The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0602 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM q. 'B . - ,Roo �4 d- MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - TO: The Honorable City Council i (C� % FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: May 19, 2004 (Council Meeting 6 -2 -04) SUBJECT: Consider Changing the Rail Trail Study to a Downtown Trail Study DISCUSSION A. Background • In April of 2003 the City received approval of a TDA Article 3 [SB -821] Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities grant to prepare the subject Rail Trail Study. The purpose of the study would be to determine the feasibility of constructing a bicycle / pedestrian trail along and within the railroad right -of -way between Moorpark Avenue and a point east of Spring Road (see Exhibit 1). • The City retained the services of RRM Design Group [RRM] to prepare the subject Study. RRM is the consultant which prepared the Arroyo Trail Study for the City. B. Current Project Description The current Scope of Work for the subject study is summarized as follows: • data gathering • interface with affected agencies/ property owners • corridor mapping • preparation of preliminary alignment plan alternatives • identification of opportunities and obstacles • title investigation work required to determine current ownerships, encumbrances, etc. • development of a list of access, ownership, maintenance rights required to build and maintain the trail • development of implementation plan Rail Trail 0405 00 ®133 Rail Trail June 2, 2004 Page 2 C. Project Objective It was known going into this project that a Class 1 trail (separate from vehicular traffic), constructed along and within the railroad right -of -way, would provide certain obvious benefits to the community. The question was: "Could it be built ?" The purpose of the Study was to seek answers to the following question: • What "rights" would be required? • What would be the cost of acquiring those rights? • What design standards would have to be met? • What agencies would have approval authority? • What would be the approval procedures and processes? • What would be the anticipated "soft costs" for developing "approvable," "permitable" plans? • What would be the anticipated design, construction and inspection costs? D. Preliminary Report RRM has prepared a preliminary report setting forth certain findings with respect to the feasibility of the Rail Trail Project. That preliminary report was distributed to the City Council on April 30 as part of the packets pertaining to the May 3rd meeting of the Transportation and Streets Committee. As mentioned in that report, RRM met with a number of agencies to gather the information necessary to render an opinion regarding project feasibility. Those agencies include: the Ventura County Watershed Protection District [VCWPD], the Ventura County Transportation Commission [VCTC] and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority [SCRRA]. The report outlined the process required to develop the project design and to seek and obtain project approval. E. Project Implementation Costs RRM has estimated that the cost of design and construction of the Rail Trail Project is approximately $360,000. It is not known what the "soft" costs would be to seek final answers to, or resolve problems raised by, the questions listed in Section C above. Rail Trail-0405 000134 Rail Trail June 2, 2004 Page 3 F. Protect Constraints The RRM report identified a number of issues which could be obstacles to implementation of the Rail Trail Project. Those issues include the following: • Proximity to Rails: This has always been a source of concern. A trail in close proximity to a high speed train is unsafe. Often times it is necessary to erect a fence or like barrier between the trail and the tracks to provide necessary safety measures. The report includes cross - sections depicting the design guidelines required by the approving authorities. Those standards require a thirty -five feet (35') wide clearance between a trail and the centerline of a track. • Private Encroachments: Apparently the south fence for the properties at and east of 440 High Street, encroach into the railroad right -of -way. It is not yet known if these encroachments can be abated. If not, the minimum 35' clearance could not be met in this "tight" area. It is not known if an exception would be granted. • Redevelopment Agency Property: Concerns have been raised about the need or necessity of placing a trail on the railroad right -of -way west of the train platform, when such a trail could be situated on "yet- to -be- developed" Redevelopment Agency property located just north of the rail right -of -way. One option would be to restrict that portion of the trail within the rail right -of -way to the area east of the train station. • License Agreement: RRM was advised that it may not be likely that an easement would be granted to the City for the trail. It has been common practice that such uses have been approved via issuance of a License Agreement instead of granting an easement. Typically such agreements have termination clauses which would give the railway owner the right to terminate the agreement and require the City to remove the trail improvements at any time. • Double Track: VCTC is entertaining plans to add a second track through the subject rail segment. The two (2) options for the second tack are described as follows: North Side: second track would be placed north of the existing track, in the area of the proposed trail; South Side: the existing siding track south of the main line would be converted to a siding / second track (main line). It is not clear yet exactly where the second rail would go. If the second track is placed on the north side, the City's trail would likely have to be removed. Rail Trail 0405 000135 Rail Trail June 2, 2004 Page 4 G. Conclusion It is the view of staff that the above described constraints seem to indicate that the Rail Trail Project is not feasible. It is also the view of staff that further expenditures to explore if and how those constraints could be mitigated could be costly and those efforts have no guarantee of success. It is recommended below, therefore, that the study be terminated H. Committee Meeting On May 3, 2004, this matter was taken to the Transportation and Streets Committee (Councilmembers Millhouse and Harper). The Committee concurred with the recommendation of staff that the efforts to further study the feasibility constructing a "Rail Trail" be terminated. I. Fiscal Status 1. Grant Funding: The subject study TDA Article 3 [SB -821] Pedestrian A summary of this grant funding is • TDA Article 3 Grant: • Minimum required local funding: 2. FY 03104 Project Budget: The project is summarized as follows: • TDA Art. 3 Grant [Fund 2602]: • TSM Fund [Fund 2001]: 3. Expenses to Date: Consultant cc approximately $23,000. J. Downtown Trail Stud is partially funded by a Bicycle Facilities grant. as follows: $25,000 $30,555 {Minimum 550 $55,555 approved Budget for the $25,000 $51,755 $76,755 ,sts incurred to date are Rather than terminating "trail study efforts" in the "target" area, it was the view of staff that those efforts be redirected to include the entire downtown area. In response to direction from staff, RRM has provided the City with a Proposal for preparing a Downtown Trail Study, in lieu of the Rail Trail Study. The scope of work is similar to the original study, except that the study area will now be the Downtown Specific Plan Area. The cost of this study would be $42,000, an amount within the current budget for this project. Rail Trail 0405 - 0 ool3s Rail Trail June 2, 2004 Page 5 K. Grant Funding It is the intent of staff to seek VCTC approval of this change to the scope of this grant funded project. L. Budget At this time no change to the project Budget [Project 80501 is required. STAFF RECOMMMATION Authorize staff to renegotiate the scope and fee for the consultant contract for the Rail Trail Study to be re- directed to become the Downtown Trail Study, as discussed in this report, contingent upon VCTC approval. Rail Trail 0405 000137