Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 12.13.2011 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Council Absent: Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Tommy Gonzalez, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman Troy Hellmann, Rachael Jonrowe Staff Present, Paul E Brandenburg, City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager Minutes A Update and discussion related to the Lone Star Rail District programs and activities -- Patty Eason, Councilmember District 1 and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Sattler, Berryman absent. Polasek introduced Joe Black, Sid Covington and Allison Schultz of the Rail District. He said they will be giving an update on the Rail District and their plans for the future. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Black spoke about the challenges in the region including public safety issues, reduced mobility, NAFTA traffic, economic development, lack of transportation choices, decreasing reliability and air quality and he continued to speak about these issues. He spoke about how 1-35 is pretty constricted in terms of space and added there is not enough room for the City to build more lanes. He said one of the ways the traffic issues along 1-35 can be addressed is with passenger rail. He spoke about the objectives of the district. He said it was created by the legislature and is a political subdivision of the state. He said they have a lot of things they are expected to do by the legislation. He spoke about why regional rail will be good for Georgetown. He said it was recommended in Georgetown by the My35 team for near term implementation. He described the makeup of the My35 team. He said the main traffic problem is a deficiency of capacity. He said they are looking for congestion proof methods to provide new capacity using mostly existing rights of way. He said the rail will be able to transport over 5,000 passengers per hour, or 5,000 cars per hour being taken off of the road. He said the rail will be able to expand easily by adding a rail car, train or crew member. He added putting additional capacity to a highway is more expensive than expanding upon a rail district. He spoke about the jurisdictions and service area of the proposed rail. He listed the cities involved including Georgetown, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Schertz and San Antonio. He said they are finely grained and have 20 members on their Board and he described the representation on the Board. Black spoke about the financial and economic benefits of LSTAR through the year 2030. He said, even if you take half of the estimated dollars, rail is still a huge benefit to the community. He described some of the basic facts about the LSTAR proposed service. He said it is important to note there are institutions of higher learning within two to five miles of the Lone Star rail line. He said the potential travel market from those institutions alone is about 300,000 if 10% is convinced to use the rail on a daily basis. He said there is about 117 miles of passenger rail in the plan. He said there will be up to 16 stations at full service and about 20 to 30 trains per City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 3 Pages day. He noted the trains will run seven days a week. He spoke about how people will use the train not only for work, but for entertainment. He said the train would have an express train service of 75 minutes or less from Austin downtown to San Antonio downtown. He said this would beat the private auto trip times. He said there will also be wife on board. He said the rail will be primarily routed in the existing rail right-of-way. He described the areas where there will be green field alignments. He spoke about how the rail will run along an "education corridor." He said Austin Community College is planning their new campuses near the proposed rail lines. He said they need to create capacity along the Union Pacific railroad. He spoke about the many ways they will be doing this and the agreements they have with the Union Pacific railroad. He spoke about how 20 to 30 freight trains will need to be re-routed. There was much discussion regarding the movement of rail lines and the agreement with Union Pacific. He said the urban freight rail bypass in itself is a huge mobility improvement through the area. He said some of the benefits of the urban freight rail bypass include enhancement of regional mobility, increased public safety and enhanced freight mobility. He spoke about what has happened so far in terms of fundraising and said they have raised $7.7 million in federal funding, $8.7 million state appropriation, $50 million in Texas Rail Relocation Fund, and secured $20 million SA -BC MPO and $20 million in CAMPO funds. He said they completed the initial feasibility, initial ridership study, preliminary revenue/cost studies and financial benefits and economic impact studies. He said they evaluated and rejected the FTA new starts process because the Lone Star line does not fit the traditional definition of commuter rail. He spoke about how Lone Star differs. He described their local funding concepts for ongoing operations. He spoke about what else they are working on right now including the environmental and engineering studies to clear the passenger route, station location studies, updating the financing plan and business plan, updating ridership studies, working on urban bypass rail studies and conducting local funding discussions with local partners. Black said they are always asked what happens next. He said he does not know due to federal scheduling. He said there are many twists and turns to the federal process and noted they are busy navigating them now. He said they know the process and are proceeding methodically. He said the engineering and environmental studies are expected to take 3 or more years. He said, after the federal approval, they are expected to move to final design and construction which is expected to take 2 to 3 years. He said 5 to 7 years would be a realistic time frame for this. He said they are soliciting interest from potential private sector partners and he described these efforts. He said they are also working on federal funding requests as well. He noted they need to establish local funding mechanisms. He spoke about the local funding and operations and maintenance costs. He said the annual operations and maintenance costs will be spread between three functional areas. He said 1/3 will go to San Antonio/Bexar County region, the next 1/3 will go to AustinfTravis County region and the last 1/3 to smaller cities and their counties at approximately $10 million for initial service and $14 million for the final service.. He said local O&M funding and the support at the local level is needed to apply for federal grants and to solicit public-private financing options. He spoke about the capital costs and noted these are numbers they have not yet updated. He said they are still working on the capital costs and added these are 2006 numbers. He said the capital cost for regional passenger rail is about $394 million for the initial service increasing to $613 million at full service. He said the capital cost for the entire Union Pacific freight service urban bypass is $1.7 billion. He said Lone Star does not expect to cover that cost. He said all of the capital expenses will be covered over time through a combination of UP cost-sharing, public-private partnerships, federal grants and loans (FRA, FHWA) and state rail relocation funds. He spoke about ProjectCONNECT and how it is made up of City of Austin, Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District and others to coordinate regional rail network development in Austin and to anchor the urban core. He said the practical goal for this is to create and operate a seamless high capacity transportation system for Central Texas. Some of the efforts include fare coordination, schedule coordination, transfer facilities, common marketing/system image, shared customer service and levering technology to have an intelligent transportation system. He showed the City Council the Lone Star Rail District's pledge to the region which is to offer the public a choice. He said LSTAR will give Central and South Texas independence from congested highways and they will also deliver benefits to those Central and South Texans who choose not to ride the LSTAR with improved safety, mobility and environmental quality, positive economic impact at the local and regional level and new opportunities for community vitality and prosperity. Gonzalez asked and Black said Georgetown, Buda, Kyle, San Marcos, New Braunfels and Schertz are members of the group of smaller cities. Gonzalez said and Black agreed the cost to a smaller City would be about $1.5 million to $2 million per city for operations and maintenance. Covington said it is more than just the cities as well. He added the universities and counties will also be paying into the pot. Convingtion said that's where it gets to be tricky on how to separate costs. Jonrowe thanked the representatives of Lone Star Rail for updating Council on the future of transporation in Central Texas. Meigs asked and Black said rail is not self-sustaining anywhere in the world. Black said the most sustaining rail is in Toronto and then New York. Black spoke about various ways they can keep costs down. Hellmann asked and Black said there are six cities and county participation, as well as Austin Community College and Texas State involved in this project. Black spoke about future entities that could become possible partners in this project. Black added the goal is to make this more affordable. Hellmann asked if cities can sign on later and what that would cost. Black said cities can sign on later. He noted one factor is a city or entity must be located along the rail line. Covington the cities can City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 3 Pages become members of the district as soon as their population passes 18,000. He noted they just picked up Kyle in this last census. He said cities who had the ability to join and decided not to in the past will be able to join but noted, to be fair to the members who have been in the district for a while, the newer entities will have to pay . retroactively to catch up. He said they are trying to sit down and determine what make sense for everyone. Hellmann asked for an example of a retroactive fee. Covington said it depends on how long the entity was eligible to be a member before they joined. Hellmann asked and Covington spoke about the environmental work that will have to be done between the green field area between Round Rock and Georgetown. Covington said there is no rail on that piece of dirt. Hellmann asked and Covington said that section will have to be treated the same as the rest of the project. Hellmann asked and Covington said the $50,000 membership goes toward salaries, lobbyists in Washington and public outreach efforts. Covington said they use those local funds pretty frugally. Covington spoke about how the rail district contracts with the Austin San Antonio Corridor Council to provide administrative services for them. Hellmann asked about moving the freight line and Black described the process for the Council. Eason spoke about how some Council members would like for the City to drop out and then go back at a later time. Eason described how having a rail in Georgetown will be a huge benefit to the city and its economy. Eason spoke about even though people say there is no rail that is self supporting, there is also no highway that is self supporting. Black spoke about this being a multi -modal solution and how it can not just be about the rail system but improvements to highways as well. Eason spoke about the bigger vision and added future of the rail is to connect north as well. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said he does not have any questions and added it is a good follow up to a previous workshop that was held on this issue. There was much discussion. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.086 -- 4:10 PM Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned — 6:06 PM Appro ", 'i� ayor GeiSrge Garver City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 3 Pages Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:06 PM.