Outlook 2035 - 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan

PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM AUGUST 2014

Orange County Transportation Authority 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan

OUTLOOK 2035 Because Mobility Matters

Public Participation Program August 2014 Table of Contents

Executive Summary Public Participation Approach / Results Attachments A. Branding B. Online Questionnaire / Results C. Public Notification D. Elected Officials Workshop E. Roundtables F. Speakers Bureau G. Public Committees H. Draft Plan Feedback I. Responses to Written Draft Plan Feedback J. Publicity

1

3

11 17 45 59 67 145 159 163 207 227

Executive Summary The Orange County Transportation Authority develops a Long Range Transportation Plan every four years to account for new planning efforts, changes in demographics, economic conditions and available sources of transportation funding. Outlook 2035 outlines a vision of multi-modal transportation improvements throughout Orange County.

A comprehensive public participation program was implemented to engage key stakeholders.

The public outreach approach included two phases.

The goal of the first phase of outreach was to provide context for decision-making and to hear ideas the public has to improve mobility. The target audiences included: elected officials, the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee, environmental advocates, emergency services managers, business and community leaders, transportation professionals, seniors and person with special needs, students, transit users, multicultural communities, tourism leaders, the general public and local jurisdictions. More than 1,000 people provided direct feedback through questionnaires and/or in-person at outreach meetings. A few common themes were gleaned from these outreach efforts: •

Optimize current infrastructure

•

Maintain existing transportation investments

•

Educate the public about public transportation

•

Innovate through the development of transit solutions

•

Collaborate to develop regional solutions

• Explore ways to improve transit travel times These themes were integrated into the strategies and projects considered for the draft LRTP. The goal of the second phase of outreach was to gather input on the proposed strategies and options that are included in the draft LRTP. Similar outreach tactics were utilized in both phases. The draft projects were revealed at a workshop with elected officials in March. The LRTP Draft Plan was available for public comment from April 21 through June 20. An Open House took place on May 7 to provide an opportunity for the general public to give feedback and meet with key staff. The public was encouraged to contribute comments through a multifaceted approach that included promotion through the LRTP website, newspaper advertisement, a press release, social media posts and an invitation to key stakeholders.

Responses were provided to stakeholders that provided written comments to the draft plan.

Comments were generally supportive of the draft plan.

All feedback in both phases is documented in the public outreach program report, which can be viewed at www.octa.net/lrtpoutreachreport.

1

2

Outlook 2035 OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan Public Participation Program

PHASE ONE – Provide Context and Identify Priorities Background

The Orange County Transportation Authority is updating its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), looking ahead to the year 2035. As part of the process, a comprehensive public participation program was designed to elicit public comment from a variety of stakeholders, including elected and appointed government officials; community and business leaders; transportation professionals, multicultural leaders, students and the general public.

The goal of the first phase of outreach was to provide the public with the context for decision-making. Information was shared with participants related to socioeconomics, financial projections, baseline transportation conditions as well as Measure M2 and M2020 project and program commitments. Other goals were to: • Inform and educate key audiences about the transportation options.

• Gather feedback from target audiences that will help shape the draft transportation plan so that it reflects both the technical analysis as well as public feedback.

Target Audiences

Elected officials

Environmental advocates

Business and community leaders

Transportation professionals Seniors and persons with special needs

Tourism leaders

General public

Students

Transit users

Emergency services managers

Multicultural communities Local jurisdictions

Outreach Tactics Phase I outreach included a comprehensive range of activities designed to solicit public input from a broad spectrum of people. Numerous approaches were implemented to educate the public about key demographic trends and to identify their opinions about transportation priorities.

3

• Branding – using feedback from the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), a design and theme for the 2014 LRTP was created - Outlook 2035. (Attachment A) • Website/Online questionnaire – a website with the LRTP branding was developed which included outreach materials, a brief video providing context with key issues and an online questionnaire for the general public to provide input. (Attachment B) • Notification/Promotion of LRTP Website - media relations and digital communications channels were used throughout the development of the LRTP. The campaign involved issuing press releases, creating public service announcements (PBS SoCal), posting to social media, and sending e-blasts to 2,500 persons in the OCTA stakeholder database.

In addition, 19 cities posted information on their website. (Attachment C) • Elected Officials Workshop – a facilitated workshop with city council members and various city staff members took place in September 2013.

(Attachment D) • Stakeholder Roundtables – 15 roundtable discussions were held with various stakeholder groups. A questionnaire was prepared to gather feedback and stimulate discussion. (Attachment E) • Leadership meetings – one-on-one interviews were held with key leaders in the community.

• Speakers Bureau – presentations were made to several community organizations regarding the key issues affecting the future of transportation of Orange County.

(Attachment F) • OCTA Public Committees (Attachment G) o Representing a diverse mix of Orange County, the OCTA CAC has been serving as the stakeholder working group throughout the development of the draft 2014 LRTP. The CAC has been discussing the LRTP at each quarterly meeting since April 2013. o Representing senior citizens and persons with disabilities, the Special Needs Advisory Committee (SNAC) has been providing feedback on the LRTP.

More than 1,000 people provided direct feedback through questionnaires and/or in-person at outreach meetings.

Key Findings

Outreach participants consistently echoed their belief that Orange County would continue to grow and that the automobile would remain the mode of choice. There was little to no appetite for expanding freeways beyond existing right of way lines if expansion means significant impacts to homes and businesses. There was mixed opinions about double decking freeways. Most participants favored optimizing the existing system, including the street system with signal synchronization.

4

Outreach participants generally felt OCTA should continue to develop multi-modal plans that include bus and rail transit and link transportation with land use planning. In addition, outreach participants continue to articulate the need to consider both intracounty travel within Orange County as well as inter-county travel to key destinations outside Orange County. Development of bikeway plans and bicycle safety programs were also mentioned.

The following are some common themes that were expressed during the course of the outreach effort: Optimize –

Make better use of existing infrastructure by synchronizing traffic signals, widening major street intersections with left/right turn or through lanes, addressing bottleneck areas, improving transit connections and developing solutions to improve conditions in carpool lanes Maintain – Preserve existing transportation investments, maintain streets and roads and fix potholes Educate – Inform the public about public transportation and non-motorized transportation options and managed lanes; develop bicycle and pedestrian safety programs Innovate – Develop faster mass transit solutions and include innovative solutions such as real-time passenger information and electronic ticketing to encourage commuters to leave their cars Collaborate – Communicate within and across county borders to develop regional solutions and connections; continue to lead regional bikeway planning to identify priority corridors Explore – Analyze ways to make transit travel times similar to automobile travel such as: street cars that operate in the same lanes as automobiles, rail transit operating in a dedicated lane on freeway (i.e. Green Line in LA), and rapid buses

A few participants also stated that Orange County should consider incentivizing carpools, vanpool and buses to use toll roads; build dedicated lanes for transit on streets and/or freeways; and explore the potential for managed lanes on freeways.

Elected Official Workshop #1

OCTA hosted an LRTP Elected Official Workshop on September 25, 2013, to gather feedback from Orange County elected officials to guide the preparation of the LRTP. Attendees included public officials and staff representing most Orange County jurisdictions.

5

The following is a summary of highlights from the discussion. Participants noted Orange County should: • Continue developing Measure M solutions • Maximize existing networks • Offer mobility choices • Improve connections – both locally and regionally • Consider emerging technologies • Plan for changing demographics • Consider goods movement in planning • Educate the public about travel options A more in-depth synopsis from this discussion is included in the Attachment.

Roundtable Discussions and Questionnaire

Fifteen roundtable discussions took place throughout the County with various stakeholder groups. During the 1.5 hour roundtable attendees watched a short video to familiarize them with the context for decision making. The video included information about population, employment and housing as well as information about the centerpiece of the plan, the Measure M program of projects. Then a facilitated discussion took place and participants completed a questionnaire to gauge opinions. Questionnaires were also completed by transportation professionals and college students without the roundtable discussion.

A total of 340 people completed the questionnaire following the video and discussion. Due to time constraints, another 350 people completed the questionnaire without viewing the video. The majority of respondents were youth, 511 respondents, from local high schools and colleges. The information obtained is qualitative in nature and is a good starting point for planning. The following chart shows the aggregate responses to the questionnaire.

Attachment E includes a sample questionnaire, all of the responses to the questionnaire per meeting, youth aggregate, non-youth roundtables in aggregate, and the respondents’ transportation priorities. Highlights from the discussion at respective meetings are captured in the chart below.

6

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results Aggregate: (Multiple Items) (n=668)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count)

Survey Responses (percentage)

Yes

Yes

No

Not Sure

No

Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

624

16

28

93.4%

2.4%

4.2%

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

557

39

69

83.8%

5.9%

10.4%

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

142

355

170

21.3%

53.2%

25.5%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

297

149

212

45.1%

22.6%

32.2%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

411

129

123

62.0%

19.5%

18.6%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

317

266

83

47.6%

39.9%

12.5%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

559

31

71

84.6%

4.7%

10.7%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

530

78

57

79.7%

11.7%

8.6%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

468

67

126

70.8%

10.1%

19.1%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

355

170

140

53.4%

25.6%

21.1%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

473

96

92

71.6%

14.5%

13.9%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

153

397

109

23.2%

60.2%

16.5%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

287

173

200

43.5%

26.2%

30.3%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

531

89

43

80.1%

13.4%

6.5%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

519

46

97

78.4%

6.9%

14.7%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

410

83

171

61.7%

12.5%

25.8%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

284

104

276

42.8%

15.7%

41.6%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

315

182

166

47.5%

27.5%

25.0%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

170

389

98

25.9%

59.2%

14.9%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

329

203

126

50.0%

30.9%

19.1%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

501

69

89

76.0%

10.5%

13.5%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

360

152

147

54.6%

23.1%

22.3%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

458

92

104

70.0%

14.1%

15.9%

7

Speaker’s Bureau / Other Discussions Several brief discussions took place with various organizations as part of their regular meetings. As a result, the questionnaire was not administered. The organizations included: Orange County Council of Governments, Orange County Business Council, Emergency Services Managers, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), Transit Advocates, Association of California Cities Orange County (ACC-OC) and Orange County Visitors Association. The comments made during the discussions are included in Attachment F. Online Questionnaire

An online questionnaire was posted on OCTA’s website through February 2014 for the general public. It elicited 141 responses. The responses are qualitative in nature and not statistically significant. A majority of respondents supported the following improvements as a high priority in rank order: • Traffic signal synchronization • Maintenance of existing roads and highways • Development of a mass transit systems e.g. light rail / modern street cars • Expansion of the Metrolink commuter rail system • Provide "last mile" connections for rail commuters • Improve access and transit connections to airports PHASE TWO –Circulate Draft Plan The input from Phase One along with technical analysis has resulted in the preparation of a draft Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This was published on our website and gave the public an opportunity to comment. The public comment period began on April 21 and concluded on June 20. Outreach activities to obtain input on the draft Plan took place during the spring and summer. These efforts consisted of: speakers bureau presentations to public committees, key business and community groups, an online survey on OCTA’s website and an open house. The public was encouraged to submit written comments on the draft LRTP at all outreach events.

Outreach Tactics Phase Two outreach iterated many strategies implemented in Phase One. The goal of the second phase of outreach is to gather input on the proposed strategies and options that are included in the draft LRTP. • Online Comment Form –the general public was able to view the draft LRTP and provide input online.

8

• Notification/Promotion of LRTP Website - media relations and digital communications channels were used to alert key stakeholders about the availability of the draft LRTP and upcoming outreach events. The campaign involved issuing a press release, posting to social media, and sending e-blasts to 2,500 persons in the OCTA stakeholder database. In addition, cities, county supervisors and state / federal elected officials were sent materials to keep their constituents informed.

• Elected Officials Workshop – a second workshop with city council members and various city staff members took place in March 2014.

• Speakers Bureau – presentations were made to several community organizations and OCTA public committees regarding the draft LRTP. Elected Official Workshop #2

OCTA hosted a second LRTP Elected Official Workshop on March 19, 2014, which kicked off the second phase of the LRTP, to discuss proposed LRTP improvements. The following is a summary of highlights from the interactive discussion.

• Concern over requirements of federal reauthorization bill (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, MAP-21) Support for increased Metrolink improvements • • Concern to improve safety of bicyclists and pedestrians • Concern over HOV lane degradation • Support for increased funding for active transportation / bike safety • Concern for transportation improvements geared towards seniors • Support for increased community circulator projects • Residents’ perception of transportation issues is regional – not bound by cities • Streamline use of transit to encourage ridership • Need for polling to glean opinions regarding HOV 3+ and tolling • Planning for projects should include potential for emergency situations i.e. natural and man-made disasters • Importance of inter-county transportation i.e. 241/91 connector A more in-depth synopsis from this discussion is included in Attachment H. Open House

OCTA hosted an Open House to inform the general public about the draft LRTP. There were approximately 13 individuals in attendance representing: the private sector, public agencies, elected officials and the public. A PowerPoint was delivered to summarize the scenarios and respective projects by mode. The comments received are documented in Attachment H. An invitation was sent out sent to over 2,000 email subscribers to promote the event. The CAC and SNAC members were also invited. In an effort to inform the public about the event, a banner was placed prominently on the OCTA website main page along with 9

presented an overview PowerPoint presentation. Additional promotion was made through multiple Facebook posts, a press release, and an invitation was sent to all cities and county supervisors. Lastly, advertisements were purchased online and in-print with the publications below. The promotion efforts are documented in Attachment C. Publication

Publish Date

Circulation

OCRegister.com

4/28-5/6

40,000

Unidos

5/2

OC Register

Speakers Bureau

Nguoi Viet Daily News

5/4

287,000

5/2

16,000

200,000

OCTA delivered presentations to nearly 300 individuals in nine organizations throughout Orange County and regional transportation planning agencies in San Diego and Los Angeles. These organizations included: Orange County Council of Governments Technical Advisory Committee, Anaheim City Council, Southern California Association of Governments Technical Working Group, San Diego Association of Governments Borders Committee, Brea Planning Commission, Urban Land Institute Orange County / Inland Empire Advisory Board, Southern California Association of Governments Transportation Committee, Irvine Senior Council, South Orange County Economic Coalition and Anaheim Neighborhood Meetings.

CONCLUSION

An extensive public participation process has been implemented to discuss transportation priorities, changing demographics, key issues and potential solutions. It included eliciting feedback from: elected officials, business leaders, youth, emergency managers, citizen’s committees, the environmental community, local jurisdictions, transportation professionals, active transportation advocates, transit advocates, multicultural leaders, the tourism industry, senior groups, and the general public. The goal was to educate stakeholders about strategies for the draft plan and to hear from a wide array of people in an effort to develop innovative transportation solutions to improve mobility for the next generation.

10

Attachment A Branding

11

12

2014 LONG RANGE TRANSPORATION PLAN

DESCRIPTION

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) develops a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) every four years to account for new planning efforts, as well as changes in demographics, economic conditions, and available sources of transportation funding.

Outlook 2035 outlines a vision of multi-modal transportation improvements throughout Orange County. This blueprint of transportation projects and programs is the basis of OCTA’s input for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). One purpose of the LRTP is to develop a strategy to address the future needs of the transportation system, based on a 20+ year forecast of available revenues and growth in population, employment and housing.

The LRTP reflects OCTA’s current policies and commitments and incorporates input from local jurisdictions, business and community leaders, county residents, transportation planning professionals and other stakeholders.

GOALS

The goals of the LRTP are:

PROJECT Greg Nord MANAGER: (714) 560-5885 gnord@octa.net

COMMUNITY Kelley Jimenez (714) 560 5421 OUTREACH: kjimenez@octa.net WEBSITE: www.octa.net/lrtp

KEY ISSUES

OCTA will bring important issues to outreach discussions to initiate a dialogue about solutions. These trends include:

SCHEDULE: OCTA’S outreach will culminate with the public review period in April/May 2014. The LRTP will be submitted to SCAG in August 2014.

Fact Sheet as of 9/24/13

Orange County Transporation Authority 550 S. Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 (714) 560-OCTA www.octa.net

• Demand is outpacing capacity.

• Existing infrastructure requires more investment.

• Further efficiencies could improve traffic flow.

• Transportation funding is uncertain and not predictable.

• Orange County’s carpool lanes are congested.

• Intercounty connections need attention.

• Active transportation programs are gaining momentum.

• Demographics and technologies may change driving habits.

13

13F_140

AT A GLANCE

• Deliver on commitments of M2 projects and to ensure consistency with M2020 Plan.

• Improve transportation system performance to reduce delay from congestion, increase facility speeds and increase transit ridership • Expand transportation system choices by investing in new facilities, expanding transit services and improving multimodal integration • Support sustainability through investment in infrastructure maintenance, reinforcement of the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), implementation of environmental strategies and assurance of a financially sustainable transportation system.

14

Thank you for your interest in the 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). OCTA would like to accurately and personally address your questions and concerns. Please complete the contact information below and indicate the best way to reach you.

Contact Information (optional) Name: Street Address: City:

State:

Zip Code:

Phone: Email Address: Preferred Contact Method I prefer to receive information via: Email Mail I would like to: Be notified about open houses and other outreach events Have a representative from OCTA speak to our organization Your Comments / Questions About the LRTP

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

www.octa.net/LRTP

15

16

Attachment B

Online Questionnaire / Results

17

18

Online Questionnaire 2014 Long-Range Transportation Plan As Orange County’s population continues to grow, we face increasing traffic congestion. But since funding for improvements is limited and there is restricted right of way to widen our highways and streets and roads, it’s time to look at new ways to improve mobility in the future. OCTA is developing a Long Range Transportation Plan which will provide a roadmap to making transportation improvements utilizing all modes of travel between now and 2035. This is your opportunity to tell us your thoughts as our transportation planners and policy makers develop priorities and outline future projects and programs.

Questionnaire 1. On a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied are you with Orange County’s transportation system?

Not Satisfied

1

2

3

4

5

Very Satisfied

2. Listed below are some ideas for future improvements for each transportation mode. Please check up to four (4) in each section you think are most important: STREET AND ROADS  Add bus-only lanes to streets with major bus routes  Reduce lanes in favor of sidewalks and bikeways  Add new lanes to specific streets and roads with high traffic volumes  Synchronize traffic signals  Remove signals and add elevated lanes at key intersections (i.e. Jamboree Road)  Add bikeways  Build bridges at railroad crossings  Designate some roads as one-way streets  Fix potholes Other____________________________________________________________ BUS TRANSIT  Increase frequency of existing bus services  Extend hours of operation of bus service (running service later/earlier and/or on weekends)  Ensure all parts of the county have bus service  Concentrate bus service in high-demand areas  Expand rapid bus service (limited stop, faster service)  Expand inter-county express bus service (between neighboring counties)  Expand intra-county express bus service (long trips within county)  Focus on services for people with special needs (seniors/persons with disabilities)  Allow rapid buses to have traffic signal priority Other____________________________________________________________

19

RAIL TRANSIT  Explore a new rail system connecting major destinations within Orange County  Increase frequency of Metrolink trains to Los Angeles and San Diego  Increase frequency of Metrolink trains to the Inland Empire  Integrate existing rail services (Metrolink, Amtrak, and Coaster)  Improve connections between rail stations and destinations/employment centers (bus service, vanpools, bike-sharing, etc.)  Improve bicycle and pedestrian access/connections and amenities (shade structures, seating areas, bike share facilities, etc.)  Extend hours of operation of Metrolink service (running service earlier later, earlier, and/or on weekends)  Provide transit connections to Los Angeles Airport (LAX) Other____________________________________________________________ FREEWAYS  Add new lanes only within existing freeway rights-of-way  Add new lanes beyond the existing footprint (requires purchase of private properties)  Fix freeway bottlenecks at interchanges, merge areas and on- and off-ramps  Build truck lanes  Add express/toll lanes to freeways (i.e. SR-91 Express Lanes)  Add elevated lanes to existing freeways  Encourage carpooling, vanpooling and transit use  Focus on maintaining and maximizing the existing system Other____________________________________________________________ 3. For each item below, please indicate on a 0-10 scale how important you feel it is. A “0” means very unimportant and a “10” means very important. Please use any number from 0 to 10 that best indicates your feelings. The higher the number, the more important it is to you.

Importance Rating (0 -10)

How important is it to keep widening existing freeways and streets and roads?

How important is it for Orange County to have some type of a mass transit system such as light rail or modern street cars?

How important is it to expand alternatives to driving (transit services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.)?

How important is it to maintain high speeds in carpool lanes by increasing to three or more occupants?

How important is it that people have a choice to travel on express lanes for a fee/toll?

20

4. The majority of OCTA’s transportation improvements are made using a combination of gas taxes, sales tax and other user fees. These funding sources are currently limited. How should new improvements be funded? (Pick 2)  Increase gas tax  Increase sales tax  Toll new roadways  Increase transit fares  Charge parking fees  Initiate odometer readings (pay by miles driven)  Limit improvements to existing funding  None of the above  Other __________________________________________________________ 5. Tell us how you would prioritize the types of improvements listed below in developing Orange County’s future transportation network.

High Medium Low Priority Priority Priority Increase the frequency/amount of bus service Widen existing freeways and roads Expand the Metrolink Commuter Rail system Add express/toll lanes to existing freeways Build a new modern streetcar/light rail system Synchronize traffic signals Add bike lanes Add elevated lanes to existing freeways Add express bus service Build new freeways and roads Improve connections into neighboring counties Consider ways to move more people rather than vehicles Build pedestrian bridges over high-traffic roadways Improve the movement of goods and freight Improve access and transit connections to airports Allow single-occupant vehicles to pay a toll to use carpool lanes Maintain existing roads and highways Provide “last mile” connections for rail commuters Improve carpool lane operations to move faster

21

6. Are there any other transportation improvements or ideas that you feel should be given a high priority for the future?

7. Where do you personally experience the greatest congestion/difficulty? List up the three (3) areas. Include specific freeway areas, arterial highways, local roads, intersections, bus routes or other areas. a. _____________________________________________________________ b. _____________________________________________________________ c. _____________________________________________________________

8. Contact Information (optional) If you would like to receive information and updates about OCTA, please complete the contact information below: Name_____________________________________________ Organization_______________________________________ Address___________________________________________ City/State/Zip_______________________________________ Phone_____________________________________________ Email______________________________________________

22

2014 LRTP Online Questionnaire 1.

Listed below are some ideas for future street and roads improvements. Please check up to four (4) in each section you think are most important. (n=135 respondents) Responses Not Satisfied

Satisfied

2.

Percent 1 2 3 4 5

23.0% 27.4% 31.9% 15.6% 2.2%

No. Responses 31 37 43 21 3

Listed below are some ideas for future street and roads improvements.

Please check up to four (4) in each section you think are most important. (n=139 respondents)

Responses (in order of frequency) Synchronize traffic signals Add new lanes to specific streets and roads with high traffic volumes Fix potholes Add bikeways Remove signals and add elevated lanes at key intersections (i.e.

Jamboree Road) Add bus-only lanes to streets with major bus routes Build bridges at railroad crossings Reduce lanes in favor of sidewalks and bikeways Designate some roads as one-way streets Other (responses below) Other Responses, Question 2 (open-ended responses as received)

Percent 71.2%

No. Responses 99

47.5%

66

43.2% 37.4%

60 52

36.7%

51

33.8% 30.9% 21.6% 7.2% 24.5%

47 43 30 10 34

Use pricing to manage demand Current auto dependency and its inherent negative consequences are a result of auto dependent zoning practices. In other words, given our current land use policies any attempted non-auto transit fixes are like swimming against the current.

Add rail along Harbor Blvd by removing parking on this street.

Add more free lanes - no toll lanes.

More Rail for the south cities.

Keep large profile vehicles (i.e.: box trucks, busses, heavily-loaded gardening/construction work trucks) OUT of carpool and fast lanes. Start ticketing people for driving too slowly in these fast lanes.

Put in the bridges over the Santa Ana River.

Extend the YELLOW LIGHT on traffic lights. The current yellow light timing does not allow a bicycle, which enters the intersection on a green light, to clear the intersection before the street light turns red. It takes at least six seconds to cross Orangethorpe, for example. allow use of carpool lanes during non-peak hours City transportation links that complement public transportation commutes, such as Irvine's iShuttle.

23

Move away from busses towards shared ride programs like Lyft, Zipcar and others. Stop spending huge amounts on programs that very, very few use.

Add more buses and bus routes -- increase frequency. Stop spending Billions on freeway expansion.

Also, introduce bus rapid transit into the street system. Use express service with limited stops.

Make system improvements between the differing modes of travel (at rails lines, at on/off ramps to freeways, at interchanges, in additions to within each system. add more public transportation - trains, etc.

Prohibit toll roads More benches!

Mass transit system like light rail or subways. We need a web of mass transit trains. Buses are too slow and inefficient. make Slater/Dyer/Barranca into a super street which will remove traffic from the 405.

Increase bus frequency and bus options and connections with Metrolink. the automobile is going to play a smaller role in our transportation future Create better trail linkage throughout the County for biking etc. especially along the OCTA Right-of-Way. adding auto infrastructure, street widening and parking is like pouring gasoline on a fire our current zoning laws or auto centric an add more gasoline to the auto congestion fire Fund La Habra Union Pacific Railroad Bike Trail. The La Habra Centennial Rail trail is a missing link in the county's North OC Trail Plan. Would link up with existing trails in Brea & Whittier to job centers.

Install "all way" crosswalks that allow people to cross in any direction, including diagonally, at the same time.

Add Light rail systems.

Current auto dependency and its inherent negative consequences are a result of auto dependent zoning practices. In other wards given ore current land use polices any attempted non-auto transit fixes are like swimming against the current.

Use pricing to manage demand Improve rail transportation Build light rail transportation More street cars. Need street car from Willow station in Long Beach down Willow to Katella to 57 Freeway. Will pass Los Al Joint Forces air base, Disneyland, train station at Angel stadium & Angel's stadium!

Union pacific right of way for trolley system hunt. Bch Discourage development in areas which already have traffic overload, such as Santiago Canyon Road/Cannon Street proposed development. build park and ride lot on major intersections

24

3.

Listed below are some ideas for future bus transit improvements.

Please check up to four (4) in each section you think are most important.

Responses (in order of frequency) Increase frequency of existing bus services Ensure all parts of the county have bus service Expand rapid bus service (limited stop, faster service) Extend hours of operation of bus service (running service later/earlier and/or on weekends) Concentrate bus service in high-demand areas Allow rapid buses to have traffic signal priority Expand intra-county express bus service (long trips within county) Expand inter-county express bus service (between neighboring counties) Focus on services for people with special needs (seniors/persons with disabilities) Other (responses below)

(n=132 respondents)

Percent 49.2% 43.9% 42.4% 40.9%

No. Responses 65 58 56 54

34.9% 28.8% 25.0%

46 38 33

24.2%

32

14.4%

19

18.9%

25

Other Responses, Question 3 (open-ended responses as received) A mass transit system needs to be developed and the bus system needs to be modified to better serve the mass transit system. use dedicated bus lanes with overpasses - like the orange line in the valley - for cheaper train-like "masstransit" MAKE BUS STOPS BEFORE INTERSECTIONS INSTEAD OF FAR SIDE OF INTERSECTION WHICH CAUSES TRAFFIC TO BE STUCK BEHIND THEM IN THE INTERSECTION.. MAKE PULL OUTS FOR BUSSES TO MAKE STOPS OUT OF TRAFFIC. Eliminate or reduce less traveled routes. Many busses are empty!

Monorail If I had rail from my home to my work I would take it everyday.

Clean up the bus environments. I rode a public bus ONE time and never rode again because the bus was absolutely disgusting and I didn't feel safe.

Restore the campus to campus buses that used to run between Cypress College, Fullerton College and Cal State Fullerton for students studying at all three campuses at once.

Make sure that the buses actually run on time and when they are scheduled they actually are there.

Move away from fixed route, large size vehicles towards much smaller, more flexible transit options. See Lyft, Zipcar, and others Employ more and comprehensive park & ride services, where buses can utilize the freeways' HOV or HOT lanes. This is really effective in moving commuters.

Expand to beyond bus service Have an OCTA bus app!

Buses are too inefficient. We need a intricate web of light rail trains, subways etc...

The bus system has never worked in OC and will not work. I tried it for 9 months and it doesn't work. continue pull out improvements buses that carry bikes I would love to ride the bus to work & home but I would have to transfer from a north & south line to a west & east line. That would increase my commute time from 30minutes by car to over one hour. So

25

increase frequency or plan for connections.

North County Bike Trails. La Habra Rail Trail is a high priority.

Increase public transit options Dedicated bus lanes for express bus in the left most lanes of major streets that use center islands as bus stops. These could be upgraded to rail at a later time.

Promote the Jitney. Under the heading of how to increase mobility, foster the growth of private sector transport, the jitney.

A mass transit system needs to be developed and the bus system needs to be modified to better serve the mass transit system.

Need street car system like Blue line/Expo line, etc.

Look at rapid bus system similar to San Fernando Valley line on dedicated bus lanes on old rail lines Downsize it! Stop wasting our money.... add more bus connections with metro link stations 4.

Listed below are some ideas for future rail transit improvements. Please check up to four (4) in each section you think are most important. (n=134 respondents)

Responses (in order of frequency) Explore a new rail system connecting major destinations within Orange County Integrate existing rail services (Metrolink, Amtrak, and Coaster) Improve connections between rail stations and destinations/employment centers (bus service, vanpools, bikesharing, etc.)

Provide transit connections to Los Angeles Airport (LAX) Increase frequency of Metrolink trains to Los Angeles and San Diego Extend hours of operation of Metrolink service (running services later/earlier and/or on weekends) Improve bicycle and pedestrian access/connections and amenities (shade structures, seating areas, bike share facilities, etc.)

Increase frequency of Metrolink trains to the Inland Empire Other (responses below)

Percent 58.2%

No. Responses 78

50.8% 48.5%

68 65

47.0% 38.8%

63 52

38.8%

52

37.3%

50

14.2% 23.9%

19 32

Other Responses, Question 4 (open-ended responses as received) The Pacific Electric and even Union Pacific railroad right of ways need to be utilized for multimodal opportunities most notably rail. The drainage system within Orange County has open channels that can be covered and utilized for these opportunities as well. The outreach needs to go out to the entire county so that the local residents don't have the chance to kill the projects.

More service on weekends.

Increase speed of rail with faster trains, express trains, and / or dedicated tracks (not shared with freight), and automated rail. Also - increase bike lanes / pathways connections (no good access to SNA by bike).

SCRAP RAIL & MASS TRANS. USE FUNDS TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION OF INDIVIDUALS.

26

Make train that links to Long beach Airport, LAX, John Wayne and UC Irvine.

Raise fares and reduce taxpayer costs.

Add trains from Riverside to OC at ten minute intervals during rush hour.

Seriously need earlier and more frequent trains running from Union Station to Oceanside. One cannot commute south in the morning if one lives in north county and works in south county. extend rail service to more north-south destinations within Orange county, not just east/west (San Bernardino to LA).

Connect the areas that have high usage such as colleges.

The construction of a light-rail line to connect with one of Los Angeles County's existing or proposed lines is a must-do.

Have an app!

More, more, more, we need more subways like all the other major metropolitan areas of other nations.

More Light Rail The rail system has never worked in OC and will not work. I tried it for 9 months and it doesn't work.

Build a light rail train along the PE Right of Way to improve inter-county and local transportation options.

Consider implementation of a monorail system alongside each freeway in Orange County to reduce congestion, especially during peak rush hour times Promote private ride sharing / jitneys Promote CA driver license that has an inducement that says this driver is ok to give or sell rides. And promote an ID card that says it is ok to give or sell a ride to the person who wants to get a ride.

Hold Metrolink accountable for being reliable as they currently are frequently late.

Metrolink should be expanded so it operates like a light rail system (frequency of service and hours of operation). Additional lines should be built using existing freight tracks throughout the county. Service to Long Beach should be a priority. All OCTA passes should be good for service within Orange County.

Explore light rail system.

27

5.

Listed below are some ideas for future freeway improvements. Please check up to four (4) in each section you think are most important. (n=139 respondents)

Responses (in order of frequency) Fix freeway bottlenecks at interchanges, merge areas and onand off-ramps Encourage carpooling, vanpooling and transit use Focus on maintaining and maximizing the existing system Add new lanes only within existing freeway rights-of-way Add elevated lanes to existing freeways Add new lanes beyond the existing footprint (requires purchase of private properties) Add express/toll lanes to freeways (i.e. SR-91 Express Lanes) Build truck lanes Other (responses below)

Percent 71.9%

No. Responses 100

48.2% 48.2% 28.8% 28.8% 28.1%

67 67 40 40 39

20.9% 19.4% 23.0%

29 27 32

Other Responses, Question 5 (open-ended responses as received) Encourage driver-less cars. that technology will surpass the need for new freeways / commuter rail / high-speed rail.

GET RID OF FAST TRAC AND TOLL ROADS. OPEN TO ALL TRAFFIC. INCREASE ENTRY & EXIT POINTS TO DIAMOND LANES. Create through traffic zipper barricades in paths like San Clemente to Irvine or Fullerton to Santa Ana to move traffic in a common direction during high traffic flow.

Build and install multiple lanes to reduce long range construction costs.

Again, Keep large profile vehicles (i.e. box trucks, busses, heavily-loaded gardening/construction work trucks) OUT of carpool and fast lanes. Start ticketing people for driving too slowly in these fast lanes.

NO TOLL WAYS OR TOLL LANES. Explore options for providing parallel competing freeway, tollway, and light rail options along major impacted corridors.

Freeway entrances are a death trap for bicycles. The bike lane ends and one enters a no-man's land in which cars begin to accelerate to get up to speed to merge onto the freeway. Cars are confused because they think no bike lane means no bikes.

Connect all carpool lanes --- do not take away carpool lanes -- no toll lanes increase collaboration with our neighbors in LA county and other counties for OCTA to incorporate the Park & Ride operation throughout the county. It is extremely helpful to have at least one transit center, but more than one would be great that serve as regional hubs for bus service and rail service to verge onto. Direct connectors must be built in all directions on freeway interchanges before toll is charged.

Prohibit toll lanes Have we not learned anything about the inefficiency of freeways in the Twentieth Century. We need a spiderweb-like infrastructure of mass transit trains.

No tolls. by adding supplemental alternative transportation I hope to reduce the needed improvements to the freeways!

Better integrate onramps and off-ramps into the surface streets to make them safer to cross by bicycle and on foot.

We have been adding new auto infrastructure sense the early 1900s the more we add the worse it gets

28

implement jitneys Key transit jams seem silly and could be fixed through fixing and extending lanes to avoid the bottlenecks and merging.

Mass transit would be the most efficient way to handle the increase in traffic and would encourage people to put away their cars thereby helping the environment.

Replace car pool lanes with light rail - similar to the Green Line.

Our current auto dependent transport system is inherently self-destructive. Adding freeway capacity is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Put light rail line down center of 405! This is the only way to solve transportation problems as you cannot keep expanding freeways to accommodate cars.

The existing system is OK except at the east-bound 22//5/57 interchange.

Create express bus plan and have them between counties to promote ride share.

And bike lanes that follow the major freeways too. That way those that currently drive could take a safer route to work in other areas, could be along the line of the flood control channels, specific bike lane in there, no vehicle traffic to impede the bicyclist.

Express bus or Light Rail along freeways like the Metro Silver line or the Metro Green Line respectively New roadway, tunnel through mountains connecting IE and OC Evaluate future growth areas to potentially purchase land to build new freeway before homes/businesses are built up in an area.

Get rid of toll roads. Tax payers paid to build the freeway. You had no right to sell it.

ELIMINATE express/toll lanes. DO NOT convert carpool lanes into pay toll lanes.

29

6.

For each item below, please indicate on a 0-10 scale how important you feel it is. A "0" means very unimportant and a "10" means very important. Please use any number from 0 to 10 that best indicates your feelings. The higher the number, the more important it is to you. (n=137 respondents)

Responses (shaded by percentage of responses) How important is it to keep widening existing freeways and streets and roads?

How important is it for Orange County to have some type of a mass transit system such as light rail or modern street cars?

How important is it to expand alternatives to driving?

How important is it to maintain high speeds in carpool lanes by increasing to three or more occupants?

How important is it that people have a choice to travel on express lanes for a fee/toll?

7.

Unimportant 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Important 9 10

21%

10%

5%

5%

2%

13%

4%

7%

14%

4%

16%

8%

4%

15%

1%

2%

5%

2%

7%

9%

7%

55%

4%

4%

2%

3%

1%

10%

6%

7%

11%

10%

45%

27%

11%

8%

10%

7%

13%

4%

5%

8%

4%

4%

27%

7%

8%

8%

2%

15%

4%

5%

10%

2%

12%

The majority of OCTA's transportation improvements are made using a combination of gas taxes, sales tax and other user fees. These funding sources are currently limited. How should new improvements be funded? (Pick 2) (n=138 respondents)

Responses (in order of frequency) Increase gas tax Limit improvements to existing funding Toll new roadways Initiate odometer readings (pay by miles driven) Charge parking fees Increase transit fares Increase sales tax None of the above Other (responses below)

Percent 42.8% 27.5% 26.8% 23.9% 18.8% 14.5% 13.8% 8.7% 26.1%

No. Responses 59 38 37 33 26 20 19 12 36

Other Responses, Question 7 (open-ended responses as received) LICENSE BICYCLES & RIDERS AND CHARGE FEES THE SAME AS AUTOS. Create stricter project budgets and set strict deadlines with penalties for overrun.

Reduce wasteful spending on lobbying and stupid studies. Bring in employee benefits to a level below the private sector.

Stop spending funds on unneeded improvements. And before you say that all the work that is done is needed, let me just tell you that I see roads being worked on that were JUST FINE before the work

30

started. I know that if the money isn't spent by the end of the year the budget for the next year will be lowered, so unneeded work starts and I understand that concept, but how about spending the money on work that actually will help the congestion?

No Tolls or new taxes.

Vehicle use fee dedicated to surface transportation infrastructure to be paid with registration and license fees.

It is, well, un-American to have the rich be able to buy themselves out of community problems by jumping on a toll road. The rich are the most politically powerful. Unless they are inconvenienced, nothing gets fixed.

Move existing funding from projects and programs that are not used to programs that could be used more.

Stop wasting billions of Measure M funding on future freeway expansion - shift monies to transit (buses, bike lanes, traffic synch, etc...)

Build an EXTENSIVE lower cost streetcar network.

Operation of smaller buses will enhance the travel time for users and will encourage them to use the system because the smaller busses are faster. OCTA can operate more small buses and increase frequency. I believe the public will pay a little more to ride a small bus to save time. OCTA has to make the investment in employing smaller buses "If you build it they will come".

Have DMV set fees for corporations to match public, i.e...UPS pays same rate for each vehicle Prohibit toll lanes Spend fund on transit projects. Not county line signs like the 250,000 sign on SB 5 We already pay enough.

Fulfill Measure M voter promises, no toll roads!

Need to restructure the transportation funding process Obtain funding from other sources without increasing taxes.

More carpool road Paying by miles driven seems like the way to go, but odometer readings and GPS devices seem intrusive and prone to fraud; maybe something like a tire tax with a sliding scale based on expected lifetime and vehicle weight. development fees for transportation, more regional transportation funding read the High cost of Free Parking Do not increase transit fares! That discourages use by those with cars & makes it so much more expensive for poor, elderly and disabled. fees from express lanes I believe if people are confident that we are heading in the right direction they would be willing to pay with a tax but continuing to add lanes many of which have not helped in many cases the people will not go for anymore. We need effective, clean mass transit and rather than spend millions and billions of dollars expanding the freeways we need to spend it there and only there.

1. Parking meters. Most big cities have them. 2. A modest bicycle license fee used to fund bike path construction and related services. 3. More advertising, on buses, at bus stops and especially in the bus book. 4. Bingo, raffles and other forms of gambling that the state will allow - maybe an alliance with one of the native American casinos (slot machines with the revenue going to transit).

Bicycles and scooters should be registered the same as other vehicles and vehicle code regulations on riding them should be as strictly enforced as other vehicles.

Tolls are only acceptable if the entire project is funded with tolling bonds or revenues. Initiating a mileage tax instead of a gas tax can compensate for EV's and hybrids. Instead of those two options the Sales Tax can be increased.

31

Lobby congress for federal transportation funding. Also, another tax payer voted measure, like Measure M. NO more increase in gas tax, state just robs the account to pay for other needs in the state. Audit the current gas tax to ensure funding is actually going to transportation & not to other state needs.

Increase car sales tax and registration taxes. Charge a toll County to county drivers.

You didn't have another option for #6 so I'm adding it here. I don't like have to pay for toll roads. It's one thing to pay for using a carpool lane, but I don't want to pay to use a freeway that my current and future tax dollars are paying for, i.e. 73 extension Tax by weight of private vehicles and use that money toward transit. This will encourage people to drive smaller cars.

Re-evaluate present costs and efficiency's. Then, consider increasing revenues or alternate financing.

Use the monies you have already taken from us to improve the roads; government officials stop use tax dollars for their own use for limos; trips; cars;& other things they should not be doing. They should have to be accountable for every penny. I don't mind paying my fair share, but don't take me. Have character. Put a monorail in the middle of the freeways like at Disneyland.

Reduce the cost by converting to electric hybrid solar power. Get completely of off gas and oil. Start selling some advertising. Seriously. Most of the buses and bus stops do not have ads. Every stop should have a seat. Every seat should have an ad. Sell plastic cards for a nominal fee, they are really inexpensive to produce and you can allow people to re load them online. Allow people to reload day, monthly passes and monthly passes online. Also have the cards be able to hold a cash value that can be used instead of cash to pay for individual rides. I am sure you have heard of the TAP card.

You have enough money already - just use what you have already have and will have in the future to maintain our roads. Arizona has excellent roads - please take some lessons from them.

32

8.

Tell us how you would prioritize the types of improvements listed below in developing Orange County's future transportation network. (n=139 respondents)

Responses

High Percent

Synchronize traffic signals Consider ways to move more people rather than vehicles Maintain existing roads and highways Build a new modern streetcar/light rail system Expand the Metrolink Commuter Rail system Provide "last mile" connections for rail commuters Improve access and transit connections to airports Improve connections into neighboring counties Add bike lanes Build pedestrian bridges over hightraffic roadways Add express bus service Increase the frequency/amount of bus service Improve the movement of goods and freight Widen existing freeways and roads Improve carpool lane operations to move faster Allow single-occupant vehicles to pay a toll to use carpool lanes Add elevated lanes to existing freeways Add express/toll lanes to existing freeways Build new freeways and roads

71.0% 63.2%

No. Responses

Medium Percent

98 86

25.4% 23.5%

60.6%

83

60.3%

No. Responses

Low Percent

No. Responses

35 32

3.6% 13.2%

32.1%

44

7.3%

10

82

17.7%

24

22.1%

30

57.3%

79

29.0%

40

13.8%

19

49.6%

67

37.0%

50

13.3%

18

44.5%

61

40.9%

56

14.6%

20

43.4%

59

44.1%

60

12.5%

17

40.4% 40.0%

55 54

31.6% 34.1%

43 46

27.9% 25.9%

38 35

36.0% 34.6%

49 47

42.7% 40.9%

58 56

21.3% 24.8%

29 34

34.6%

47

47.8%

65

17.7%

24

32.9% 30.9%

45 42

30.7% 40.4%

42 55

36.5% 28.7%

50 39

27.0%

37

26.3%

36

46.7%

64

23.0%

31

30.4%

41

46.7%

63

22.6%

31

21.9%

30

55.5%

76

22.3%

31

20.1%

28

57.6%

80

33

5 18

9.

Are there any other transportation improvements or ideas that you feel should be given a high priority for the future? (n=77 respondents)

Responses, Question 9 (open-ended responses as received) OCTA can provide funding for vanpool programs at large companies and agencies.

Self-driving vehicles have the biggest potential to dramatically alter all traffic needs and effectively obsolete all fixed-rail. This technology should be the highest priority. dedicated driver-less lanes, etc.

MAKE BUS STOPS BEFORE INTERSECTIONS INSTEAD OF FAR SIDE OF INTERSECTION WHICH CAUSES TRAFFIC TO GET STUCK IN THE INTERSECTION BEHIND THE BUS. bus rapid transit from suburban regions to major business centers and schools (OC to Cal Poly Pomona would be nice), use already existing infrastructure like the toll road Light rail transit between Major OC cities like San Diego Trolley system.

Light rail! Light rail! Light rail! Protected bike lanes!

Improve bidding process to reward better quality and speed of construction. rail Improve alternative transportation choices in the county. The county is so limited to just the use of vehicles. Would like to see more alternative transportation that is actually feasible for everyday u use especially as our population grows.

Getting slow moving traffic out of the fast lanes on the freeways. These people, including buses and box trucks that drive in the carpool lanes, CANNOT go fast enough and they hold up traffic. Fast moving cars end up dodging in and out of traffic to get around these vehicles and it clogs up traffic even more. Start ticketing people for going to slow! They are a traffic hazard and they contribute GREATLY to the congestion on the freeways.

Non-car transportation needs to improve for social sustainability. Pedestrian accommodations. Bike lanes and routes that are marked to reduce fatalities.

Get rid of all of the toll roads and toll lanes (buy the out and make them free).

1. Look at ways to manage our system to maximize throughput during peak and off peak hours. 2. Need more emphasis on safety and security improvements system-wide. 3. Work with local agencies to better identify and mitigate traffic impacts to the regional facilities resulting from development projects adjacent to and/or within a designated "impact" zone, based on assessment of existing and projected traffic impacts on the mainline and local feeder arterials.

Create bike lanes on all major streets. Create bike lanes to the left of right-turn lanes. Educate drivers about bicycle rights with large posters on OCTA buses. Enforce bicycling laws among bikers. Ask for more bicycle law questions on driver's tests. Make Lemon Street between Fullerton and Anaheim Safe with bike lanes, fixing potholes, sweeping up glass. Train police in bicycle law. Most have no specific training.

I think the model of the 1984 Olympics here trucks traveled at certain times worked well and roads were less cluttered All carpool lanes should have two lanes, and they should all be interconnected to each other to reduce bottlenecking and achieve optimal throughput Widen Bristol Street in Santa Ana with green parkways and buried utility wires, and build a really great and useful streetcar system. A system that will take people where they need and want to go. In other words, an above ground subway. toll lanes on a freeway system should not be encouraged as the only solution to moving people faster. As a transit agency, OCTA must first explore transit options until exhausted.

Use pricing to discourage/limit single occupant vehicle use and encourage alternate travel modes.

Pricing could therefore eliminate the need for new funding.

Connect major centers; schools, airports, public venues with direct rail, without transferring to a bus.

Connect cities in county which each other via light rail in their neighborhoods.

Bullet Train to key metro cities.

Have an app for bus, train and cars!

Mass transit works best for national economy and local. If a sufficiently complex web of trains were implemented in Orange County then transportation will improve.

34

We should consider making Slater / Dyer/ Barranca into a supersteet. It runs along the 405 near the most congested areas. Let's give this plan a chance to work first before putting in toll lanes. 2) Supervisors should put measure M2 back on the ballot so we can vote it out, 3) Use all toll fees to pay down measure M2 so M2 can sunset years earlier.

Fix the streets!

We need light rail options in the county with alignment to other county rail systems. Los Angeles has invested and built a viable light rail system. We need a similar system for Orange County.

Making carpool lanes limited access again, this would improve the operation and ensures that HOV lanes are utilized for long haul rather than jumping in and out at any point thus impacting the operation of HOV and general purpose lanes.

Fix the heinously flawed E22 to N5/S5/57 interchange. n/a Work with cities to coordinate higher density, mixed-use development with transit stations.

Focus on creating a culture of public transportation. It reduces congestion, improves health as citizens walk more and reduces smog.

Seems like the website isn't easy to navigate if you're trying to plan a trip via Metrolink to LA or San Diego. I am high literacy, graduate degree and had challenges -- I imagine it might be far more difficult for lower literacy levels to use.

Consider light rail options to encourage mass transit traffic signal funding and roadway widening No remove on-street parking to improve safety for bicycles Safe Routes to School should also be prioritized. building or designing active transportation must be supported by some type of public awareness/education campaign, incentives Road diets traffic calming DD-64-R1 complete streets 20 MPH everywhere except highways depaving none No Toll Roads More buses with better connections and running until at least 10pm La Habra Rail Trail Bike Path Work with Metro to extend their light rail system into Orange County. The Green Line should continue down the 605, 91 and 5 with service to Knott's Berry Farm, Disneyland/ARTIC and finally John Wayne Airport.

Restore video citations at intersections.

Private Jitneys We have roads. We have cars. We have drivers. The most efficient way to have more people in less cars is jitneys.

Add new routes. My husband works for OCTA and cannot use the bus service to get to work unless he wants to travel 2 hours to get there Build transportation centers for express bus and regular service may meet and connect for transfers.

Reopen the one in Santa Ana. System preservation focus on alternatives to driving Light rail down Katella from LA County to trail station in Anaheim! What a great way to get to work, to play (Disneyland, Anaheim Convention Center, shopping, Angel's Stadium, Los Al Race Track, Los Al Joint Forces Base, & to San Diego & LA via Metro Link & link (with help of LA Co) to Blue line station in Long Beach. Also, street car down center of 405 Freeway! This is long term, but if you don't start now, it'll take even longer!

Do not build new highways but promote alternatives. Example, living in South OC, there is no safe, fast way to get to Long a Beach (2 hours on a bus or the Uber dangerous PCH on a bike. There isn't even a rail!).

Improved senior taxi services and much needed bike lanes with bike right of ways to make riding a bike not so hazardous. add bus lines and light rail Complete the 241 Toll Road to I-5 The Gothard bus station need a study of light rail traveling from Ellis to Anaheim/ Buena Park station.

Maintain existing roads and highways

35

The freeways are amazing now we must focus on how to move mass people from IE or LA throw OC. Rail car or Express Buses or new systems.

Focuses on few major traffic bottleneck areas on and around major freeways system.

Widening 405 from 5 to 605 freeway Mass Transit improvements Drivers to get extra lane during rush hour: Caltrans should use Barrier-Transfer Machines in areas with congestion.

Segregated bike lines. The #1 reason my friends do not bike anywhere is because they do not feel it is safe. If we built separate bike lanes by either narrowing sidewalks where they are very ride or taking away street parking and converting to bike lanes, people would feel safe enough to bike and drivers would have peace of mind that they won't hit a biker.

Better use of competitive bids for projects using non-union contractors. light rail project is very important in orange county More buses. park-n-ride lots, like Metro in Seattle/King County Potholes are ruining our cars and cause too much maintenance to our cars and therefore more money; more rail use; monorails used; buses that people feel comfortable using; transportation for the elderly and disabled; so the elderly that should not be driving have a way to get around.

Elevated Monorail/people mover style systems. Also I really like the elevated pedestrian walkways in Vegas. It works well for the high traffic intersections.

The expansion of the W 22 HOV lane to the N 405 was a waste of money!

Funding should be used mainly to build roads and freeways, and not to make freeway walls beautiful.

Make Orange County walkable/public transit oriented. Ideally, it would great to have a light rail/streetcar or subway system connecting walkable downtown areas (HB, Santa Ana, Little Saigon/Garden Grove, Seal Beach Main St, Laguna Beach, Fullerton, Anaheim etc.) malls (South Coast Plaza, Outlets at Orange/The Block), inland areas to the beach (Newport/Balboa, Seal Beach Laguna; perhaps running along PCH), running along freeways with pedestrian bridges connecting to neighborhoods/freeway exits, to arts venues (Sergerstrom Hall/OCPAC), theme parks (Disneyland, Knotts), running along major arteries (Beach Blvd, Harbor Blvd) to larger parks (Crystal Cove, HB Central Park, Fairview Park, Upper Newport Bay, Irvine Regional Parks, Fullerton Arboretum, Mile Square etc), and linking to the LA Metro light rail system via Long Beach. Please consider narrowing streets, increasing tree coverage/foliage for shade and widening sidewalks, especially in HB to encourage comfortable and safe pedestrian travel (some sidewalks along Edinger / Warner & Goldenwest are very narrow despite wide busy streets/intersections. Making walking a safer, pretty and calmer experience in OC will make it more desirable. Orange County is home to a huge sprawl of shopping centers, strip malls, businesses and eateries, and many of these are easily within walking distance of homes. If it becomes safer and more accessible to walk for short trips, people will consider doing so more often. Orange County is in desperate need of fundamental change as our current situation and plan cannot sustain traffic and population increases. We are running out of land and have turned so much of the county in to concrete already. We really need to help beautify our county and mitigate traffic/pollution if we want the quality of life here to improve for the future.

Improve bike lane safety on freeway overpasses.

Improve all bus near John Wayne Airport (JWA) And all buses in that area of Irvine should run frequently and they should all have shuttles that connect directly with JWA. The 213 and 212 should be running all day.

Quit focusing on light rail!

Free parking for motorcycles on streets and at events, to get people out of their cars and onto bikes and motorcycles.

I should be able to get on a light rail system and easily arrive directly into LAX and / or John Wayne airports from Orange County locations.

1.) Convert the old rail line right-of-way running from Buena Park to Santa Ana into Light Rail/Street Car Service and encourage employers, shopping, and high density housing to build adjacent to it. Have bus services / bike paths to disburse people to their homes from the Rail Line. 2.) Have a pleasant bike path running alongside said Light Rail Line, with a secure bike locker system at rail stops. 3.) Encourage affordable housing / raise minimum wage so people can live near their place of employment.

36

10.

Where do you experience the greatest congestion/difficulty? List up to three (3) areas.

Include specific freeway areas, arterial highways, local roads, intersections, bus routes or other areas. (n=127 respondents)

Responses, Question 10 (open-ended responses as received) The 22, 57, & 5 Connector 57 Freeway South-Morning, North-Evening 405 south at 5 south junction rail between Santa Ana and Union station rail, slow and infrequent E BOUND 22 TO SB 5 & N BOUND 57 [ORANGE CRUSH] GET RID OF K RAIL BARRICADES! 405 from costa mesa going north weekday afternoons 57 freeway before the 91 405 and I-5 connection prior to Sand Canyon 55 and 19th avenue I-5 & 55, 57, 22, 405 interchange Euclid Street southbound in Garden Grove south of the 22 CA-55 55 North and South approaching 5 Freeway-always very congested at rush hour 57/5/22 Interchange 22 E around Trask at 5:30 pm Bicycle commute hits patches with no good bike lane support e.g. from Fullerton to Santa Ana trail 405 Freeway north of Santa Ana River Weekend traffic in South County, especially I-5 south I-405 Southbound at Culver Blvd. in Irvine driving toward Los Angeles County (if I drive) 57 interchange with the 60, both ways Freeway connections at Orange County-Los Angeles County border 5 Freeway / 91 Freeway Interchange 405 between Irvine and OC northern border 405 - 22 freeway connection Local roads in dense city areas, i.e. pedestrian crossings, lights synched Bristol Street in Santa Ana I-5 orange County into LA county I-405 Orange Crush The Crush 405/22 intersection 91 freeway 5 freeway from Rosecrans and 605 5 Freeway where the 55 Freeway connects.

Euclid Avenue and 5 Freeway The transition from the 22 East to the 5 South 5 south Garden Grove City and its on and off ramps Orange Crush

37

57 North around Lincoln. Near that area is a closed lane and a half.

5 freeway north from Y on in late afternoon Harbor Blvd, 22-405 The eastbound Orange Crush where the 22 meets the 5 and 57 freeways.

County lacks quality transit service (inadequate coverage and poor headways) 5 Freeway during rush hour 55 North at the 405 (traffic congestion) Navigating Orange County on public transit.

I explore ways to avoid congestion and don't have anything 5 North, north of Crown Valley in the mornings.

405 due to high LA to Orange Co. traffic 55 Freeway between the 5 Freeway and Katella Rd 405 freeway areas Pacific Coast Hwy chapman / 57 in Placentia CA-22 at Beach during evening commute Orange crush -57/22/5 no where 405 freeway (Costa Mesa) I405 from Magnolia to Euclid 57S to 91W transition 91 Freeway Yorba Linda 55 north at rush hour On the 5 between the 57 and 55 405 freeway north as it jams past the 73 5 freeway between 57 and 55 405 at 55 and 73 which the improvements have made worse Where the 91 and 5 freeways connect.

I-405 91 AND 71 FREEWAY TRANSITION Seal Beach 22 freeway at City Drive Lack of transit service to Metrolink stations the 405 freeway between long beach and Irvine Euclid Garden grove and Brookhurst Garden Grove Freeway eastbound towards Harbor in morning 405, 22, 605 at Long Beach 405 and 605 interchange orange crush -57 to 55 22->5 at City Drive Brookhurst between Trask and Hazard 405 between 605 and 55 Any freeway at going to and from work travel times.

133 to 405 N

38

CONECT NEWPORT AVE with a bridge across rail tracks 55 freeway 91 frwy to Riverside County line 55 Freeway Beach Blvd/ Edinger provide last mile 5 Freeway at Norwalk 405 between Beach Blvd and 55 freeway connector.

405/605 transition. Hoping with new interchange that should be fixed.

405/605 Getting onto the 405 south from University 405 Freeway in Fountain Valley - north and south bound Interstate 5 North from Oso Parkway to Alicia Parkway 405 freeway between Harbor Blvd and Beach Blvd S/B #55 Freeway at Katella onramp NB &SB 55freeway 22 East until 5 south 405 Jamboree and the 5 freeway ORANGE CRUSH The 22 to the 5, it is a traffic hazard!

E 22 / 5 / 57 connection 22/405 interchange areas Orange Crush Little Saigon 405 and Jamboree Orange Crush / 22 FREEWAY at 5 FREEWAY to 57 FREEWAY Route 50 between Los Alamitos and Disneyland 405 freeway between Euclid / Newhope Exit (12) and Beach Blvd Exit (16) 22 Hwy, 5, and 57 intersection Jamboree road 42/Lincoln 405 between 55 and 5 60 & 57 Southbound roads (Euclid, Brookhurst, Magnolia) under 22 Freeway Chapman Ave in Garden Grove Merge point of the 22 and the 405 freeways.

91 E freeway back up from 241 toll road at rush hour (2pm - 7pm) The 5 & 405 interchange 91 West-Morning, East-Evening 5 south at San Juan Capistrano area Jamboree between 405 and Barranca N FAIRVIEW AVE. ESPECIALLY N. BOUND EVE TRAFFIC 5 freeway anytime 57 to 5 connection 55 and 91 connection in Tustin

39

55/5/57 Orange Crush 405 & 22, 605, 110 interchange Adams in Costa Mesa needs another way to get into Costa Mesa I-405 In Orange, S on Batavia at Katella, signal is green for only a few seconds-not long enough 55/22 Interchange 55 interchange with the 91 55 Freeway all areas Commute to LAX (beyond OCTA jurisdiction) I-5 North and Southbound at CA-55N/S interchange Crossing La Palma on Lemon on a bicycle 91 always busy 91 Freeway / 57 Freeway Interchange 55 between 405 and 5 22 - I-5 / I-57 freeway connection More bus service routes 17th Street in Santa Ana SR-91 through Anaheim, Corona and Riverside 57/60 leaving OC 22/5/57 intersection Imperial Highway 5/101/10 interchange 5 Freeway in general during peak commuting hours.

91 and 5 The 55 freeway between the 405 and the 5 405 south/ north Culver, Jamboree / Spectrum Beach communities & roads get too congested 22 connection to 405 91 East before Magnolia. Looks like there is room for another lane.

Synchronize the signals along Brookhurst, specifically between Trask and McFadden.

Freeways need only refinement to take care of congested portions 405 Freeway during rush hour Bus Route 60 (overcrowding) 5 South weekends from Mission Viejo to San Diego 5 Freeway between the 55 Freeway and Culver Drive 5 local roads South Coast Plaza Commonwealth near Fullerton Transportation Center 405 most of the time 57 south - Fullerton to crush 5 freeway (Santa Ana) Beach Blvd and Edinger Ave 405N to 55N 55 Freeway On State College and Euclid off the 91

40

22 and 5 interchange 91 between 55 and 5 Harbor and Fairview onto the 405 which the improvements have also made worse Where the 57 and 21 freeways connect I-5 I5 FREEWAY IN THE MISSION VIEJO AREA 405/605 5 freeway @ Orange Crush Congested highways to without pricing (HOT lanes) 91 freeway into Corona and Riverside Garden Grove Blvd 5 freeway Valley View between Katella and 405 Freeway, signals 405 to 5, Orange Crush. Will you ever get this right?

22 off-ramp to Main St. - Santa Ana 5 south --past Irvine 22 at Knott Backs up to Beach onramp 5 South to 55 South interchange Beach Blvd The messy 22/5/57 mix-up mentioned already.

133 into Laguna improve signal light communication/ smart system to allow better flow of traffic down tustin ranch road 91 freeway west of the 71 55 fray between 22 and 405 405 Freeway Improve carpool 5 frwy at Oceanside 55 freeway between 22 freeway connector and Dyer Rd. I-5 in San Clemente. When there's an accident if you're going to and from San Diego you have NO WHERE to go around the I-5 and avoid the traffic.

55 between 405 and 5 Intersection of Sand Canyon and Alton 405 Freeway in Irvine north bound between 241 and Culver Golden Lantern to Moulton Parkway. Use Synchronization 22 Freeway eastbound where it meets the 5 and 57 Katella/Cannon-imperial "T" in Orange E B&WB 91 SA Canyon 22 west until 405north 22 L A freeways period 91/57 Fix the roads. expansion of the 91 w/o toll lanes 5 freeway northbound - all of it 57 Freeway in Fullerton 22/5/57 connections (Orange Crush)

41

5 and Red Hill Transition from 57 to 91 WB Lack of connectivity among bike lanes Downtown Huntington Beach Beach BLVD 55 between 405 and 5 22 & 5 Orange Crush Katella Ave in Anaheim The 405 Freeway Chapman Ave (Orange) Ortega Hwy in Ladera Ranch bike access between Tustin ranch and Santa Ana train station HARBOR BLVD AND 22 FREEWAY. 55 mornings/ afternoons 5 before 55 freeway 55s ending in Costa Mesa to arterial streets 91/57/55 I-5 @ San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Main Street and Bristol St SB 5 from Harbor to Broadway 91 into the inland empire I-5 at the LA County line (beyond OCTA jurisdiction) CA-55 Northbound at I-5 N/S interchange Anywhere in Buena Park is unsafe for bikes Valley View (between Katella/91 Freeway) 5 at northern OC border Option to use carpool lanes for fee and fix roads 55 freeway North I-405 Carbon canyon 5/55 frwy 5/22/57 Interchange Complete Portola road!

55N connection to 5N 5 South to 55 south has been a nightmare for decades. better coordination with neighboring counties 22 Freeway during rush hour 405 Freeway between 73 Freeway and 605 Freeway Culver, Irvine intersections Pacific Surfliner bicycle policy Chapman or Orangethorpe between Euclid to State college, especially in the evening 91 freeway (Anaheim) 91W near Valley View / Carmenita 5 Freeway

42

5 to 55 s.

57 between Katella and 91 Orangethorpe west of Euclid during peak traffic periods 55 Freeway 405 FREEWAY FROM 605 FREEWAY 55 FREEWAY all of the 91 91 freeway @ 57 Inter-county express bus service Beach Blvd 405 in OC 5 north - into LA 57 North noon and after 91 Angel stadium/57 N riding a bike anywhere is extremely hazardous 405 freeway by Santa Ana/ South Coast Plaza 22 frwy 5 Freeway build pedestrian 405/22 connection, even with new interchange this is still bad.

57 between 5 and 60 Going south on the 405 where it meets with the 5S. 5 Freeway in Santa Ana - north and south bound Interstate 5 South from Tustin to El Toro Where Jamboree meets the 405 #55 Freeway N/B & S/B at peak traffic hours NB 241 Transition to EB 91 Brookhurst street until cross street Bolsa Avenue 57 22 freeway going to Seal Beach/405/I know they are working on, though KATELLA/HARBOR 5 southbound to 55 southbound onramp 55 Freeway in Costa Mesa/Santa Ana 55 (beginning to 91) 405/5 Southbound connector Little Saigon traffic signals 5 between 405 and 57 5 and Valley View 57 and 91 junction Ball Road in Anaheim

43

44

Attachment C Public Notification

45

46

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Joel Zlotnik (714) 560-5713 Eric Carpenter (714) 560-5697

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Nov. 14, 2013

OCTA Seeks Help Planning For Transportation Future Public can participate in online survey to express opinions on county’s mobility needs

ORANGE – The Orange County Transportation Authority is seeking public input to help plan for the county’s transportation needs for the next 20 years and beyond.

Community members are encouraged to participate in an online survey at www.octa.net/lrtp through Dec. 15.

The survey asks for public input on what Orange County’s transportation priorities should be through 2035, to help residents, workers and visitors move efficiently throughout the county.

Every four years, the OCTA completes a Long Range Transportation Plan that examines the county’s expected transit needs, accounting for changes in demographics, the economy and available transportation funding.

It also explores potential trends in transit needs as the population changes and looks at a multimodal transportation system, including buses, trains, freeways, city streets, bikeways and more.

The survey asks questions such as “On a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied are you with Orange County’s transportation system?” It also gives survey-takers the chance to prioritize transportation needs from low to high on topics such as increasing the frequency/amount of bus service, widening existing freeways, adding elevated lanes to existing freeways and synchronizing traffic signals, among many other issues.

The plan will address key issues such as the fact that transportation demands are outpacing capacity, that existing infrastructure needs improvements and that funding is unpredictable.

The Measure M program, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation, is the centerpiece of long-range planning. The Long Range Transportation Plan includes Measure M projects and looks beyond at additional needs throughout the county.

Results of the online survey will help shape the Long Range Transportation Plan, which is the basis of OCTA’s input for the Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments.

OCTA’s outreach efforts culminate with a public review period in April and May 2014. The Long Range Transportation Plan will be submitted to SCAG in August 2014. ###

47

48

Orange County Transportation Authority would like your feedback on transportation and your vision for the future of transportation in Orange County’s 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

Please take our LRTP online questionnaire at www.octa.net/lrtp and tell us your priorities for Orange County’s transportation systems.

The LRTP, which looks out to 2035, aims to expand transportation choices for commuters, create seamless connections, reduce travel times and enhance environmental sustainability to meet the future needs of Orange County residents, workers and visitors.

Measure M2, Orange County’s ½ cent sales tax, is the centerpiece of the LRTP in terms of projects and funding. However, should more funds become available, what are your priorities?

Questions?

Contact Kelley Jimenez at kjimenez@octa.net or (714) 560-5421 for more information.

49

50

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Joel Zlotnik (714) 560-5713 Eric Carpenter (714) 560-5697

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 23, 2014

OCTA Seeks Help Planning For Transportation Future Draft Long Range Transportation Plan looks at mobility for the next 20 years in Orange County with public meeting planned for May 7 ORANGE – The Orange County Transportation Authority is seeking public input to help plan for the county’s transportation needs for the next 20 years.

A draft copy of the Long Range Transportation Plan, called Outlook 2035, was presented to the OCTA board at a recent meeting and is now up for public review and comment on the website at: www.octa.net/lrtpdraftplan.

A review period will follow with an open house to solicit more input on the plan scheduled for 5 to 7 p.m. on May 7 at OCTA Headquarters, 550 S. Main Street in Orange.

“This is a document that will direct how we improve mobility for Orange County for the next two decades, looking at a wide range of transportation modes – from freeways to bicycles,” said OCTA Chairman Shawn Nelson, also the county’s Fourth District Supervisor. “We need the public’s input to ensure that we’re developing the best ways to keep residents, workers and visitors moving,” Every four years, the OCTA completes a Long Range Transportation Plan that examines the county’s expected transportation needs, accounting for changes in demographics, the economy and available funding.

The plan also explores potential trends in the way people travel through the county as the population changes and looks at a multiple transportation modes, including buses, trains, freeways, city streets, bikeways and more.

During the next 20 years, Orange County’s population is expected to grow by about 400,000 people, adding to the demand on the local transportation system.

The plan addresses key issues such as the fact that transportation demands are outpacing capacity, that existing infrastructure needs improvements and that funding is unpredictable.

The Measure M program, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation, is the centerpiece of longrange planning. The Long Range Transportation Plan includes Measure M projects and looks beyond at additional needs throughout the county.

In comparison to transportation systems that existed as of 2010, the plan calls for the addition of:

• • • •

New bus and streetcar service on key, high-demand streets Enhanced bus routes to maintain on‐time performance 20 weekday Metrolink trains 650 miles of bikeways

51

• • • •

820 lane miles on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways 200 freeway/carpool lane miles 242 tollway lane miles 450 vanpools and station vans

The draft plan includes many suggestions based on initial input from the public, including:

•

Optimize – Make better use of what we have by synchronizing traffic signals, widening

•

Maintain – Preserve existing streets and roads, and fix potholes.

Educate – Inform the public about public transportation and non-motorized transportation

•

major intersections, improving transit connections and improving conditions in carpool lanes.

options, and develop bicycle and pedestrian safety programs.

• •

Innovate – Develop faster mass transit solutions and include innovative solutions, such as real-time passenger information and electronic ticketing to encourage transit use.

Collaborate – Communicate within and across county borders to develop regional solutions and connections.

After the public review period, which lasts through June 20, necessary revisions will be made to the draft plan. It is then expected to go before the OCTA board for approval in September. The Long Range Transportation Plan will then be submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments, where it will serve as Orange County’s input into the Regional Transportation Plan.

For more information, visit octa.net/lrtpdraftplan.

52

HELP US

DESIGN OUR TRANSPORTATION

FUTURE

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) updates the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) every four years to account for new planning efforts, as well as changes in demographics, economic conditions, and available sources of transportation funding.

OCTA’s LRTP outlines strategies to improve the county’s freeways, streets, bus, rail and non-motorized programs. Visit us at our upcoming open house and tell us what you think about the proposed solutions. You can also get more information at octa.net/LRTP. WHEN

WHERE

LRTP Open House Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5 – 7 p.m.

Presentation at 6 p.m.

Orange County Transportation Authority 600 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 Conference Room 103/104 Bus Routes: 53, 59 and 453

Please contact Kelley Jimenez in advance at (714) 560-5421 or kjimenez@octa.net if you need special accommodations. Ðể biết thêm thông tin bằng tiếng Việt, xin vui lòng liên hệ Ted Nguyen at (714) 560-5334 or tnguyen1@octa.net.

Para obtener más información en Español, contacte a Fernando Chavarria (714) 560-5306 or fchavarria@octa.net.

Orange County Transportation Authority 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan

OUTLOOK 2035 53

Because Mobility Matters

54

April 29, 2014 Name City Manager Organization Street City, CA 92806 Dear The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) continues to seek public input on the 2014 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP serves as a blueprint for the county’s transportation needs for the next 20 years and is developed every four years to account for new planning efforts, changes in demographics, economic conditions and available sources of transportation funding.

Many Orange County cities have participated in the development of the 2014 draft LRTP through two elected official workshops. Additionally, OCTA has implemented a comprehensive public outreach program that has combined city comments with feedback from key county stakeholders. The public comment period will take place from April 21 through June 20, 2014. Cities are encouraged to visit www.octa.net/lrtpdraftplan to review the draft plan and provide further comments as well as share this opportunity with their residents and key stakeholders. In addition, OCTA is holding an open house to gain feedback on the proposed solutions. The open house will take place: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (presentation at 6:00 p.m.)

Orange County Transportation Authority 600 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 Conference Room 103/104 We look forward to receiving your feedback on the 2014 draft LRTP, the vision of multi-modal transportation improvements throughout Orange County.

Sincerely,

Darrell Johnson Chief Executive Officer DJ:aw 55

56

Date

Name Address City, State Zip

Dear _____, It is an honor to serve as your representative on the Board of Supervisors. It is important to communicate with my constituents about what I am working on to address issues facing the county. As Chair of the Orange County Transportation Authority for the second year in a row, I am excited to inform you of an ongoing project that will substantially improve major California traffic corridors.

OCTA is preparing for the future with its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), a roadmap to transportation improvements between now and 2035. Orange County faces challenges in the coming years, including more traffic congestion, limited funding for improvements, and construction to widen highways, streets and roads. The expected population and jobs growth in Orange County by 2035 could result in a substantial increase in traffic delays if improvements are not made to the transportation system now.

To address these issues, OCTA has asked elected officials and the public for feedback on various transportation issues such as signal synchronization, active transportation, managed lanes and other solutions. This input will help shape the LRTP and the future of Orange County transportation. OCTA will host an open house on Wednesday, May 7 at their headquarters, 600 South Main Street in Orange, to present the responses. For more information, please visit octa.net/lrtp.

If you would like to comment on anything that I am working on, or sign up for our email newsletter, please do not hesitate to contact my office at shawn.nelson@ocgov.info or (714) 8343440.

Sincerely,

Shawn Nelson Supervisor, Fourth District

57

58

Attachment D

Elected Officials Workshop

59

60

Date Name Title Organization Address City, State Zip

Dear XXXX: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is in the process of updating its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). OCTA updates the LRTP approximately every four years with the goal of assessing the performance of Orange County’s transportation system over a 20+ year horizon. The purpose of this letter is to engage cities in efforts to update the LRTP. The LRTP provides a blueprint that identifies projects that best address the needs of Orange County’s multi-modal transportation system based on expected population, housing and employment growth, while taking into account projections of future revenues. The LRTP also focuses on sustainability, specifically addressing the reduction of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

As you are aware, OCTA provides a range of transportation services to serve different travel markets. The goal of the LRTP is to identify specific strategies for transportation improvements to all the travel modes including freeways, streets and roads, and transit.

OCTA recognizes that cities will play a vital role in this process; therefore, two workshops will be held during the process that are designed to facilitate discussion among the cities and gather feedback that will be incorporated into the final product. The workshops will be held: Wednesday, September 25 8:30 to 10:00 a.m.

Tustin Community Center 300 Centennial Way, Tustin

Wednesday, March 19 8:30 to 10:00 a.m.

Tustin Community Center 300 Centennial Way, Tustin

We are asking that each city designate a council representative who can attend both workshops, offer their feedback on the various options, and speak on behalf of the city. In addition to the council representative, a city staff member may also be appointed to the working group. While we do not require council

61

action on the designation of a representative, we strongly encourage each city to attend both workshops and participate in the development of the plan.

Please reply to Andrea West, OCTA Government Relations, with your designated representative(s) to these workshops. Andrea can be reached at (714) 560-5611 or awest@octa.net.

Additionally, OCTA is available to make city council presentations or speakers’ bureau presentations to community and stakeholder groups, as you see appropriate. OCTA looks forward to working cooperatively with your city and will continue to keep you informed throughout the process.

Sincerely,

Darrell Johnson Chief Executive Officer DJ:aw

62

Elected Official Workshop #1 Summary: September 25, 2013 The purpose of the first workshop was to gather input and insights from Orange County elected officials that would inform the preparation of the LRTP in upcoming months. More than 60 public officials and their staff were in attendance, representing most Orange County jurisdictions. The following is a synopsis of the discussion.

Finish the System

The lack of alternatives to I-5 in South County is both a congestion and public safety concern. At present there is only one viable way in and out of the corridor. A shutdown of I-5 could cripple the entire corridor. There need to be better connections, specifically: • There is a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) gap at the Orange County/San Diego County line that needs to be closed

• The Tesoro extension of The Toll Roads needs to be built – for example, more than 14,000 homes are planned for Rancho Mission Viejo o If the extension isn’t built there will be continued diversion to I-5 and arterials

• A toll road extension is needed to Oso Parkway.

Improve Connections The need for improved connections overall:

• There needs to be better access to the 91 Express Lanes

• Train frequencies should be increased between Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano

• East-west connections also need to be improved, specifically the Ortega chokepoint between La Pata and San Juan Capistrano • Arterials should connect efficiently to freeways and also to Metrolink

Explore Alternatives to Building More Freeways OCTA needs to look at alternatives and move priorities toward mass transit and other options.

• Recognize that North County and South County priorities differ – North County tends to be more transit-oriented as a whole • Other areas could benefit from an improved bus system

• A passing lane for trains is needed in the Trabuco Creek Area • Consider alternatives such as a trolley

63

• Consider re-opening the light-rail discussion, specifically mentioned were Huntington Beach and Fullerton • The Pacific Electric right-of-way is an opportunity for expanding rail

• OCTA should consider implementing BRT on toll roads

• Use technology to keep people off of the roads, e.g. Skype • Car-sharing may have promise Support Active Transportation

The potential for active transportation, such as biking and walking, needs to have more emphasis in the upcoming LRTP:

• A safe infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians that connects cities should be implemented

• Safety should be emphasized and programs to increase safety for bicycles and pedestrians is key to the success of active transportation

• There should be safe crossings for pedestrians – a specific example is the crossing to the San Clemente station Maximize Existing Assets

There are opportunities to use existing assets better, expanding on current successful programs and looking at new ones: • The Smart Street program, for example, at Brea/Imperial Highway has been a great success – OCTA should build on success of these programs • Invest in and maintain the signal synchronization system

• Older parts of the county need funds for street rehabilitation – cheap fixes such as slurry seal are done – major investment is needed to rebuild these streets • New designs such as roundabouts could add efficiency to the local street system

Educate the Public to Improve Perception

To go along with physical improvements, the LRTP should have more emphasis on public education and information:

• Education should be aimed at getting people out of cars – for example, “Rail is easy”

• Along with providing comfortable, affordable and safe transportation, OCTA also needs to educate seniors about these facts and how they can most easily use systems

• With changing demographics, OCTA should find new ways to reach out to youth as well as seniors – what are their transit preferences? Are there technology solutions 64

to reaching out to youth – Skype, webinars and/or the Uber app?

Address System Challenges and Opportunities

The elected officials raised several policy issues, including system challenges and opportunities:

• Is the expenditure plan in M2 set or can we consider other priorities that have emerged since M2 was adopted?

• Goods movement policy needs to be included in the plan

• North County and South County solutions are different but we also need to have a concerted effort to improve transportation for the county as a whole • The LRTP should be explicit on the principles for the plan: o Are we proactive or reactive?

o Do we only build what we can maintain? o Is our focus residents, business or…?

• Growth management is needed:

o Link land use and infrastructure – developer approvals are much faster than the process for implementing infrastructure improvements, resulting in a mis-match between demand created by development and capacity provided by the infrastructure

• Tolling is an alternative on I-405 in North County but seniors in the local jurisdictions are opposed to tolling because they can’t afford tolls • OCTA needs to consider a position on Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)

• The policy on single-occupant electric/alternatively fueled cars in the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes needs to be changed; these users are congesting the system

65

66

Attachment E Roundtables

67

68

Long-Range Transportation Plan Questionnaire Yes

Questions

1. Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

2. Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g.

LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

3. Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

Streets and Roads 4. Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g.

Jamboree Road)?

5. Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

6. Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases onstreet parking?

7. Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

8. Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

Transit/Non- motorized 9. Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA) 10. Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe) 11. Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

11a. Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

12. Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

13. Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

14. Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

15. Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

16. Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

17. If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

69

No

Not Sure

Long-Range Transportation Plan Questionnaire Yes

Questions

No

Not Sure

Freeways/Toll Measure M, the ½-cent sales tax for transportation, is funding new lanes on freeways. These are being built mostly within the existing freeway footprint.

However, this will not fully solve future freeway congestion problems.

18. Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

19. Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

20. The current occupancy requirement for carpool lanes is two or more persons per vehicle, or HOV2+. Most HOV2+ carpool lanes are congested during peak hours. Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

Managed freeway lanes are being implemented in many parts of the country. Goals for managed lane projects are to move more people through congested corridors and offer a choice to travel fast. (91 Express Lanes) 21. Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

22. Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR241, SR-261)

What do you think are the top three priorities for Orange County’s transportation system?

1. _________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________ 3. __________________________________________________________

70

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Special Needs Advisory Committee (n=22)

H1

Q# Questions

Yes

No

Not Sure

Yes

No

Not Sure

1. Measure M, the ½-cent sales tax for transportation, is funding new lanes on freeways. These are being built mostly within the existing freeway footprint. However, this will not fully solve future freeway congestion problems. Should more lanes be added beyond the existing freeway footprint if this results in impacts to private property?

6

9

7

27%

41%

32%

2. Should freeway double decking be considered so we can gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

10

8

4

45%

36%

18%

18

1

3

82%

5%

14%

11

5

6

50%

23%

27%

3

14

5

14%

64%

23%

6. Should transportation funds be used to add carpool lanes to existing toll roads so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use them for a reduced price or free?

12

6

4

55%

27%

18%

7. Should major street intersections be widened (with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes)?

17

1

3

81%

5%

14%

13

1

8

59%

5%

36%

9.

11

4

7

50%

18%

32%

8

8

6

36%

36%

27%

21

0

1

95%

0%

5%

22

0

0

100%

0%

0%

13. Should rail transit stations/service that operates on freeways be built? (e.g., Green Line in LA)

9

2

11

41%

9%

50%

6

6

9

29%

29%

43%

14

6

2

64%

27%

9%

13

1

6

65%

5%

30%

13

2

7

59%

9%

32%

3

8

10

14%

38%

48%

11

1

10

50%

5%

45%

1

16

5

5%

73%

23%

10

3

8

48%

14%

38%

15

1

5

71%

5%

24%

T13 S12 S11 S10 S9 S8

8. Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g., Jamboree Road)?

T14

14. Should modern street cars (light rail transit) that share the same lanes as automobiles be built in Orange County?

T16 T15

15. Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

16. Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be expanded, before or at the same time, more regular bus service is added?

O17

17. Should OCTA continue to lead countywide bike planning efforts?

O18

S7

3. Most carpool lanes are congested during peak hours.

Should Orange County develop solutions to improve the operations of the carpool lanes?

4. Should toll lanes that offer a fast, reliable travel time and offer discounts or free trips to high occupancy vehicles (carpools, vanpools, buses) be built?

5. Should the carpool occupancy requirement be changed to reduce congestion in carpool lanes (change from HOV2+ to HOV3+ lanes) if this results in more general purpose lane congestion?

18. Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

O22 O21 O20 O19

Other

Transit

Streets & Roads

H6

H5

H4

H3

H2

Highways

§

19. If funding were available, should a countywide bike share system be launched?

20. Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

21. Should a regional system of toll facilities be considered part of the LRTP? 22. Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the LRTP?

Should more bike lanes be added to streets?

10. Should bus-only lanes be designated on streets where there is high transit demand?

11.

Should traffic signal synchronization be a priority?

12. Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a priority?

71

SNAC LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Traffic signal synchronization • Decreased congestion during peak hours • Time spent expanding/improving needs to improve • Perhaps we could force more carpooling by converting one additional "regular" lane to "carpool only" status • Increase occupancy on freeways (double decker or widen) • Traffic light synchronization • Solution to improve carpool lanes • Filling potholes • Signal synchronization • All-access carpool lanes • Install a light rail system like LA, NYC (versus street car like service) • Easier transition to carpool lanes

Second Priority • Reduce carpool lane congestion • Affordable fares (esp. disabled) • Would love to see light rail options exist to get to hubs such as downtown LA and LAX • Increase flow on streets (synchronize lights and overpasses) • Maintenance • Traffic signal synchronization • Traffic signal synchronization • Signal synchronization • Widen major street intersections (left/right/thru) • Synchronize traffic signals

Third Priority • Intercounty connections • Carpool lane adjustments • Expanding bike system • Bike lanes • Modern street cars/light rail • Increase mass transit frequency and on-time performance

* These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

72

August 27, 2013

Special Needs Advisory Committee (SNAC) Roundtable Comments August 27, 2013 • OCTA should consider monorail in the middle of the freeway.

• Infrastructure needs to be updated and maintained.

• Some support for designated truck lanes.

• Money is the biggest issue to improve mobility.

73

74

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Los Amigos Youth Roundtable (n=20)

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

20

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

16

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%

15

5

0.0%

75.0%

25.0%

6

7

7

30.0%

35.0%

35.0%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

12

3

5

60.0%

15.0%

25.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

8

8

4

40.0%

40.0%

20.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

11

1

5

64.7%

5.9%

29.4%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

17

3

85.0%

0.0%

15.0%

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

Streets and Roads

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

8

1

8

47.1%

5.9%

47.1%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

9

2

8

47.4%

10.5%

42.1%

17

2

1

85.0%

10.0%

5.0%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

3

9

7

15.8%

47.4%

36.8%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

7

8

4

36.8%

42.1%

21.1%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

16

4

80.0%

20.0%

0.0%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

14

3

3

70.0%

15.0%

15.0%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

14

4

2

70.0%

20.0%

10.0%

8

3

8

42.1%

15.8%

42.1%

10

4

6

50.0%

20.0%

30.0%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

4

15

1

20.0%

75.0%

5.0%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

8

6

5

42.1%

31.6%

26.3%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

17

1

2

85.0%

5.0%

10.0%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

14

1

5

70.0%

5.0%

25.0%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

16

1

1

88.9%

5.6%

5.6%

Transit / Non-motorized

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

75

Los Amigos Youth LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Bus Fares • More people riding buses • Bus information • Be on schedule at not run late • Timing • Street maintenance • Reduced prices for students • Bus transportation and their effectiveness • Faster transits, vanpools and carpools • Carpool lanes • GPS or an app • Reduce student buses • Rapid transportation • Travel times • Fix street problems • Expanding roads • Get to bus stops on time

Second Priority • Bike Lanes • More use of bikes • Reduce fares • Do not exceed capacity limit • Reduce prices • Signal synchronization • Bike rentals / lanes • How to reduce traffic in the streets • Efficiency / maintenance of everyday buses • Improve Bravo!

• Reduce prices for students • Cleaner buses • Lower price per ride • Technology • Shorter wait times for buses • Double-decking freeways • Widen streets

Third Priority • Faster transportation • Fix the freeway operations • Bike lanes • Be friendly to bus riders • Moving technology • Reduced prices for students • Real time bus location • Carpool rules for carpool to be less packed • Bus fare cheaper • Travel time • Better customer service, no drugs, beer, smoking • Convenient stops • Use trackers on a bus instead of call support • Managed lane system • More bike lanes on main streets

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

76

October 2, 2013

Los Amigos High School Roundtable Comments October 2, 2013 • Support for acquiring businesses / homes to improve traffic

• Must not add too many lanes – only in select locations • Most students use the bus

• Bravo! is not efficient because students not aware of the exact stops and buses appear empty • Most students unaware of Bravo!

• Must integrate technology to increase bus ridership e.g. smartphone apps and Wi-Fi

• Students prefer to drive rather than ride bus • Cost of car is a deterrent to driving

• Some opposition to double decking due to fear of earthquakes – safety

• Some support for double decking to allow people to get around faster • Not familiar with rail

• Opposition to managed lanes – why pay when drivers can use the general purpose lane for free • Managed lanes defeats the purpose of carpool lanes by allowing single drivers in • Enforcement of bus driver training important

• Reduction of price for students to use transit favored

77

78

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: CAC (n=20)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

20

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

12

2

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

1

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure 100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

6

60.0%

10.0%

30.0%

13

6

5.0%

65.0%

30.0%

11

3

6

55.0%

15.0%

30.0%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

15

3

2

75.0%

15.0%

10.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

12

4

4

60.0%

20.0%

20.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

18

2

90.0%

0.0%

10.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

18

1

1

90.0%

5.0%

5.0%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

11

6

2

57.9%

31.6%

10.5%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

11

6

3

55.0%

30.0%

15.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

5

9

6

25.0%

45.0%

30.0%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

1

18

5.3%

94.7%

0.0%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

9

4

7

45.0%

20.0%

35.0%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

14

4

1

73.7%

21.1%

5.3%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

13

7

65.0%

0.0%

35.0%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

13

2

5

65.0%

10.0%

25.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

7

8

5

35.0%

40.0%

25.0%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

7

3

10

35.0%

15.0%

50.0%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

6

6

8

30.0%

30.0%

40.0%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

10

7

3

50.0%

35.0%

15.0%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

16

3

1

80.0%

15.0%

5.0%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

14

5

1

70.0%

25.0%

5.0%

8

7

3

44.4%

38.9%

16.7%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

79

80

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Roundtable Comments October 15, 2013 • Autocentrism in Orange County may change because oil is getting too expensive

• Facebook is not “a thing” anymore • Kids living at home longer

• There will be more hybrid cars in future and “self-driving” cars

• Aging population is driving longer

• Who is paying for increased transit?

• US is now #1 energy producer more pressure for cleaner air • Orange County residents are too affluent to give up cars

• Rome is overloaded with small cars and scooters which provide flexibility • In 1988 gas cost $1.25, now it costs $4.00 and people still use cars to get around.

• Overwhelming need/burden will still be carried by cars.

• Need a realistic alternative first to get people out of cars.

Technology

• LRTP should focus on next 5 years (not beyond) due to obsolescence of technology.

• OCTA should plan for future while considering existing infrastructure/ technology • People like solutions that solve traffic for “other people”

• Look at existing data to determine what kind of technology is needed

• Look at assumptions on development: Transit Oriented Development (densities) • Development of transit needs to fit who is traveling to Orange County • Look at all traveling needs (i.e. tourists) • Choices: need to accommodate

• Complete systems such as connections to the 241 • What does it mean to not complete the network?

• Focus on Bottlenecks

• Area of congestion - 91 transition west to 55 South

• Technology is influencing transportation e.g. smart sensors. Entrepreneurs need government to integrate.

• Most international cities were rebuilt

81

o Orange County would need rezoning for densities

• Need transit - West Orange County doesn’t have plans for transit

o Bus system is ineffective to get people out of cars (should have reasonable travel times)

• Public policy should be developed to pay for transit (dedicated funding source)

• Driverless cars may have inter-car communication systems that will decrease distances between cars (increase capacity)

• Fare collection system is antiquated

o OCTA should consider cash pickup in back as well

• 34 agencies competing/diverse interests

o Educate cities to make them more aware regionally

HOV Lanes

• Focus on air quality instead of speed

• LEV’s are not the cause of degradation

• Managed lanes (like 91 express lanes) are misunderstood

• HOV system is connected to encourage carpooling - should encourage more • Need data to support decisions

o Survey why people carpool, include park and ride users.

• Look at demographics to make decisions (household communities vs. individuals)

• 1984 Olympics Model/techniques were successful e.g. staggered work hours

• Look at what happens outside of county. Problems do not stop at county line. o Must consider regionally (most people on 91 not from OC) o Talk to other agencies about challenges and solutions

• Look at success to replicate

o E.g. 91 Express Lanes started with planning many years ago that builds upon success

• Many solutions needed

• Transit needs more frequency

• Criteria of keeping HOV speeds is irrelevant (wrong federal criteria - needs to be tackled) • Traffic generated by other counties

o Learn more about what Mobility 21 is doing for collaboration

82

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Environmental Community (n=13)

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

13

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

11

1

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

7

3

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

1

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

91.7%

8.3%

0.0%

3

53.8%

23.1%

23.1%

7

5

7.7%

53.8%

38.5%

7

4

2

53.8%

30.8%

15.4%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

11

2

84.6%

15.4%

0.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

13

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

53.8%

30.8%

15.4%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

7

Transit / Non-motorized

4

2

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

13

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

10

1

2

76.9%

7.7%

15.4%

7

1

5

53.8%

7.7%

38.5%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

13

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

2

3

8

15.4%

23.1%

61.5%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

10

1

2

76.9%

7.7%

15.4%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

11

2

84.6%

0.0%

15.4%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

12

1

92.3%

7.7%

0.0%

4

5

4

30.8%

38.5%

30.8%

3

76.9%

0.0%

23.1%

11

2

0.0%

84.6%

15.4%

7

2

30.8%

53.8%

15.4%

3

76.9%

0.0%

23.1%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

10

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

4

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

10

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

3

7

3

23.1%

53.8%

23.1%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

8

2

3

61.5%

15.4%

23.1%

83

Environmental Community LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Faster reliable service • Light rail • Getting people out of their cars (esp. first/last mile) • Implement light rail to make the county "connected" • Get people out of cars • Fixing streets • Increase HOV speed • Coordinate first with land use planning • Transition carpool lanes to 3 or more • Get people out of cars • Merge agencies to provide critical regional planning • Give people a viable alternative to autos

Second Priority • Rail • Synchronization • Active transportation options • Connect to other counties • Upgrade buses to be more attractive • Synchronizing signals • Extend rail along coast • Analyze how to conserve VMT habit changes • Avoid new toll lanes • People live near work • Look at what other large cities do • Light rail, bus, shared service, anything but single driver autos

Third Priority • Funding • Invest in better jobs balance in Inland Empire (heresy) • Transit-oriented development • Stop building new roads; make biking safe • Light rail • Getting people to existing rail, mass transit hubs • Maintain roads • Invest in optimal alternative modes to car • Brag about the successes of Metrolink and pursue more alternatives to car-based planning • Alternative transit options

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of roundtable participants.

84

October 21, 2013

Environmental Community Roundtable Comments October 21, 2013 • Orange County is autocentric.

• State regulation to reduce VMT may impact use of cars • Auto issue

o Traffic or emissions, what about electric cars?

o Electric vehicles cleaner – no tax revenue, diversify revenue sources raise gas tax

Transportation funding gap

o Do not add more taxes – utilize current taxes, against odometer readings and against incentive taxes administrative burden

o Tolls stratify population – elitist way to travel – potential to use property taxes o Must do business differently – the more you drive the more you pay – support odometer reading

• New industry (managed lanes) provides a new way to evade taxes

o If the gas tax is raised may encourage people to stop driving as long as government does not subsidize for low income.

o Roadways are public assets. Managed lanes benefit those with means.

• What if new capacity was added? Vanpool pay less, singles able to buy in? o Against toll roads

• Addressing population increase - not a linear solution, OCTA needs to sort out to explain to public • North Orange County is built out in terms of capacity.

• South Orange County has poorly managed toll roads.

• Building more roads encourages more of the same.

• Some support for light rail. It works in Boston.

• Consider use of green lanes.

• We live in a spread out county. Orange County is not like New York City. People live in outskirts as opposed to New York where there is a better distribution of jobs – people work and live in same area.

• Regional planning not happening – developer driven.

• Time is now for regional plan.

• Don’t need separate fiefdoms – merge transportation agencies. o OCTA needs to tell community about success of Metrolink.

85

• There is a need for more education.

• Demographic change – impacts choice in dwelling type

• No seamless connectivity in mass transit in Orange County – unlike Pittsburg – must think about architecturally.

• Rail must grow out of sustainable areas and then develop from there.

• The transit ridership exists primarily in Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Anaheim.

• OCTA should start with transit alternatives on major arterials– Harbor, Beach Blvd – something other than bus.

• There is no rail connection to coast north of Laguna - that should be remedied.

• Metrolink is focused on commuter peak hours, which does not encourage new ridership. e.g. there is no return trip after Dodger games • Today’s youth are less autocentric.

o Many use the bus and are connected to their smartphone.

o Would increase if more of a focus on safety. It is not safe to walk in Yorba Linda due to erratic drivers and lack of consistent sidewalks.

• No one uses bus – not close enough to make feasible.

• Issue is with land use

o There is effort to link land use with transportation (SB 375) Sustainable Communities Strategy finalized 2016 – have no authority to implement.

• OCTA pilot programs – rent bike/car – provide an interesting way to get around.

• Building on success of Metrolink– consider full trains on weekdays and Saturdays.

o Should use promotions like tap card $.25-train from Long Beach to Los Angeles – blue line to encourage new riders.

• Some support for elevated light rail I-405 Long Beach – John Wayne Airport.

• Some amenities to attract ridership are: better chairs, and free Wi-Fi. • Top priorities to focus on – outside of M2 o Get people out of cars

o Survey of travel patterns/habits

o Motivate businesses to stagger start times – even traffic (Traffic Demand Management)

• Implement congestion strategies used in1984 Olympics e.g. night deliveries

• It is OCTA's job to do the most good for the most people.

• People will use viable alternatives to transportation if possible. Focus on the next generation.

• Autocentric – Orange County residents still have car but they may not take car 86

everywhere all the time. They may change if good alternatives exist.

• Protected left turn lanes – must balance between safety and operations • Must re-educate public about use of street cars.

• No bus in canyons – divided opinion about whether to change.

• Don’t pass off bike planning – cities won’t do it.

• Fragmented system

• OCTA should try pilot programs within different cities to gauge success.

• Bike planning – need different place to ride besides the street, too dangerous.

• OCTA needs to be aware of liability and maintenance of bike share • Double-decking – mostly opposition due to seismic stability issue • Support HOV 3+ - no toll

• Against public/private partnership – bad business model • Managed lanes support the rich.

• Potential management of demand by license number – effective in Mexico.

87

88

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Tustin High School (n=57)

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

56

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

47

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

1

98.2%

0.0%

1.8%

1

9

82.5%

1.8%

15.8%

6

33

18

10.5%

57.9%

31.6%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

35

15

7

61.4%

26.3%

12.3%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

25

18

14

43.9%

31.6%

24.6%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

29

26

1

51.8%

46.4%

1.8%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

49

3

5

86.0%

5.3%

8.8%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

42

9

6

73.7%

15.8%

10.5%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

36

6

15

63.2%

10.5%

26.3%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

36

10

11

63.2%

17.5%

19.3%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

41

9

7

71.9%

15.8%

12.3%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

10

33

14

17.5%

57.9%

24.6%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

22

18

17

38.6%

31.6%

29.8%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

39

13

4

69.6%

23.2%

7.1%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

47

4

6

82.5%

7.0%

10.5%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

30

12

14

53.6%

21.4%

25.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

34

5

17

60.7%

8.9%

30.4%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

33

15

9

57.9%

26.3%

15.8%

9

45

2

16.1%

80.4%

3.6%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

31

14

11

55.4%

25.0%

19.6%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

47

5

4

83.9%

8.9%

7.1%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

39

3

14

69.6%

5.4%

25.0%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

41

3

11

74.5%

5.5%

20.0%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

89

Tustin Youth LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Traffic signal synchronization • Make trains time travel more efficient • Public transportation accessibility • Double-decker freeways • Bikes • Subways or light rails • Double decker freeway • Double decker freeways • Congestion during major hours • Move merge lanes further down on entrance • Technology/go green • Freeing up congestion on freeways • Funding--everything sounds great, but taxpayers shouldn't be responsible • Keeping everything cost efficient • Decreasing traffic • Congestion on freeways • Bikes/bike lanes • More options to transport from place to place • Environmentally efficient solutions • More bike lanes • Freeways • Widen roads or add bikes lanes • Sync signals • Bike rental system • Traffic light synchronization

Second Priority • The environment • More bike lanes • Carpool lanes • Carpool limits • Trains/light rail/speedway • Incentive programs • Increase freeway efficiency • Bike rentals • More methods of transportation that are equivalent to cars speed • Technology • Double deck freeway • Traffic signal synchronization • Reduce congestion • Making travel time quicker • Innovative solutions • Signage and publicity • Rail improvement/advertisement/accessi bility • More education on effects of too many cars • Freeways • Double decking freeways • Sync signals • Lower bus fares • Subways • Expanding freeway • Environment • Lower prices on public transportation

Third Priority • Who cares about how fast you get there, it’s about the journey • Improve efficiency of carpool lanes • Signs/signage indication • More carpool less cars • Being environmentally conscious • Technology • Carpool number should be higher • Lower bus fares • Live update of freeway congestion • Support toll roads • Reduce environmental impacts • Bus system • Keeping small cities small and not trying to put rail systems in cities that don't need them • Wi-Fi in transit • The length it takes to complete projects • Carpool improvement • More space to drive (double deck) • More public transit on streets • Fix carpool lanes • Railroads • Improving carpool lane requirements • Bike rental • Carpool lanes • Signs and visual awareness • Better signing

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

90

October 24, 2013

Tustin Youth LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Subways and rails Street lights Monorail system The speed of public transportation Expand freeways Faster transportation time Fixing signs making things clear Cars Subway or Metrolink expansion Something like rapid buses Improving freeways Signage Environmental conscientiousness Environment Carpool lanes Carpool lanes more efficient Awareness of certain transportation in the city Toll roads for a reduced price or free Speed up bus services Freeway Freeway congestion Double decking Getting less congestion in the carpool lanes Rush hour Rush hour Provide transportation to people that need

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Public transportation More transit areas More mass transit Innovative solutions More transportation Trains Fast-limited bus stop transportation Subways Fixing signs Improved management of traffic during rush hour Signage Subway and other transportation Less traffic at rush hour More bike lanes provided by the city Buses should be cheaper so people will use them Lower tolls and improve advertising for toll roads More lanes Straight-thru side streets (light sync) Subways, more rails Make the bus passes less money Helping the environment Don’t widen freeways Take care of roads

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

More signs Better toll roads Affordable for everyone Clear directions and signs Cheaper transportation Buses Double decker freeways Light synchronization Finding new technology Making the public transportation experience more efficient Subway and transit More signs Signs at toll roads (before, after) Orange County should have high capacity transit Freeway efficiency Better time to get places Rail system Better signage Widen the roads and freeways

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

91

October 24, 2013

Tustin High School Roundtable Comments October 24, 2013 • Improved technology is important • Double-deck freeway perception

o Safety due to potential natural and man-made disasters o Benefit - it will add jobs temporarily o Concern over cost

• Invest in other transportation modes o Subway

o Electric trolley o Street car

• Increase freeway efficiency

• Educate/market current programs

• Incentives for carpool may alleviate congestions • Improve toll road signage

• Inherently low emission vehicles (iLEV) renewal

• Look at long distance vs. short distance trips • Elevated lanes – poor aesthetic quality • Bike lanes not priority over cars

• Signal synchronization is a cheap way to improve traffic • Lack of ridership/cost concerns for rail on freeway • Subways preferred over street car

• Would use transit if similar travel time • Some support for shadow tolls

92

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Beckman High School (n=36)

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

36

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

30

1

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

2

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5

83.3%

2.8%

13.9%

26

8

5.6%

72.2%

22.2%

19

10

6

54.3%

28.6%

17.1%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

17

6

12

48.6%

17.1%

34.3%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

15

17

4

41.7%

47.2%

11.1%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

24

4

6

70.6%

11.8%

17.6%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

21

9

5

60.0%

25.7%

14.3%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

26

3

7

72.2%

8.3%

19.4%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

14

13

9

38.9%

36.1%

25.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

23

8

5

63.9%

22.2%

13.9%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

4

28

4

11.1%

77.8%

11.1%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

24

6

6

66.7%

16.7%

16.7%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

27

5

4

75.0%

13.9%

11.1%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

21

6

9

58.3%

16.7%

25.0%

9

14

13

25.0%

38.9%

36.1%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

10

9

17

27.8%

25.0%

47.2%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

13

15

8

36.1%

41.7%

22.2%

6

23

7

16.7%

63.9%

19.4%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

25

6

5

69.4%

16.7%

13.9%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

31

1

4

86.1%

2.8%

11.1%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

23

6

7

63.9%

16.7%

19.4%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

20

11

5

55.6%

30.6%

13.9%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

93

Beckman Youth LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • More group commuting • Buses to appear more often • Attracting people to take the bus • Making bus use faster-less waiting time • Traffic amounts the streets • Implement light rail in Irvine/Tustin for elderly and other citizens • Improving traffic • Widening of freeway lanes/streets • Better carpools • Decreasing amount of time between stops • Freeway congestion • Bus times, less waiting times • Wider streets/fix pot holes • Service • Efficiency-faster times=more passengers • Light rail • Faster time travel • Transit travel time • Less traffic (cars are the most popular form of transportation) • Better efficiency • Freeways • Expanding freeways/doubling up in certain sections • Efficiency of transportation (widening lanes, cutting time, etc.)

Second Priority • Less congestion • Carpool lane being more restricted • Target the younger population because this is a long process and should focus on the future • Strategically placing bus stops near malls/shopping centers • Addition of lanes on freeway • Improve conditions/congestion in carpool lanes • Decreasing bus costs • More toll roads • Better lights/stops (efficiency) • Developing transportation in areas with more housing • Carpool lanes • Active transportation • Wider freeways • Speed • Strategic bus stop locationsbeaches, Costa Mesa, Anaheim, Disneyland (where demand higher) • Subway/metro • Larger capacity in transportation • Carpool lanes • More easily accessible-within walking distance and appealing • Traffic flow • Long distance-Metro • Traffic light synchronization

Third Priority • Better light stop synching • Lanes added on the 5 North somehow to LA • Make public transportation more practical • Making carpool lane requirements greater • Connection to key destination outside of Orange County • Double decking freeways to gain freeway capacity • Increasing bus times • Having own lane for big trucks • Developing a train or more efficient transit system • Waiting bus time • Cheaper/free transportationfrequent bus stops • Surplus • Love the countrywide bike share idea • More walking/active transport • Buses should have their own lanes • Managed freeway lanes • Should be faster than driving • Motorized vehicles more important than non-motorized transit • Toll roads-make more/accessibility • Bus efficiency • Efficient and faster buses with more

* These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

94

October 30, 2013

Beckman Youth LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Double decking freeways Carpool lanes/overall traffic Speed/frequency of buses Carpool lane improvement Improving freeways Efficiency Safer/efficient transportation Ease up congested areas Improving freeway efficiency Improving congestion on streets Time-effective routes and stops (for buses) Toll roads Freeways

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Improving carpool system Have small accidents not slow down so much Advertising bus transportation Freeway widening where there are bottlenecks Improving public transportation Value (worth it) More bus stops and more frequent buses Slightly lowering toll fees Addressing rush hour issues (5 N etc.)

Allowing a variety for transportation Carpool lanes Carpools

• • • • • • • • •

accessibility Widening roads/increasing lanes Improvement of the bus system (speed) Consider making lanes used only for rush hour traffic-or other solutions to this issue Safety Set up carpool lane to 3+ Improving driving conditions Don't worry about bikes no one likes those Providing a balance between cost and efficiency More efficient public transportation

* These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

95

October 30, 2013

Beckman High School Roundtable Comments October 30, 2013 • Students take the train for long distance trips • Orange County is autocentric

• Technology influence driving behaviors • Carpool lanes need to be fixed

• Korea/Spain/Rio de Janeiro/Texas/UT effective bus system o Support for more stops and increased frequency o Comparative travel time to car

• Favor transit-oriented development • Link transit with land use

• Concern over safety issues using transit

• Green technology may entice youth riders

• Dedicated bus lanes and truck lanes will improve traffic

• No bus in carpool lanes - frustrate drivers

• Strategic investment in transit where key ridership lives e.g. Anaheim, Costa Mesa • Support carpool rule adjustment HOV 3+ or 2 licensed drivers • Develop texting area for drivers to pull off of the road

• Transit catered to seniors due to changing demographics - ensure that it is efficient and cost effective • Double deck freeway in specific areas

• Against ROW acquisitions - due to negative impact on property values • Mixed support for more toll roads

• Transit options for college students • Educate people about alternatives

• Improve accessibility to carpool lanes • Bus stop in residential area

96

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Transportation Professionals (n=30)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

29

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

24

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure 1

96.7%

0.0%

3.3%

4

1

82.8%

13.8%

3.4%

14

13

3

46.7%

43.3%

10.0%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

13

7

6

50.0%

26.9%

23.1%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

18

2

6

69.2%

7.7%

23.1%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

18

7

4

62.1%

24.1%

13.8%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

29

1

96.7%

3.3%

0.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

19

6

4

65.5%

20.7%

13.8%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

21

3

5

72.4%

10.3%

17.2%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

22

2

5

75.9%

6.9%

17.2%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

10

12

6

35.7%

42.9%

21.4%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

2

21

5

7.1%

75.0%

17.9%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

17

5

7

58.6%

17.2%

24.1%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

23

4

2

79.3%

13.8%

6.9%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

25

1

3

86.2%

3.4%

10.3%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

18

6

4

64.3%

21.4%

14.3%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

14

4

11

48.3%

13.8%

37.9%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

12

10

7

41.4%

34.5%

24.1%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

12

13

4

41.4%

44.8%

13.8%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

8

15

6

27.6%

51.7%

20.7%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

28

1

96.6%

3.4%

0.0%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

29

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

22

78.6%

7.1%

14.3%

97

2

4

Transportation Professionals LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Developing a fiscally sustainable transit system to serve high-activity corridors • Transit • Managed lanes • Fast connection to neighboring counties • Maximizing existing systems (Metrolink, highways) for least cost first • High density planning is important • Increase freeway capacity • Multi-modal solutions (i.e. connecting bus, rail, bike) • Interchange improvements • Managed lanes • Land use to encourage transit usage • Improve existing freeway/arterial facilities to address congestion • Application of new technology • Elect candidates that support hard transportation solutions • Implement cost/incentive based management of funds • Managed lanes • Intermodal • Managed lanes for I-405 • Investing more/improving transit system • Moving people not cars through corridors • Managed lanes • Light rail • Extended rail/transit throughout OC • Build future managed lane system • Rail connectivity • Expand transit/rail capacity and connections • Optimizing toll road ops (shadow tolling buy 261)

Second Priority • Getting more people movement from the highway system (esp. managed lanes, signal sync) • Toll Roads • HOV degradation • Incorporate/plan for technology to maximize extent • Increase rail transit • Increase/improve transit system • Rail/express bus system • Managed lanes • Restore transit for all schools, conduct cost/benefit assessment • Complete streets • Improve solutions on freeways • Embrace bottom-up new rideshare technologies even if it threatens franchises (cab, bus, etc.)

• Local transit • Efficiency of existing system • Intermodal coordination • Intercounty coordination to improve commuter routes • Plan your lower income conversations early • Bus Rapid Transit • Light rail • Enhance transit system • Toll lanes • Provide option for traveling beyond roads and expand connections • Address deficiencies at system I/ (5/55)

Third Priority • Find more fiscally sustainable ways to serve basic mobility needs of transitdependent • Signal • Long range transit plan in coordination with developers • Plan for more convenient mass transit in highest density areas • Increase freeway capacity • Complete streets philosophy • Maximize city streets capacity • Signal Synchronization • Improve Caltrans project development process to reduce project delivery times and reduce costs • New revenue strategies • Improve solutions for bus/transit that support trips to work • Embrace bottom up new fare collection and real time locations • New technologies for law enforcement of HOV lanes • Increase use of technology • Coordinate where people with live with transit system planning (town planning) • Managing freeway lanes, exploring other options besides toll lanes • Bus Rapid Transit with increased frequency and reliability • Transit / rail • Light rail • Connect bike system • Grade separations • Expand managed lane options to improve overall system • Implement managed lanes e.g. 5/22/57

* These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

98

November 1, 2013

Women in Transportation Seminar Orange County (WTS-OC) Transportation Professionals Roundtable Comments November 1, 2013 • Millennials—some not buying cars • Transit shift

o Must start planning now to prepare for potential increased use o Transportation planners should focus on high density areas o Essential to be environmentally aware with new projects

• Orange County is autocentric - there is not a one size fits all approach

• Link land use (jobs, housing) to transit • Congestion, technology, and auto costs encourage use of alternative modes of transportation

• Speed harmonization should be utilized to manage congestion (optimize operations) • Some felt that ROW impacts provide a short term pain for a long term gain • Important to improve freeway interchanges

• Multi-dimensional solution which strives to maximize operational efficiencies • Must improve technology at signals for driverless cars • Develop mobile apps to share the ride

• Real time transit—public/private partnership

o Partner with 511 to improve accuracy of information

o OCTA should mimic success of Uber mobile application

• Embrace bottom-up technology

o However it may impact local taxi service

• Consider investment in Uber subsidy in suburban areas

• Focus on inter-county connections/solutions e.g. West County Connectors project impacts to Long Beach o Partner with Caltrans regarding Southern California Mobility Plan—tool to facilitate inter-district and inter-county mobility • Fix carpool lanes • Additional law enforcement of HOV

• Managed lane—maximizes throughput o Education important

o 70% want choice according to HNTB poll o Adds a level of convenience

o Business relocation Long Beach-Los Angeles provides subsidy for fast pass to 99

maximize productivity

o Commute time by 2020 laws will change to HOV 3+ o Impact to low income commuters

o Reconfigure/Vanpool educate

• Toll lanes funded by business—educate public

• Consider an incentive to subsidize low income users • Educate HOV 3+ free

• There is a trade-off—toll lanes vs. ROW impacts • Opposition to toll lanes is the minority

• In the future there is the potential for all lanes to be tolled • Freeway means free of signals

• Orange County managed lane network study (Caltrans) may add value to this discussion.

• To improve congestion on freeway—need to invest in transit

o There needs to be a paradigm shift in perception and in funding o Collaborate with the private sector

• Political issue—refine message e.g. excess toll revenues fund corridor improvements

• Seniors have driving constraints - improve efficiency and proximity to senior housing to enable group to utilize services

100

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Transportation Engineers (n=17)

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

17

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

14

1

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

2

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1

87.5%

6.3%

6.3%

11

4

11.8%

64.7%

23.5%

7

4

4

46.7%

26.7%

26.7%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

15

2

88.2%

11.8%

0.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

7

6

4

41.2%

35.3%

23.5%

1

94.1%

0.0%

5.9%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

16

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

17

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

13

2

2

76.5%

11.8%

11.8%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

8

4

5

47.1%

23.5%

29.4%

10

4

3

58.8%

23.5%

17.6%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

5

11

1

29.4%

64.7%

5.9%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

6

2

9

35.3%

11.8%

52.9%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

11

5

1

64.7%

29.4%

5.9%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

15

1

1

88.2%

5.9%

5.9%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

10

1

6

58.8%

5.9%

35.3%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

6

3

8

35.3%

17.6%

47.1%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

5

5

7

29.4%

29.4%

41.2%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

11

4

1

68.8%

25.0%

6.3%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

11

2

3

68.8%

12.5%

18.8%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

15

1

93.8%

6.3%

0.0%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

11

4

1

68.8%

25.0%

6.3%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

13

1

2

81.3%

6.3%

12.5%

Transit / Non-motorized

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

101

Transportation Engineers LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Reduced truck traffic during commute times • Light rail • Freeway • Reduce traffic and commute times • Widening I-405 • Lower cost of rail transit/bus transit • Subway system • Improving freeway capacity • Public transportation that's comprehensive • Right turn pockets on high speed arterials and proper bus turnouts • Maximizing utilization of existing infrastructure

Second Priority • Metrolink-John Wayne Airport connector • Managed lanes • Public transit • Railways to major destinations (i.e.

LAX) • Implementation of more "smart streets" • Traffic signal synchronization during rush hour • Adding lanes to freeways either (widening or double decking) • Creating light rail system • and saves travel time • Innovative bicycle design, green lanes, boxes, bicycle detection • Improving existing regional rail service so it serves as a realistic alternative to driving (e.g. service from OC to LA)

Third Priority • Signal timing improved • Reducing public transportation costs • Pedestrian/bikeway share corridors • Traffic/sign to increase flows • Local interchange improvements • Increase rail transit service • Improving surface streets (flow/capacity) • and allows for flexibility in schedules • Synchronization of signals-get terrible gas mileage accelerating to 45 mph or more just to stop 0.5 mile down the road • Boldly partnering with local agencies and Caltrans to ensure future freeway improvements can take place

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

102

December 2, 2013

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: OCCOG TAC (n=24)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

24

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

23

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

11

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure 100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1

95.8%

0.0%

4.2%

10

3

45.8%

41.7%

12.5%

8

5

11

33.3%

20.8%

45.8%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

16

3

5

66.7%

12.5%

20.8%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

18

3

3

75.0%

12.5%

12.5%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

23

1

95.8%

4.2%

0.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

18

2

75.0%

8.3%

16.7%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

21

3

87.5%

12.5%

0.0%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

18

2

4

75.0%

8.3%

16.7%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

9

9

5

39.1%

39.1%

21.7%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

1

21

2

4.2%

87.5%

8.3%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

7

9

7

30.4%

39.1%

30.4%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

18

4

2

75.0%

16.7%

8.3%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

23

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

20

1

3

83.3%

4.2%

12.5%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

10

4

10

41.7%

16.7%

41.7%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

9

7

8

37.5%

29.2%

33.3%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

5

14

5

20.8%

58.3%

20.8%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

7

13

4

29.2%

54.2%

16.7%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

22

1

1

91.7%

4.2%

4.2%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

22

2

91.7%

0.0%

8.3%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

19

3

82.6%

4.3%

13.0%

103

1

4

OCCOG TAC LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Light rail- more important than PEROW in Santa Ana-La Palma • Transit Improvements • Metro to key locations like LAX • Repairing current system • Maintenance of existing system • Maintenance • Improve bus frequency service • Make transit available county-wide with easier connections between residential areas and job centers • Expand public transport network and service frequency • Understanding transportation needs of the county • Maintain streets and freeways • Make sure first time riders have a good experience • Freeway • Managing congestion • Signal synchronization • Increasing transit and nonmotorist/reducing auto use • Reducing auto trips • Intercounty project planning

•

Second Priority • Huntington Beach-Westminster • Safety for active transportation users • Intercounty rail transportation • Signal sync • Existing transit schedule expanded • Incentivize mode split • Consider rapid bus service similar to LA MTA on local street • Signal synchronization • Expand logical connections e.g. La Pata in San Clemente • Greater connectivity between systems/routes/mode • Increase interconnectedness-1st mile/last mile • Signal sync • Street synchronization • Maintenance • Increase Metrolink frequency • Providing safe/frequent alternative to car trips • P3 Exploration

Third Priority • Walkable destinations • HOV 3+ lanes • Freeway expansion • Light rail to key destinations • Enhance connectivity with fewer transfers • Rail • Overall need a public transportation network with alternatives, etc.

• Expand rail frequency especially to events • Extend the toll road (241) • Street repair • Alternative modes to vehicle • Increase feeder service to Metrolink and invest in transit (BRT, trolley, heavy rail) to utilize Metrolink • Use transit funds to leverage economic development • Tolling / managed lanes

These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

104

November 5, 2013

OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee Roundtable Comments November 5, 2013 • OC will continue to be autocentric • •

o Seniors resist relinquishing driver's licenses

o Land use patterns would have to change for mode shift

Mode shifts may change with better transit connections and more education

Must change attitude for alternative transportation – e.g. making biking safer (education)

• Look at inter-county connections – OC job producer

• Look at collaborative planning/innovative funding issues • Transit frequency would increase ridership

• Special events could introduce people to transit • Need to improve transit reliability

• Utilize cities – know traffic patterns, densities, politics - to implement rail master plan model • First mile/last mile important

• Freeways o Need to be forward-thinking – consider managed lanes o System management – optimize existing capacity

• Expand signal synchronization (consensus) • Fix carpool lanes

• Cost of gas, congestion, youth opinions – shift to use of transit • Sustainability – also some constraints

• People may use transit but automobiles will still be dominant • Some opposition to elevated lanes due to visual impacts

• Roundabouts may optimize traffic flow

• Katella/Valley View should have “free right” to increase traffic flow (3 left turn lanes) • Bike/pedestrian/driver issues - educate to increase safety

• Concern over economic impacts resulting from decrease in on-street parking • Potholes are the local agency responsibility

• Against integrating dedicated transit lane on freeway – takes up freeway capacity • Support for rail that operates on streets and roads depends on location –driver 105

safety is important e.g. Beach Blvd.

o Should consider elevating lane to minimize ROW impacts - potentially in dense areas

• Bus fares should not be lowered because they are already subsidized – impact operations • Local bus service is more important than rapid bus service

• Reluctant to use transit due to multiple bags must carry – not convenient • City should implement bike planning; if OCTA plans – should pay for

• OCTA can expedite regional planning and implementation – multi-city consensus difficult • Bike share has not successful yet; big cities only – too spread out

• OC built out, it is important to improve what we have

• Concern over safety due to freeway double decking– Santa Clarita freeway collapse • HOV continuous access is crucial

106

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Foothill High School (n=24)

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

24

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

23

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1

95.8%

0.0%

4.2%

18

6

0.0%

75.0%

25.0%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

15

3

6

62.5%

12.5%

25.0%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

14

4

6

58.3%

16.7%

25.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

8

15

1

33.3%

62.5%

4.2%

3

87.5%

0.0%

12.5%

4

62.5%

20.8%

16.7%

4

83.3%

0.0%

16.7%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

21

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

15

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

20

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

10

8

6

41.7%

33.3%

25.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

19

4

1

79.2%

16.7%

4.2%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

7

11

6

29.2%

45.8%

25.0%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

20

4

83.3%

0.0%

16.7%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

17

6

1

70.8%

25.0%

4.2%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

19

3

2

79.2%

12.5%

8.3%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

12

6

6

50.0%

25.0%

25.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

10

2

12

41.7%

8.3%

50.0%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

11

5

8

45.8%

20.8%

33.3%

1

21

1

4.3%

91.3%

4.3%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

17

6

1

70.8%

25.0%

4.2%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

22

2

91.7%

0.0%

8.3%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

16

7

66.7%

4.2%

29.2%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

19

5

79.2%

0.0%

20.8%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

107

5

1

Foothill Youth LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Improve Orange County’s autocentricity • Build light rails • Ways to make public transit appealing • Efficiency in building development and travel time • Trolley cars • Improve carpool lanes • Bike system like in Europe • Reduce traffic • Reduce freeway traffic • Railroad transportation to major locations • Having their own lanes • Free right-turn lanes • Congestion • Alleviating freeway traffic as much as possible • Quicker transit • Improved transportation times • Time • Traffic on freeways during peak hours • More bike lanes and safety • Educate on the pros of public transportation • Quicker buses with less stops • Making the buses a cleaner safer form of transportation

Second Priority • Bike lanes vs. on-street parking • Fix potholes • Attracting the youth • Transit to major destinations • Light rail • Give public transit a better image • Improve time for commuters • Make buses more appealing • Appealing to more people (who specifically can't drive) • Reduce travel time • Rapid transportation • Smarter use of space • Less impacted freeways (more exits) • Reduce price of public transit • High speed transportation system with a small fee • Make it more appealing • Improve bus routes (have clearly defined short and long stop) • Making buses seem more appealing • Creating more toll lanes or less occupied passages

Third Priority • Double decking vs. visual impacts • Remove air pollution • Freeway expansions • Freeway enlargement • Managed lanes • Comfort • Quicker public transit • Quicker transportation time • Outlook • Improving bus conditions/eliminating stereotypes • Better ways to reduce freeway clogging • Improve "Status" of using public transit • Create more exit lanes/widen exit lanes on freeways • Make it something fun to do • Improve congested areas of freeways • Put more of an emphasis on buses, carpooling, trains and other environmentally friendly • Isolating public transit from private transit

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

108

November 12, 2013

Foothill High School Roundtable Comments November 12, 2013 • Majority of participants have a driver’s license - those that delayed don’t have a car • Orange County is too spread out (as opposed to New York City) - people want cars; independence, wealthier community • People don’t like the bus; not as cool as a car o Takes too long; not enough frequency

o Students take the bus to the beach (don’t have to worry about parking)

• Support for high speed trains to the beach • Light rail is not as slow as bus (i.e. LA)

• People use transit to go to a “destination” • Advertise to people who don’t have cars Technology

• Improve mobile application for bus schedules and routes (education)

• Using bus is very confusing

• Route planning on website is too complicated o OCTA should consider using Apple maps

• Hard to follow maps on website (colors were overlapping)

• Simplify process to get to route planning Freeways

• “More freeway lanes” is better, but not widening o Double-decking is an option

• Bigger freeways have greater environmental impact o Keep constricted to push people to transit

• Sometimes just exits need to be improved (chokepoints) • Educate public during construction Buses

• Go to cool places (e.g. popular yogurt shop) • Get them while they are young • Double-decker buses are cool • Negative stigma about bus

109

• Improve look of buses to encourage young riders • Give buses themes

• Bus drivers not very nice

• Educate parents to inform how to plan routes and safety of transit use • Free Wi-Fi would be a great amenity

Boundaries

• Many parents commute to LA in rush hour traffic

• Important to alleviate traffic to LA (more reliable travel times) • Widen freeways at county bottlenecks • Exits need to be widened Carpool Lanes

• Support for changing requirement to HOV3+

• Need higher speed limit

• Better enforcement for carpool violations Metrolink

• Too expensive Mass Transit

• Less stops to increase efficiency (skip stops) • Regulate stop lights to be green for buses • Dedicated lanes for buses

• Focus on work destinations and build from there • During lunch focus on food court areas

• Rail speeds need to be competitive with “cars with no traffic” speeds

• May also want to incorporate Zipcars (car sharing programs) for last mile connections

Managed Lanes

• Toll roads need more exits

• Some support for managed lanes on I-5 • Toll roads helpful in avoiding traffic

110

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Caltrans (n=13)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

13

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

13

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

5

7

1

38.5%

53.8%

7.7%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

2

4

5

18.2%

36.4%

45.5%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

10

1

2

76.9%

7.7%

15.4%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

7

3

3

53.8%

23.1%

23.1%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

12

1

92.3%

7.7%

0.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

13

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3

69.2%

7.7%

23.1%

2

84.6%

0.0%

15.4%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

9

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

11

1

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

6

3

4

46.2%

23.1%

30.8%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

1

7

5

7.7%

53.8%

38.5%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

6

1

5

50.0%

8.3%

41.7%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

10

3

76.9%

0.0%

23.1%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

11

1

1

84.6%

7.7%

7.7%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

7

1

5

53.8%

7.7%

38.5%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

2

4

7

15.4%

30.8%

53.8%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

4

6

3

30.8%

46.2%

23.1%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

3

5

5

23.1%

38.5%

38.5%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

6

4

3

46.2%

30.8%

23.1%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

10

1

2

76.9%

7.7%

15.4%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

10

2

1

76.9%

15.4%

7.7%

8

2

3

61.5%

15.4%

23.1%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

111

Caltrans LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Alternative transportation systems (beyond cars)--rail transit/light rail • Traffic signal synchronization • Transit system • Increase rail/transit on freeway ROW (existing) • Maximizing throughput on freeways • Life cycle costs (08-M) • Plan and implement managed lane system • Transit network with connections • HOT lanes to maximize throughput • Manage all lanes on freeway system

Second Priority • Funding/maintenance of existing infrastructure • Filling potholes • Transit system • Rail/transit to destinations (LAX, John Wayne) (inter-county connections) • Public transportation • Regional connections • Regional and/or inter- and intracounty connectivity • HOT lanes • More transit to areas without Metrolink • Synchronize all major streets

Third Priority • Regional managed lanes • Develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes • Transit system • Existing freeway system operations and maintenance • Signal synch on major arterials • Insufficient funds for transportation purposes • Multi-modal system (rapid bus, light rail and bike system) • Subsidize flexible work hours / telecommute / teleconferencing / satellite offices • Light rail • No tolls

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of roundtable participants.

112

November 12, 2013

113

114

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Active Transportation (n=18)

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

16

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

10

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

2

88.9%

0.0%

11.1%

3

5

55.6%

16.7%

27.8%

5

7

6

27.8%

38.9%

33.3%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

5

6

6

29.4%

35.3%

35.3%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

6

8

4

33.3%

44.4%

22.2%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

16

2

88.9%

0.0%

11.1%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

13

1

4

72.2%

5.6%

22.2%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

16

1

1

88.9%

5.6%

5.6%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

16

2

88.9%

0.0%

11.1%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

12

2

4

66.7%

11.1%

22.2%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

9

2

6

52.9%

11.8%

35.3%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

1

15

2

5.6%

83.3%

11.1%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

8

9

47.1%

0.0%

52.9%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

15

1

88.2%

5.9%

5.9%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

15

2

88.2%

0.0%

11.8%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

18

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

1

5

4

9

27.8%

22.2%

50.0%

11

1

6

61.1%

5.6%

33.3%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

1

15

1

5.9%

88.2%

5.9%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

3

13

2

16.7%

72.2%

11.1%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

11

5

2

61.1%

27.8%

11.1%

8

5

5

44.4%

27.8%

27.8%

14

3

1

77.8%

16.7%

5.6%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

115

116

Active Transportation Roundtable Comments November 15, 2013 • Autocentrism depends on investment choices of OCTA. • Transportation planning is based on zoning.

o Partnership with cities and OCTA—ensure plans are in sync (land use/transit)

o Non-motorized modes should be considered equally • Cars will be a mainstay.

• Safety of cyclist/pedestrians needs to be more important than moving cars.

• Local jurisdictions should provide for safe bike lanes when building on projects (e.g. include curbs for bikes) • Culture change—push people out of cars

• Educating public how to use existing infrastructure—early habits (DMV Driver’s Manual and test) o Change culture—major public relations efforts over a sustained time

• Incentive to use bike/disincentive car (tax) o Reallocate single pass vehicle bikes

• Dedicated bike lanes are important to families

o Vulnerable populations segregated lanes: around schools and in dense urban settings

• Funding mechanisms need to change

• Asphalt not solution to congestion—change planning thinking

• Solutions need to include active transportation (funding priority) • Consider slowing traffic to encourage commerce

• “Increased facility speed” doesn’t work for local communities, should be “decrease travel time” o Avenida Pico safety issue—video shows unsafe conditions

o Economic development important to local communities, shouldn’t just focus on pass-through

• Quality of life for residents where projects located (different models)

o Layered planning approach/different strategies for each thoroughfare

• Change culture of OCTA Board • Move people locally without impeding quality of life (local needs first, then regional).

• Overcome stigma of transit ridership “the bus” 117

• Increase bus service

• Trolleys/street cars—reasonable cost, allure to younger generation • Think outside of box—collective planning

• Financial issue—other countries have higher sales tax

o Develop Vehicle Miles Traveled tax based on information from smog check rather than gas tax

• Incorporate “safe routes to schools” component in LRTP.

• Need mass transit to move “densities” • Bike collaborative projects included in LRTP • “Keeping Traffic Local”—quality of life different, smart growth o Jobs, housing, commerce balance (access) o Walkability, access to local shopping

• Elevated lanes/not safe for non-motorized left turn lanes • Parking dictates mode choice Funding Transportation

• SCAG plan $40 million for bike routes

• M3—more funding about 10-15% (improve air quality) o Amend M—2008 Complete Streets

o 43% freeways (10-year Review)

• Mobility important—option to move freely • Metric to reduce VMT—health impact • Invest in local trips

• Shift will take place if mass transit is funded

• The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald C. Shoup - important reading.

• Fix potholes

• Atmosphere on the bus should be improved.

• Bike planning hand-off depends on funding o Regional effort—transit connections o Jurisdiction-dependent

o City—M funds eligibility conditioned on complete streets implementation

• Integrate rideshare into state/federal legislation

• Bike-sharing is a low priority and presents a safety issue. e.g. Anaheim • Enforce carpool lanes

118

• Part-time/continuous access managed lanes

• Managed lanes—allocate money to active transportation

• Little support for separating intersections, dedicated rights • Consensus on signal synch

• Some support for dedicated rail in middle of freeways

• Public works directors should come to meetings like these

• Create a new law that any person can give rides to encourage carpooling.

• Change carpool requirements to HOV 3+.

• Support bike-share—should have safe passages to enable people to use it.

• Support funding so carpools, vanpools and buses could use toll roads for reduced price or free

119

120

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: CSUF (n=22)

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

22

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

17

1

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

3

12

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

10

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

13

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4

77.3%

4.5%

18.2%

7

13.6%

54.5%

31.8%

12

45.5%

0.0%

54.5%

3

6

59.1%

13.6%

27.3%

14

7

1

63.6%

31.8%

4.5%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

16

1

5

72.7%

4.5%

22.7%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

19

1

2

86.4%

4.5%

9.1%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

16

6

72.7%

0.0%

27.3%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

14

1

7

63.6%

4.5%

31.8%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

15

1

6

68.2%

4.5%

27.3%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

4

14

4

18.2%

63.6%

18.2%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

12

10

54.5%

0.0%

45.5%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

15

4

68.2%

13.6%

18.2%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

18

4

81.8%

0.0%

18.2%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

16

1

5

72.7%

4.5%

22.7%

7

3

12

31.8%

13.6%

54.5%

13

2

7

59.1%

9.1%

31.8%

1

13

7

4.8%

61.9%

33.3%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

11

5

5

52.4%

23.8%

23.8%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

17

1

3

81.0%

4.8%

14.3%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

11

6

4

52.4%

28.6%

19.0%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

18

1

2

85.7%

4.8%

9.5%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

121

3

CSUF LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Widening the freeways to decrease traffic • Figure out a plan for mass transit • Reliable light rail to unite population, commercial and cultural centers of Orange County • Potholes • Expansion/widening of roads • Bike lanes and bike travel • Presence of rail transit services • Bike lanes (increase them) • Knowing what bus riders want to see on the buses • Decrease congestion • Rail transit • Create a light rail system • Maintaining streets and freeways • Complete freeway construction • Priority plans aligned with funding support • Faster transit options (bus or rail)

Second Priority • Establish rail transit service • Subsidized mass transit • Traffic • Rapid transport to destinations outside of Orange County • Increased bus system with rapid travel time • Double decking freeways • Improving freeway congestion without widening freeways-->which means more public transportation options for freeways • Creating train rails on freeways, such like the 91, 57, in order to reduce traffic • Reduce travel time in OCTA transit options • Carpool lanes • Carpool lane-new ideas • Widening freeways • Increased bus options (times) • Synchronized lights

Third Priority • Widening and repairing streets • Understand that people don't use public transportation because it is part of OC culture--people are far more individualistic here • Freeway • Using alternative transportation (bikes) • Buses/rails to popular locations quickly, i.e. downtown Fullerton, the beach, LAX • Bike systems in accordance with transit systems • Consider the expansion of toll lanes in major freeways • Increase usage of OCTA services • Freeway construction (taking too long) • Widening freeways • Creating more efficient public transportation • Light rail directly to LA • Better connectors to transit options

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

122

November 19, 2013

California State University, Fullerton ASI Board Roundtable Comments November 19, 2013 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Intra-county connections—emphasis should be internal o Business outside of OC—commute time I-5, I-405 Cars are part of culture, individualistic mentally—“stay in car, prefer not to interact with people”—requires ideological shift o Reduced fossil fuel use Transit service limited as opposed to OR—need to increase frequency Widening streets will not provide permanent solution Safety issue with multiple turn lanes with oncoming traffic Parking long-term issue—reduce parking makes problem worse Connections if add light rail—ability to get to destination City of SM (Green Line) has connections on 91 freeway Campus like small city—connections to major populations Support rapid buses around schools Bike sharing—cost of bike less expensive o No commitment—flipside Concern—expand bike lanes o Wilshire, Dorothy, Commonwealth—looking at bike routes Double decking if it’s safe Traffic enforcement of carpool lanes 6-9 am—HOV 3+ (peak) and free for all non-peak Split on managed lanes o Are you taking lane? o I-10 toll lane—traffic spilled to local neighborhoods Education about how to use toll lanes

123

124

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: CSUF Executive Senate (n=19)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

19

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

16

1

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

7

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure 100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2

84.2%

5.3%

10.5%

11

1

36.8%

57.9%

5.3%

9

1

9

47.4%

5.3%

47.4%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

14

1

4

73.7%

5.3%

21.1%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

9

6

4

47.4%

31.6%

21.1%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

11

2

4

64.7%

11.8%

23.5%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

18

1

94.7%

0.0%

5.3%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

13

1

4

72.2%

5.6%

22.2%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

10

7

1

55.6%

38.9%

5.6%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

15

2

2

78.9%

10.5%

10.5%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

2

9

7

11.1%

50.0%

38.9%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

8

6

4

44.4%

33.3%

22.2%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

12

4

3

63.2%

21.1%

15.8%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

14

1

4

73.7%

5.3%

21.1%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

11

2

6

57.9%

10.5%

31.6%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

11

2

6

57.9%

10.5%

31.6%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

8

3

8

42.1%

15.8%

42.1%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

7

7

5

36.8%

36.8%

26.3%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

14

2

3

73.7%

10.5%

15.8%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

15

1

3

78.9%

5.3%

15.8%

7

7

4

38.9%

38.9%

22.2%

11

6

2

57.9%

31.6%

10.5%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

125

CSUF Executive Senate LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Convenience • Faster bus service that is the same as driving your own car • Freeways/toll • Better transportation alternatives in Orange County • Efficiency • Freeway widening • Make it better than driving (faster, cheaper, convenient, etc.)

• Better public transportation • Efficient and effective transportation system • Giving more transportation options for CSUF students • Traffic synchronization • Lessening traffic congestion • Speed for traffic being consistent • Improving freeways • Widening freeways

Second Priority • CA residents • Street/light maintenance • Transit/non-motorized • Consider clearer and efficient options • Reduce cost of public transportation • Carpool lane functioning • Faster buses, light rail • Being able to provide more ways/resources to use transit more • More public transportation • Fixing potholes / roads • Carpool to HOV 3+ and giving discount to managed lanes with 2+ people • Creating a more efficient bus system • Increase managed freeway lanes

Third Priority • Traffic congestion • Marketing active transportation to be efficient and healthy • Roads • Make transportation affordable and attractive • Safety • Look into bus funding • More public transportation, OC needs to stop being so auto-centric.

World class cities have effective and extensive metro lines and dependable public transit.

• OCTA should hand off bike planning efforts • Faster public transportation • Developing a more cohesive system • Finding ways to widen/increase traffic flow on freeways with the least amount of eminent domain used • Lowing cost for everyday riders • Lower taxes and public transit fares

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

126

December 5, 2013

California State University, Fullerton ASI Executive Senate Roundtable Comments December 5, 2013 • Spain – does not require car; Southern California – should connect transit to major cities • Make transit affordable • Wi-Fi on transit • Southern California is spread out – major transit use not feasible, increasing driving age o In Arizona you cannot drive after age 65 • Consensus that Orange County will continue to grow • Support for LAX connections o Reduce traffic/cars/accidents o Orange County residents utilize LAX

o Promotes safety and efficiency

• Bike lanes versus on-street parking o There is usually only limited parking at apartments – may encourage commuters to ride bike o Concern over parking during peak hours

• Street maintenance should be a major priority • Concern over efficiency of rail taking a freeway lane • Rail street lane could create more traffic, not aesthetically pleasing • Transit is inconvenient and inefficient • Transit price is not the issue - students may consider if faster than driving • Rapid bus service reduces freedom of transit riders - may not take you where you want to go • Bike planning hand-off to OCTA for accountability and streamlining the process • Cities have limited funding for bike planning • Bike share - no point for commuters, it is not a priority • Widening freeway lanes/private property not an option for Orange County residents • Double decking provides a poor visual • Toll roads should have no fee for HOV 3+

127

128

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: UCI (n=333)

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count)

Survey Responses (percentage)

Yes

Yes

Not Sure

No

Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

293

16

24

88.0%

4.8%

7.2%

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

281

24

28

84.4%

7.2%

8.4%

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

77

163

92

23.2%

49.1%

27.7%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

141

74

118

42.3%

22.2%

35.4%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

214

67

52

64.3%

20.1%

15.6%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

133

158

42

39.9%

47.4%

12.6%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

282

15

34

85.2%

4.5%

10.3%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

268

40

24

80.7%

12.0%

7.2%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

230

41

61

69.3%

12.3%

18.4%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

159

107

67

47.7%

32.1%

20.1%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

274

26

31

82.8%

7.9%

9.4%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

111

168

50

33.7%

51.1%

15.2%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

133

105

93

40.2%

31.7%

28.1%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

285

34

13

85.8%

10.2%

3.9%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

253

26

51

76.7%

7.9%

15.5%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

202

31

99

60.8%

9.3%

29.8%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

149

42

141

44.9%

12.7%

42.5%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

158

104

67

48.0%

31.6%

20.4%

99

187

42

30.2%

57.0%

12.8%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

166

96

67

50.5%

29.2%

20.4%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

222

47

60

67.5%

14.3%

18.2%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

137

103

89

41.6%

31.3%

27.1%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

226

50

54

68.5%

15.2%

16.4%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

Freeways / Toll

No

129

UCI LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Improve public transport • Build a light rail • More buses • Autonomous vehicles prevalence in 20-30 years • More bus routes • Self-driving vehicles • Improved bus service • This is the most biased survey ever, good thing I agree with OCTA • Peak hour congestion • More accessible

Second Priority • Signal synchronization • Build a second light rail • Cheaper fares • Underground transportation • Bike safety • Detours around construction • More bus route

Third Priority • Increase/improve carpool lanes • How about a third light rail?

• Faster transit times • Driver education • Reduce congestion on freeways • Getting rid of toll rolls • Invest in trains

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all roundtable participants.

130

January 17, 2014

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results Youth: (Multiple Items) (n=511)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count)

Survey Responses (percentage)

Yes

Yes

No

Not Sure

No

Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

470

16

25

92.0%

3.1%

4.9%

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

430

28

53

84.1%

5.5%

10.4%

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

95

278

137

18.6%

54.5%

26.9%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

235

110

165

46.1%

21.6%

32.4%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

309

102

99

60.6%

20.0%

19.4%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

216

237

57

42.4%

46.5%

11.2%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

417

27

62

82.4%

5.3%

12.3%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

400

64

45

78.6%

12.6%

8.8%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

349

52

105

69.0%

10.3%

20.8%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

252

148

109

49.5%

29.1%

21.4%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

404

52

53

79.4%

10.2%

10.4%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

141

272

92

27.9%

53.9%

18.2%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

226

143

138

44.6%

28.2%

27.2%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

411

69

29

80.7%

13.6%

5.7%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

386

43

79

76.0%

8.5%

15.6%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

294

70

145

57.8%

13.8%

28.5%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

229

66

213

45.1%

13.0%

41.9%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

246

148

113

48.5%

29.2%

22.3%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

127

311

65

25.2%

61.8%

12.9%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

272

135

97

54.0%

26.8%

19.2%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

371

56

78

73.5%

11.1%

15.4%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

247

127

130

49.0%

25.2%

25.8%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

351

72

80

69.8%

14.3%

15.9%

131

132

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Multi-cultural (n=10)

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

Streets and Roads

Overview

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

10

Transit / Non-motorized

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

8

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

2

6

2

20.0%

60.0%

20.0%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

7

1

2

70.0%

10.0%

20.0%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

6

3

1

60.0%

30.0%

10.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

4

3

3

40.0%

30.0%

30.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

6

2

75.0%

0.0%

25.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

10

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

5

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

4

3

3

40.0%

30.0%

30.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

5

3

2

50.0%

30.0%

20.0%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

1

7

2

10.0%

70.0%

20.0%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

2

4

4

20.0%

40.0%

40.0%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

9

1

90.0%

10.0%

0.0%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

9

1

90.0%

0.0%

10.0%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

8

2

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

3

5

30.0%

20.0%

50.0%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

8

2

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

4

3

3

40.0%

30.0%

30.0%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

4

1

5

40.0%

10.0%

50.0%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

8

1

1

80.0%

10.0%

10.0%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

7

1

2

70.0%

10.0%

20.0%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

9

1

90.0%

10.0%

0.0%

133

2

Multicultural LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Congestion on local freeways especially 405 • Freeway • Access to public transportation • Active transportation • More lanes-free and tolls (to pay for it) on freeways • Do you plan to set up electric bus system?

• Clear understanding of who their customer will be in 35 years

Second Priority • Have more transportation options for the riders • Pot holes • Improve route time for increased usage • Public transportation increased/improved • Can you reduce construction time?

• Education of future clients

Third Priority • Develop solutions for carpool lanes during peak hours • More bike trail/lane options • Environmental considerations improvements • Connect to IT system to manage well • Greater use of automotives

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of roundtable participants 134

January 29, 2014

Multicultural Leaders Roundtable Comments January 29, 2014 • “Smart cars” with automatic steering and navigation will maintain autocentric trend in Orange County.

• Regional coordination is important - especially for the vulnerable population e.g.

ACCESS • Demographics require transportation mode-shift.

• Seniors still want independence.

o Portland more options for seniors and disabled

o Technology might increase people-miles, should be a focus

• Reduce commute times for bus / rail transit.

• Improve technology

• Local jurisdiction impact for elevated lanes.

• Some opposed removal of on-street parking for bicycle lanes due to safety.

• Business interested in keeping parking for customers.

o Bikes on sidewalks pose dangers to pedestrians. There needs to be a designated bikeway.

• Educate drivers and cyclists about bike safety.

• Can hand over implementation of bicycle corridors. There is a caveat: maintain oversight for planning and consistency.

• Slow down traffic in some areas – prevent pedestrian fatalities • Plan rapid bus expansion by studying travel patterns.

• Against light rail due to increased congestion.

o Rail would need to take enough cars off the road to make up for back-up behind cars/loss of a lane.

• Consistent bike planning requires regional oversight

• Some favored widening freeway to alleviate congestion. OCTA may increase ROW as long as home/business owners are justly compensated.

• Others felt a paradigm shift is needed– widening not solution

• Double-decking is not a long-term solution and is very expensive • Some felt toll lanes are not effective.

• Others supported toll lanes and pointed to the success of the Bay Area.

• If people are willing to pay extra, let them – extra revenue.

• Research reversible lanes at peak hours.

135

Community Needs

• Immigrant community – needs reliable trip times to go to work.

• Transportation planners should forecast future ridership.

• Partnership with schools to educate about transit use – 500K students

• Local meetings to educate adults about transit use e.g. neighborhood associations

• Outreach – change reputation of transit use and educate about safety

• Improved communication – alert stops, visibility of maps, mobile application to provide real time information

• Accessibility for disabled e.g. educate when buses are delayed or alternate route Communication • Young generation requires social media.

• Older generation needs more traditional methods. e.g. newspaper • Active partnership network o Video – post on web Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Spanish

o Prominent community leaders as spokesperson to build trust with multicultural community

136

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results: Senior Citizen Advisory Council (n=12)

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

12

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

12

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

7

5

0.0%

58.3%

41.7%

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

8

2

2

66.7%

16.7%

16.7%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

9

1

2

75.0%

8.3%

16.7%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

8

1

3

66.7%

8.3%

25.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

10

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

12

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

10

2

83.3%

0.0%

16.7%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

7

2

3

58.3%

16.7%

25.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

8

1

2

72.7%

9.1%

18.2%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

6

33.3%

16.7%

50.0%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

12

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

4

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

10

2

83.3%

0.0%

16.7%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

11

1

91.7%

0.0%

8.3%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

10

1

1

83.3%

8.3%

8.3%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

4

4

4

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

3

2

7

25.0%

16.7%

58.3%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

1

7

4

8.3%

58.3%

33.3%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

4

6

1

36.4%

54.5%

9.1%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

10

1

90.9%

0.0%

9.1%

2

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

9

1

2

75.0%

8.3%

16.7%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

6

1

5

50.0%

8.3%

41.7%

137

Senior Citizens Advisory Council LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Improve bike racks on buses – allow to hold three bikes instead of two • Educate public to use public transportation • Improve HOV lanes on freeways • Rapid transit • Better mass transit options • Accurate pick up time • Improved public transportation especially to serve seniors e.g. rail

Second Priority • Upgrade bus to hold three wheelchairs • Lower bus fares to encourage ridership • Improve traffic flow on major surface streets • Better and faster connections • Greater So Co freeway/toll access • Low cost public transportation • Better connections and integration between buses and rail and major centers (include shuttles)

Third Priority • More bus routes to airport • Widen street intersections, well mark the lanes. Synchronize to signal lights.

• Synchronize traffic signals • Senior transportation needs met • Elevated lanes at key locations • Cover areas that don't receive services in the county…no current bus for that area • Improved traffic signal synchronization

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of roundtable participants.

138

March 13, 2014

Senior Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) Housing / Transportation Committee Roundtable Comments March 13, 2014 • New Freedom renewal – concern over potential loss of funding source • Concern to reduce waitlist, currently at 200, for senior transportation.

• Can never build the freeway big enough—if we keep it narrow people will use alternative transportation.

• Need multiple options—better mass transit, get there in a timely manner • For elected officials ROW is a huge battle.

• Convenience is important—people prefer automobiles.

• Improve schedule—only 4 train times to get home from Los Angeles, there are no other options • Improved connections and increased frequency are paramount.

• We are not educating the public about how to use public transit.

• More education for alternative transportation options may improve interest.

• Improve alternatives to freeways—use for creative time • System is too complex—must simplify e.g. how to get to meeting in Los Angeles • Systems do not integrate well.

• Need more frequency in the middle of the day.

• Reliability, investment, and frequency are important.

• Municipal electeds should not make zoning decisions, e.g. eminent domain, should be the MPO • Need to improve system to add value to the community—depoliticize • Part of responsibility of elected officials to improve regional connectivity—touches inter- and intra-state; advocate on behalf of constituents • Cannot stop increased demographics—must be part of discussion • Yorba Linda will not use eminent domain—not an option • Many people stick their head in the sand regarding mobility. It must be addressed.

• Needs of seniors important—driving less. More community circulators would be helpful.

• OCTA should increase the vanpool subsidy.

• Urban sprawl creates traffic.

• Constituency—low density • Transportation planners must think about how to serve senior population.

• Transit-oriented development—need to change density.

• OCTA needs to think about how to get people to their jobs.

• Many people cannot afford childcare to utilize bus.

• Look around city and assess needs—potential vanpool 139

• No service in Anaheim Hills—socialization—isolated with no transit options.

• Portland, Oregon—rail to the airport, Orange County needs something like that • If seniors lose their license they must move to a gated community.

• Mimic success of other cities because a dialogue about potential solutions is unending.

Residents need action!

• OCTA does not do land use planning—34 disparate jurisdictions. Must provide a unified voice.

• Cities lost redevelopment funds/staff which impacted transportation projects.

• Inter-county connectivity important, e.g. 91 – Inland Empire • Need to maintain system • Need category for seniors—not lumped with special needs and especially with the increasing demographics • Seniors are 55 and over—baby boomers don’t believe they’re seniors • Irvine, signal synchronization complaints - issue near on and off ramps—city versus Caltrans • Improve mobile technology—real time • Improved signage at bus stops—make sure not too high for visually impaired • Left turns on a red light with no traffic—should be regulated to increase traffic flow.

• There is potential for mass transit along the riverbed.

140

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results Youth: OC Planning Directors (n=20)

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count) Yes No Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

20

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

18

1

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

11

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1

90.0%

5.0%

5.0%

7

2

55.0%

35.0%

10.0%

8

9

3

40.0%

45.0%

15.0%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

6

7

7

30.0%

35.0%

35.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

14

4

2

70.0%

20.0%

10.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

13

1

4

72.2%

5.6%

22.2%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

16

3

1

80.0%

15.0%

5.0%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

17

1

2

85.0%

5.0%

10.0%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

16

2

2

80.0%

10.0%

10.0%

5

7

7

26.3%

36.8%

36.8%

15

5

0.0%

75.0%

25.0%

Transit / Non-motorized

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

Freeways / Toll

Survey Responses (percentage) Yes No Not Sure

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

7

6

7

35.0%

30.0%

35.0%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

17

1

1

89.5%

5.3%

5.3%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

16

1

2

84.2%

5.3%

10.5%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

18

2

90.0%

0.0%

10.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

6

8

5

31.6%

42.1%

26.3%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

8

5

6

42.1%

26.3%

31.6%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

3

14

3

15.0%

70.0%

15.0%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

4

13

3

20.0%

65.0%

15.0%

15

2

3

75.0%

10.0%

15.0%

9

2

9

45.0%

10.0%

45.0%

13

2

4

68.4%

10.5%

21.1%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

141

OC Planning Directors LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • High capacity rapid transit/light rail center OC and North/South • Rail line in freeway medians like BART • More convenient transit • Collaborating with other and providing transportation funding for local transportation funding • Mass transit • Improve PE right of way with rail/bike • Need multi-modal lanes and use M monies • Maintenance • Alternative modes

Second Priority • Pace/Benefit or carpool in northern OC • Bus Rapid Transit • Reducing traffic on the 91 fwy • Reduce travel time for transit • Coordinated on street rail - Go Local • Utilizing OCTA ROW for mass transit • Expansion

Third Priority • Traffic signal synchronization • Master plan - rail • Mass transit • Increasing the capacity and efficiency of existing roadways • Increase Metrolink & Amtrac services • More options

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of roundtable participants.

142

April 10, 2014

OC Planning Directors Comments from LRTP Roundtable April 10, 2014 • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• •

• • • •

What is alternative to adding freeway lanes beyond the existing footprint?

OCTA should fix carpool lanes to fix travel time benefit Mass transit should use medians on freeway Support for dedicated lanes for buses Dedicated lanes for transit – depends on whether Beach Blvd with 8 lanes of traffic or residential neighborhood Look at Orange County in conjunction with Los Angeles – not mutually exclusive County will be less autocentric – sustainability issue, demographic change Elevated through lanes have an aesthetic impact (people want to live in beautiful places) –may devastate businesses e.g. Buena Park o Expensive alternative o Need to be selective o May improve bottleneck to build overpass o May divide community i.e. bike/ped not able to travel safely due to increased speeds Bike lanes could be added on a case-by-case basis– sometimes parking enhances walkability and economic vitality o Local government temptation for taking things away is high/difficult Signal synchronization increases capacity without adding lanes o Some opposition because not good for pedestrians – want to calm traffic The priority of the United States compared to other countries to maintain roads is stark contrast – caught in cycle to spend grant money - fiscal prudence Rail planning needs to be implemented. o Bring down Harbor Blvd to connect by OCTA o Bike Master Plan without rail connections may strand commuters – need regional planning o More hybrid (Centerline) OCTA deploy service where demand is greatest – Bus Rapid Transit Local agencies may not implement bike planning efforts due to priorities and funding – should be regional o Biking France culpability accident only on bike, opposite in America – until mentality changes biking does not have much potential Bike share is too complicated operationally Freeway double-decking has an aesthetic impact, divisive in communities Effectiveness of carpool lanes called into question Orange County is not ready for managed lane system o 91 most successful corridor – Need something in between o What about reversible lanes? Connection between 241 and 91

143

144

Attachment F Speakers Bureau

145

146

Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Summary: OCTA updated the OCCOG TAC meeting monthly and the full Board once.

OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee April 2, May 7, June 4, July 2, August 6, and September 3, 2013 • Concern about Caltrans degradation study

• Federal guidelines – peak period at least 45 mph – Orange County does not meet

• Caltrans pushing second HOV, not taking into account planned projects – some will alleviate and pick up performance • Significance of inter-county connections OCCOG Board Meeting September 26 and October 1, 2013

Funding constraints/options

• Questions related to whether OCTA was going to consider Public Private Partnerships (P3) Maintenance

• Need to consider life cycle costs in planning

• Need to maintain existing system, consider road sustainability • Measure M funds are collected locally and need to stay/be spent/retained locally Regional system • Need to consider we are part of a regional network (part of SCAG system) • Border issues need consideration OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee December 3, 2013

• Inquired whether HOV3+ is part of the baseline

• What funding sources are considered in the LRTP?

OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee January 7, February 4, and March 4, 2014

• Status of Pacific Electric Right Of Way related to long term planning

• OCTA should consider Complete Streets impacts 147

Orange County Business Council Comments August 13, 2013 • Support dynamic congestion pricing

• Open to HOV3+ occupancy during peak periods for carpool lanes • Negative connotation associated with “subsidy” of carpoolers.

• Public needs to be educated on how to use TCA facilities and where they connect.

• Ensure that transit services are cost-efficient

• It will be difficult to justify the need for increasing state taxes for transportation – CA already has the highest gas tax in the nation and most robust transportation program.

Orange County Emergency Services Organization Comments October 3, 2013

• Allow emergency vehicles to get through by shoulder or dedicated lane.

• Number of lanes must be narrow enough to allow cars to get off freeway (physics)

• Transit does not take riders to key destinations - should consider additional stops.

• Should enhance transit e.g. PEROW

• The purpose of managed lanes is defeated by adding single vehicles.

• Should consider flexible operations to respond to major events e.g. reversible lanes • There is a need for greater access to buses in times of emergency.

• Additionally, emergency responders would like the ability to show map of roads available during emergencies.

Transit Advocates Comments November 14, 2013

• Bus service in core area should be prioritized over community circulators, including ACCESS. • Prefers OCTA accelerate implementation of rapid bus network to connect to Metrolink (Project S), rubber tire component • BRAVO!—improved travel time is great

148

o However there is decreased local services for implementation—now 20 minute headway.

• Find an additional funding source for further expansion of rapid bus transit • There should be a headway 12-15 minutes max.

• Consider off-board fare collection to reduce dwell time.

• Transit signal priority—optimize number of people getting through signal.

Key Issues • Transit funding is unpredictable (State Transit Assistance funds)

o State create replacement revenue for gas tax swap with cap and trade funds for transit operations .

o Look into new development transportation impact fees go to transit i.e. sale of home in Riverside some fees go to Riverside County Transportation Commission o Highway projects—pay for impact to transit/bike/ pedestrian for detours from capital project budget

• Active transportation programs

o Ensure policies that exist are followed and strengthened

o Promote policies to improve bike/ pedestrian mobility

o Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding—create something for pedestrian projects o Project Q—make it easier to apply

• Marketing to educate about potential use

o Strengthen pedestrian priorities in OCTA projects o Concept of pedestrian priorities echoed in LRTP

o Raise awareness of pedestrian priorities in LRTP

o College students important demographic —free or reduced rates—will reduce congestion by alleviating parking issues while encouraging ridership o Consider inclusion of community college for reduced fares —school administration, transit authority on Board and voted on by student body

• Inter-county connections

o Transit—routes near boundary OC-LA a few key corridors could make mobility easier collaborate for through service “administrative hurdle to mobility” o Fragmented along western border—La Habra

• LAX-Brea Mall—used to be regular service—now can take 3 hours • Bus route 20 could be eliminated if Norwalk transit expanded • Regional discussion (potential study)

149

o Extend Green Line to Metrolink station—Southern California Association of Governments added scope to budget (add to LRTP) o Transit travel time modeled in charts within LRTP—key metric o LRTP not as conservative as Comprehensive Business Plan.

Orange County Visitors Association Comments March 19, 2014

• • • • •

• • • • •

Improve interconnectivity of hotels to enhance Orange County's selections as a destination for international travelers.

Hospitality, tourism, and entertainment are the largest industries in the county and need to be represented on the OCTA Board.

OCTA should incorporate tourism statistics into their presentations.

Orange County should increase its investment in mass transit. e.g. The LA light rail line reduces travel time.

OCTA needs to establish more partnerships with the tourism industry to provide mobility solutions. The OC Fair Express is a prime example of a successful partnership.

Consensus for freeways built within the existing footprint.

Support for gap closure on Los Angeles green line to the airport. OCTA should split the cost with LA Metro.

OCTA should consider test programs to provide matching funds. e.g. community circulator Important to improve efficiency for first / last mile travel.

There needs to be a clear distinction between Orange County and Los Angeles to inform travelers around gateway points.

150

Comment Cards Summary: A total of 29 comments were received from the public. These are the verbatim comments received.

• Focus on improvement, efficiency and safety of intersections - implement modern day round-abouts.

• Send “Key Issues & Questions” before meeting. Don’t base government decisions on polls of 12-14 year olds.

• I have been attempting to support a new golf cart ordinance in Huntington Beach to reduce congestion, connect neighborhoods, work, shopping, etc. Support use of clean vehicles. To achieve this end, multi-use multi-purpose lanes would be needed.

The city had indicated that OCTA may be one reason that such an ordinance may not occur. These kinds of multi-user model lanes (in beach cities) are visionary and good transportation planning.

• Share our chairman Shawn Nelson’s vision on “OC Loop” bikeway plan at the next LRTP meeting in March 2014.

• Excellent program / good discussion and engagement from local politicians.

• Comment by CEO/OCTA distinction between users and voters. We should recognize payers and users and voters.

• Review gas tax distribution between County of Orange and O.C. cities.

• Helpful and positive. Increase VLF funding.

• Let’s develop safe pedestrian/bike pathways. Low environmental issues, healthy lifestyles and convenient to move locally and reduce traffic from roads.

• Carpool lane options, ability to use technology to change/guide behaviors, strategic mass transit to high dense business hubs

• Top 3 Priorities 1. ACCESS transportation - make it usable. 2. Mass transit - make it user-friendly and go where people need to go with minimum aggravation. Buses won’t work unless they go where people want and get there quickly without having such limited schedules.

• Top 3 Priorities 1. Urge colleges and businesses to do more telecommuting. 2.

Advertise public transportation to business workers - make it professional. 3. Focus on specific entities like CSUF employees.

• Changeable direction traffic lanes. Flashing yellow and red cross traffic signals.

• Multi-modal mass transit - give people a practical alternative to driving. Ensure major surface routes are maintained. Synchronize lights/use smart-road technology to optimize throughput.

151

• Central lane for emergency use only; would benefit day-to-day as well as in disaster.

Reversible lanes should be implemented.

• Top 3 Priorities 1. 21st century mass transit/monorail 2. Traffic light sync 3.

Dedicated emergency service lanes

• Widen the 91. Do the tunnel project between Corona to O.C. to create a new way to efficiently move traffic.

• Top 3 Priorities 1. Flexible operations on the roads/highways; contra flow lanes 2.

Carpool lanes - technology for enforcement of carpool lane violators to help cut down on violators 3. More effective, efficient mass transit

• Top 3 Priorities 1. Light rail along the 73 2. Open toll roads to everyone - no cost 3.

Signal synchronization 4. Flexible/reversible traffic lanes • Better organization with lane use. Train/mass transit planning to establish infrastructure…need cohesive throughout entire county - not so piecemeal.

• Top 3 Priorities 1. Cohesive structure throughout (BART) 2. More alternative safe ways bike trails - not through construct 3. Pay to use lanes.

• This morning, it took 1.5 hours to get from La Habra to Irvine. No events noted. How about reversible lanes?

• Top 3 Priorities Long Term: Better ways for mass transit, even across the county lines. Better traffic flow between freeway interchanges.

• Emergency responders, mass transit, technology

• Top 3 priorities: mass transit, infrastructure, technology

• Better light control around event venues, 1 lanes against traffic. Better public transportation - monorail down the center of the freeway.

• Carpool lanes should be open to individuals that drive, not non-drivers. Children and other individuals that do not drive are not helping to reduce traffic on freeways.

• Plan for all electric vehicle infrastructure and optimizing automated vehicles. Open traffic management and webcam information. Integrating public or private taxishuttle services like “Uber.”

• Great workshop. Generally, OCTA is doing a great job addressing the transportation needs of the county. The problem I see is political, social unawareness and funding, or lack of it. Congestion and the associated delays are generally at the AM & PM rush hour with either OC residents working outside the county or non-county residents working in OC. For this reason, managed lanes will work. Rail transit will also work in the long term.

• At this time, seems that it is best to first maximize existing rail & highway capacity for least amount of money then implement compliment of improvements that create new capacity of maximization of technology.

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

Attachment G Public Committees

159

160

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) April 16, 2013 • Will transit travel times be incorporated?

• How will the Transit System Study be integrated into the LRTP? • Will the PEROW be brought into the plan?

• Recently became aware at Alliance for a Healthy Orange County meeting that OCTA policies may conflict with grant guidelines. Is that being addressed?

July 16, 2013

• Facebook is outdated, youth demographics referenced in New York Times article, potentially use Instagram.

• Should emphasize that the “future is ugly” to youth as a result of projected growth.

• High School LRTP “road show” could hit pockets of the county

• The key issue is addressing carpool lane congestion. However 3+ will reduce carpool lane congestion but not the number of cars on the road. The perspective is wrong.

• OCTA should look into partnering with the DMV regarding bicycle / pedestrian education. Potentially get data from them.

• The issue to increase transit ridership should be included.

• Key Issue 3 references further efficiencies to improve existing systems. It is interwoven into this issue.

• Housing should not be detached from transportation i.e. impact of low-income housing to traffic • Outreach should be done for low-income seniors who don’t drive.

• Concern with key issue that discusses active transportation. Cap and trade priority is transit services not active transportation.

January 21, 2014

• I-405 congestion not addressed with HOV 3+.

• Local bus connectors should be included in inter-county connections narrative.

• Bus Rapid Transit with Metrolink connections is a great idea that cities would be receptive to.

161

Special Needs Advisory Committee (SNAC) January 28, 2014 • Awareness of impacts to transit with signal synchronization. e.g. transit should have a signal priority • HOV3+ inclusion in baseline – age of occupant considered

• Consideration of street car alternatives have come full circle – what was once removed is now being reinstated

• Concern over the different pricing and rules relating to HOV lane inter-county connections

162

Attachment H

Draft Plan Feedback

163

164

Elected Official Workshop #2 Summary: March 19, 2014 • In 2012, there were big changes to MAP 21 in terms of low emission vehicles. Allowing solo electric vehicle drivers into carpool lanes has had a significant impact on degradation.

• Is the 241/91 Connector included in the plan?

• I have had contact with federal leaders, and no one knew about the MAP 21 low emission standards. Why is no one from Caltrans here to address that?

• When addressing HOV3+, is it all day or just during peak times?

• We’re trying to convert an old base into a park and bike lanes…feds say that there is money for converting bases to park/bike lanes. Is OCTA looking into that?

• If you change HOV to 3+, what is the impact on the general purpose lanes?

• I thought the purpose of HOV was to lessen pollution, not faster travel times

• How much consideration is given to bike safety? Lots of bikes in Seal Beach and it’s very dangerous. Is OCTA improving that area?

• Why can’t bikes share the road with vehicles instead of off-road lanes? It’s too scary to go down Bristol without protected bike lanes.

• Is there any info on the breakdown of bike riders, like who they are?

• Is there any new info on Metrolink passenger levels?

• There is no real way to fix the congestion problems other than expanded Metrolink service.

• OC residents don’t think about cities when it comes to improvements and expanded options, they think of the region.

• OCTA needs to develop more Metrolink access improvements other than the guideway projects • The more you can convince folks that Metrolink is a good idea, the less they will take cars. Maybe add small electric vehicles near transit areas.

• Are the top 10 projects going to be included in the LRTP?

• Has OCTA done a study on the deferred maintenance costs of the projects in the LRTP? • There needs to be a consistent pass for use on Metrolink, buses, etc.

• Signal synchronization on Euclid St is doing very well. We need to make these programs 165

a priority.

• Cities used to get annual opportunities from OCTA for major arterial repairs. Is that going to be continued in the future?

• People tend to drive further to park closer to retail…perhaps OCTA can provide some kind of information for local planning efforts that address parking?

• Last time there was a PCH study…any new information?

• HOV mph is 48 in 2010, but is 45 in 2014. Is it due to more people on the road, or more solo low emission vehicle drivers?

• The cause of degradation is important, and Caltrans should be here to address the issue.

• A review of Caltrans says that the administration is going to be pushing for more low emission vehicle use. This has to be a factor in terms of degradation and needs to be addressed. It definitely makes a difference, and most legislators are unaware of the issue.

• I represent many seniors and they want to know how their transportation options are going to improve now, not in 20 years.

• Need to ask people in their 50’s for input on the LRTP, since they will be the seniors in 2035.

• Ranch Mission Viejo needs new circulator service, as there is senior housing going in there.

• Circulator is a good idea, but local cities aren’t set up as transportation agencies. OCTA needs to be more involved in the operations of the circulators.

• 2 circulators in Buena Park are always full and are a success

• Seniors could use the internet more to reduce shopping trips, but they still need services for social outings

• Laguna Woods focuses on a taxi voucher program and multimodal trails for senior use • Has there ever been a survey of people of whether they prefer a HOV 3+ or toll lanes?

• If polling is done, it needs to address the decreased time in general purpose lanes. Also needs to use “toll” rather than “express” or “managed.”

• I have called to try and change bus routes, but it is almost impossible

• Most of the time seniors only have 2 people in a car, which is why HOV 3+ should only be implemented in peak hours, not all day • The direction OCTA is going with bikes is good, but the safety and lanes discussion 166

needs to continue to happen

• We widened our sidewalks to implement our multimodal efforts

• Is there anything in the plan to improve recreational emergency evacuations?

• Toll lanes conversation needs to be with other counties, otherwise there will be bottlenecks at county borders

• When OCTA proposes projects like ARC, are major disasters taken into account?

• We absolutely need to address inter-county transportation

• Inter-county transportation is important, which is why I mentioned the 241/91 connector • Are there any plans to extend Pico?

• Are there any plans for a 2nd track going to the county line?

167

Comment Cards • Recommend that all new carpool lanes should have unlimited access for emergency matters.

• OCTA should have: display at bus stops, digital that would show next buses coming, new tech pads to exit bus instead of pull cords, increased frequency at major bus stops on weekend / weekdays, 24 hours service for some routes, Wi-Fi on buses, a TV monitor that has real time information on OCTA and other connections and a OCTA phone app.

• What happened to the rail system?

• This model is based on various assumptions about demographics and economics. What is the forecast for the price of gasoline in 2035? $4.00? $5.00? $10.00? $20.00? Makes a big difference.

168

Online Survey • I am shocked that with all of the current data with respect to climate change, obesity, traffic congestion, millennial indifference to driving, our declining health as a nation, that the OCTA Board has decided to spend a paltry 1% of the funds on active transportation. This is not leadership. It shows a blatant disregard towards the future.

The choices made by the Board indicate that the status quo is just fine and no changes are necessary. The data shows that 16% of all trips made are by walking and bicycling.

In addition, pedestrian and bicycling fatalities represent 37% of all fatalities in the county. Our active transit citizens deserve more than 1% of the dollars designated to transportation funding. The board must show leadership and lead our county into the future with better choices for our citizens, our environment and our economy. Please adjust the category funding so that active transportation receives the funding that it deserves according to the trips made and fatalities data. My suggestion is to spend upwards to 15% as opposed to 1%. Thank you.

• The next Bravo! route should be on Beach Boulevard Route 29. The 60 bus runs more frequently. Route 29 should have a Bravo! bus from Golden West Transportation Center to Buena Park Metrolink Station. Also please add Metrolink service from Orange County to Los Angeles on the weekends. The first train departs Anaheim at 9:21 a.m.

Please add a train earlier to connect with the Antelope Valley trains.

• For years I have been asking OCTA why a monorail down the major freeways with connections to the major transportation (airports, trains, and buses) was not in the plans instead of attempts to increase traffic flow on the existing roads that do not work.

With no MASS transit available you cannot hope to build the roads fast enough or wide enough. How is it possible for the people on the East Coast to commute 200 miles or more in comfort? They get to work refreshed and home at a reasonable hour and cost.

Even San Francisco has finally gotten the message. The BART seems to be working well, but they still need more. Please look to the future, and not the past.

• My comments on the plan would be to improve transit and make it be more accessible.

Eliminating cash fares entirely and going to a fully automated fare collection system that would allow passengers to pay by credit card, bank debit card, and by cell phone.

This would provide many benefits including: allowing dwell time at the bus stops to be greatly reduced, reducing air pollution and noise, and saving on fuel costs. This alone would put more money into the Bus Operations Fund to improve system wide service.

169

Improving fare collection would also bring more passengers onto the system. Pushing the envelope on fare collection, people could be issued an identification card that could clip onto short collars and a camera on the bus would take a picture of the ID card as the passenger walks on and an invoice would be sent to the person's home at the start of each month.

Something needs to be done for bus passengers that have limited incomes and minimum wage jobs where paying the bus fare to get to and from work is a major challenge. A passenger scholarship fund that would reduce a person's fare by so much a trip based on income is needed. This is a system already in place and been expanded by Portland, Oregon's TRIMET System. It works well. As bus fares continue to increase the need for a passenger scholarship fund grows more pressing.

• The LRTP plan lists three goals but none of them say that a major goal is to increase mobility. The major goal of OCTA should be to increase mobility, so that efforts will not be focused on only improving the system for drivers, but also for pedestrians, cyclists, and other rollers.

One of the goals is to "Improve Transportation System Performance." The objectives listed under this goal are: Reduce Delay Due to Congestion, Increase Facility Speeds and Increase Transit Ridership. I don't think "Increase Facility Speeds" should be standalone objective. What if increasing the speed on a road or a highway makes conditions unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders? By making traffic speeds a priority, the LRTP is contradicting the importance of the goal to "Expand Transportation System Choices." Cycling and walking will not be a "real choice" for people if these modes are not safe. The plan should prioritize safety over speed. Safety is not addressed in either the goals or objectives of the LRTP draft and this should change.

Also, an objective of "Improve Transportation System Performance" should be to Improve Multimodal Integration, because studies have shown that, for example, bicycling increases the catchment area of transit, and therefore bicycle-transit integration increases the patronage and use of both bicycling and transit use. I know the objective to Improve Multimodal Integration is already listed under the goal to "Expand Transportation System Choices," but the LRTP should make it obvious that improving transportation system performance does not just mean making improvements for drivers only, but also for pedestrians and rollers (cyclists, skaters, people in wheelchairs, etc.).

170

In addition, the objectives under the goal to "Expand Transportation System Choices" are" (a) Implement Planned Networks, (b) Expand Transit Services and (c) Improve Multimodal Integration. I feel that an important objective missing is to improve safety for active transportation. Active transportation is not a "real choice" for most people if it's not safe. Studies have shown that, for example, about 60% of people are interested in cycling, but they don't do it because they are concerned for their safety. Therefore, improving safety is the number one mechanism to get people to ride bicycles.

Therefore, the LRTP should make it a clear objective to improve safety for pedestrians and rollers.

171

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) April 15, 2014 • • • • • • • • • • •

Transit Connections from West County – expand rail Future of transit on PEROW Light rail on Beach (Goldenwest College) Rail right-of-way on Gothard or existing o [Phoenix - example] Rail in Fullerton from Fullerton Transportation Center to Cal State University Fullerton Newport Blvd Grade Crossing in Tustin – funding issues Projects to offset removing 241 extension – leaving extension in the Plan may limit other opportunities e.g. rail expansion Roadway maintenance not included Compare 2010 Baseline to 2035 Preferred Does public understand “guideway” term – more conceptual Create connections to Metrolink with BRAVO! rapid buses Special Needs Advisory Committee (SNAC) April 22, 2014

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Who in charge of signal synchronization regarding freeway off-ramps?

Continuous access – over next 5 years Access to changing lanes – San Francisco – able to transition, dotted lanes create more opportunities (continuous access) Considering different time frames for HOV 3+ e.g. peak/non-peak HOV 3+ seem to fix degradation but slows general purpose lanes drops about 2 mph Inform public better regarding HOV 3+ unlike LA – transponder issue Need comprehensive outreach consider cameras to enforce new law Concern regarding safety about individuals on train tracks, sensor system Positive Train Control collision with other trains System integration – add bike sharing Tesoro project update? – TCA lead OCTA should eliminate 241 extension from the plan ARTIC feasibility – why not mentioned in presentation Special needs population Irvine – Northwood HS – funding issue – divert Irvine Blvd/Culver Route 79 LRTP baseline preferred conceptual – assume HOV 3+ due to freeway degradation about 45 mph at peak period Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Awareness Campaign – not enough enforcement – message to police chiefs, school principals, Orange County Department of Education and college students

172

Orange County Council of Governments Technical Advisory Committee May 6, 2014 • •

Clarification on the HOV 3+ assumption, Projects included along the Pacific Electric Right of Way

Anaheim City Council Study Session May 13, 2014

•

• • • • • • •

No comments received

SCAG Technical Working Group May 15, 2014

Why greenhouse gas reductions aren’t specified How Complete Streets are addressed in the plan The need for discussions on telecommuting and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) as alternatives to driving automobiles If electric car charging infrastructure is addressed in the plan How the aging population could impact travel needs What is the non-motorized mode share Revenue assumptions and whether or not we assumed any new/innovative sources SANDAG Borders Committee May 23, 2014

• • •

OCTA and SANDAG staff should examine potential improvements to bus service between Orange and San Diego counties.

Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail services should improve coordination of schedules.

SANDAG staff should contact OCTA regarding the planning process for developing grade separations and quiet zones as potential strategies for limiting impacts from planned San Diego County rail improvements.

Brea Planning Commission May 27, 2014

• • •

57 freeway bottleneck at Lambert / Imperial Highway - visibility issues Train stations are often located too far from homes to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation Should partner with major employment centers to encourage ridesharing e.g. Irvine train station to Brea City Hall 173

• •

Opportunities for partnership in Brea: Beckman Coulter, Bank of America, Walters Electric and the Brea Mall Important to connect commuters to Metrolink beyond the bus Urban Land Institute Orange County / Inland Empire June 3, 2014

• •

Need for coordination between transportation and land use planning.

Offered to partner with OCTA to explore land use/transportation planning opportunities SCAG Transportation Committee June 5, 2014

• • • • •

OCTA is doing a great job on the draft LRTP and the recent bikeway planning and funding efforts, but there are opportunities to do more.

There is a need to allow permissive left-turns on corridors with signal synchronization to reduce delays for traffic exiting the synchronized corridor.

Measure M2 Freeway Mitigation Program is a potential program that Ventura County should consider in seeking passage of a sales tax measure.

The City of Norwalk is opposed to studying the extension of the Green Line to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Metrolink station.

Metrolink improvements associated with the California High-Speed Rail ‘Blended Approach’ should be explicitly identified in the LRTP. Irvine Senior Council June 11, 2014

• • • • •

Transportation from Irvine to Santa Monica needs improvement - not many transit options, currently takes approximately two hours Prefer more frequent transit service - easier to use transit in Los Angeles Currently there is no public transportation to Turtle Rock or Saddleback - new developments Important to offer services in south county for senior immigrants, especially Sand Canyon - re-route buses to cover new homes Support for monorail on the freeway as an alternative to widening

South Orange County Economic Coalition June 27, 2014

•

No comments received

174

April 15, 2014 Shawn Nelson, Chairman Orange County Transportation Authority P.O. Box 14184 550 South Main Street Orange, California 92863-1584 Dear Chairman Nelson: Please accept this letter as testimony of the activities and comments of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC has spent the past year providing insight and comments into the development of OCTA’s 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

In our CAC meetings, we discussed transportation priorities, changing demographics, key issues and possible solutions. At the CAC roundtable on October 15, 2013, after reviewing future forecasts and baseline information, the members participated in a “blue sky” discussion about potential improvements.

Members also took the informal survey that was administered at all the LRTP roundtables. Attachment A summarizes the survey results for the CAC and Attachment B provides a snapshot of the members’ transportation priorities.

Attachments E and G in the LRTP Public Outreach Program Final Report include a summary of the member comments at each of our meetings during the past year.

The committee members are supportive of rail and bus transit solutions; signal synchronization, filling potholes and inter-county connections continue to be priorities; and they see the need to integrate land use and transportation planning.

The committee members were very engaged in the 2014 LTRP development process and shared some great ideas and comments. We look forward to the implementation of the LRTP. Sincerely,

Patrick J. Pepper, Chairman OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee

175

Attachment A

Long Range Transportation Plan 2014 Survey Results Youth: CAC (n=20)

Freeways / Toll

Transit / Non-motorized

Streets and Roads

Overview

Questions

Survey Responses (count)

Survey Responses (percentage)

Yes

Yes

No

Not Sure

1) Do you agree Orange County will continue to grow?

20

2) Should connections to key destinations outside of Orange County e.g. LAX be a priority for the Long Range Transportation Plan?

12

2

3) Do you believe the county will be less auto-centric in the next 30 years?

1

4) Should major streets have elevated through lanes or interchanges (e.g. Jamboree Road)?

No

Not Sure

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

6

60.0%

10.0%

30.0%

13

6

5.0%

65.0%

30.0%

11

3

6

55.0%

15.0%

30.0%

5) Should major street intersections be widened with left and/or right turn lanes and/or through lanes?

15

3

2

75.0%

15.0%

10.0%

6) Should more bike lanes be added in Orange County if it decreases on-street parking?

12

4

4

60.0%

20.0%

20.0%

7) Should traffic signal synchronization be a major priority?

18

2

90.0%

0.0%

10.0%

8) Should filling pot holes and street maintenance be a major priority?

18

1

1

90.0%

5.0%

5.0%

9) Should rail transit service that operates in a dedicated lane on freeways be considered? (e.g. Green Line in LA)

11

6

2

57.9%

31.6%

10.5%

10) Should rail transit service that operates in the same street lanes as automobiles be considered for Orange County? (similar to modern street cars operating in Portland and Europe)

11

6

3

55.0%

30.0%

15.0%

11) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered to encourage ridership?

5

9

6

25.0%

45.0%

30.0%

11a) Should bus and/or rail transit fares be lowered if it means less overall service?

1

18

5.3%

94.7%

0.0%

12) Should rapid, limited-stop bus service be a priority over regular bus service?

9

4

7

45.0%

20.0%

35.0%

13) Would you use transit more if travel time was the same as driving?

14

4

1

73.7%

21.1%

5.3%

14) Should Orange County have more high capacity transit like rapid buses and/or light rail?

13

7

65.0%

0.0%

35.0%

15) Should OCTA continue to lead regional bikeway planning efforts to identify priority bikeway corridors?

13

2

5

65.0%

10.0%

25.0%

16) Once completed, should OCTA hand-off bike planning efforts to local agencies for project implementation?

7

8

5

35.0%

40.0%

25.0%

17) If funding were available, should a countywide bike share (rental) system be launched?

7

3

10

35.0%

15.0%

50.0%

18) Should freeways continue to be widened even if it results in significant impacts to private property?

6

6

8

30.0%

30.0%

40.0%

19) Should freeway double decking be considered to gain freeway capacity while minimizing the acquisition of homes and businesses (if this would create visual impacts)?

10

7

3

50.0%

35.0%

15.0%

20) Should Orange County develop solutions to improve conditions in the carpool lanes?

16

3

1

80.0%

15.0%

5.0%

21) Should Orange County plan for a managed lane system?

14

5

1

70.0%

25.0%

5.0%

8

7

3

44.4%

38.9%

16.7%

22) Should public transportation funds be invested so carpools, vanpools, and buses could use toll roads for a reduced price or free? (SR-73, SR-241, SR-261)

176

Attachment B

CAC LRTP Roundtable Transportation Priorities First Priority • Funding what we have • Integrate land use / transportation planning • Reaching LA County line on I-5 North • Improve local bus system frequency • Plan for increased vehicle usage and improved management • Complete 405 Freeway Long Range Plan (all phases) • 241 Extension • Rail and or street cars • More fixed rail transit • Increase rail transit • Freeway capacity enhancements • Light rail tram system to connect west end to county to transit hubs • Freeway improvements (limited widening, enhanced interchanges, improved freeway to freeway connection) • Efficient use of the system • Reduce bottlenecks • Network of rapid bus routes while preserving local bus service

Second Priority • Integrated network / multimodal planning • Too much Eastbound traffic on SR91 • Improve boarder-area local bus and rail connections • Look at ways apps can help with traffic management • Synchronize signals on all arterials • Enhance Carpool lane usage • Frequent bus service • More Safe Bicycle options • Improve connectivity between bus & rail transit • Arterial optimization • Focusing on making bus interarrival times useful • Freeway carpool lane fix (adding lanes, HOV3+, Managed lanes for toll, etc.)

• Transit options where appropriate • Rapid bus & light rail • Perpendicular and signalized intersections at freeway on/off ramps

Third Priority • Sustainability - non-motoring • Make bus and rail information more easily available • Develop educational programs to help guide / inform new drivers on alternative means • Increase convenience of existing service • 241 extension • Bike/pedestrian right of way • More Realistic transportation options • Maximize freeway utilization / capacity • Signal Synchronization • Take the lead on implementing technologies for street/car automation; take people out of the picture • Increased mass transit headway & coverage • Regional collaboration • Improve conditions to carpool & managed lane system • College transit passes

*These are individual responses and do not reflect the consensus of all Citizen’s Advisory Committee Members.

177

October 15, 2013

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

June 16, 2014

Mr. Darrell Johnson, Chief Executive Officer Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street P.O. Box 1418184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 Subject: Draft 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan Dear Mr. Johnson, As you are aware, the 2014 California High Speed Rail Business Plan states definitively that the high-speed rail (HSR) system will provide one-seat ride service between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim. This service is scheduled to begin operation during the time period covered by the Draft Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Prior to operation of a one seat ride, the Authority, in support of the City of Anaheim and OCTA, is helping to advance upgrades to the Los Angeles to Anaheim Rail Corridor, some of which are included in the Draft 2014 OCTA LRTP such as the State College Boulevard, Ball Road, and Orangethorpe Avenue Grade Separations.

In light of these activities, the Authority submits the following comments on the Draft 2014 OCTA LRTP. While HSR is mentioned in the Preferred Plan section on Page 40, there are several additional locations within the document where HSR could be incorporated that may help OCTA meet the goals and objectives set forth in your LRTP. These options include: • •

•

•

Preparing a separate, descriptive section, similar to the the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project as described on Page 42.

Adding HSR to the list of Rail Transit projects in Table 3.4, Rail Transit Component of the Preferred Plan, and to the map in Figure 3-5, 2035 Preferred Scenario Metrolink and Fixed Guideway Improvements.

Adding HSR to Table 3.8, Meeting Goals and Objectives, in the Rail Transit category.

The HSR project would meet multiple objectives, including, Reduce Delay from Congestion, Increase Transit Ridership, Expand Transit Service, Improve Multimodal Integration, and Support Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Mentioning HSR on Page 64, under the description of Inter-County Connections.

With a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAA) for the HSR segment between Los Angeles and Anaheim to be completed by Spring of 2015, it seems appropriate that HSR be described more fully in the final 2014 LRTP.

185

The Authority looks forward to working with OCTA and the City of Anaheim to improve mobility and access in Orange County.

Sincerely,

Michelle Boehm Southern California Regional Director (213) 308-4507 michelle.boehm@hsr.ca.gov

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

Shawn Nelson, Chairman Orange County Transportation Agency 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 June 17th, 2014 RE: OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan - Outlook 2035 Dear Chairman Nelson, On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we would like to thank the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (Outlook 2035). Outlook 2035 provides a clear vision for OCTA to direct future transportation investments in order to meet its current obligations and the future transportation needs of Orange County.

Interest in active transportation has swelled across Orange County over the past several years. In the statewide 2014 Active Transportation Program call for projects, 23 cities and county agencies submitted 62 applications for funding. This means that over 8 percent of the applications received from Caltrans were from jurisdictions in Orange County! While this interest in the state program is encouraging, given

193

the fact the state has received an estimated $2 billion in funding requests for only $360 million in available funds, it is likely that many of these great applications from Orange County will not be funded.

Active transportation stakeholders in Orange County have created and signed on to an Orange County Active Transportation Vision, which outlines the state of active transportation in Orange County and identifies opportunities to expand active transportation policies, programs and infrastructure. Using this vision as a lens for analyzing the Draft Outlook 2035 plan, we would like to suggest the following opportunities to better integrate active transportation into the plan and its Short-Term Action Plan.

Planning for the Future OCTA is currently leading the way in the SCAG region with the planning and development of its Regional Bikeway Planning program. We support these efforts by OCTA and hope that they can be expanded to support pedestrian safety projects, Safe Routes to School initiatives, and bicycle and pedestrian encouragement and education activities.

The 2009 National Household Travel Survey shows that approximately 16 percent of all trips in Orange County are completed by walking and bicycling. Currently the Outlook 2035 plan only allocates approximately 1 percent of funding ($420 million of the total $36.1 billion) to bicycle projects and does not provide any funding for pedestrian and Safe Routes to School projects. As noted above, given the huge interest in state Active Transportation Program, additional funding is desired by local agencies for active transportation projects.To meet exisitng and future demand, OCTA should work with cities to fund these much needed projects.

SUGGESTION: We request that OCTA significantly increase funding for active transportation in the Outlook 2035 plan and frontload 80 percent of the funding in the first 10 years of the planned expenditures so that the benefits of these projects can be enjoyed sooner. This funding would be used to 1) fund local Safe Routes to School and pedestrian safety improvements, 2) expedite the construction of regional bikeways, 3) fund complete streets improvements focused on economic development and 4) support bicycle and pedestrian encouragement and education activities such as open street events and safety education campaigns.

Incorporate Complete Streets In 2008 California adopted AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act, which requires cities to incorporate Complete Streets into their general plans. In coordination with Caltrans DD-64-R1, SB 743 and Orange County’s 2012 Sustainable Communities Strategy, this legislation is part of a change in transportation planning that seeks to better integrate the mobility and safety of all users into the transportation system.

In Orange County 37 percent of all traffic fatalities and 11 percent of all traffic injuries in 2011 were suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians. 1 According to the Office of Traffic Safety, in 2010, 840 pedestrians and 1,198 bicyclists were injured or killed in Orange County.2 This is equal to 5 pedestrian 1 2

California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2014: http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/switrs2011.html Office of Traffic Safety: http://www.ots.ca.gov/media_and_research/Rankings/default.asp (Rankings can be viewed by county or city).

194

and bicyclists being injured or killed every day. By ensuring transportation projects incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure countywide, OCTA can make mobility by all modes safer and more viable for all roadway users.

SUGGESTION: We urge OCTA to integrate supportive language related to Complete Streets into Outlook 2035 and strongly support OCTA adopting a Countywide Complete Streets Policy to ensure that all roadway projects are designed to improve safety for all users and abilities.

Support Health and Sustainability Outlook 2035 provides improvements that will support the mobility of Orange County residents by providing significant improvements to the vehicle network and tranist operations. While we support these regional goals, we believe that mobility and accessibility should be weighted equally so that improvements to active transportation infrastructure are valued proportionately to those for motor vehicles.

Additionally, the Plan does not include a significant discussion concerning reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Since Outlook 2035 states SCAG is responsible for meeting such GHG reduction targets under AB 32 and SB 375 in its Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), projects in Outlook 2035 will be incorporated into SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS. In so doing, those projects will need to contribute to meeting the region’s GHG targets. We believe Outlook 2035 provides an excellent opportunity to measure Orange County’s contributions to this important effort.

SUGGESTION: OCTA’s Outlook 2035 should include additional roadway performance metrics focused on public safety by travel mode, minutes of physical activity achieved per day, chronic disease rates related to air quality and lack of physical activity, as well as GHGs. We look forward to working with OCTA to improve opportunities for active transportation through the implementation of Outlook 2035. In particular, we are available to support OCTA in the development of a Countywide Complete Streets Policy and a Countywide Safe Routes to School Strategy as next steps once they are included in the Short Term Action Plan outlined in Chapter 4. Those two initiatives would ensure that active transportation improvements and Safe Routes to School are fairly considered in the development of all future transportation projects in Orange County.

Sincerely,

Rye Baerg Regional Policy Manager Safe Routes to School National Partnership

America Bracho, MPH, CDE CEO/President Latino Health Access

Barry Ross President Alliance for Healthy Orange County

Pete Van Nuys Executive Director Orange County Bicycle Coalition

195

Bill Sadler Urban Solutions Consultant Natural Resources Devense Council

Victor Becerra COPC Director CHANGES

Jill Arnstein Executive Director American Lung Association in California

Paul Nagel Project Director The Bicycle Tree

Ava Steaffens Chief Executive Officer KidWorks Community Development Corporation

Karla Lopez del Rio Vice President of Strategic Partnerships NeighborWorks Orange County

Wendy Alfsen Executive Director California Walks

Lynda Barbour, MPH Southern California Government Relations American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; Southern California

Oladele A. Ogunseitan, PhD, MPH Professor of Public Health Chair, Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention University of California, Irvine

CC: Darrell Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, SCAG

196

197

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 2014 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division – Please contact David Kennedy, Principal Traffic Engineer (714-765-4920 or DKennedy@anahem.net) with any questions.

1. Many of the Existing Conditions maps in the LRTP (for example Figures 2.1, 2.3A, 2.4, 2.5A, 2.5B) do not accurately reflect the existing highway network in the City of Anaheim. Please correct all text and maps as follows: 

Convention Way is not currently a public street east of Harbor Boulevard – this is a private driveway and needs to be deleted from the maps.



Remove Wakefield Avenue/Citrus Drive east of Haster Street. This street is not in the MPAH and is not the alignment for the recently completed Gene Autry Way extension, which is north of these streets as shown in the figures.

2. The State College Boulevard Grade Separation is identified on the Preferred Plan. This is a priority project for the City and the County.

3. Page 12, Figure 2.3A- See above comment regarding Convention Way east of Harbor Boulevard. East Street has three lanes between Broadway and Santa Ana Street, and two lanes between South Street and Vermont Avenue.

4. Page 39, Figure 3.3- Figure 5-6- Convention Way/Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street requires six new lanes. The map incorrectly shows a small portion of the street east of Harbor Boulevard as an existing public street. The east leg of the Convention Way/Harbor Boulevard intersection is currently a private driveway. Please show a consistent color on the map for the entire length.

Public Works, Transit Division – Please contact Linda Johnson, Principal Planner (714-765-4957 or LJohnson@anaheim.net) with any questions.

1. Page 14, Bus Transit – Please change the name from the “Anaheim Transit Network” to either the “Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)” if referring to the entity that operates the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) bus system or to “Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART)” if referring to the bus system.

2. Page 25 – ARTIC is the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center. Please change “Transit” to “Transportation” on this page.

3. Page 40 – Currently reads: “The ARTIC station in Anaheim, which will open in 2014, will be expanded again in the Preferred Plan to accommodate connections with a planned streetcar route to Anaheim’s tourist destinations and planned statewide high-speed rail. In its full buildout, ARTIC will provide a

198

connection between regional rail service, the local streetcar, local bus service, and the Santa Ana River regional bikeway.”

Please change to: “The ARTIC station in Anaheim will open in 2014. In the Preferred Plan, ARTIC will accommodate connections with a planned streetcar route to major activity centers in Anaheim including neighborhoods, work, recreation, convention, entertainment and sports venues and planned statewide high-speed rail (the California High-Speed Rail Phase I Plan includes a one-seat ride between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim). In its full buildout, ARTIC will provide a connection between regional rail service, high-speed rail, the local streetcar, local bus service, the Santa Ana River regional bikeway, and other transportation services.

4. Page 40 and 42 – Anaheim Rapid Connection description 

Page 40 – Change “the Anaheim Resort” to “The Anaheim Resort” with a trademark symbol after the name.



Page 41 – The last line in the paragraph reads: “The City of Anaheim anticipates that Anaheim Rapid Connection will fully fund its operation and maintenance through farebox revenue, advertising, and dedicated funding from the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District.”

Please either remove this line (to be consistent with the description of the proposed Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed-Guideway Project), or change to indicate that these are potential funding sources: “Potential funding sources for operations and maintenance could include farebox revenue, advertising, retail and Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) funds.”

199

200

From: To: Subject: Date:

bob stevenson Kelley Jimenez 57 Freeway extension must be part of OCTA"s LRTP Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:03:59 AM

Dear OCTA, For many years people, including some OCTA Board members, have advocated that the 57 Freeway be extended along the Santa Ana River to the ocean, or at least to where it connects with the San Diego Freeway. This sensible proposal desperately needs to be adopted and included in OCTA's LRTP, as both the 55 and 5 Freeways are badly congested as well as Beach Blvd.. Right now, as you know, the 55 is the only North-South freeway in Orange County. Extending the 57 would provide a second North-South freeway, and would eliminate the great difficulty people in North Orange County have in getting to Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, and vice versa.

What's wonderful about extending the 57 is that no land would need to be purchased; all OCTA needs to obtain is approval to use the right of way that the Santa Ana River currently possesses, and this should not be difficult at all. OCTA has been spending billions of dollars in recent years just to widen existing freeways by one lane, with this enormous cost resulting in part from land acquisition costs, tearing down existing bridges and then rebuilding them, etc. By building the 57 extension OCTA can create an entirely new, full-width-in-size freeway at reasonable cost.

If OCTA doesn't build the 57 extension, then what Orange County will experience is more of the same--existing freeways being widened by one lane at a time at huge cost, but not quickly enough to significantly improve traffic flow, and existing streets becoming more and more congested.

Many years ago, when the 57 extension was first proposed, the cost to build this extension was $800 million. Nowadays the cost would be much higher, but even at $1.5-2 billion, such a cost would be a super bargain, given the tremendous benefits such an extension would provide Orange County's motorists.

Please seriously consider extending the 57 freeway.

Sincerely Yours, Bob Stevenson (714) 525-4657

201

202

From: To: Subject: Date:

Ed Taylor Kelley Jimenez Outlook 2035 Long Range Plan Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:24:26 AM

Dear Ms. Jimenez: I am writing to comment on the OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Plan and to register my disappointment at the lack of bicycle and pedestrian funding.

The 2009 National Household Travel Survey shows that approximately 16 percent of all trips in Orange County are completed by walking and bicycling. In Orange County 37 percent of all traffic fatalities and 11 percent of all traffic injuries in 2011 were suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians. Outlook 2035 only allocates 1 percent of funding or $420 million of the total $36.1 billion to bicycle projects and does not provide any funding for pedestrian safety and Safe Routes to School projects.

Active transportation stakeholders in Orange County have developed and signed on to an Orange County Active Transportation Vision, which outlines the state of active transportation in Orange County and identifies opportunities to expand active transportation policies, programs and infrastructure. Using this vision as a lens for analyzing the Draft Outlook 2035 plan we would like to suggest the following opportunities to better integrate active transportation into Outlook 2035 and its ShortTerm Action Plan.

SUGGESTION #1: We request that OCTA significantly increase funding for active transportation in the Outlook 2035 plan. This funding would be used to 1) fund local Safe Routes to School improvements, 2) expedite the construction of Regional Bikeways, 3) fund Complete Streets improvements focused on economic development and 4) support bicycle and pedestrian encouragement and education activities such as open street events and safety education campaigns.

SUGGESTION #2: We urge OCTA to integrate additional supportive language related to Complete Streets into Outlook 2035 to ensure that all roadway projects are designed to improve safety for all users and abilities.

SUGGESTION #3: OCTA should include additional performance metrics in Outlook 2035 related to safety by mode, minutes of physical activity achieved per day, chronic disease rates and greenhouse gas emissions.

SUGGESTION #4: OCTA should develop a Countywide Complete Streets Policy and a Countywide Safe Routes to School Strategy as next steps in the Short Term Action Plan outlined in Chapter 4. These two initiatives would ensure that active transportation improvements and school travel are considered in the development of all future transportation projects in Orange County.

As a daily bicycle commuter and user of OCTA busses, I believe the long range plan should encourage more bike use and transit use, and improve our streets so they are less car centric. By doing so, OCTA would help make Orange County healthier, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately make it less congested and a 203

happier place to be. I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Ed Taylor

204

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Alice Rogan Matt Shannon; Kurt Brotcke Kelley Jimenez RE: ULI Crowdsourcing Website Results Friday, May 09, 2014 9:30:44 AM image001.jpg

Matt – Thanks for coming to the LRTP open house. I t was nice to meet you. We will include your email as a comment as part of our public outreach.

I will get back to you about the CAC soon. Have a good weekend.

Alice T. Rogan Strategic Communications Manager Orange County Transportation Authority 714.560.5577 arogan@octa.net

From: Matt Shannon [mailto:urbanus.matt@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:11 AM To: Kurt Brotcke Cc: Alice Rogan Subject: ULI Crowdsourcing Website Results

Hi, Kurt,

It was a pleasure to meet you last night at the OCTA Open House. Thank you for taking the time to walk me through many of the exhibits. I am eager to learn more about OCTA’s longrange transportation planning because I see the current rail transit infrastructure to be a competitive weak spot for this otherwise economically strong county. The big upward-pointing yellow arrow on the first chart suggested a quality of life crisis is brewing for OC’s future.

The out-migration of the 18-44s as reported by demographers and explored further by the Urban Land Institute is an ominous trend. As I mentioned, I have been heavily involved with the ULI over the past eighteen months in an effort to better understand the nature of this problem and to try to make a contribution toward its solution. The video that was featured on the recently closed MyPlaceOC crowdsourcing website is here: http://orangecounty.uli.org/uli-inaction/reality-check-2-0/. The top vote-getter in a poll over the website’s nine-month life regarding what was most important for OC’s future was more transit options, followed by more housing choices, walkable communities, and stimulating urban environments (see attached). The ULI report that recently was generated also is attached in case you want to dig deeper.

I applied for the Citizens Advisory Committee in the hopes that I could have further opportunities to learn more about what OCTA is doing as well as to have a positive impact.

205

Thanks again for your time,

Matt

R. MATTHEW SHANNON

URBANUS GROUP, LLC | 1 League, No. 61141, Irvine, CA 92602 (714) 505-4433 (w) | (312) 330-8811 (c) | urbanus.matt@gmail.com

206

Attachment I

Responses to Written Draft Plan Feedback

207

208

Bicycle & Pedestrian Commenter California HighSpeed Rail Authority Caltrans D12 Orange County Business Council Southern California Association of Governments City of Laguna Niguel City of Anaheim Urban Land Institute Safe Routes to School National Partnership & sign-on organizations

Priced managed lanes & innovative financing

Intra-county coordination

Transit

Performance metrics

General text & map edits

3+ HOV occupancy requirement

x

x

x

Financials

Action plan

Project List

x

x

Multimodal integration & mobility

Complete streets

Goods movement & aviation

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

Downtown Inc.

x

Public commentors

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

209

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment California High-Speed Rail Authority (June 16, 2014) HSR-1 In light of these activities, the Authority submits the following comments on the Draft 2014 OCTA LRTP. While HSR is mentioned in the Preferred Plan section on Page 40, there are several additional locations within the document where HSR could be incorporated that may help OCTA meet the goals and objectives set forth in your LRTP. These options include: • •

•

•

Preparing a separate, descriptive section, similar to the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project as described on Page 42.

Adding HSR to the list of Rail Transit projects in Table 3.4, Rail Transit Component of the Preferred Plan, and to the map in Figure 3-5, 2035 Preferred Scenario Metrolink and Fixed Guideway Improvements.

Adding HSR to Table 3.8, Meeting Goals and Objectives, in the Rail Transit category. The HSR project would meet multiple objectives, including, Reduce Delay from Congestion, Increase Transit Ridership, Expand Transit Service, Improve Multimodal Integration, and Support Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Mentioning HSR on Page 64, under the description of Inter-County Connections.

With a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAA) for the HSR segment between Los Angeles and Anaheim to be completed by Spring of 2015, it seems appropriate that HSR be described more fully in the final 2014 LRTP. California Department of Transportation (June 20, 2014) CT-1 Executive Summary, page 1 and Chapter 1, page 5 states that “OCTA is designated by the State as the regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) for Orange County (California Govt. Code 29532).” This description does not match the full version of this code which includes 29532 and 29532.4(a) and (b).

Please verify and clarify if OCTA is a State designated RTPA and performing all required responsibilities that come with the designation.

CT-2 Chapter 2, Page 9 Regional Highways states the “...nation’s most comprehensive network of managed lanes or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.” Managed lanes and HOV lanes do not have the same definition. Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive defines: “In California, managed lanes include highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes, and express toll lanes. The latter two are generally referred to as “Express Lanes.” The definition should be included with the use of “managed lanes,” so the reader will have a full understanding of what the term includes.

210

Response The LRTP does acknowledge the High Speed Rail project in the Preferred Plan discussion. OCTA is partnering with the City of Anaheim in the development of ARTIC, which includes provision for the ultimate High Speed Rail project in Anaheim.

OCTA expects the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis for the HSR segment between Los Angeles and Anaheim will provide further specificity for this segment. As an entire project, the HSR will likely be addressed in the 2016 RTP prepared by SCAG, a more appropriate avenue for capturing projects of this scale.

A proper characterization of OCTA and its primary mobility role is included in the LRTP and associated Appendices.

The definition of “managed lanes” consistent with the source has been included in the LRTP.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment CT-3 As the Owner and Operator of the State Highway System, Caltrans has the authority to make operational changes such as occupancy requirements or conversion to HOT lanes to manage demand, and meet Federal and State requirements. Typically, Caltrans would work collaboratively with local and regional stakeholders when making such changes. In order to improve the HOV system and reinforce the potential benefits of managed lanes, we recommend other methods of addressing HOV degradation including, but not limited to, the following: HOV system expansion, direct connectors, direct access ramps, and conversion to toll, giving the option to sell capacity back to single occupant vehicles.

CT-4 In our February 10, 2014 letter, we clearly stated “...the District does not support raising HOV occupancy requirements to 3+ as a stand-alone strategy because it is not in the best interest of corridor mobility as a whole.” However, the draft LRTP did not reflect our earlier comment and still included HOV 3+ as the only strategy to address the HOV degradation issue. By using HOV 3+ for the entire system for future Scenarios, the LRTP paints an unrealistic picture of the HOV system performance for the future. Figures 2-16, 2-17, and 2-18 should clearly state the congestion levels are with the assumption of HOV 3+. Caltrans’ current position on this should be reflected in the final LRTP. CT-5 In Table 4.1 Short-Term Action Plan, page 66: there is no proposed short-term action other than HOV 3+ pilot project to address Orange County managed lane needs which were identified as one of the top priorities in the LRTP survey and stakeholder themes. It was our understanding from statements made at prior board and committee meetings that the LRTP would be the appropriate place for OCTA to engage in discussion about priced managed lanes. However, there is very limited discussion included in this draft. Many RTPAs in California have engaged in planning and implementing priced managed lanes networks as a viable tool to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and enhance economic competitiveness by providing better travel reliability. The LRTP should include much more discussion about this subject.

CT-6 District 12 is leading a Managed Lanes Network Study for Orange County which has the objectives to optimize system performance, maximize system productivity, enhance overall people throughput, provide additional travel choices, and improve travel reliability. OCTA is encouraged to participate and partner with the District to identify and provide innovative and sustainable transportation solutions for the county.

211

Response OCTA acknowledges Caltrans collaboration with local agencies (including OCTA) in seeking a range of improvement options to the HOV system. OCTA looks forward to working with Caltrans and SCAG on their respective managed lane studies.

The 3+ HOV occupancy assumption in the LRTP is serving as a placeholder while a wider range of improvement options is studied.

The requested reference has been included on Figures 2-16, 217 and 2-18.

The 3+ HOV occupancy assumption in the LRTP is serving as a placeholder while a wider range of improvement options is studied.

The discussion on managed lanes has been expanded to include SCAG’s recent Express Travel Choices study and Caltrans’ Managed Lanes Network Study as examples. These studies have also been added to the Short-Term Action Plan.

The Managed Lanes Network Study has been included in the Short-Term Action Plan, and OCTA fully intends to participate.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment CT-7 The Renewed Measure M (M2) specifies that Projects A through M regarding freeway improvements is to “add new lanes” or “add capacity.” The project descriptions in M Tables 3.1, 3.8 and Appendix B need to be consistent with the language used in M2. Otherwise, it could be presumptuous at this point in time.

For example, District 12 is currently working with OCTA on the preferred alternative for the SR 55 widening project. The SR 55 project description should be consistent with M2 language which is to “Add new lanes to SR 55” not specified as “Add a mixed-flow lane.” It should be noted that project descriptions included in planning documents and local sales tax measure shall not preselect alternatives under CEQA and NEPA. Project descriptions at this point in time should not be considered final as they are subject to change in the environmental process. The point has been stated in prior OCTA planning document.

CT-8 Considering future congestion shows a 160% increase over existing conditions, the LRTP should go beyond the known funding source and explore innovative financing strategies to maintain and enhance our transportation infrastructure to address unfunded future system needs.

CT-9

The LRTP should also emphasize optimizing performance and maximizing productivity of our existing system such as incident management, travel demand management, transportation system management, intelligent transportation system, and congestion pricing.

CT-10

In the Executive Summary, we recommend including percentage change from 2010 Base Year in Figure E-5, and make a table similar to Figure E-5 for Conceptual Plan-Performance Metrics.

CT-11

The Draft LRTP used A.M. Peak Hours during the depicted congestion levels.

We recommend using P.M. Peak Hours which generally have a higher congestion level.

Page 50, Table 3.8: The Auxiliary Lane Projects from Jeffrey Road/University Drive on-ramp to Sand Canyon Avenue on the southbound I-405 are missing.

CT-12

212

Response The M2 freeway project descriptions are generally consistent with those found in the 2006 LRTP PEIR, the 2008 RTP and the 2012 RTP. A note has been added indicating that the project descriptions are subject to change through the project development process.

The Action Plan has been modified to include monitoring of maintenance needs. Funding is included in the LRTP for known sources (Preferred Plan). Historically, OCTA bases the financial forecast on known funding Federal, State and local sources.

Generation of new funding sources is a policy issue addressed by the Legislature and is often discussed in the RTP. The LRTP has been modified to include greater collaborations, such as improved ramp metering to coordinate with signal synchronization. Further, the LRTP includes discussions and discrete projects for Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management, Intelligent Transportation Systems, traffic signal synchronization, and emerging technologies. The LRTP acknowledges the strategy of optimization and innovation.

The LRTP is intended to demonstrate how well the planned transportation improvements help to mitigate the anticipated 2035 travel demand. The 2010 performance metrics are included to provide context for the future travel conditions, not to serve as targets for 2035.

A Conceptual Plan performance table is included as Table 3.9.

Use of the AM peak hour as a performance metric is consistent with previous LRTPs. The auxiliary lane projects are included in Table 3.8 under the fifth entry of Regional Highways.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment CT-13 There is no consideration given to the regional airports in the LRTP, and more consideration should be given to seaports and goods movements to enhance intermodal connectivity.

CT-14

We encourage OCTA’s further commitment in planning and implementation of managed lanes, exploring light rail and incentives for carpools on toll roads and express lanes, expanding the bike network and the Park and Ride program, dedicating lanes for transit, and enhancing bus transit to the elderly and handicapped.

Orange County Business Council (May 8, 2014) OCB-1 Federal funding of transportation is no long term certainty; the state has declining resources for transportation; and Measure M2 funds are expected to be effectively committed/obligated in five years due to OCTA's excellent efficiency in accelerating project delivery and in taking advantage of low interest rates in a tough economy, among other strategic measures. The LRTP should address financial alternatives and other tools needed in light of significantly limited or uncertain financial resources.

OCB-2 OCBC understands the LRTP's approach to low-cost strategies such as increasing carpool lane occupancy. However, we are concerned that increasing carpool lane occupancy will move drivers out of carpools and add to general lane congestion without other mitigating strategies.

OCB-3 OCBC notes that the LRTP fails to include a priced "managed lane" strategy to manage demand and provide a predictable travel option for drivers to choose.

Managed lanes are being planned or implemented by every county in Southern California, except Orange County, leaving the county at risk to become an island outside the regional system of connectivity and efficiency. Priced managed lanes-as a choice-are becoming more acceptable by the public as a viable solution to address mobility needs. OCTA touts its successful managed lanes on the SR-91, and business celebrates as well. The rest of the county's drivers should be able to enjoy the same "choice in commuting" on other routes.

OCB-4 OCBC contends that better transportation connections within Orange County and Riverside, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties are important, particularly new freeway­to-freeway interchanges, managed lanes and toll connections at SR91/SR-241, SR-241/I-5 and 1-405/SR-73. Completion of this system is important.

Orange County is unique in having three transportation boards (OCTA, SJHTCA, F/ETCA) doing the same thing—roads and tolls. The LRTP should address better, exceptional coordination among these three government agencies.

213

Response Airports are addressed through the SCAG RTP. It is noted that OCTA is collaborating with SCAG and Caltrans in the development of Caltrans’ California Freight Mobility Plan and the Air Resources Board’s 2014 Sustainable Freight Strategy.

These plans are intended to develop and operate an integrated, multimodal freight transportation system that provides safe, sustainable freight mobility.

The 2014 LRTP includes projects, plans and policies directed at an integrated mobility system. OCTA will continue to advance these projects and work with Caltrans to seek alternative solutions to the County’s mobility needs.

See the response to CT-8.

The 3+ HOV occupancy assumption in the LRTP is serving as a placeholder while a wider range of improvement options is studied.

See the responses to CT-5 and CT-6.

The LRTP acknowledges the role of coordination with other mobility partners within and adjacent to Orange County in order to stay ahead of the curve and capitalize on Inter-County and Intra-County opportunities.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment OCB-5 The inclusion of the SR-241/1-5 connection in the LRTP "baseline" conditions is questionable given recent state and federal decisions, as well as the SJHTCA decision to withdraw its federal environmental review. Yet removing the SR241/1-5 from the "baseline" may require additional LRTP analysis as well as the development of new options for South Orange County mobility, including strategies to alleviate current and significant gridlock on the 1-5. This issue reinforces the need for a heightened level of coordination among all three Orange County transportation boards in order to deliver mobility improvements to Orange County.

OCB-6 Finally, state leaders have encouraged transportation agencies to plan housing and transportation together. OCBC notes that Orange County has a chronic shortage of housing for its jobs needs. In addition to projected changes in population, housing and employment, the LRTP should recognize the serious housing supply shortage and the fact that new housing proposed and designed for one family may ultimately shelter multiple families. For example, some parts of Orange County have population densities second only to San Francisco because of this doubling and tripling up. The LRTP should recognize that not all housing required to be "planned" by cities actually gets built, yet Orange County is projected to be a jobs magnet for years to come. More jobs, more people, inadequate housing supply are important demographic trends for LRTP consideration.

Orange County Business Council (May 8, 2014) OCB-7 On May 23, 2014, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) released its Metro Express Lanes I-405 Freeway (OC to LAX) HOV to HOT Conversion Feasibility Study, Preliminary Concept of Operations Report, providing preliminary traffic and toll revenue estimates and findings for an express lane on I-405 from the Orange County border to LAX (22 miles).

Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary. We understand Riverside County Transportation Commission, SANBAG, LA Metro, Caltrans District 7 and Caltrans District 12 all have strategies in plan, or are planning strategies in the immediate futures, for HOT lane systems. We respectfully request an analysis in the LRTP of the effects on Orange County’s system should these be implemented.

OCB-8 OCBC encourages the board of directors of OCTA to consider the regional perspectives of California's freeways in Orange County. The I-405 is an interstate facility, not a local city street.

214

Response OCTA will continue to coordinate with TCAs regarding the SR241/I-5 connection as requested in the comment.

The LRTP is updated every four years in part to accommodate changing socioeconomic forecasts. These regular updates allow for transportation analyses to reflect trends and patterns, including development of housing and employment growth.

OCTA has partnered with SCAG on the Express Travel Choices study that is evaluating priced managed lanes strategies throughout the SCAG region, including Orange County. It is anticipated that additional analysis will be included in the development of the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan, which OCTA is also participating in.

Comment noted.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment OCB-9 OCTA's effective leveraging of funds, management and project delivery under Measure M (M2), may result in OCTA being "out of funds" within five years. As 75% of transportation funding is derived from local sales tax measures like Measure M, the LRTP should address the options for future funding for Orange County's mobility projects. If OCTA implemented a strategic vision for a connected HOT lane system within Orange County's heavily traveled corridors (SR-55, I-5, I-405 and SR-91), would toll revenue generated help postpone the need to advance a new local sales tax measure, i.e., Measure M3?

Southern California Association of Governments (June 16, 2014) SCAG-1 We encourage OCTA to continue exploring the expansion of express/high足 occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in order to further improve the mobility and performance of the County's transportation system, as well as the sustainability of its funding sources. A strategic expansion of the County's express/HOT lanes would build on the success of the existing SR-91 Express Lanes and offer greater efficiency in the utilization of existing capacity, provide users with greater travel time reliability and choices, and generate new revenues to support improvements along the corridors in which the revenues are generated.

SCAG-2 We appreciate the timeliness of OCTA's LRTP in serving as an input to SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS. Note that the horizon year for the 2016 RTP/SCS (2040) is expected to be five years beyond that of OCTA's LRTP (2035). SCAG will work collaboratively with OCTA to identify additional investments from 2035 through 2040 for inclusion in the 2016 RTP/SCS to help the region move toward achieving our regional sustainability goals while maintaining OCTA's long-term vision as articulated in the LRTP. SCAG-3 For clarity, we suggest that the LRTP include a clear note indicating whether the dollar amounts shown throughout the document utilize constant-year dollars or year-of-expenditure dollars.

SCAG-4 In order to plan in a more comprehensive manner, we suggest that OCTA consider the development of a risk assessment as a part of its LRTP. Significant portions of Orange County's transportation systems are vulnerable to impacts from natural disasters or the impacts global climate change, and contingencies should at least be discussed in the LRTP. In particular, portions of State Route 1 and the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor are highly vulnerable to sea level rise.

SCAG-5 On page 66, Table 4.1, the language discussing the LOSSAN/Green Line Connection should be amended to reflect that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, as the agency for planning, constructing, and operating major transit capital investments in Los Angeles County, is the appropriate main point of contact for further discussion regarding this project.

215

Response This specific issue has not been evaluated.

See response to CT-5. The LRTP includes opportunities to explore and collaborate on future inter-county issues and managed lane strategies. These are seen as New and Emerging Issues in the LRTP document.

Comment noted.

The entries are year of expenditure dollars. This has been clarified in the LRTP. OCTA has disaster preparedness plans in place and coordinates with appropriate regional agencies regarding risk assessment and management.

Comment noted. The LRTP has been modified to reflect the request.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment City of Laguna Niguel (June 18, 2014) CLN-1 1. Eliminate the “truck stop� and Traffic Concerns Along Camino Capistrano Near the In-N-Out as Part of the Avery/I-5 Interchange Improvements. Due to their size and relatively slow movement, trucks can reduce freeway, interchange and surface street efficiency and capacity. If improvements are made along Camino Capistrano that will reduce the number of trucks exiting the I-5 freeway at Avery, then the overall traffic conditions will improve at this interchange and on the adjacent surface streets.

CLN-2 2. Construct the Cabot Road to Camino Capistrano Bridge. This project has strong regional significance because it links Camino Capistrano (the westerly frontage road along I-5) at its northerly terminus (north of Crown Valley) to the secondary highway of Cabot Road. The construction of this bridge would relieve congestion at the Avery/I-5 interchange and provide a secondary access to the Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo Rail Station, which is becoming a significant component of the expanding regional rail service. In addition, this would create a continuous parallel (relief) roadway to the I-5 from La Paz Road to Pacific Coast Highway. The bridge would also greatly improve general traffic circulation in the area and improve emergency vehicle access. The project would actually be located in the City of Mission Viejo (just north of the City of Laguna Niguel).

However, both cities support the project and we have worked together on it in the past. The project has been environmentally cleared and the preliminary design has been completed. The estimated cost to complete the project is approximately $12.6 million.

CLN-3 3. Direct Connection from Paseo de Colinas to the I-5. During discussions with OCTA about the Avery/I-5, OCTA Staff and their consultants indicated that the proposed interchange improvements did not preclude the consideration of additional freeway connections between Avery and Crown Valley. This proposed connection would have the potential to significantly reduce the number of vehicles traveling through the Avery/I-5 interchange, which would result in improved operation at this constrained interchange. The City should request that OCTA commit to researching alternatives to connect Paseo de Colinas directly to the I-5 and to searching for local, state and federal funding sources for this project.

CLN-4 4. Additional Interchange South of Avery Parkway. During the same discussions with OCTA Staff, City Staff suggested that an additional interchange be considered south of Avery Parkway. The interchange could reduce congestion at the adjacent interchanges at Avery and Junipero Serra. The City should request that OCTA commit to researching this alternative and, if it is found to be feasible, to searching for local, state and federal funding sources for this project.

216

Response OCTA does not have authority to regulate trucks in the noted area. This would likely be a local policy decision made at the city level.

Cabot Road over Camino Capistrano Bridge is included in the Conceptual Plan of the LRTP.

A potential study for new and alternative connections to the I-5 freeway in this area has been included in the Conceptual Plan.

A potential new interchange at Marguerite Parkway is already included in the Conceptual Plan.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment CLN-5 5. Widening of Crown Valley – I-5 to Greenfield to Increase Usage of the 73 Toll Road. The 73 toll road is currently one of the most underutilized highway facilities in Orange County. Although there is a direct connection between the I-5 and 73 south of Avery Parkway, it is inconvenient to try and access this connection for a significant portion of the South County residents that live east of the I-5 (in Mission Viejo, Ladera Ranch and Sendero). For drivers who live east of the I-5 freeway near Crown Valley the primary route to and from the 73 includes Crown Valley, Greenfield Drive and then the 73/Greenfield interchange. Improving traffic efficiency and reducing congestion on this route by completing the full Crown Valley widening from Greenfield to the I-5 will increase usage of the 73 toll road and reduce traffic congestion on the already impacted I-5 corridor and provide regional traffic relief for Orange County. The preliminary design has been completed and the current estimated cost to complete this work is $70 million.

CLN-6 6. Local Agency Funding in the LRTP. In the draft LRTP, funding/funding sources are discussed/mentioned in several sections. Based on the information on page two (2) of the executive summary, it appears that local agency funding represents the single highest source of funding at about 43% of the total, but this is not mentioned prominently in the Plan. The City would like the Plan to acknowledge this local agency contribution more prominently in the appropriate sections of the Plan, in the executive summary and any other informational documents. In addition, the City would like local agencies to play an appropriate/important role in setting priorities, because of their large funding contribution.

City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works (June 20, 2014) ANA-1 Convention Way is not currently a public street east of Harbor Boulevard – this is a private driveway and needs to be deleted from the maps.

ANA-2

ANA-3 ANA-4

Response Widening of Crown Valley Parkway beyond the MPAH has been included in the Conceptual Plan.

Local agency contributions are accounted for in the LRTP.

OCTA staff will coordinate with City staff to review the requested modifications as part of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways management process. The maps in the LRTP will remain unchanged, but any approved edits to the MPAH will be reflected in future documents.

Remove Wakefield Avenue/Citrus Drive east of Haster Street. This street is not in See response to ANA-1. the MPAH and is not the alignment for the recently completed Gene Autry Way extension, which is north of these streets as shown in the figures.

The State College Boulevard Grade Separation is identified on the Preferred Comment noted. The State College Boulevard grade separation Plan. This is a priority project for the City and the County. is currently in design.

Page 12, Figure 2.3A - See above comment regarding Convention Way east of See response to ANA-1.

Harbor Boulevard. East Street has three lanes between Broadway and Santa Ana Street, and two lanes between South Street and Vermont Avenue.

217

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment ANA-5 Page 39, Figure 3.3 - Figure 5-6 - Convention Way/Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street requires six new lanes. The map incorrectly shows a small portion of the street east of Harbor Boulevard as an existing public street. The east leg of the Convention Way/Harbor Boulevard intersection is currently a private driveway. Please show a consistent color on the map for the entire length.

ANA-6 Page 14, Bus Transit – Please change the name from the “Anaheim Transit Network” to either the “Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)” if referring to the entity that operates the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) bus system or to “Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART)” if referring to the bus system.

ANA-7 Page 25 – ARTIC is the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center.

Please change “Transit” to “Transportation” on this page.

ANA-8 Page 40 – Currently reads: “The ARTIC station in Anaheim, which will open in 2014, will be expanded again in the Preferred Plan to accommodate connections with a planned streetcar route to Anaheim’s tourist destinations and planned statewide high-speed rail. In its full build out, ARTIC will provide a connection between regional rail service, the local streetcar, local bus service, and the Santa Ana River regional bikeway.”

ANA-9 ANA-10

Please change to: “The ARTIC station in Anaheim will open in 2014. In the Preferred Plan, ARTIC will accommodate connections with a planned streetcar route to major activity centers in Anaheim including neighborhoods, work, recreation, convention, entertainment and sports venues and planned statewide high-speed rail (the California High-Speed Rail Phase I Plan includes a one-seat ride between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim). In its full build out, ARTIC will provide a connection between regional rail service, high-speed rail, the local streetcar, local bus service, the Santa Ana River regional bikeway, and other transportation services.

Page 40 – Change “the Anaheim Resort” to “The Anaheim Resort” with a trademark symbol after the name.

Page 41 – The last line in the paragraph reads: “The City of Anaheim anticipates that Anaheim Rapid Connection will fully fund its operation and maintenance through farebox revenue, advertising, and dedicated funding from the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District.”

Please either remove this line (to be consistent with the description of the proposed Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed-Guideway Project), or change to indicate that these are potential funding sources: “Potential funding sources for operations and maintenance could include farebox revenue, advertising, retail and Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) funds.”

218

Response See response to ANA-1.

The requested modification has been made.

The requested modification has been made.

The requested modification has been made.

The requested modification has been made.

The requested text has replaced the text in the Draft LRTP.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment Urban Land Institute (June 10, 2014) ULI-1 Interconnected public transit and alternative active transportation that includes pedestrian infrastructure should be among the highest priorities.

ULI-2

ULI-3

Response

The LRTP incorporates numerous multimodal strategies to enhance mobility in Orange County. Page 36 of the Draft LRTP summarizes the investment by general modal classification. The document provides detail into the specific investment in transit and active transportation, as well as regional highways and arterial roadways in the Preferred Plan discussion and in the appendices. An entire section, “Multi-modal Systems within Systems Offer Choice and Maximize Resource” acknowledge the benefits of interconnected mobility systems for the public.

The ULI encourages OCTA support of providing travelers’ choices. In 2013-2014, LRTP transit investments, such as the Santa Ana/Garden ULI Orange County/Inland Empire conducted a Crowdsourcing exercise online, Grove and Anaheim fixed guideway projects, focus on focusing on the fact that Orange County’s population is aging faster than improving mobility along the Orange County’s higher-density California and the U.S. Visitors on MyPlaceOC.com stated they think providing a corridors. In so doing, OCTA is making mobility investments multi-faceted transportation network and making local communities more that contribute to the walkability of local communities. Through walkable will bring young people back to Orange County. continued involvement and facilitation of other related efforts (i.e., active transportation, land use coordination vis-à-vis the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy [OCSCS], etc.), OCTA is contributing to choice and walkability in Orange County.

Providing recommendations that address complex issues around better ULI’s offer to provide planning recommendations will be connectivity between modes of mobility, including roads and freeways, trains and considered. It should be noted that OCTA regularly partners streetcars/trolleys, bicycles and walking, is how ULI would like to assist OCTA in with other public agencies and private interests to investigate achieving long-term success implementing the LRTP. Insularity of local planning strategies and plans to provide connectivity and choice, will result in a diminished capacity to meet increasing infrastructure demand. To facilitating improved mobility in Orange County. achieve success (at the local level), infrastructure, energy and environmental imperatives must synch land use and planning/housing policies. Cooperation between developers and local governments or other public-private partnerships regarding infrastructure is vital.

219

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment Downtown Inc. (June 6, 2014) DI-1 We are aware that OCTA has recently released its 20 year vision for improving transportation in Orange County. While the plan allocates a majority of funding for transit, highway, and roads only 1% has been allocated for active transportation projects such as walking and biking. As the President of Downtown Inc., a business improvement district within Downtown Santa Ana, our board is in favor of more funding being used for these active projects. We see a benefit to being more pedestrian and bike friendly especially because of all the dangerous conditions that currently exist. Please consider modifying the current plan to increase funding for active projects.

Safe Routes to School National Partnership Organizations (June 17, 2014) ORG-1 We request that OCTA significantly increase funding for active transportation in the Outlook 2035 plan and frontload 80 percent of the funding in the first 10 years of the planned expenditures so that the benefits of these projects can be enjoyed sooner. This funding would be used to 1) fund local Safe Routes to School and pedestrian safety improvements, 2) expedite the construction of regional bikeways, 3) fund complete streets improvements focused on economic development and 4) support bicycle and pedestrian encouragement and education activities such as open street events and safety education campaigns.

ORG-2 We urge OCTA to integrate supportive language related to Complete Streets into Outlook 2035 and strongly support OCTA adopting a Countywide Complete Streets Policy to ensure that all roadway projects are designed to improve safety for all users and abilities.

Response Outlook 2035, includes an approximately $433 million investment in projects specific to active transportation. This cost estimate assumes the build-out of all 650 miles of planned bikeways in Orange County. The LRTP also supports multimodal solutions, or “systems within systems” that may be characterized as investments in other modes, such as transit and arterial highways, but also provide active transportation benefits. In addition, it should be noted that OCTA has recently enhanced funding available for bikeway projects with the Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program, which adds roughly $4 million annually to the funds available through the state.

OCTA has recently enhanced funding available for bikeway projects with the Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program, which adds roughly $4 million annually to the funds available through the state. However, the LRTP is not a programming document, and, therefore, does not identify which revenue sources will fund projects, or when projects will receive funding.

OCTA has also modified the Master Plan of Arterial Highway (MPAH) administrative guidance documents to accommodate Complete Streets strategies in implementation of MPAH designated highways, and will continue to consider these strategies as local agencies plan MPAH ultimate rights of way.

The term “Complete Streets” typically refers to The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), which establishes multimodal requirements for circulation elements in locally adopted General Plans. While AB 1358 does not apply to OCTA, the goals and objectives included in the 2014 LRTP are compatible with the intent of this law. Specifically, the goals to “Expand System Choices” and “Support Sustainability” identify objectives supporting multimodal integration and sustainable communities strategies. Additionally, OCTA has already adopted vision and mission statements that are very much in line with the “Complete Streets” concept, so it would likely be redundant to develop and adopt a policy for Complete Streets.

220

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment ORG-3 OCTA’s Outlook 2035 should include additional roadway performance metrics focused on public safety by travel mode, minutes of physical activity achieved per day, chronic disease rates related to air quality and lack of physical activity, as well as GHGs.

221

Response The LRTP is primarily focused on 2035 conditions and how well the planned transportation improvements help to mitigate the anticipated 2035 travel demand. The proposed metrics are not able to be modeled for future years using OCTA’s Orange County Transportation Analysis Model. However, SCAG’s anticipated Activity-Based Model may be able to monitor some of these metrics for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). As for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, targets have been established at the regional level, and will be addressed by SCAG in the 2016 RTP. However, OCTA will continue its efforts with OCCOG, SCAG, and the local agencies to encourage land use and transportation coordination, and other related strategies in the adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment Bob Stevenson (May 14, 2014) BS-1 For many years people, including some OCTA Board members, have advocated that the 57 Freeway be extended along the Santa Ana River to the ocean, or at least to where it connects with the San Diego Freeway. This sensible proposal desperately needs to be adopted and included in OCTA's LRTP, as both the 55 and 5 Freeways are badly congested as well as Beach Blvd. Right now, as you know, the 55 is the only North-South freeway in Orange County. Extending the 57 would provide a second North-South freeway, and would eliminate the great difficulty people in North Orange County have in getting to Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, and vice versa.

Response The project to extend the SR-57 freeway south of the SR-22 within the Santa Ana River right of way (the viaduct) to the I-405 freeway was considered and rejected by the OCTA Board.

Issues related to community impacts, engineering constraints and overall project cost led the Board to remove this project from further consideration. As a result, the SR-57 extension is not included in the Measure M2 program of projects or other LRTP planning efforts.

What's wonderful about extending the 57 is that no land would need to be purchased; all OCTA needs to obtain is approval to use the right of way that the Santa Ana River currently possesses, and this should not be difficult at all. OCTA has been spending billions of dollars in recent years just to widen existing freeways by one lane, with this enormous cost resulting in part from land acquisition costs, tearing down existing bridges and then rebuilding them, etc. By building the 57 extension OCTA can create an entirely new, full-width-in-size freeway at reasonable cost.

If OCTA doesn't build the 57 extension, then what Orange County will experience is more of the same--existing freeways being widened by one lane at a time at huge cost, but not quickly enough to significantly improve traffic flow, and existing streets becoming more and more congested.

Many years ago, when the 57 extension was first proposed, the cost to build this extension was $800 million. Nowadays the cost would be much higher, but even at $1.5-2 billion, such a cost would be a super bargain, given the tremendous benefits such an extension would provide Orange County's motorists.

Please seriously consider extending the 57 freeway.

Ed Taylor (May 28, 2014) ET-1 SUGGESTION #1: We request that OCTA significantly increase funding for active transportation in the Outlook 2035 plan. This funding would be used to 1) fund local Safe Routes to School improvements, 2) expedite the construction of Regional Bikeways, 3) fund Complete Streets improvements focused on economic development and 4) support bicycle and pedestrian encouragement and education activities such as open street events and safety education campaigns.

222

See response to DI-1.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment ET-2 SUGGESTION #2: We urge OCTA to integrate additional supportive language related to Complete Streets into Outlook 2035 to ensure that all roadway projects are designed to improve safety for all users and abilities.

ET-3 SUGGESTION #3: OCTA should include additional performance metrics in Outlook 2035 related to safety by mode, minutes of physical activity achieved per day, chronic disease rates and greenhouse gas emissions.

ET-4 SUGGESTION #4: OCTA should develop a Countywide Complete Streets Policy and a Countywide Safe Routes to School Strategy as next steps in the Short Term Action Plan outlined in Chapter 4. These two initiatives would ensure that active transportation improvements and school travel are considered in the development of all future transportation projects in Orange County.

ET-5

As a daily bicycle commuter and user of OCTA busses, I believe the long range plan should encourage more bike use and transit use, and improve our streets so they are less car centric. By doing so, OCTA would help make Orange County healthier, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately make it less congested and a happier place to be.

Matt Shannon (May 9, 2014)

Response See response to ORG-2.

See response to ORG-3.

OCTA has modified the Master Plan of Arterial Highway (MPAH) administrative guidance documents to accommodate Complete Streets strategies in implementation of MPAH designated highways, and will continue to consider these strategies as local agencies plan MPAH ultimate rights of way.

OCTA will also assist in the administration of the ATP program that includes Safe Routes to School funding plans.

As demonstrated in this LRTP, OCTA has made a significant investment in active transportation and alternate modes of transportation, all the while maintaining its commitment to the voters for a full multimodal circulation system. .

Matt Shannon comments have been received and acknowledged. These comments are additional information and personal observation. Comments are not provided that require a direct response.

Kim-Yen Huynh (May 7, 2014) KY-1 Recommend all new carpool lanes should have unlimited access for emergency matters Ron Torres (May 7, 2014) RT-1 Have display at bus stops, digital that would show next buses coming.

RT-2 Have new tech pads to exit bus instead of pull cords.

RT-3 More frequent at major bus stops on weekend, weekdays.

RT-4 Have some routes 24 hours service.

RT-5 Have WiFi on buses.

RT-6 Monitor TV that have new information on OCTA and other connection like Metrolink, MTA/Metro, etc. make new OCTA app.

RT-7 Whatever happened to the rail system?

223

Caltrans is responsible for the design and striping of individual car pool lane (managed lane) projects.

The specific features and amenities provided on individual buses (i.e., touch pads, digital readers, WiFi, etc.) is beyond the scope and scale of the 20 year LRTP. The LRTP includes more frequent bus service that is planned on a five-year basis subject to funding availability. The LRTP is a long range vision of mobility investment across all modes over the entire Orange County. Rail service is included in the 2014 LRTP in both the Preferred and Constrained Plan for Metrolink, LOSSAN and inter-county links.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment Anonymous (May 7, 2014) ANON-1 This model is based on various assumptions about demographics and economics. What is the forecast for the price of gasoline in 2035? $4.00? $5.00? $10.00? $20.00? Makes a big difference.

LRTP Feedback Survey – Brian Cox (June 4, 2014) BC-1 I am shocked that with all of the current data with respect to climate change, obesity, traffic congestion, millennial indifference to driving, our declining health as a nation, that the OCTA Board has decided to spend a paltry 1% of the funds on active transportation. This is not leadership. It shows a blatant disregard towards the future. The choices made by the board indicate that the status quo is just fine and no changes are necessary. The data shows that 16% of all trips made are by walking and bicycling. In addition, pedestrian and bicycling fatalities represent 37% of all fatalities in the county. Our active transit citizens deserve more than 1% of the dollars designated to transportation funding. The board must show leadership and lead our county into the future with better choices for our citizens, our environment and our economy. Please adjust the category funding so that active transportation receives the funding that it deserves according to the trips made and fatalities data. My suggestion is to spend upwards to 15% as opposed to 1%.

LRTP Feedback Survey – Robert Hernandez (May 21, 2014) RH-1 The next Bravo route should be on Beach Blvd. route 29. The 60 bus runs more frequent, route 29 should have a bravo bus from Golden West Transportation Center to Buena Park Metrolink Station.

RH-2 Also please add Metrolink service from Orange County to Los Angeles on the weekends. The first train departs Anaheim at 921am that is too late please add a train earlier to connect with the Metrolink trains (Antelope Valley).

224

Response Gasoline prices are not a significant variable in the traffic model used to forecast mobility in the LRTP. The traffic model is validated to existing counts and conditions, and tested in the 2035 horizon. The traffic model is deemed consistent with SCAG protocols and parameters that use complex algorithms for population, housing and employment, trip length frequency, gravitation and friction factors. Gasoline pricing is affected by other indirect functions within the mathematical expressions of the model.

See response to DI-1.

OCTA has included Bravo service in the LRTP. Specific routes and stops are the subject of future study based on service area, ridership, phasing and funding availability.

Inter-county coordination for transit service is included in next steps of the LRTP. Specific trains are the subject of future study

by OCTA and Metrolink.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment LRTP Feedback Survey – Bill Oliver (May 20, 2014) BO-1 For years I have been asking OCTA why a MONO RAIL down the major freeways with connections to the major transportation (Airports, Trains, and Buss's) was not in the plans instead of attempts to increase traffic flow on the existing roads that do not work. With no MASS transit available you cannot hope to build the roads fast enough or wide enough. How is it possible for the people on the East Coast to commute 200 miles or more in comfort? They get to work refreshed and home at a reasonable hour and cost. Even San Francisco has finally got the message. There BART seems to be working well, but they still need more. Please look to the future, and not the past.

LRTP Feedback Survey – Michael Bailey (May 15, 2014) MB-1 My comments on the plan would be to improve transit and make it be more accessible. Eliminating cash fares entirely and going to a fully automated fare collection system that would allow passengers to pay by credit card, bank debit card, and by cell phone would allow dwell time at the bus stops to be greatly reduced, would reduce air pollution and noise, and would save on fuel costs, which would put more money into the Bus Operations Fund to improve system wide service. Improving fare collection would also bring more passengers onto the system. Pushing the envelope on fare collection, people could be issued an identification card that could clip onto short collars and a camera on the bus would take a picture of the ID card as the passenger walks on and an invoice would be sent to the person's home at the start of each month.

MB-2 Something needs to be done for bus passengers that have limited incomes and minimum wage jobs where paying the bus fare to get to and from work is a major challenge. A passenger scholarship fund that would reduce a person's fare by so much a trip based on income is needed. This is a system already in place and been expanded by Portland, Oregon's TRIMET System. It works well. As bus fares continue to increase the need for a passenger scholarship fund grows more pressing.

LRTP Feedback Survey – Rosa Guadalupe Guillen-Sanchez (April 25, 2014) RG-1 The LRTP plan lists three goals but none of them say that a major goal is to increase mobility. The major goal of OCTA should be to increase mobility, so that efforts will not be focused on only improving the system for drivers, but also for pedestrians, cyclists, and other rollers. One of the goals is to "Improve Transportation System Performance." The objectives listed under this goal are: Reduce Delay Due to Congestion, Increase Facility Speeds and Increase Transit Ridership.

225

Response Monorails down the existing freeway rights of way are not included in M2. They are not planned by the owner operator of the interstate freeways, Caltrans. Neither SCAG, nor the CTC has included these facilities in the regional funded or conceptual plans for regional or statewide consideration.

Transit expansion is a significant element of this LRTP. Technological innovations are acknowledged in the LRTP and will be considered as the conceptual arrive on the market and become practical.

Fare policies are not included in the LRTP given State farebox recovery requirements.

As a result of the goals and objectives included in the LRTP (goals and objectives clarified by eth Board and reiterated by the public in workshops and outreach), overall mobility is improved. Performance of the system is measured in the LRTP. As a direct result of the commitments made in the LRTP delay is reduced, transit service is improved, active transportation is enhanced. All modes of travel and Countywide mobility are improved.

OCTA LRTP COMMENTS MATRIX August 2014 Comment # Comment RG-2 I don't think "Increase Facility Speeds" should be stand-alone objective. What if increasing the speed on a road or a highway makes conditions unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc.? By making traffic speeds a priority, the LRTP is contradicting the importance of the goal to "Expand Transportation System Choices." Cycling and walking will not be a "real choice" for people if these modes are not safe. The plan should prioritize safety over speed. Safety is not addressed in either the goals or objectives of the LRTP draft and this should change.

RG-3 Also, an objective of “Improve Transportation System Performance" should be to Improve Multimodal Integration, because studies have shown that, for example, bicycling increases the catchment area of transit, and therefore bicycle-transit integration increases the patronage and use of both bicycling and transit use. I know the objective to Improve Multimodal Integration is already listed under the goal to "Expand Transportation System Choices," but the LRTP should make it obvious that improving transportation system performance does not just mean making improvements for drivers only, but also for pedestrians and rollers (cyclists, skaters, people in wheelchairs, etc.).

RG-4 In addition, the objectives under the goal to "Expand Transportation System Choices" are" (a) Implement Planned Networks, (b) Expand Transit Services and (c) Improve Multimodal Integration. I feel that an important objective missing is to improve safety for active transportation. Active transportation is not a "real choice" for most people if it's not safe. Studies have shown that, for example, about 60% of people are interested in cycling, but they don't do it because they are concerned for their safety. Therefore, improving safety is the number one mechanism to get people to ride bicycles. Therefore, the LRTP should make it a clear objective to improve safety for pedestrians and rollers.

226

Response Safety is a paramount goal of the LRTP. All facilities planned and executed by the OCTA are subject to safety and design review. Increasing facility speeds is included in order to return facility speeds to or near their posted levels, not to encourage unsafe speed or excessive speed. Improving speed reduces delay and improves overall mobility.

Modal integration is included in the LRTP. The LRTP discusses each mode and the committed investments, and includes measures to create systems within systems and system integration, such as last mile transit planning, rail and transit overlap, regional highway investment and goods movement enhancements.

See response to RG-2. Furthermore, OCTA assists in the planning of cycling facilities. Actual design and construction of these facilities is the responsibility of local agencies. .

Attachment J Publicity

227

228

Future of OC Transit Is Up for Debate

By NICK GERDA | Posted: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:00 am As Orange County continues to grow, should officials keep expanding freeways or start refocusing on public transit and biking?

Those kinds of questions are front and center this morning as Orange County Transportation Authority board members debate their Long Range Transportation Plan, which will outline investments over the next 20 years.

Common requests from the public, according to OCTA, include developing bike and pedestrian safety programs, synchronizing stoplights, improving transit connections and speeding up carpool lanes.

Another theme is developing “faster mass transit solutions and include innovative solutions, such as real-time passenger information and electronic ticketing to encourage commuters to use transit,” according to an OCTA staff report.

The debate over transportation investments also comes as traffic congestion continues to worsen on many local freeways and streets.

Funding for freeway projects are dwindling at the state and national levels.

The federal Highway Trust Fund is close to going bankrupt, with federal officials saying it could start bouncing checks this summer.

And at the state level, Caltrans has been described by an OCTA board member as being "way in the hole" on maintenance funding.

The state’s highway system needs about $8 billion for maintenance each year, according to Caltrans, yet only about $2 billion is expected to be available.

“The percentage of lane miles of highway pavement in a distressed condition, which is pavement with significant rutting, cracking, potholes, or other signs of deterioration, is projected to increase during the next 10 years,” the state agency declared in a report last year.

Federal law is also now mandating that traffic be sped up in congested carpool lanes.

As OCTA officials confront that challenge, they’ve suggested putting toll lanes on freeways or requiring at least three occupants for a car to drive in the carpool lane.

OCTA Director John Moorlach, meanwhile, has suggested ramping up bus service on freeways, though that idea hasn’t gained traction among his colleagues.

As for the long-range plan, board members are expected to discuss it Monday before it’s released for public comment.

The final plan is expected to be approved in September and will ultimately end up in the Southern California Association of Government’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Monday’s meeting starts at 9 a.m. at OCTA headquarters. Click here to read a copy of the draft plan.

229

230

Planners Seek Public Input on the Future of Transportation

By NICK GERDA | Posted: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:00 am As local officials gear up to adopt a new long-term plan for Orange County’s transportation system, they’re asking the public to weigh in on what types of priorities they’d like to see.

During Monday’s Orange County Transportation Authority board meeting, officials noted that traffic is expected to become worse and worse as the population grows and highways are stretched to their limits.

“The roads are just going to become at some point … unpassable at rush hour,” said OCTA Director Jeff Lalloway, who is also an Irvine city councilman.

“As the county gets more urbanized, we need to focus on our train system,” he added.

Officials plan to hold a 45-day public comment period, with an open house on the topic planned for May 7 from 5 to 7 p.m. at OCTA headquarters.

The long-range transportation plan, which is updated every four years, outlines Orange County’s transportation vision for the next 20 years, with the county’s population expected to grow by 400,000 people over that period.

That’s equivalent to adding the population of Oakland or Miami, OCTA Planning Manager Charlie Larwood told board members.

The growth is expected to have major impacts on traffic congestion, with officials projecting a 166-percent increase in total delays.

“The performance of our transportation system will decline substantially” without needed investments, said Larwood.

State transportation officials agreed.

“Conditions get worse. And much, much worse” under current projections, said Caltrans District 12 Director Ryan Chamberlain.

Such dire predictions have been pointed to by alternative transportation advocates as underscoring a need to make it safe and viable for people who want to bike, walk and use public transit.

About half of all trips in the U.S. are three miles or less, and a fourth of trips are one mile or less, biking advocate Jeff Miller told a Santa Ana audience last week.

Converting even a small number of those trips into transit or bike trips would have a big impact on traffic, advocates say.

A 5-percent drop in car use leading up to the recession was associated with a 30-percent drop in traffic congestion, Miller said.

As for the long-term plan, OCTA staff’s “preferred” approach calls for adding new bus and streetcar service, 231

20 weekday Metrolink trains, 650 miles of bikeways, 820 lane miles on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways network, 200 freeway lane miles, 242 tollway lane miles, as well as 450 van pools and station vans.

It would require about $36 billion split among local, state and federal sources to fund it.

Officials noted that increasing public transit and bike trips would be key to reducing travel times, along with adding lanes on certain sections of freeway.

“Transit trips are up, delays reduced and travel speeds improve” under the preferred scenario, Larwood told board members.

North and central county have the highest density, Larwood noted, making those areas a focus for improving bus service. Rapid bus service is emphasized in the proposed plan, as is more Metrolink train service.

OCTA staff are also exploring extensions of the proposed streetcar systems in Anaheim and Garden Grove.

It also emerged that recent reports of the death of the controversial state Route 241 toll road extension could be premature. A Transportation Corridor Agencies or TCA official said Monday that the project could still eventually move forward.

“As far as keeping it in a long-range plan, TCA is still … suggesting that it be included,” said Valerie McFall, the agency's director of environmental services.

But if the extension remains shelved, the question will likely turn to who will pick up the tab for traffic relief for Interstate 5 in the far South County.

OCTA Chairman Shawn Nelson, who is also a county supervisor, ultimately asked staff to explore whether OCTA can take charge of the Route 241 extension project itself.

“What stops our agency from getting involved?” Nelson asked in his direction to staff.

Orange County’s long-term planning comes as funding for transportation dwindles at the state and federal level.

The state is $296 billion “in the hole” on transportation funding, said Chamberlain of Caltrans. “I think we need to start asking that question: How do we start to fill a funding gap?” he told OCTA board members.

And as public demand increases for transportation options other than cars, Caltrans officials said they’re working to adopt a new philosophy.

Caltrans realizes that it needs to shed its view of itself as a “state highway agency” and instead recognize that it’s a “state transportation agency,” said Chamberlain.

“We recognize that we are slow to change,” Chamberlain told OCTA board members. “We need to be more riskaverse. We need to be more nimble” and open to community needs.

“I think this is a sea change,” remarked OCTA Director Todd Spitzer, who is also a county supervisor.

The draft plan is expected to be posted on OCTA's website next Monday. The executive summary is available starting on page 12 of this document.

232