Deployment of Innovation Funding Request $4,7409000 Note: The Test Fleet is only one portion of the complete ART system. Additional investments are being made for the Base Fleet and infrastructure and Intelligent Transportation System components of the project. These other components represent an additional investment of approximately $9 million in capital costs alone. Summary The benefits of the Anaheim Resort Area Shuttle's demonstration and deployment of advanced transportation technologies will include substantial improvements in the: visibility of real -world alternative fuel applications; air quality; visitor, employee and resident mobility; enhanced Resort atmosphere and guest enjoyment; service flexibility and responsiveness; traffic congestion management; information services; and off-peak power electrical grid connection. PA