Members Todd Gloria, Chair Interim Mayor City of San Diego Judy Ritter, Vice Chair Mayor, Vista (Representing North County Inland) Mary Sessom Mayor, Lemon Grove (Representing East County) Lisa Shaffer TRANSPORTATION Councilmember, Encinitas (Representing North County Coastal) COMMITTEE Cheryl Cox Mayor, Chula Vista (Representing South County) AGENDA Ron Roberts, Supervisor County of San Diego Harry Mathis, Chairman Friday, February 21, 2014 Metropolitan Transit System Mark Packard, Vice Chair 9 a.m. to 12 noon North County Transit District SANDAG Board Room Tom Smisek 401 B Street, 7th Floor San Diego County Regional Airport Authority San Diego Alternates Kristine Alessio Vice Mayor, La Mesa (Representing East County) Lee Haydu AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Mayor, Del Mar (Representing North County Coastal) Sam Abed • 2013 TransNet PLAN OF FINANCE UPDATE Mayor, Escondido (Representing North County Inland) • FY 2015 TO FY 2019 TransNet AND TRANSIT Mike Woiwode Councilmember, Coronado RELATED REVENUES (Representing South County) Mark Kersey, Councilmember • INTERSTATE 805 BUS RAPID TRANSIT/47TH City of San Diego STREET TROLLEY STATION AREA PLANNING Greg Cox, Supervisor County of San Diego PROJECT Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman County of San Diego Al Ovrom Metropolitan Transit System
Rebecca Jones / John Aguilera North County Transit District PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING Lloyd Hubbs San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Advisory Members YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Laurie Berman / Bill Figge District 11, Caltrans Raymond Hunter, Sr. (Jamul) Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) Southern California Tribal MISSION STATEMENT Chairmen’s Association The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. Gary L. Gallegos SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, Executive Director, SANDAG and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region's quality of life.
San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to the Clerk of the Committee seated at the front table. Members of the public may address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Transportation Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
Public comments regarding the agenda can be sent to SANDAG via [email protected]. Please include the agenda item, your name, and your organization. Email comments should be received no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the Transportation Committee meeting. Any handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the Transportation Committee meeting should be received by the Clerk of the Committee no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting.
In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at www.sandag.org/meetings. Additionally, interested persons can sign up for e-notifications via our e-distribution list at either the SANDAG website or by sending an email request to [email protected].
SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión. 如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.
请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求.
SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices.
2 Rev. 012914 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, February 21, 2014
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the meeting minutes of January 17, 2014.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Transportation Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to Committee members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
CONSENT (3 through 5)
+3. FY 2014 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM AMENDMENT APPROVE (Sookyung Kim)
The Transportation Committee is asked to: (1) adopt Resolution No. 2014-11 approving the FY 2014 Transportation Development Act North County Transit District Article 4 Claim Amendment; and (2) direct staff to provide instructions to the County Office of Auditor Controller to revise the claim.
+4. MID-COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL RECOMMEND CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT (John Haggerty)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve advancing all four Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) proposers, into the interview phase of the CM/GC procurement process.
+5. FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION PROGRAM AND CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY REPORT (Michelle Merino)
This report presents year-end summary information for the Regional Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality federal funding programs. The report also discusses the use of programming tools to facilitate the delivery of regional projects in Federal Fiscal Year 2012/13.
3 REPORTS (6 through 12)
+6. PROPOSED FY 2014 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: BUENA VISTA APPROVE LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (Keith Greer)
The Transportation Committee is asked to: (1) authorize the Executive Director to enter into agreements with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation to accept $253,157 to pay for technical studies related to water quality and to add an elevated walkway into the environmental analysis of the project; and (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2014 Program Budget to increase the Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project budget (CIP 1200260) by $253,157.
+7. PROPOSED FY 2014 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: SOUTH LINE APPROVE RAIL FREIGHT CAPACITY PROJECT (Chip Finch)
The Transportation Committee is asked to: (1) authorize the Executive Director to execute the South Line Freight Capacity Project Memorandum Of Understanding with the City of Chula Vista in an amount not to exceed $390,000; and (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2014 Program Budget to increase the South Line Rail Freight Capacity Project (CIP 1300602) by $390,000.
+8. PROPOSED FY 2014 BUDGET AMENDMENT: STATE ROUTES 905/125/11 RECOMMEND CONNECTORS PROJECT (Mario Orso, Caltrans and Christina Casgar)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve an amendment to the FY 2014 Program Budget to add $800,000 for the right-of-way phase of the State Routes 905/125/11 Connectors Project (CIP 1390504); and (2) approve Amendment No. 13 to the 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
+9. 2013 TransNet PLAN OF FINANCE UPDATE (Ariana zur Nieden, RECOMMEND Marney Cox, and Richard Chavez)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance update, which incorporates changes to the various Early Action Program projects in the Interstate 15 Corridor, Interstate 5 (I-5) North Coast Corridor, and State Route 52 Corridor, and the Environmental Mitigation Program; and (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2014 Program Budget to incorporate funding for the I-5 Voigt Direct Access Ramp Project (CIP 1200507).
4 +10. FY 2015 TO FY 2019 TransNet AND TRANSIT RELATED REVENUES RECOMMEND (Sookyung Kim and Marney Cox)
By March 1 of each year, SANDAG provides revenue estimates for the upcoming fiscal year as well as a projection for the next four fiscal years to enable transit operators and local agencies to plan for capital projects and to determine operating subsidies. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the FY 2015 apportionments for Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and FY 2015 allocations for TransNet and State Transit Assistance (STA); and (2) approve the transit revenue estimates for FY 2016 to FY 2019 for TDA, TransNet, and FTA.
+11. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: DRAFT PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION MEASURES (Rachel Kennedy)
Performance measures are used to compare different multimodal transportation network scenarios and help the Board of Directors select a preferred network for the Regional Plan. The Transportation Committee is asked to discuss and consider approval of the draft performance measures for use in the development of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
+12. INTERSTATE 805 BUS RAPID TRANSIT/47TH STREET TROLLEY STATION INFORMATION AREA PLANNING PROJECT (Danielle Kochman)
This item will provide an update on the community planning process to develop initial alternatives to serve Southeastern San Diego with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and provide a connection between the BRT system and the trolley system. The Transportation Committee will be presented with the four alternatives that will be evaluated in the next phases of the project.
13. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
If the five speaker limit for public comments was exceeded at the beginning of this agenda, other public comments will be taken at this time. Subjects of previous agenda items may not again be addressed under public comment.
14. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, March 7, 2014, at 9 a.m.
15. ADJOURNMENT
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
5
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-1 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS
JANUARY 17, 2014
The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Vice Chair Judy Ritter (North County Inland) at 9:01 a.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Transportation Committee member attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Cheryl Cox (South County), and a second by Councilmember Lisa Shaffer (North County Coastal), the Transportation Committee approved the meeting minutes of December 13, 2013. Yes – Councilmember Shaffer, Vice Chair Ritter, Mayor Cox, Councilmember Mark Kersey (City of San Diego), Chairman Harry Mathis (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), Chairman Bill Horn (North County Transit District [NCTD]), Tom Smisek (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]). No - None. Abstain - None. Absent – Mayor Mary Sessom (East County), Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego).
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Mike Werner, member of the public, submitted written comments and spoke about concerns related to NCTD operations.
John Wotzka, member of the public, submitted written comments and spoke about various transportation matters.
Councilmember Kersey introduced himself to the Transportation Committee as the new alternate member for the City of San Diego, sitting in as the primary member today in Chair Todd Gloria’s absence.
CONSENT (3 through 5)
3. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: STATUS UPDATE (INFORMATION)
This report provided an overview of the progress made through September 30, 2013, for projects awarded through the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program.
4. TransNet ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM: ANNUAL STATUS REPORT (INFORMATION)
This report provided the annual status update on the implementation of the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program.
5. SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAMS STATUS UPDATE (INFORMATION)
This report provided an overview of the progress made to date by the grant recipients in each program.
Action: Consent Item Nos. 3 through 5 were presented for information only.
REPORTS (6 through 9)
6. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF TransNet PROJECTS (APPROVE)
Keith Greer, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item.
John Wotzka, member of the public, suggested the use of funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging project to repair the Point Loma Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Action: Upon a motion by NCTD Chairman Horn, and a second by MTS Chairman Mathis, the Transportation Committee authorized the Executive Director to execute a Second Amendment to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to allow for an additional $400,000 of funding and an extension of the MOA until December 31, 2016. Yes – Councilmember Shaffer, Vice Chair Ritter, Mayor Sessom, Mayor Cox, Councilmember Kersey, Supervisor Roberts, MTS Chairman Mathis, NCTD Chairman Horn, Mr. Smisek. No - None. Abstain - None. Absent – None.
7. PROPOSED FY 2014 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENTS: REGIONAL BIKE EARLY ACTION PROGRAM PROJECTS (RECOMMEND)
Chris Kluth, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item.
Marco Montiel, member of the public, spoke in favor of the item and about safety concerns.
Delfina Guzman, member of the public, spoke in favor of the item and about health, economic, and safety concerns.
Monique Lopez, Environmental Health Coalition, spoke in favor of the item.
Roddy Jerome, Environmental Health Coalition, spoke in favor of the item.
Nicole Burgess, Bike San Diego, spoke in favor of the item.
Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Shaffer, and a second by Supervisor Roberts, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the proposed budget amendments for seven Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (EAP) Projects (CIPs 1223014, 1223016, 1223017, 1223020, 1223022, 1223052, 1223053); and (2) approve one new
Regional Bike Plan EAP Project (CIP 1223055). Yes – Councilmember Shaffer, Vice Chair Ritter, Mayor Sessom, Mayor Cox, Councilmember Kersey, Supervisor Roberts, MTS Chairman Mathis, NCTD Chairman Horn, Mr. Smisek. No - None. Abstain - None. Absent – None.
8. 2012 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 12 (RECOMMEND)
Michelle Merino, Associate Financial Analyst, presented the item.
Amendment No. 12 is a regular quarterly formal amendment and reflected changes to projects as requested by member agencies.
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Sessom, and a second by Supervisor Roberts, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution 2014-07 approving Amendment No. 12 to the 2012 RTIP. Yes – Councilmember Shaffer, Vice Chair Ritter, Mayor Sessom, Mayor Cox, Councilmember Kersey, Supervisor Roberts, MTS Chairman Mathis, NCTD Chairman Horn, Mr. Smisek. No - None. Abstain - None. Absent – None.
9. 2013 TransNet PLAN OF FINANCE UPDATE (DISCUSSION)
Ariana zur Nieden, Associate Regional Planner, introduced the item.
Richard Chavez, Principal Engineer, provided an update on work to date on the Plan of Finance.
Marney Cox, Chief Economist, provided an update on revenue and cost projections.
Nicole Burgess, Bike San Diego, spoke in favor of walkable and bikeable communities.
Action: This item was presented for discussion only.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
11. UPCOMING MEETINGS
Vice Chair Ritter announced the February 7, 2014, meeting is cancelled. The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, February 21, 2014, at 9 a.m.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Ritter adjourned the meeting at 10:01 a.m.
Attachment: Attendance sheet
Meeting Start Time: 9:01 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 10:01 a.m.
CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 17, 2014
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA/ MEMBER/ JURISDICTION NAME ATTENDING Comments ORGANIZATION ALTERNATE
City of Encinitas Lisa Shaffer Member Yes North County Coastal City of Del Mar Lee Haydu Alternate Yes Judy Ritter City of Vista Member Yes (Vice Chair) North County Inland City of Escondido Sam Abed Alternate Yes
City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom Member Yes East County City of La Mesa Art Madrid Alternate No
City of Chula Vista Cheryl Cox Member Yes South County City of Coronado Mike Woiwode Alternate Yes
---- Todd Gloria (Chair) Member No
City of San Diego ---- Mark Kersey Alternate Yes
---- VACANT Alternate --
---- Ron Roberts Member Yes
County of San Diego ---- Greg Cox Alternate Yes
___ Dianne Jacob Alternate No
Metropolitan Transit MTS Harry Mathis Member Yes System MTS Al Ovrom Alternate Yes
NCTD Bill Horn Member Yes North County Transit NCTD Rebecca Jones Alternate No District NCTD John Aguilera Alternate No
Tom Smisek Member Yes San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Lloyd Hubbs Alternate Yes
ADVISORY/LIAISON ---- Laurie Berman Member No Caltrans ___ Bill Figge Alternate Yes
Raymond Hunter Sr. Member Yes SCTCA _____ Allen Lawson Member No
Johnny Dunning NCTD Yes Alt. as appointed
Paul Jablonski MTS Yes Other Attendees Chairman, Ex Officio Jack Dale No SANDAG Member
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-3 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
FY 2014 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT File Number 1500300 CLAIM AMENDMENT
Introduction Recommendation On June 28, 2013, the Board of Directors approved The Transportation Committee is asked to: the Transportation Development Act (TDA) (1) adopt Resolution No. 2014-11 approving allocations for FY 2014. North County Transit the FY 2014 Transportation Development District (NCTD) has since submitted a request to Act North County Transit District Article 4 amend its Article 4 TDA claim. Claim Amendment, in substantially the Discussion same form as shown in Attachment 1; and (2) direct staff to provide instructions to the NCTD submitted a request to amend its FY 2014 County Office of Auditor Controller to TDA Article 4 claim that would reduce operating revise the claim. support by approximately $3.6 million and increase the capital support by approximately $3.3 million. The reduction to NCTD’s operating support would be offset by the use of prior year deferred revenue to fully fund operations. The increase to the capital support is needed to fund additional costs associated with the SPRINTER including replacement of air bags and consolidation of operations control center from its current offsite facility to the main NCTD building. The overall NCTD claim would be reduced by $289,977 which would be transferred to SANDAG to implement capital projects on behalf of NCTD. This amount would be reflected in the FY 2015 transit Capital Improvement Program scheduled for the March 2014 Transportation Committee and Board meetings as well as in the capital section of the Draft FY 2015 Program Budget. The actual transfer to SANDAG would be included with the FY 2015 claims scheduled for the June 2014 Transportation Committee and Board meetings. The NCTD Board has delegated the authority to submit TDA claim amendments to its Executive Director.
JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director
Attachment: 1. Resolution No. 2014-11, Article 4 TDA Claim Amendment
Key Staff Contact: Sookyung Kim, (619) 699-6909, [email protected] Attachment 1
RESOLUTION
401 B Street, Suite 800 NO. 2014-11 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 • Fax (619) 699-1905 www.sandag.org
APPROVING REVISIONS TO FY 2014 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS ARTICLE 4 FIXED ROUTE GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimant listed below has submitted claims for the FY 2014 TDA funds pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 4 of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) listed below require revisions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29532 of the California Government Code (CGC), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has analyzed the claims and determined that the claim conforms substantially to the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG finds this claim amendment for FY 2014 to be in conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG has analyzed the allocations and found that the revisions are warranted pursuant to Section 6659(c) of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board delegated the authority to amend TDA claims to the Transportation Committee;
NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Transportation Committee as follows:
1. That the Transportation Committee, pursuant to Section 6659(c) does hereby approve revision to the claim as shown below:
Previous Revised Claim No. Claimant Adjustment +(-) Allocation Allocation
14041000 North County Transit District
Operating $19,816,383 ($3,624,977) $16,191,406
Capital $10,128,930 $3,335,000 $13,463,930
Total $29,945,313 (289,977) $29,655,336
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-11 Page 2
2. That the Transportation Committee does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit instructions and payment schedules to the San Diego County Auditor Controller as are necessary and legal for the adjustments of these claims.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21 day of February, 2014.
______ATTEST: ______CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico.
3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND
MID-COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION File Number CIP 1257001 MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
Introduction Recommendation On October 17, 2013, SANDAG issued a request for The Transportation Committee is asked to proposals (RFP) to procure a construction recommend that the Board of Directors manager/general contractor (CM/GC) to construct approve advancing all four Mid-Coast the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, and two Los Corridor Transit Project Construction Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) corridor projects – the Elvira to Morena Double proposers, listed on Attachment 1, into the Track Project and the San Diego River Bridge Double interview phase of the CM/GC Track Project. Four proposals were received and procurement process. evaluated in response to the RFP. The selected CM/GC will provide pre-construction services during design for each project, and it also would provide construction services if a guaranteed maximum price is successfully negotiated for each project.
The CM/GC selection process, as approved by the Board of Directors, includes: (1) evaluation of the proposals based on the technical evaluation criteria included in the RFP; (2) shortlisting for interviews; and (3) CM/GC selection and authorization by the Board to negotiate contracts.
Discussion
The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (Mid-Coast Project) is a TransNet Early Action Program project that will extend the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Blue Line Trolley from the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego, through the UC San Diego campus, and on to University City and the Westfield University Towne Centre. In April 2013, the Board approved using the CM/GC contracting method for the Mid-Coast Project. In June 2013, the Board also approved adding the two LOSSAN corridor projects to the planned CM/GC procurement.
The CM/GC contracting method allows the owner to bring the contractor onto a project early to provide pre-construction services to assist in design review and development of construction plans, project specifications, and construction phasing. During the pre-construction services phase, the CM/GC also will engage in constructability and value engineering review and important stakeholder coordination. The CM/GC procurement establishes a best value selection process based on a combination of a proposer’s technical qualifications/expertise, interview, and cost proposal.
In June 2013, the Board approved the evaluation process and criteria for selecting a CM/GC. The scoring of proposals has three elements: (1) Technical (150 points maximum); (2) Interview (50 points maximum); and (3) Cost Factor (50 points maximum). The technical evaluation phase has been completed, and the Transportation Committee will be asked to recommend to the Board the shortlist of proposers that would move to the interview stage of the evaluation process.
Upon completion of the interviews, SANDAG would open the sealed price proposals and score them. Cost proposal scores would be added to the technical and interview scores to determine the total score. The three scoring elements would then be used to rank each proposer, and a recommendation for selection of a CM/GC would be brought to the Transportation Committee and Board for action.
In response to the RFP, SANDAG received four proposals. All proposers are joint venture firms (Attachment 1). The proposals have been evaluated by SANDAG for responsiveness and scored by an evaluation committee consisting of members from SANDAG, MTS, North County Transit District, UC San Diego, City of San Diego, and Caltrans. The Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria consists of the following seven categories with the maximum points listed below:
Team Experience 20 points Contractor Experience 35 points Management Experience 10 points Subcontracting Plan 20 points Pre-construction Phase 20 points Construction Phase 30 points Safety 15 points Total 150 points
The averages of the technical scores for the proposers are within a ten point range. Given the closeness of the technical evaluation, the evaluation committee recommends that all proposers be shortlisted and interviewed.
JIM LINTHICUM Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation
Attachment(s): 1. Construction Manager/General Contractor Proposer List
Key Staff Contact: John Haggerty, (619) 699-6937, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
Mid-Coast Corridor Project Construction Manager/General Contractor Proposer List (in alphabetical order)
Proposer: Joint Venture Firms:
• Kiewit/Sundt a joint venture of: Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. & Sundt Construction Inc.
• Mid Coast Transit Constructors a Joint Venture of: Stacy & Witbeck, Inc, Skanska USA & Herzog Contracting Corp
• San Diego Transit Constructors: Flatiron West, Inc., URS Energy & Construction Inc., & Granite Construction Company
• WCAR: Walsh Construction Company, Clark Construction Group, Atkinson Constructors, LP & Railworks Projects, Inc.
3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-5 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 REGIONAL File Number 1500000 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY REPORT
Introduction
This report presents a year-end summary of the federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs, including the use of financing tools and how these impact the year-end balances. In addition to the summary, this report includes a brief synopsis of actions to be taken this year to advance future federal funds on high priority regional projects.
Discussion
RSTP and CMAQ funds are apportioned to the region by formula. Apportioned funds are available for programming in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and obligations can be made on eligible projects. Per state law (Assembly Bill 1012 (Torlakson, 1999)), regions have three years to obligate apportioned funds or risk losing them. Staff monitors the level of obligations for these apportioned funds and from time to time, takes certain actions to insure that no funds are lost from the region.
RSTP and CMAQ Year-End Summaries
Table 1 shows the combined balance of available RSTP and CMAQ funds at the beginning of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2012/13, which was approximately $3.2 million (see row 1). The region received approximately $75.7 million in apportionments during FFY 2012/13 (see row 2).
Several adjustments to current and prior year apportionments were made throughout the federal fiscal year including actual versus estimated apportionment reconciliation and the reduction in annual apportionments for RSTP and CMAQ with the passage of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). The total available decreased by approximately $11.9 million (see row 3) resulting in net available revenues of approximately $67 million (see row 4) for FFY 2012/13.
The amount of obligations approved in FFY 2012/13 totaled approximately $74.8 million (see row 7). This amount includes approximately $68.7 million in funds programmed and obligated in FFY 2012/13 (see row 5) and approximately $6 million in obligations were approved through the Expedited Project Selection Process (EPSP) (see row 6). EPSP allows the obligation of funds
programmed in a year different than the current year as long as they are programmed within the first four years of the RTIP.
The obligations were offset by approximately $4.5 million in de-obligations (see row 9) due to a project savings on the State Route 76 (SR 76) freeway widening project and the SR 125 wetlands mitigation (see row 8).
Table 1. RSTP and CMAQ Summary FFY 2012/13
RSTP CMAQ Total Notes ($000’s) ($000’s) ($000's)
1. Beginning Balance $3,214 ($1) $3,213 Ending balance for FFY 2011/12
These amounts are based on 2. FFY 2012/13 Apportionments $39,211 $36,443 $75,654 estimates provided by Caltrans Local Assistance and FHWA.
3. Adjustments to FFY 2012/3 Adjustments included adjustments to RSTP funds for oversight and FFY and prior apportionments ($4,961) ($6,950) ($11,912) 2011/12 apportionment adjustments. 4. Total Available FFY 2012/13 $37,464 $29,492 $66,955 Obligations
Projects programmed in FFY 2012/13 in the RTIP include: I-5/Genesee Interchange, I-805 HOV/Managed 5. Programmed Obligations ($36,827) ($31,881) ($68,708) Lanes - North, I-805 HOV/Managed Lanes - South, SR 52 Extension, Rideshare, and the Freeway Service Patrol.
$2.3M for I-5 Managed Lanes and 6. Obligations through EPSP ($6,060) $0 ($6,060) $3.7M for SR-76 East 7. Total obligations ($42,887) ($31,881) ($74,768) De-obligations
8. De-obligations and savings Savings occurred from SR 125 from closed-out projects $4,466 $0 $4,466 Wetlands Mitigation and SR 76 Widening projects
9. Total de-obligations $4,466 $0 $4,466 10. Ending Balance for FFY ($957) ($2,389) ($3,346) (sum of rows 4, 7, and 9)
In summary, the combined balance at the end of FFY 2012/13 for both programs ends with negative amounts for RSTP ($957,000) and CMAQ ($2.4 million) (see Row 10). This negative number represents the advancing of funds from future years and allows the region to utilize the funding more efficiently. Advancing funds is done in anticipation of the following year’s apportionment and
2
done in consultation with Caltrans and FHWA. Since the end of year balance is carried over to the following year’s calculation, when combined with the new FY 2013/14 apportionment, SANDAG will have additional revenues for RSTP and CMAQ funds.
August Redistribution of Obligational Authority
One of the impacts of fully obligating the region’s federal apportionment is the possibility to increase the region’s obligation authority (OA) by obligating more than the available OA balance. Near the end of the fiscal year, the State of California may propose to the federal government to increase its available OA by taking OA from other states that are falling behind in the delivery of projects and the obligation of their funds. This can only occur when enough regions and the state have obligated all of their apportionment. SANDAG, in cooperation with Caltrans, and other project sponsors, work to maximize the obligation of its apportionment each year. For this reason, as the state was seeking to obtain unused OA from other states, SANDAG received approximately $6.2 million in additional OA in FY 2012/13. As discussed previously, additional obligational authority does not increase the amount of apportionment coming to the region, but rather, it provides the region greater flexibility to advance future apportionments as well as to fully obligate federal funds that benefit both the SANDAG region and the state.
Upcoming Opportunities in FFY 2013/14
The region will continue to focus on obligating all RSTP and CMAQ federal formula funds apportioned to the region in a way that best leverages local funds. Staff will work with Caltrans to develop and implement strategies to maximize the use of federal funds and reduce the need for local funds. Staff also will continue focusing on obligating federal funds early in order to put the agency in a position to receive additional obligation authority through the August redistribution process, as discussed above (August Redistribution of Obligational Authority).
JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director
Key Staff Contact: Michelle Merino, (619) 595-5608, [email protected]
3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-6 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
PROPOSED FY 2014 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: File Number 1200201 BUENA VISTA LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
Introduction Recommendation SANDAG as part of the North Coast Corridor The Transportation Committee is asked to: Project is undergoing engineering studies and (1) authorize the Executive Director to environmental analysis for the enhancement of enter into agreements with the National Buena Vista Lagoon. On July 20, 2012, the Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Transportation Committee approved SANDAG Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation to accept accepting the status as the lead agency under the $253,157 to pay for technical studies California Environmental Quality Act at the related to water quality and to add an request of the California Department of Fish and elevated walkway into the environmental Wildlife (DFW). The project is being funded from analysis of the project; and (2) approve an the Interstate 5 Express Lanes capital budget and amendment to the FY 2014 Program the cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad. Budget to increase the Buena Vista Additional funding is being proposed from the Lagoon Enhancement Project budget National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the (CIP 1200260) by $253,157. Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation for technical studies related to water quality and to add an elevated walkway into the environmental analysis of the project.
Discussion
The Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project would enhance and restore approximately 200 acres of wetland habitat at the Buena Vista Lagoon. Without significant enhancement, the lagoon would most likely become a vegetated freshwater marsh and riparian woodland-meadow. This degradation would reduce or eliminate wetland functions and values and result in increased concerns about vectors (mosquitos), flooding, water quality impairment, and impacts to aesthetic resources.
Since becoming lead agency, SANDAG has met with several stakeholder groups, and conducted a public scoping meeting on May 9, 2013, to solicit input from the public on the types of environmental issues, mitigation, and alternatives to address in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). By the close of the scoping process, nearly 160 people, organizations, and agencies had submitted comments. Many perspectives are represented in the comments, reflecting the local and regional values of the public regarding the future of the Buena Vista Lagoon. Two organizations,
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (on behalf of the DFW) and the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation have indicated their desire to contribute funding towards the EIR.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has expressed its interest to contribute $228,157 to pay for analysis that addresses water quality and sediment disposal, and to including a new task to develop a water quality modeling tool of the source and fate of bacteria and nutrients in the lagoon which will help with planning for water quality improvements (Attachment 1).
SANDAG also has been approached by the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation about its desire to include an elevated pedestrian boardwalk to the east and separated from Carlsbad Boulevard as a new project feature to be evaluated in the EIR. The Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation has committed $25,000 for the additional effort to include this feature into the larger enhancement project (Attachment 2). These funds are being added in order to study the environmental impacts of the proposed construction of the pedestrian boardwalk. Upon completion of environmental analysis, if the concept is found to be feasible, potential funding sources for final design and construction would be sought in the future through the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation and/or other stakeholders.
None of the proposed work above would delay the distribution of the Draft EIR scheduled for November 2014. Table 1 below shows the current and proposed project budget and changes.
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Budget Change
Project Funding Source Current Proposed Change Budget Budget
1200501 TransNet $800,000 $800,000 --
1200260 City of Carlsbad $100,000 $100,000 --
1200260 City of Oceanside $100,000 $100,000 -- 1200260 National Fish and Wildlife $0 $228,157 $228,157 Foundation
1200260 Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation $0 $25,000 $25,000
Total $1,000,000 $1,253,157 $253,157
Next Steps
Pending action by the Transportation Committee, staff would enter into agreements with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation to cover the work discussed above. Upon execution of the agreements, the Buena Vista Enhancement Project (CIP 1200260) would be increased by $253,157. These organizations would be invoiced as work is completed on these tasks and prior to the release of the Draft EIR.
2
Due to the large number of stakeholders interested in the outcome of the lagoon enhancement project, SANDAG staff is expecting a significant amount of public comment on the Draft EIR. After the public review of the Draft EIR set for November 2014, this project will likely return to the Transportation Committee to discuss the remaining project budget and any necessary changes required to finalize the EIR.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. National Fish and Wildlife Service Foundation Grant 2. Letter from Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation
Key Staff Contact: Keith Greer, (619) 699-7390, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1
NATIONAL FISH and WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 1133 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 P 202-857-0166 I F 202-857-0162 I nfwf.org
January 10, 2014
Mr. Keith Greer Senior Regional Environmental Planner San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101
RE: Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project — Water Quality and Sediment Disposal Studies
Dear Mr. Greer:
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation manages the California Environmental Management Fund for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has approved funding for the above-referenced project as part of the Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project. Specifically, funding totaling $228,156.68 has been authorized for water quality and material disposal studies as follows:
Task Name Task Description Budget Develop Sediment This task will identify, analyze, and evaluate $13 288 72 Disposal/Beneficial options for the beneficial reuse and disposal of Reuse Options sediment excavated/dredged from the lagoon. Conduct Water This task will determine the water quality $59 662 56 Quality Analysis conditions of the lagoon for various alternatives for EIR being analyzed in the ER. Numerical This task will develop a comprehensive modeling of numerical model to analyze two primary water bacteria and quality impairment in the lagoon; bacteria and $155 205 40 nutrient levels with nutrients. The model will allow for better SCCWRP planning to improve the water quality in the lagoon. TOTAL $228,156.68
We look forward to working with you on this project.
Sincerely,
l1imothy J. DiCintio Senior Vice President, Impact-Directed Environmental Accounts
4 PRINTED DN POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED PAPER Attachment 2
5
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-7 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
PROPOSED FY 2014 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: File Number CIP 1300602 SOUTH LINE RAIL FREIGHT CAPACITY PROJECT
Introduction Recommendation The City of Chula Vista would like to provide The Transportation Committee is asked to: (1) funding to SANDAG to implement roadway and authorize the Executive Director to execute traffic signal improvements at the intersection of the South Line Freight Capacity Project Industrial Boulevard and Anita Street. The Memorandum Of Understanding with the City improvements would be constructed in of Chula Vista in an amount not to exceed conjunction with the South Line Freight Capacity $390,000, in substantially the same form as Project at the grade crossing at Anita Street. This Attachment 2; and (2) approve an fund transfer would simplify coordination and amendment to the FY 2014 Program Budget scheduling of construction, eliminate re-work, and to increase the South Line Rail Freight enhance traffic circulation at the intersection and Capacity Project (CIP 1300602) by $390,000, in crossing. On June 19, 2012, the City of Chula Vista substantially the same form as Attachment 1. City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a fund transfer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SANDAG.
Discussion
The South Line Rail Freight Capacity Project, CIP 1300602, includes improvements to the railroad grade crossing at Anita Street in Chula Vista. The project work includes replacing rail, grade crossing equipment, and pedestrian improvements.
Currently, Anita Street narrows at the railroad crossing. Due to the narrow road width of Anita Street near the crossing, tractor trailer trucks are prohibited from making a right turn from north bound Industrial Boulevard to eastbound on Anita Street. The City of Chula Vista would like to improve the traffic circulation in the area by improving the traffic signal intersection and has approved funding for traffic signal modifications to replace the existing traffic signal with new poles and widen the intersection. However, implementation of improvements to the intersection without widening the railroad grade crossing would not accomplish the City’s enhanced traffic circulation goals.
The CPUC has reviewed and approved the revised crossing traffic signal intersection layout and interfaces.
The City of Chula Vista would like SANDAG to construct the traffic signal and intersection work with the grade crossing work to: simplify construction staging; reduce coordination, rework, and conflicts; and limit disruption to the community.
With approval of this action, the City of Chula Vista would transfer $390,000 to SANDAG for cost of the design, construction management, and a portion of the improvements. The City’s local TransNet funding would be used for roadway improvements at the Anita Street and Industrial Boulevard intersection on items such as: demolition, curb, gutter, sidewalk, roadway pavement, storm drains, and traffic signal improvements. These improvements would benefit both MTS and the City of Chula Vista by improving traffic circulation at the intersection and across the tracks, and enhancing the traffic preemption system by interconnecting grade crossing signaling and traffic signaling systems.
The City of Chula Vista has funds budgeted for traffic signal improvements on Industrial Boulevard at Anita Street and has authorized the City Manager to enter into a MOU (Attachment 2) for the transfer of the funds.
JIM LINTHICUM Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation
Attachment: 1. Proposed Budget Amendment for CIP 1300602, South Line Freight Capacity Project 2. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Chula Vista
Key Staff Contact: Chip Finch, (619) 595-5617, [email protected]
2 Program Budget Amendment for CIP 1300602 Attachment 1 South Line Rail Freight Capacity
Project Number: 1300602 Corridor Director: Bruce Schmith RTIP Number: SAN27 Project Manager: Pete d'Ablaing Project Name: South Line Rail Freight Capacity PM Phone Number: 619-699-1906
PROJECT LIMITS SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE On trolley system from Palomar Street station to San Ysidro Project will be built in four phases (approved by the California station. Transportation Committee). As of June 2013, construction of phase 1 is complete, phase 2 is nearing completion, phase 3 is under construction and phase 4 is in final design.
PROJECT SCOPE MAJOR MILESTONES Communication enhancements, crossovers, and signals. Draft Environmental Document Jan-10 Final Environmental Document Dec-09 Ready to Advertise Jan-10 Begin Construction Jun-10 Open to Public Jul-15 Close-Out Jun-16
SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 TOTAL
Administration $343 $245 $83 $300 $300 $300 $381 $300 $381 $0 $1,488 $1,488
Environmental Document 1,058 30 0 24 30 0 24 0 0 0 1,112 1,112
Design 595 1,800 1,265 750 1,089 305 540 216 216 0 3,666 3,705
Right-of-Way Support 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction Support 0 1,000 9 1,390 1,390 1,541 2,532 245 245 0 4,176 4,176
Construction Capital 6,769 5,470 4,609 7,000 7,351 16,000 16,861 5,485 5,485 0 40,724 41,075
Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 10 10 9 9 5 5 0 24 24 Total SANDAG $8,766 $8,545 $5,966 $9,474 $10,170 $18,155 $20,347 $6,251 $6,332 $0 $51,191 $51,581
CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 TOTAL
Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total SANDAG & Caltrans $8,766 $8,545 $5,966 $9,474 $10,170 $18,155 $20,347 $6,251 $6,332 $0 $51,191 $51,581
TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 TOTAL
STATE:
85130001 TCIF 6,400 6,995 4,978 8,724 9,420 15,067 16,388 5,035 5,035 0 42,221 42,221
LOCAL:
91000100 TransNet -LSI 0 0 0 0 0 0 390 0 0 0 0 390 91000100 TransNet -Border 2,366 1,550 988 750 750 3,088 3,569 1,216 1,297 0 8,970 8,970
TOTAL: $8,766 $8,545 $5,966 $9,474 $10,170 $18,155 $20,347 $6,251 $6,332 $0 $51,191 $51,581
3 Attachment 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING SOUTHLINE FRIEGHT CAPACITY PROJECT SANDAG CONTRACT NUMBER 5004427 OWCP/CIP 1300602
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into effective as of this _____ day of _____, 2014, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) and the City of Chula Vista (“Chula Vista”) for the purpose of working cooperatively on improvements to Anita Street/Industrial Boulevard Intersection. Individually, SANDAG and Chula Vista may be referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive part of this MOU:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (“CITY”) has a certain project, Capital Improvement Project (TF-319) “Signal Modification – Anita & Industrial.”
WHEREAS, TF-319 includes the relocation of existing 1A standards (10’ pole), installation of traffic signal LED indicators,Draft pedestrian push buttons, new signs, mast arms and guard rails (“SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS”); and
WHEREAS TF-319 also involves the widening of a portion of Industrial Boulevard, including certain roadway improvements, such as curb, gutter, pavement, sidewalk, pavement delineation, signage, and pedestrian ramps (“ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS”); and
WHEREAS, TF-319 has been included in the Regional Transportation Program (“RTIP”) as part of project CHV-60; and
WHEREAS, CITY has budgeted $404,536 towards TF-319; and
WHEREAS the performance of the work for TF-319 is inextricably tied to a portion of a major SANDAG project known as the “South Line Freight Capacity Project,” SANDAG project No. 1300602 , included in the RTIP as project SAN27 ), based on the proximity of TF-319 to SANDAG’s railway crossing and the interaction between the roadway, signals, and crossing; and
WHEREAS, based on the nature of the interaction between TF-319 and the SANDAG PROJECT(S), the City and SANDAG have decided that it would be in the best interest of both parties to perform the work for TF-319 and the related portion of the SANDAG PROJECT(S) at one time “COMBINED PROJECT”; and
WHEREAS the City has agreed that SANDAG will construct, administer the contract, and act as the lead for the construction of the COMBINED PROJECT;
WHEREAS, in consideration of SANDAG performing the work, acting as the lead agency, and administering the construction contract in cooperation with CITY for the COMBINED PROJECT, Chula Vista will contribute a total of $390,000 to SANDAG in Fiscal Year 2014 (“CONTRIBUTION”). $200,000 of the CONTRIBUTION will be from its local TransNet funds shall be used for the ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. $190,000 shall be used for the SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS; and
Page 1 of 5 4 WHEREAS, the balance of $14,536 budgeted in TF-319 of the local Traffic Signal fund RTIP project CHV60 shall be held by the City of Chula Vista and used towards plan check and inspection fees by City of Chula Vista for the ROADWAY AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, and no invoice to SANDAG for plan check and inspection will be required for the ROADWAY AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS; and
WHEREAS, the COMBINED PROJECT improvements are of regional importance to the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), Chula Vista, SANDAG, and the public as their installation is expected to reduce delays attributed to traffic congestion, permit increased frequencies of the Trolley, and improve mobility, goods movement, and safety; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG intends to utilize its on-call engineering services consultants to complete the design as described in this MOU; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG intends to construct the COMBINED PROJECT as part of the South Line Freight Capacity Project, SANDAG project No.1300602; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to memorialize their agreement in this MOU to carry out the purposes set forth above.
AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in considerationDraft of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. To coordinate design and construction of the COMBINED PROJECT related improvements at Anita Street/Industrial Boulevard railroad grade crossings including, but not limited to, modifying the existing traffic signal, installing curb gutter and sidewalk, raised center medians, pavement overlay, and pavement delineation and signage to improve rail and traffic capacity and operation. SANDAG shall prepare the improvement plans for construction in cooperation with City of Chula Vista. SANDAG shall be responsible for approval of the railroad improvement plans by the rail operating entity, San Diego Trolley, and by the California Public Utilities commission (CPUC). Chula Vista shall review and approve street improvement, traffic signal and traffic handling plans as prepared by SANDAG.
2. SANDAG will bid the approved plans, award a construction contract in accordance with its policies and manage the construction of the COMBINED PROJECT including inspection and changes. SANDAG may at its discretion bid and construct the ROADWAY AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT in a larger construction contract as part of the SANDAG CIP program. Chula Vista shall provide access including permits, right of entry and use of city rights-of-way for the construction of the COMBINED PROJECT. Chula Vista shall have access to construction site(s) for review of construction progress and acceptability for work within the City right-of-way. Review of construction by Chula Vista shall be at no additional cost to the ROADWAY AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Chula Vista shall notify SANDAG of work not found to be compliance with the ROADWAY AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT construction documents. SANDAG will evaluate identified non-compliant work and notify Chula Vista of corrective actions. SANDAG shall confer with Chula Vista prior to authorizing changes to the project that affect safety, operations, maintenance, cost or project completion. Substantive changes to the project work or cost within the City right-of-way shall require concurrence by Chula Vista for approval of design and additional funding, if required.
Page 2 of 5 5 3. Chula Vista will pay SANDAG an amount not to exceed $390,000 in FY 2013/2014 to be used for Improvement costs and shall include all expenses incurred by SANDAG for the ROADWAY AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, including consultant costs, construction cost, claims, litigation, or other liability. Upon execution of the MOU, SANDAG shall invoice the City of Chula Vista $390,000. The City of Chula Vista shall pay the invoice to SANDAG within 30 days of receipt.
a. In the event SANDAG believes this amount will be exceeded, SANDAG will notify City of Chula Vista and the parties will meet to discuss whether an amendment to the MOU is appropriate. Chula Vista, however, shall have no obligation to pay any costs in excess of those identified in this MOU.
b. SANDAG shall provide Chula Vista with invoices detailing the expense incurred and any supporting documents requested by Chula Vista within 45 days of such expenditures, so that Chula Vista may confirm that the payments were made for work performed under this MOU. The City of Chula will have ten calendar days from the date the invoice is sent to review, request additional supporting documents, and raise objections or concerns. Unless an objection or request for additional supporting documentation is received from the City of Chula Vista following the tenth calendar day, SANDAG will authorize payment to the contractor.
4. The CONTRIBUTION can be expended for both the design and construction at SANDAG’s discretion. Draft 5. SANDAG shall use one or more of its existing on-call engineering consultants to perform work on the SIGNAL AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
6. Chula Vista agrees to provide staff support and cooperation on the improvement plan review and approval, including, but not limited to, any staff support or cooperation needed to defend any claims or litigation that may arise on the design. To the extent that staff support or cooperation is needed to defend claims or litigation, such support and cooperation shall not exceed the amounts Chula Vista is otherwise obligated to provide under this MOU.
7. SANDAG shall implement this work as part of the South Line Freight Capacity Project CIP #1306002.
8. Neither Chula Vista nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANDAG shall fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless Chula Vista, all officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU.
9. Neither SANDAG nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Chula Vista under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Chula Vista shall fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless SANDAG, all officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Page 3 of 5 6 Chula Vista under this MOU.
10. That all obligations of SANDAG under the terms of this MOU are subject to the appropriation of the required resources by SANDAG and the approval of the SANDAG Board of Directors or Transportation Committee.
11. Any notice required or permitted under this MOU may be personally served on the other Party, by the Party giving notice, or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses:
For SANDAG For the City of Chula Vista 401 B Street, Suite 800 Public Works Department San Diego, CA 92101 276 Fourth Avenue Attn: Chip Finch Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Frank Rivera
12. That unless it is amended by the Parties in writing, this MOU shall terminate on December 31, 2014, or on such earlier or later date as the Parties may agree to in writing.
13. The indemnification provisions of this MOU shall survive termination of the MOU. 14. This MOU shallDraft be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this MOU, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Diego, State of California.
15. All terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the Parties hereto and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
16. For purposes of this MOU, the relationship of the Parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint ventures or partners. The parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel, agents, consultants, and operations.
17. No alteration or variation of the terms of this MOU shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the Parties hereto.
18. Nothing in the provisions of this MOU is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third-parties to this MOU or affect the legal liability of the Parties to this MOU to third-parties.
19. This MOU may be executed in any number of identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party has signed one such counterpart.
20. This Agreement shall be deemed executed on the date on which the last Party signs this MOU.
Page 4 of 5 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this MOU effective on the day and year first above written.
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CITY OF CHULA VISTA
______Gary L. Gallegos Richard A. Hopkins Executive Director Director of Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Draft ______Office of General Counsel Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
Page 5 of 5 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-8 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND
PROPOSED FY 2014 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: File Number 1390504 STATE ROUTES 905/125/11 CONNECTORS PROJECT
Introduction Recommendation On May 24, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors The Transportation Committee is asked to approved the funding for the design of the recommend that the Board of Directors: State Route 905/125/11 Connectors Project. The (1) approve an amendment to the FY 2014 Project includes three ramps/connectors: westbound Program Budget to add $800,000 for the State Route SR 905 (SR 905) to northbound SR 125, right-of-way phase of the State Routes eastbound SR 905 to northbound SR 125, and 905/125/11 Connectors Project westbound SR 11 to northbound SR 125. (CIP 1390504) in substantially the same An environmental revalidation was completed on form as shown in Attachment 1; and (2) October 2, 2013, and final design is progressing. The approve Amendment No. 13 to the 2012 60 percent design constructability review was Regional Transportation Improvement conducted in early January 2014. This report Program, in substantially the same form as proposes to amend the FY 2014 Program Budget to shown in Attachment 2. add funding for the right-of-way phase of the project (Attachment 1).
Discussion
The SR 905/125/11 Connectors Project is part of the SR 905 corridor from Interstate 805 to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE). The project would construct the northbound connectors of SR 905 Phase 3, the freeway-to-freeway interchange at SR 125. The project was funded through design with $2 million from the TransNet-Border program. Caltrans proposes to add $800,000 in federal Corridors and Border Infrastructure (CBI) program funding for right-of-way acquisition. Federal regulations require that projects funded with federal funds be included in an approved Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); these are reflected in Amendment No. 13 to the 2012 RTIP as shown in Table 1 (Attachment 2).
Next Steps
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) administers the CBI program. The proposal to program CBI funds to this project is scheduled for the March 2014 CTC meeting, and commencement of work there is pending CTC approval. The future construction phase is planned to be funded from Proposition 1B Trade Corridors Improvement Fund savings and additional CBI funds. A staff recommendation to fund the construction phase will be brought to the Transportation Committee and the Board of Directors during the next quarter, once CTC approval is obtained.
JIM LINTHICUM Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Proposed Budget Amendment for CIP 1390504, SR 905/125/11 Connectors 2. Table 1, Amendment No. 13 to the 2012 RTIP
Key Staff Contacts: Mario Orso, Caltrans Christina S. Casgar, (619) 699-1982, [email protected]
2 Proposed Budget Amendment for CIP 1390504 State Routes 905/125/11 Connectors Attachment 1
Project Number: 1390504 Corridor Director Mario Orso RTIP Number: CAL325 Project Manager: Ismael Salazar Project Name: State Routes 905/125/11 Connectors PM Phone Number: 619-688-6766
PROJECT LIMITS SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE On westbound SR-905 north of Siempre Viva Road, on eastbound Environmental Document approved in September 2004; SR-905 east of La Media Road, on westbound SR-11 west of Enrico environmental revalidation completed October 2013. Fermi Drive.
PROJECT SCOPE MAJOR MILESTONES Complete design and right-of-way acquisition for the northbound Draft Environmental Document Jul-01 connectors to SR 125 from eastbound SR 905 (#1), westbound SR Final Environmental Clearance Sep-04 905 (#2), and westbound SR 11 (#3). Ready to Advertise N/A Begin Construction N/A Open to Public N/A
Close-Out N/A
SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16FY 17 TOTAL
Administration $0 $0 $0 $30 $30 $20 $20 $0 $20 $0 $50 $70
Environmental Document 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0
Design 000100 77 0 3 0 00100 80
Right of Way Support 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0
Right of Way Capital 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0
Construction Support 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0
Construction Capital 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0
Vehicles 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0
Legal Services 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0 Communications 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $0 $130 $107 $20 $23 $0 $20 $0 $150 $150
CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16FY 17 TOTAL
Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Design 0 0 180 1,665 1,665 5 5 0 001,850 1,850
Right of Way Support 0000 100 0 0 0 000 100
Right of Way Capital 0000 700 0 0 0 000 700
Construction Support 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0 Construction Capital 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $180 $1,665 $2,465 $5 $5 $0 $0 $0 $1,850 $2,650
Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $180 $1,795 $2,572 $25 $28 $0 $20 $0 $2,000 $2,800
TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $1,845 $1,845 $5 $5 $0 $0 $0 $1,850 $1,850 FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 12 FY 13 FY 14FY 15 FY 16FY 17 TOTAL FEDERAL: CBI $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800
LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet - B 0 0 180 1,795 1,772 25 28 0 20 0 2,000 2,000
TOTAL: $0 $0 $180 $1,795 $2,572 $25 $28 $0 $20 $0 $2,000 $2,800
3 Attachment 2 Table 1 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s)
Caltrans MPO ID: CAL325 RTIP #:12-13
Project Title: State Routes 905/125/11 Connectors EA NO: 28881 RTP PG NO: A-17 Project Description: Westbound SR-905 north of Siempre Viva Rd.; Eastbound SR-905 east SANDAG ID: 1390504 of La Media Rd.; and Westbound SR-11 west of Enrico Fermi Dr. - on westbound SR-905 north of Siempre Viva Rd., on eastbound SR-905 east of La Media Rd., on westbound SR-11 west of Enrico Fermi Dr., advance design of northbound connectors to SR-125 from eastbound SR-905, westbound SR-905, and westbound SR-11. Toll Credits of $104 will be used to match FY14 federal funds for the ROW phase Change Reason: Increase funding, Revise funding between fiscal years
RT:905 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $2,800 Open to Traffic: Jan 2017
TOTAL PRIOR 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 PE RW CON CBI $800 $800 $800 TransNet - Border $2,000 $180 $1,772 $28 $20 $2,000 TOTAL $2,800 $180 $2,572 $28 $20 $2,000 $800 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 12-06 TOTAL PRIOR 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 PE RW CON TransNet - Border $2,000 $200 $1,800 $2,000 TOTAL $2,000 $200 $1,800 $2,000
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
4 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s)
RTIP Fund Types
Federal Funding BIP/CBI Border Infrastructure Program/Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program Local Funding
TransNet-Border Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Border
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-9 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND
2013 TransNet PLAN OF FINANCE UPDATE File Number 1500100
Introduction Recommendation The TransNet Plan of Finance is updated on an The Transportation Committee is asked to annual basis, or more frequently as circumstances recommend that the Board of Directors: arise. The Board of Directors approved the last Plan (1) approve the 2013 TransNet Plan of of Finance in November 2012. On January 17, 2014, Finance update, which incorporates staff updated the Transportation Committee on the changes to the various Early Action major revenue, budget, and cash flow assumptions Program projects in the Interstate 15 used in the 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance update, Corridor, Interstate 5 (I-5) North Coast noting that the update continues to sustain the Corridor, and State Route 52 Corridor, and Board’s TransNet Early Action Program (EAP). This the Environmental Mitigation Program; report summarizes the proposed 2013 Plan of and (2) approve an amendment to the Finance, which continues to meet the cash flow FY 2014 Program Budget to incorporate needs of the TransNet EAP and keeps the program funding for the I-5 Voigt Direct Access on schedule. The major program revenue, cost, and Ramp Project (CIP 1200507), as shown in project budget and cash flow assumptions used in Attachment 5. the 2013 update are summarized in this report.
At its February 12, 2014, meeting, the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) recommended Board approval of the 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance update.
Discussion
TransNet EAP
The current TransNet EAP (Attachment 1) includes mobility improvements in major corridors across the San Diego region, including two “lockbox” projects from the original TransNet measure – the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and State Route 76 (SR 76), which reached a major milestone in August 2013 when the first phase of the project opened to traffic ahead of schedule. The EAP makes significant investments in public transportation. In addition to the Mid-Coast Corridor, the Capital Program will facilitate new high-quality, express transit services in the Interstate 15 (I-15), South Bay, and Mid-City corridors and complete the last phase of construction for low-floor service on our existing Blue and Orange Trolley Lines. In the San Diego County portion of the Los Angeles- San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Coastal Rail Corridor, several double tracking projects are underway to facilitate improved COASTER, intercity, and freight rail services. SANDAG long-range
plans also include the development of Express Lanes to provide faster travel times for transit, carpools, vanpools, and FasTrak® solo drivers on the I-15, I-5 North Coast, and I-805 corridors.
2013 Plan of Finance Update
The proposed 2013 Plan of Finance update maintains the course to deliver the EAP, keeping the TransNet capital improvement projects in the FY 2014 SANDAG Program Budget on their current schedules. The revenue and construction cost assumptions are summarized below. Further details about the major assumptions used for the 2013 update are provided in Attachment 2. Proposed revisions to TransNet EAP Project cost assumptions are detailed in Attachment 3.
Revenue Assumptions
The 2013 update includes federal program funds consistent with the current federal transportation authorization known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century and state program funds included in the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Estimate adopted by the California Transportation Commission in August 2013. Although there was a slight increase in STIP funds compared to the 2012 Plan of Finance, the increase is more than offset by a reduction in federal program funding for a net reduction of about 5 percent in state and federal funds. For the TransNet Program, there is a slight increase to the overall revenues compared to the sales tax revenue assumptions included in the 2012 update.
Construction Cost Assumptions
Construction costs have continued to remain stable, and the bidding environment has remained competitive. During the most recent four-year period (2010-2013), the number of bidders on construction contracts has ranged between 4 to 7 bidders per job, compared to 3 to 4 bidders per job during 2005-2007 when costs were at their highest. During the economic recession when costs were at their lowest, the average number of bidders per job was approximately 8-10 bidders. The construction industry is showing signs of recovery indicating a return to more normal price escalation moving forward. The cost escalation assumptions used in the 2013 Plan of Finance (described further in Attachment 2), reflect these trends.
Proposed Revisions to Project Cost Assumptions
Included in the 2013 update are savings for projects approaching final close-out. Certain project savings stay in the region, and are proposed to be redirected to existing active projects in need of funding or to new projects. New phases of work are proposed for four projects. Three of these would facilitate the most efficient construction of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (I-5 Voigt Direct Access Ramp, San Diego River Double Track, and Elvira to Morena); the fourth (Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track) is needed for the construction of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 between Manchester Avenue and SR 78, and would ensure compliance with Senate Bill 468 (Kehoe, 2011). Also proposed are slight increases for two projects (Oceanside Station Passing Tracks and Poinsettia Station Pedestrian Undercrossing) where existing station platforms will need to be reconstructed in order to comply with new Federal Railroad Administration requirements for level boarding.
2
Included in the Plan of Finance update is additional funding for the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), consistent with the Board’s action last September to provide $20 million of economic benefit derived funds for a competitive TransNet EMP Land Acquisition Grant Program.
The detailed project cost assumptions and description of the proposed amendments for the EMP and various projects within the I-5 North Coast, I-15, and SR 52 Corridors are shown in Attachment 3. Proposed changes to the various TransNet EAP projects would be incorporated as part of the FY 2015 SANDAG Program Budget review process.
Capital Planning and Funding and Financing Needs
For the past several months, staff has worked with Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM), the SANDAG financial advisor, to optimize the funding and financing strategy to best deliver the TransNet Capital Program through 2048. In its current form, the 2013 Plan of Finance demonstrates the financial feasibility to substantially meet the TransNet capital needs and to deliver the EAP Projects. The PFM memorandum (Attachment 4) provides additional detail to the Plan of Finance, summarizes the current SANDAG debt portfolio, and estimates the timing and amount of the next anticipated bond financing.
The TransNet EAP is the major focus of the Plan of Finance and forms the basis for determining near to medium-term borrowing needs. Generally, projects included in the EAP are candidates for delivery over the next 10 years, while the TransNet Capital Program extends through 2048 (the life of the TransNet measure). To finance the EAP, SANDAG has issued bonds on three previous occasions.
While the financial planning model accounts for total costs and revenues for all TransNet programs, the majority of capital costs in the SANDAG program are included in the Major Corridors program. The size of the TransNet capital program going forward through 2048 for the Major Corridors program is estimated to be $19.6 billion, roughly the same as the previous year. An estimated $4.9 billion of those project costs are scheduled to occur over the next ten years (the EAP period), a significant portion of which would be for the advancement of the Mid-Coast Project.
The 2013 Plan of Finance demonstrates that total capital costs may be funded in a way so as to maintain positive fund balances in the Major Corridors program through FY 2038 and maintain adequate debt service coverage. Current projections show negative fund balances for Major Corridors beginning in FY 2039, and accumulating to a deficit of $2.2 billion by the end of the TransNet program in FY 2048. This cumulative deficit represents roughly 11 percent of the program’s total capital costs and equates to more than $900 million in present value terms, similar to results of the 2012 Plan of Finance.
3
To continue to finance the Major Corridors EAP, the next bond transaction is expected to occur in late FY 2014 / early FY 2015.
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors stay the course with the EAP, as the purchasing power of the TransNet Program continues to remain stable under current economic conditions.
Future Funding Opportunities
As with prior Plan of Finance updates, leveraging TransNet funds to maximize available funding sources continues to be important in meeting the program’s long-term cash flow needs. To address the projected negative fund balance over the longer-term, staff will continue to seek out new funding opportunities and evaluate potential financing strategies in conjunction with PFM.
Possible funding opportunities include federal and/or state rail funding to advance double track improvements in the LOSSAN corridor providing connections to the first phase of the future high- speed rail system. The federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program also could provide an opportunity to meet EAP financing needs. In addition, the Board of Directors could consider dedicating a greater share of federal and state matching funds to deliver the TransNet Program.1
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
The 2013 Plan of Finance includes funding assumptions for two of the most capital intensive projects in the TransNet EAP – the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit and the North Coast Corridor Projects, both of which are expected to incur a majority of the estimated capital costs in the near-term. The TIFIA loan program provides credit assistance for qualified projects of regional and national significance and is often available on more advantageous terms than can be obtained in the traditional financial markets. A TIFIA loan can be structured as a subordinate lien and offers flexible repayment terms providing an effective alternative to traditional tax-exempt sales tax bond financing. TIFIA could provide an opportunity to lower borrowing costs, maximize non-TransNet funding sources, and preserve TransNet revenues for greater senior lien bonding capacity for other EAP Projects. Staff will continue working with PFM to evaluate the benefits of pursuing a TIFIA loan for some of the more capital intensive projects, which would be presented for ITOC, Transportation Committee, and Board consideration as part of the upcoming bond issuance in late FY 2014 / early FY 2015.
1 These revenue sources include the STIP, Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program, Regional Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding program. Prior American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding also has been dedicated to fund EAP projects. Current Board Policy dedicates 90 percent of federal and state discretionary funds to the TransNet EAP, with the remaining 10 percent allocated to non-EAP projects, such as the Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management Programs that help implement the Sustainable Communities Strategy included in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
4
Next Steps
The 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance update is scheduled for presentation at the February 28, 2014, Board of Directors meetings.
JOSE A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director
Attachments: 1. TransNet Early Action Program map 2. 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance Update - Major Assumptions 3. TransNet Early Action Program Proposed Revisions to Project Cost Assumptions and Budgets, 2013 Plan of Finance 4. PFM Memorandum Dated January 9, 2014 5. Proposed Budget Amendment for CIP 1200507, I-5/Voigt Drive Direct Access Ramp
Key Staff Contacts: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected] Richard Chavez, (619) 699-6989, [email protected] Marney Cox, (619) 699-1930, [email protected]
5 Attachment 1 EARLY ACTION PROJECTS July 2013 www.KeepSanDiegoMoving.com
SR 76: Widen highway
SR 52: Camp Pendleton Widen and extend highway 1
Mid-Coast: Transit: Old Town-UCSD Transit: UTC SuperLoop I-5/I-8 West to North Connector I-5/Genesee Ave Interchange
I-15: HOV/Express Lanes Transit: Escondido-Downtown Transit: Escondido-Sorrento Valley 7
I-805: HOV/Express Lanes Transit: Otay-Downtown 6 Transit: Otay-Sorrento Valley
North Coast: I-5 HOV/Express Lanes 4 Coastal rail double-tracking
SPRINTER: County Oceanside-Escondido light rail of San Diego Blue and Orange Line Trolley: Low-floor vehicles 4 Station upgrades
Mid-City: 3 Transit: Downtown-SDSU 5 2 2 Goods Movement: South Line rail upgrades 3 SR 905 4
SR 94 / SR 125: South to East Connector 9 11 8
Highway Projects 8 Completed Under Construction 5 Preliminary Engineering
Transit Projects 10 Completed Under Construction Preliminary Engineering Light Rail Line 8 10
6
Attachment 2
2013 TransNet Plan of Finance Update Major Assumptions
Projected Sales Tax Revenues
TransNet revenues are derived from taxable retail sales in the region. Taxable retail sales have become increasingly volatile since the 2007 recession. After three years of sales tax revenue declines, SANDAG has experienced three years of revenue growth. Overall, TransNet revenues fell 18.6 percent during FY 2008 – FY 2010 and have since risen 21.1 percent during FY 2011 – FY 2013. At the end of FY 2013, TransNet sales tax revenues ($247.2 million) were close to surpassing the past peak recorded in FY 2007 ($247.9 million).
SANDAG uses two distinct forecast methodologies to estimate future sales tax revenue growth. The short-term (or first three years through FY 2016) uses the California State Board of Equalization sales tax revenue allocation formula, as well as quarterly factors such as expected job growth, new unemployment claims, and the financial condition of consumers. Beyond FY 2016, the forecast of TransNet revenues is based on the growth in taxable retail sales as projected by the SANDAG Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM), incorporating demographic information important for accurate longer term forecasts.
The TransNet sales tax growth rates shown in Table 1 are used to forecast future revenue trends and were reported to the Board in February 2013.
Table 1. Plan of Finance (POF) – TransNet Revenue Growth Rates Annual Rates of Change, FY 2013 through FY 2048
Revenue FY 2018- Growth FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2048 Rate 2012 4.50% 5.33% 5.60% 5.20% 4.80% 3.83% to POF 5.21% 2013 4.34% 5% 6.03% 5.24% 4.84% 3.2% to POF (actual) 5%
State and Federal Matching Revenues
The amounts of state and federal funds assumed for the TransNet Early Action Program (EAP) are based on committed funds to date included in the current 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (2012 RTIP) for the period FY 2013 to FY 2017. For future years, SANDAG estimated federal, state, and local transportation funds based on historic experience. The revenue assumptions used in the 2013 Plan of Finance for future years beyond the 2012 RTIP are consistent with recent revenue forecasts and programs, including the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program Fund (STIP) Estimate adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in August 2013 and recent revenue forecasts provided by the Federal Highway Administration for federal formula funds reflecting the transportation authorization Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century or MAP-21.
On the federal side, both the 2050 RTP and the 2013 Plan of Finance assume a federal contribution of 50 percent of the cost for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project. The actual amount of
7
contribution will be dependent on annual federal appropriations, the ultimate Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the project, and New Starts program levels in future surface transportation authorization measures. A maximum $100 million per year appropriation has been assumed for the Mid-Coast FFGA funds, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration appropriation limits for FFGA funds.
On the state side, funding awarded to specific projects is subject to state bond sales and allocations to the Proposition 1B (Prop. 1B) transportation infrastructure bond program. Most of the Prop. 1B funds have been allocated by the California Transportation Commission, and the ongoing work paid for by these funds is included in the 2013 Plan of Finance cash flow analysis. SANDAG anticipates full receipt of the awarded Prop. 1B funds, although actual allocations of these funds may be delayed. Additionally, the 2050 RTP and 2013 Plan of Finance both assume additional state revenue sources starting in FY 2021, based on historical levels of state transportation funding during the past 20 years.
Current Board policy directs 90 percent of all discretionary state and federal formula funds1 to support the TransNet EAP, and the remaining 10 percent of these funds for non-EAP projects, such as the transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation systems management (TSM) programs that help implement the Sustainable Communities Strategy included in the 2050 RTP.
Program Costs
For TransNet EAP projects, SANDAG works with our project partners to update the capital improvement program (CIP) project needs and costs as part of the annual SANDAG Budget. After a period of high rates of growth in construction costs from 2004 to 2007, a steep decline in construction prices occurred in the three-year period between 2008 and 2010. This decline has resulted in lower costs for several EAP projects. Going forward, construction costs stabilized between 2010 and 2013. In 2013, construction employment has started to recover, and according to the Associated General Contractors of America, construction spending is expected to increase at a rate of six to ten percent per year through 2017. Costs are expected to start rising gradually in 2014 through 2016 with costs returning to the historical average rate of 2.8 percent in 2016 representing an acceleration of the return to historical rates with the 2013 POF update as compared to the 2012 POF as shown below in Table 2:
Table 2. Plan of Finance (POF) – Projected TransNet Construction Costs Annual Rates of Change, FY 2014 through FY 2048
Construction FY 2018- FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Escalation Rate FY 2048 2012 POF 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 2.80% 2.80% 2013 POF 1.00% 2.00% 2.80% 2.80% 2.80%
1 These revenue sources include the State Transportation Improvement Program, Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program, Regional Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding program. Prior American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding also has been dedicated to fund EAP projects.
8 Attachment 3 TransNet Early Action Program Proposed Revisions to Project Cost Assumptions 2013 Plan of Finance
The proposed 2013 Plan of Finance update maintains the course to deliver the EAP, keeping the TransNet capital improvement projects in the FY 2014 SANDAG Program Budget on their current schedules. The 2013 Plan of Finance update includes revisions to cost assumptions for the EMP and for various EAP projects within the I-5 North Coast, I-15, and SR 52 Corridors as described below in further detail.
Environmental Mitigation Program • Environmental Mitigation Program: Project Biological Mitigation Fund (1200200) – At its April 26, 2013, meeting, the Board approved an update to the estimated value of the economic benefit resulting from the EMP. The EMP mitigates the habitat impacts of regional transportation projects allowing SANDAG to buy land early – at lower costs and in larger parcels – and bank it for future mitigation needs. This results in economic benefit which is used to fund the Project Biological Mitigation Fund. This fund is used for habitat acquisition and restoration activities needed to help implement the Multiple Species Conservation Program and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. The current budget for the Project Biological Mitigation Fund is $428 million. Consistent with the Board-approved update to the estimated value of the economic benefit, a budget increase of $30 million to $458 million is proposed.
I-5 North Coast Corridor • I-5 Voigt Direct Access Ramp - Phase 1 (1200507) – This is proposed to be a new EAP project that will prepare the I-5 Voigt Drive overcrossing for the future construction of a Direct Access Ramp (DAR) at this location. This work must be done as part of the Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT) project to facilitate the future construction of the DAR. The work is estimated to cost $45 million and would be completed as part of the Mid-Coast LRT project in the 2016-2018 timeframe. To begin preliminary engineering, $4 million is proposed to be programmed initially. Additional funds up to $45 million would be programmed once design concepts are solidified and the funding responsibilities of SANDAG and UCSD are established.
• Oceanside Station Pass-Through Track (1239803) – This is an existing EAP project that will add a third track and crossovers in the City of Oceanside at the Oceanside Transit Center. The new passing track will relieve congestion at this bottle-neck location resulting in improved on‐time COASTER performance. The current project budget for this project is $19.568 million, a budget increase of $2.232 million to $21.8 million is proposed. The platform at the Oceanside Transit Center will need to be reconstructed in order to comply with new Federal Railroad Administration requirements for level boarding. It was previously thought the existing platforms would not need to be modified. The project is expected to be open to the public in 2016.
• Poinsettia Station Improvements (1239805) – This is an existing EAP project. The existing at‐grade pedestrian crossing will be replaced with a grade-separated undercrossing. The signal system will be modified and an inter‐track fence will be installed. The current project budget for this project is $13 million, a budget increase of $1.5 million to $14.5 million is proposed. The platform at the Poinsettia Station will need to be reconstructed in order to comply with new Federal Railroad Administration requirements for level boarding. It was previously thought the existing platforms would not need to be modified. The project is expected to be open to the public in 2016.
• Elvira to Morena Double Track (1239811) – This is an existing EAP project that will install a second track; add signals and switches on the Coastal Rail Corridor from 1.5 miles north of Control Point (CP) Elvira near SR 52 to CP Morena near Balboa Avenue. The most efficient design of the Mid-Coast LRT project will restrict the ability to double track the COASTER between CP Elvira and CP Morena in the future. In order to prevent this future restriction, the COASTER track must be realigned concurrently with the Mid-Coast 9 LRT project. The current budget for this project is $78.72 million, a budget increase of $16.28 million to $95 million is proposed. During preliminary engineering, the need for new COASTER bridges over Balboa Avenue and Rose Creek were identified. It was previously thought that the existing bridges could be utilized but structural analysis indicates the bridges will need to be replaced. The project is expected to be open to the public in 2018.
• San Diego River Bridge (1239815) – This is an existing EAP project. The most efficient design of the Mid-Coast LRT project will prevent the ability to double track the COASTER bridge over the San Diego River in the future. In order to prevent this future restriction, the COASTER bridge must be realigned concurrently with the Mid-Coast LRT project. The current budget for this project is $9.392 million, a budget increase of $73.008 million to $82.4 million is proposed. This would fully fund the project through construction. The project is expected to be open to the public in 2018.
• Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track (1239816) – This is an existing EAP project. In order to be consistent with Senate Bill 468 (Kehoe), the I-5 and COASTER bridges will most likely need to be constructed concurrently. Currently, the project is only funded through the completion of the Final Environmental Document. The current budget for this project is $3 million, a budget increase of $58.4 million to $61.4 million is proposed. This would fully fund the project through construction. The project is expected to be open to the public in 2018.
I-15 Corridor • I-15 Express Lanes South Segment (1201501) – This is an existing EAP project that constructed Express Lanes in the median of I-15 between SR 163 and SR 56. Roadside landscaping and related plant establishment are ongoing. Final project close-out is expected in summer 2017. As a result, the 2013 Plan of Finance update includes a proposed $10 million budget reduction from $350.761 million to $340.761 million for this project. These project funds are from the Prop. 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) program, in which CMIA savings are returned to the state for reprogramming by the CTC.
• I-15 Express Lanes North Segment (1201503) – This is an existing EAP project that constructed Express Lanes in the median of I-15 between Centre City Parkway and SR 78. Roadside landscaping and related plant establishment are ongoing. Final project close out is expected in spring 2017. As a result, the 2013 Plan of Finance update includes a $13.201 million budget reduction from $200.083 million to $186.882 for this project. These project funds are from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program ($10 million), State Highways Operations & Protection Program (SHOPP) program ($2.961 million), and Regional Surface Transportation (RSTP) program ($0.240 million), in which SHOPP savings are returned to the state for reprogramming by the CTC, and CMAQ and RSTP savings stay in the region to be used to offset new work and cost increases proposed as part of the 2013 Plan of Finance update.
State Route 52 Extension • SR 52 Extension (1205203) – This is an existing EAP project that extended SR 52 from SR 125 to SR 67. Roadside landscaping and related plant establishment are ongoing. Final project close-out is expected by the end of 2015. A $13.969 million reduction from $489.269 million to $475.3 million is proposed for this project. These project funds include $9.7 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program – Regional Improvement Program (STIP-RIP), Traffic Congestion Relief (TCRP) program ($1.3 million), and TransNet ($2.969 million), in which STIP-RIP savings are returned to the state for reprogramming in the regional shares by the CTC, and TCRP and TransNet savings stay in the region to be used to offset new work and cost increases proposed as part of the 2013 Plan of Finance update.
A summary of the entire EAP budget with the proposed adjustments is shown below.
10 TransNet Early Action Program Budgets 2013 Plan of Finance ($thousands)
Funded CIP Project Name Approved Proposed Increase Through
Environmental Mitigation Program 1200200 Project Biological Mitigation Fund $428,000 $458,000 $30,000 N/A 1200300 Regional Habitat Conservation Fund $44,519 $44,519 $0 N/A $472,519 $502,519 $30,000
I-5 Corridor (International Border to I-805) 1257001 Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT) $1,704,000 $1,704,000 $0 CON 1041502 SuperLoop $36,349 $36,349 $0 CON 1210000 Blue and Orange Line Improvement/Low Floor Vehicles $568,507 $568,507 $0 CON 1200505 I-5/I-8 West to North Connector Improvements $23,905 $23,905 $0 CON 1200506 I-5/Genesee Interchange and Widening $93,129 $93,129 $0 CON 1200507 I-5 / Voigt Direct Access Ramp $0 $45,000 $45,000 CON $2,425,890 $2,470,890 $45,000
I-5 Corridor (I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd) 1200501 I-5 North Coast: 4 Express Lanes $72,695 $72,695 $0 FED 1200502 I-5 HOV Extension and Lomas Santa Fe Interchange $70,572 $70,572 $0 CON 1200503 I-5/SR 56 Interchange $17,872 $17,872 $0 FED 1200504 I-5 North Coast: 2HOV Lanes $493,061 $493,061 $0 CON 1239801 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 1 $44,000 $44,000 $0 CON 1239803 Oceanside Station Pass-Through Track $19,568 $21,800 $2,232 CON 1239805 Poinsettia Station Improvements $13,000 $14,500 $1,500 CON 1239806 San Elijo Lagoon Double Track $76,700 $76,700 $0 CON 1239807 Sorrento Valley Double Track $33,700 $33,700 $0 CON 1239808 Tecolote to Washington Crossovers $10,950 $10,950 $0 CON 1239809 Eastbrook to Shell Double Track $6,920 $6,920 $0 RTA 1239810 Carlsbad Village Double Track $5,980 $5,980 $0 RTA 1239811 Elvira to Morena Double Track $78,720 $95,000 $16,280 CON 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 $11,000 $11,000 $0 FED 1239813 San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Platform $9,470 $9,470 $0 FED 1239814 COASTER Preliminary Engineering $1,072 $1,072 $0 PE 1239815 San Diego River Bridge $9,392 $82,400 $73,008 CON 1239816 Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track $3,000 $61,400 $58,400 CON $977,672 $1,129,092 $151,420
I-15 Corridor 1201501 1-15 Express Lanes South Segment $350,761 $340,761 ($10,000) CON 1201502 1-15 Express Lanes Middle Segment $478,282 $478,282 $0 CON 1201503 1-15 Express Lanes North Segment $200,083 $186,882 ($13,201) CON 1201504 I-15 FasTrak $26,466 $26,466 $0 CON 1-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations at Rancho Bernardo, Sabre Springs, and Del 1201505 Lago $54,172 $54,172 $0 CON 1201506 I-15 Mira Mesa Direct Access Ramp (DAR)- Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Station $70,304 $70,304 $0 CON 1201507 SR 15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Mid-City Centerline Stations $45,000 $45,000 $0 CON 1201508 I-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) $34,608 $34,608 $0 CON 1201509 Downtown Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations $23,154 $23,154 $0 CON 1201510 SR 78 Nordahl Road Interchange $25,982 $25,982 $0 CON 1201511 Mira Mesa Boulevard Bus Rapid Transti (BRT) Priority Treatments $14,000 $14,000 $0 CON 1201512 I-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Sabre Springs Parking Structure $17,000 $17,000 $0 CON 1201513 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Maintenance Facility $60,534 $60,534 $0 CON 1201514 Downtown Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Layover Facility $16,000 $16,000 $0 CON $1,416,346 $1,393,145 ($23,201)
11 TransNet Early Action Program Budgets 2013 Plan of Finance ($thousands)
Funded CIP Project Name Approved Proposed Increase Through
I-805 Corridor 1280504 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) $99,908 $99,908 $0 CON 1280505 I-805 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Carroll Canyon Direct Access Ramp (DAR) $90,830 $90,830 $0 CON 1280508 SR 94 Express Lanes: I-805 to Downtown $22,600 $22,600 $0 FED I-805 South: Two High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes and Direct Access Ramp 1280510 (DAR) $190,544 $190,544 $0 CON 1280511 I-805 North: Two High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes $121,500 $121,500 $0 CON 1280512 I-805 Imperial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Station $500 $500 $0 PE 1280514 I-805/ SR 15 Interchange $13,130 $13,130 $0 DES $539,012 $539,012 $0
Other Various Regional Bikeway Program $50,607 $50,607 $0 Various 1205203 SR 52 Extension $489,269 $475,300 ($13,969) CON 1207602 SR 76 Middle $171,359 $171,359 $0 CON 1207606 SR 76 East $201,549 $201,549 $0 CON 1207801 SR 78 HOV/Managed Lanes $2,000 $2,000 $0 PE 1207802 I-15/SR 78 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Connectors $500 $500 $0 PE 1212501 SR 94/ SR 125 South to East Connector $10,654 $10,654 $0 FED 1240001 Mid-City Rapid Bus $44,526 $44,526 $0 CON $970,464 $956,495 ($13,969)
TOTAL $6,801,903 $6,991,153 $189,250
Preliminary Engineering (PE); Draft Environmental Document (DED); Final Environmental Document (FED); Final Design (FD); Construction (CON) Ready to Advertise (RTA)
12 50 California Street 415-982-5544 Suite 2300 415-982-4513 fax San Francisco, CA 94111 www.pfm.com
Attachment 4
Public Financial Management, Inc. PFM Asset Management LLC PFM Advisors January 9, 2014
MEMORANDUM
To: SANDAG Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), Transportation Committee, and Board of Directors From: Peter Shellenberger, Public Financial Management, Inc. Rian Irani, Public Financial Management, Inc. Vanessa Kwong, Public Financial Management, Inc.
Re: 2013 Plan of Finance Update
INTRODUCTION Public Financial Management (“PFM”) has worked with SANDAG staff to prepare the annual update for the TransNet Extension Plan of Finance. For the past several months, PFM and SANDAG staffs have been working to optimize SANDAG’s funding and financing strategy to best deliver the TransNet capital program through 2048. In its current form, the Plan of Finance demonstrates the financial feasibility to substantially meet the TransNet capital needs and to deliver the EAP projects. This memorandum provides additional detail to the Plan of Finance, summarizes SANDAG’s current debt portfolio, and estimates the timing and amount of SANDAG’s next anticipated bond financing.
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES AND THE UPDATED PLAN OF FINANCE With the initial planning of the TransNet Extension program, PFM created a financial planning model that allows SANDAG to forecast its project delivery requirements, along with its revenue and funding forecasts to optimize its financing strategy. The TransNet Extension model allows staff to modify assumptions to reflect changing project delivery readiness, increased or decreased project cost estimates, and changes in revenue trends and interest rates. Debt issuances are sized to meet the construction and project activity needs for two-year periods. This is done to optimize bond sizing, reduce costs of issuance, and to best comply with federal requirements related to issuance of debt. While the financial planning model accounts for total costs and revenues for all TransNet Extension programs (major corridors, environmental mitigation, local roads, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian), SANDAG staff and PFM have focused on evaluating the feasibility of the TransNet Extension program’s most capital intensive program: the Major Corridors program and more specifically, the Mid-Coast project under the Major Corridors program. The majority of capital costs in the SANDAG program are included in the Major Corridors program, with a focus on accelerating the project costs in the upcoming few years for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The size of SANDAG’s Capital Improvement Program going forward through 2048 for the Major Corridors program is currently estimated to be $19.6 billion, roughly the same as the previous year. An estimated $4.5 billion of those project costs are scheduled to occur over the next ten years. The Mid-Coast project is currently expected to incur estimated capital costs of $1.7 billion going forward, all of which are expected to occur by 2022. The updated Plan of Finance demonstrates that total capital costs may be funded in a way so as to maintain positive fund balances in the Major Corridors program through FY 2038 and maintain adequate debt service coverage. Current projections show negative fund balances for Major Corridors beginning in FY 2039 and accumulating to a deficit of $2.2 billion by program’s end in FY 2048. This cumulative deficit
13 SANDAG January 9, 2014
represents 11 percent of the program’s total capital costs and equates to $911.1 million in present value terms. The updated Plan of Finance projects that the EMP will maintain positive fund balances through FY 2048 with no years of negative fund balances. The Bicycle and Pedestrian program was newly added to this year’s analysis and includes annual capital investments; some of which would require borrowing to meet the expenditure schedule. All capital expenditures for the Bicycle and Pedestrian program are funded through the Early Action Program. However, current projections show negative fund balances beginning in FY 2037 and accumulating to a deficit of $125 million by FY 2048. This cumulative deficit represents 24 percent of the Bicycle and Pedestrian program’s total capital costs and equates to $52.9 million in present value terms. The next bond transaction is expected to occur in late FY 2014 / early FY 2015 to finance the EMP and the Major Corridors program. The Bicycle and Pedestrian program is expected to receive bond proceeds beginning with the FY 2017 bond issuance, and will access SANDAG’s commercial paper program, as needed, in the interim to advance capital projects. SANDAG staff and PFM are continuously refining capital cost, program delivery, revenue, and borrowing assumptions. SANDAG staff continues to explore the prospect of obtaining additional federal and state matching funds to offset eligible project costs included in the TransNet Extension Program. PFM used SANDAG and FTA assumptions to estimate the amount of FTA revenues allocated to the Mid-Coast project in the anticipated Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). It is assumed that 49.8% of eligible project costs will be reimbursed through the FFGA; a total $1.02 billion that would be allocated with an annual cap of $100 million from FY 2016 to FY 2021. Staff is working with PFM to evaluate several financing strategies to complement and augment traditional sales tax bonds. Potential strategies include the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program and the securitization of federal grant revenues identified in the anticipated Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) associated for the Mid Coast project. The broad objectives for alternative financing strategies is to identify lower costs of borrowing, increased program flexibility, and increased borrowing capacity under SANDAG’s existing senior lien sales tax indenture. Existing proceeds, sales tax revenue, and the expected receipt of federal, state, and other local funds are expected to meet project costs over the next six to twelve months. It is projected that SANDAG would need to issue approximately $350 million of additional bonds in late FY 2014 / early FY 2015 to meet project costs through FY 2017.
CURRENT DEBT PORTFOLIO SANDAG currently has $1.15 billion of debt outstanding, consisting of the Series 2008 variable-rate bonds (“2008 VRDBs” or “2008 Bonds”), the 2010 Series A taxable Build America Bonds, the 2010 Series B tax-exempt fixed-rate bonds, and 2012 Series A tax-exempt fixed-rate bonds (“2012 Bonds”). Of the total debt portfolio, approximately 35 percent consists of synthetic fixed-rate bonds (i.e., variable rate bonds hedged with an interest rate swap) and the remaining 65 percent are fixed-rate bonds. A summary of SANDAG’s outstanding bonds is presented below.
OUTSTANDING DEBT OVERVIEW SERIES PAR OUTSTANDING FINAL MATURITY TYPE 2008A $100,575,000 4/1/2038 Variable 2008B $100,575,000 4/1/2038 Variable 2008C $100,575,000 4/1/2038 Variable 2008D $100,575,000 4/1/2038 Variable 2010A $338,960,000 4/1/2048 Fixed 2010B $9,440,000 4/1/2030 Fixed 2012A $420,525,000 4/1/2048 Fixed Total Senior Lien $1,153,225,000
14 SANDAG January 9, 2014
SANDAG also has $402.3 million of fixed-payer interest rate swaps outstanding, the purpose of which is to hedge the interest rate volatility associated with the $402.3 million of variable rate bonds. Additionally, SANDAG has $313.2 million of basis swaps outstanding. Under the basis swaps, which become effective on April 1, 2018, SANDAG will pay its counterparty a floating interest rate payment based upon the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) Index and will receive a floating payment based upon 107.4% of 3-month LIBOR. The market value of SANDAG’s swap portfolio changes with interest rate fluctuations. The mark-to-market valuation, as of January 9, 2013, is approximately ($23,614,994): meaning SANDAG would need to pay $23.6 million to terminate the entire swap portfolio in the current market. A summary of SANDAG’s swap portfolio is presented below.
Notional SANDAG Series Type of Swap Swap Counterparty SANDAG Receives Current Mark-to-Market Outstanding Pays Goldman Sachs 65% 1 month LIBOR % LIBOR/SIFMA Fixed 2008 Mitsui Marine 134,100,000 3.8165% until 4/1/2018, then Payer ($19,362,960.59) Derivative Products SIFMA 65% 1 month LIBOR % LIBOR/SIFMA Fixed Bank of America, 2008 134,100,000 3.8165% until 4/1/2018, then Payer N.A. ($11, 835,189.38 SIFMA Bank of America, 2008 % LIBOR Fixed Payer 134,100,000 3.4100% 65% 1 month LIBOR N.A. ($11,835,189.38
Total Fixed Payer Swaps 402,300,000 ($43,033,339.35)
2008 Index Conversion Barclays Bank PLC 313,200,000 SIFMA 107.4% 3 month LIBOR $19,418,345.02 Total Index Conversion 313,200,000 Swaps $19,418,345.02
Total 715,500,000 ($23,614,994.33)
Annual debt service associated with SANDAG’s outstanding bonds and interest rate swaps is approximately $62.3 million per year through FY2048.
RECOMMENDATION With the next bond transaction expected to occur in late FY 2014 / early FY 2015, PFM will continue to monitor the municipal bond market for any significant changes. We will continue to work with SANDAG staff to identify opportunities that best allow SANDAG to meet its financing needs and objectives. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please do not hesitate to call Peter Shellenberger at 415-982-5544 or email him at [email protected].
15 Program Budget Amendment for CIP 1200507 Attachment 5 I-5/Voigt Drive Direct Access Ramp
Project Number: 1200507 Corridor Director: Allan Kosup RTIP Number: New Project Project Manager: Arturo Jacobo Project Name: I-5/Voigt Drive Direct Access RampPM Phone Number: 619-688-6816
PROJECT LIMITS SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE On Interstate 5 between La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee Avenue New Project
PROJECT SCOPE MAJOR MILESTONES Preliminary engineering for future construction of Direct Access Draft Environmental Document TBD Ramp at Voigt Drive Final Environmental Document TBD Ready to Advertise TBD Begin Construction TBD Open to Public TBD Close-Out TBD
SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 TOTAL
Administration $0 $0 $5 $29 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40
Environmental Document 000000000000
Design 0 0 100 2,900 500 0000003,500
Right-of-Way Support 000000000000
Right-of-Way Capital 000000000000
Construction Support 000000000000
Construction Capital 000000000000
Vehicles 000000000000
Legal Services 000000000000 Communications 000000000000 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $105 $2,929 $506 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,540
CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 TOTAL
Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Design 002038060000000460
Right-of-Way Support 000000000000
Right-of-Way Capital 000000000000
Construction Support 000000000000 Construction Capital 000000000000 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $20 $380 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $460
Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $125 $3,309 $566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $20 $395 $45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $460
FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 TOTAL
LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet -MC $0 $0 $125 $3,309 $566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
TOTAL: $0 $0 $125 $3,309 $566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
16
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-10 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND
FY 2015 TO FY 2019 TransNet AND File Number 1500300 TRANSIT RELATED REVENUES
Introduction Recommendation The transit operators within the SANDAG region The Transportation Committee is asked to receive federal, state, and local revenues to support recommend that the Board of Directors: both ongoing operations and capital projects. (1) approve the FY 2015 apportionments SANDAG is responsible for the apportionment of for Transportation Development Act (TDA) these various funds to the transit operators and to and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the local agencies for the nonmotorized program. and FY 2015 allocations for TransNet and Each year SANDAG provides an estimate for the State Transit Assistance (STA); and (2) upcoming fiscal year, as well as a projection for the approve the transit revenue estimates for next four fiscal years to allow the transit and local FY 2016 to FY 2019 for TDA, TransNet, and agencies to plan for capital projects and determine FTA. operating subsidies.
Discussion
Summary of FY 2015 to FY 2019 Revenue Estimates
The allocation of these funding sources is determined both by law and at the discretion of the SANDAG Board of Directors. This report provides the FY 2015 revenue estimates for the Transportation Development Act, TransNet, State Transit Assistance, and the Federal Transit Administration formula programs along with the forecast methodology in projecting the estimates for the next four fiscal years. Below summarizes each revenue source, additional details are included in Attachment 6.
1. Transportation Development Act (TDA): The San Diego County Auditor and Controller office is required by state law to provide an estimated apportionment for the upcoming fiscal year before February 1 of each year. The apportionment is developed in consultation with SANDAG staff and with the transit operators and is based on actual sales tax receipts and receipt projections. The FY 2015 apportionment of $131,153,547 is based on a 4 percent increase over the estimated FY 2014 TDA receipt. The FY 2015 apportionment and the FY 2016 to FY 2019 estimates are shown in Attachment 1. The projected amounts and how they were derived is detailed in Attachment 5 with additional details on the TDA included in Attachment 6.
2. TransNet: Estimates are developed by SANDAG based on actual sales tax receipts through the first two quarters of FY 2014. For FY 2015, approximately $270 million is estimated to be available for the entire program (a 4 percent increase over FY 2014), of which approximately $43 million is available for transit purposes. The estimate for FY 2015 revenues for the entire program is shown in Attachment 2. For the Transit System Improvements program, the FY 2015 through FY 2019 estimates is included in Attachment 3. Future year estimates and how they were derived are detailed in Attachment 5 with additional details on the sales tax program included in Attachment 6.
3. Federal Transit Administration Formula Programs: The two-year federal transportation reauthorization known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century or MAP-21, expires this year. The Federal Register (FR) which provides the apportionments has not yet been published. With MAP-21 expiring and no news of future reauthorizations and given that MAP-21 did not significantly increase funding, the estimate for FTA formula programs remains the same as in the current FY 2014 and continues to FY 2019 in order to remain conservative. Attachment 4 provides the five year estimates. Additional information on the various FTA formula programs is included in Attachment 6.
4. State Transit Assistance: The State Controller’s office is responsible for providing the estimates in January of each year. Based on the FY 2015 preliminary estimate, $23,539,059 is available to the San Diego region. Pursuant to ABx8-6 (March 2010), STA allocations are based on sales tax generated from consumption of diesel fuel. We have four years of historical data under this new legislation. However, as diesel fuel consumption tends to fluctuate and given that in the past four years, the apportionment has declined each year, a forecast of STA funding is not provided as there is no good basis to estimate future projections.
Current statute requires transit agencies to meet certain criteria related to operating efficiencies in order to use the STA funds for operations. ABx8-9 suspended these qualifying criteria until FY 2012; subsequently, SB 565 (Chapter 341) extended the suspension through FY 2015. The SANDAG area, as defined under the STA program, consists of the area outside of the MTS area of jurisdiction. NCTD is the only claimant of STA funds in the SANDAG area. For the San Diego region, $23,539,059 is available of which $5,506,123 is available for NCTD. The remainder is available to MTS.
JOSÉ NUNCIO TransNet Department Director
Attachments: 1. Transportation Development Act –FY 2015 Apportionment and FY 2016 to FY 2019 Estimates 2. Overall TransNet Program Revenue Estimates - FY 2015 to FY 2019 3. TransNet Revenue Forecast - Transit System Improvements Program –Revenues Estimates FY 2015 through FY 2019 4. Federal Transit Administration Formula Programs – Revenue Estimates FY 2015 to FY 2019 5. Forecast Methodology 6. Program Details: TDA, TransNet, FTA Formula Programs
Key Staff Contact: Sookyung Kim, (619) 699-6909, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1 Transportation Development Act FY 2015 Apportionment and FY 2016 to FY 2019 Estimates*
FY 2016 ($000s) FY 2017 ($000s) FY 2018 ($000s) FY 2019 ($000s) Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate FY 2015 (mid-range) Low (mid-range) Low (mid-range) Low (mid-range) Low Total Apportionment1,2 $131,153,547 $136,282 $129,782 $141,624 $135,124 $147,176 $140,676 $154,564 $148,064 Less County Auditor Expenses (PUC 99233.1) (49,000) (50) (50) (51) (51) (52) (52) (53) (53) Less SANDAG Administration (PUC 99233.1)3 (442,156) (620) (621) (484) (486) (503) (505) (711) (713) Less 3% Planning Funds (PUC 99233.2) (3,919,872) (4,068) (3,873) (4,233) (4,038) (4,399) (4,204) (4,614) (4,419) Less 2% Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds (PUC 99233.3) (2,534,850) (2,631) (2,505) (2,737) (2,611) (2,844) (2,718) (2,984) (2,858) Less 5%Community Transit Service (PUC 99233.7) (6,212,833) (6,448) (6,139) (6,709) (6,400) (6,972) (6,662) (7,313) (7,004) Subtotal $117,994,836 $122,465 $116,594 $127,410 $121,538 $132,406 $126,535 $138,889 $133,017 Total Available for MTS 83,724,703 86,896 82,730 90,406 86,239 93,951 89,784 98,551 94,384 Less Regional Planning/Capital Projects4 0 (492) (492) (192) (192) (192) (192) (192) (192) Less Transferred Functions5 (1,686,060) (1,750) (1,666) (1,821) (1,737) (1,892) (1,808) (1,985) (1,901) Total Community Transit Service 4,320,225 4,484 4,269 4,665 4,450 4,848 4,633 5,085 4,870 Total Available to Claim $86,358,869 $89,138 $84,841 $93,059 $88,761 $96,715 $92,417 $101,460 $97,162 Total Available for NCTD 34,270,133 35,568 33,863 37,005 35,299 38,456 36,750 40,339 38,633 Less Regional Planning/Capital Projects4 (338,018) (810) (810) (874) (874) (728) (728) (656) (656) Less Transferred Functions5 (574,025) (596) (567) (620) (591) (644) (616) (676) (647) Total Community Transit Service 1,768,351 1,835 1,747 1,909 1,821 1,984 1,896 2,081 1,993 Total Available to Claim $35,126,441 $35,998 $34,233 $37,421 $35,656 $39,067 $37,303 $41,089 $39,324 Total Available for SANDAG: Regional Planning/Capital Projects 338,018 1,302 1,302 1,066 1,066 920 920 847 847 Transferred Functions 2,260,085 2,346 2,233 2,440 2,328 2,536 2,424 2,660 2,548 SANDAG Expenses 442,156 620 621 484 486 503 505 711 713 3% Planning Funds 3,919,872 4,068 3,873 4,233 4,038 4,399 4,204 4,614 4,419 Prior Year Carryover 3,468,517 Total Available to Claim $10,428,648 $8,336 $8,030 $8,223 $7,917 $8,358 $8,053 $8,833 $8,527 Total Community Transit Service (CTSA) $124,257 $129 $123 $134 $128 $139 $133 $146 $140 Prior Year Carryover $0 Total Available to Claim $124,257 $129 $123 $134 $128 $139 $133 $146 $140 *Totals may not add up due to rounding
1The County Auditor provided the apportionment for FY 2015. The projected estimates for FY 2016 to FY 2019 are based on the growth rate in retail sales as forecasted by SANDAG and excludes interest and prior year excess funds. The low range is based on the 95% confidence interval of -$6.5M per year. 2Apportionment distribution is based on the population estimates published by the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates as of January 2013 - approximately 71% for MTS and 29% for NCTD. 3The SANDAG Administration cost rises in FY 2016 and in FY 2019 disproportionately due to costs associated with the triennial performance audit. All other annual increases in SANDAG administrative share are consistent with the estimated growth in the TDA. 4Represents the local match for federally funded regional planning and transit capital development projects identified in the FY 2015 transit CIP as provided by MTS and NCTD. The projects funded are scheduled to be included as part of the FY 2015 Capital Improvement Program scheduled for Transportation Committee/Board action at their March meetings. As a result, this amount is subject to change. 5Based on Addendums No. 3 and No. 4 to the Master Memorandum of Understanding between MTS, NCTD, and SANDAG. For NCTD, 26.09% of this share is transferred back to NCTD to be used for TDA-eligible purposes. 3 Attachment 2
Overall TransNet Program Revenue Estimates FY 2015 to FY 2019 (in $000s)*
TransNet Program Revenues FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Estimated Sales Tax Receipts $269,966 $280,521 $291,518 $302,945 $318,152
TransNet Program Allocations Administrative Allocations1 $2,700 $2,805 $2,915 $3,029 $3,182 Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee2 $382 $392 $401 $412 $422 Bike, Pedestrian & Neighborhood Safety3 $5,399 $5,610 $5,830 $6,059 $6,363 Total off-the-top Programs $8,481 $8,807 $9,147 $9,500 $9,967
Net Available for Subprograms $261,485 $271,714 $282,371 $293,445 $308,185
Program Allocations
Major Corridors Program4 $110,869 $115,207 $119,725 $124,421 $130,670 New BRT/Rail Operations5 $21,180 $22,009 $22,872 $23,769 $24,963 Transit System Improvements6 $43,145 $44,833 $46,591 $48,418 $50,850 Local System Improvement7 $86,290 $89,666 $93,182 $96,837 $101,701 Total Program Allocations $261,485 $271,714 $282,371 $293,445 $308,185
*Totals may not add up due to rounding
NOTES: The TransNet Extension Ordinance established the rules for the allocation of all Commission revenues. Commission funds are allocated according to the following 1Up to 1% of the annual revenues shall be allocated for administrative expenses, which includes Commission/Board expenses, administrative reserve. 2The ITOC allocation is based on the annual increase in CPI beginning with FY 2002, using $250,000 as the starting base. 3Total of 2% shall be allocated for bicycle facilities. 442.4% of the total revenues less off the top programs shall be allocated for Major Corridor projects which include transportation mitigation under the Environmental Mitigation program (EMP) and any finance charges incurred. 5 8.1% of the total revenues less off the top programs shall be allocated to operate new rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) services. 616.5% of the total revenues less off the top programs shall be allocated for purposes of public transit services including providing for senior and American with Disabilities Act (ADA)-related services. 733% of total revenues less off the top programs shall be allocated for local street improvement services, which includes roadway projects, as well as local EMP and smart growth incentive programs.
4 Attachment 3
TransNet Revenue Forecast - Transit System Improvement Program* Revenues Estimates FY 2015 to FY 2019 (in $000s)
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Proposed Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate (mid-range) (mid-range) Low (mid-range) Low (mid-range) Low (mid-range) Low Total Available For Transit Purposes1: $43,145 $44,833 $42,752 $46,591 $44,511 $48,418 $46,338 $50,850 $48,770 Less 2.5% for ADA-related Services ($1,079) ($1,121) ($1,069) ($1,165) ($1,113) ($1,211) ($1,158) ($1,271) ($1,219) Less 3.25% for Senior Services ($1,402) ($1,457) ($1,389) ($1,514) ($1,447) ($1,574) ($1,506) ($1,653) ($1,585) Subtotal $40,664 $42,255 $40,294 $43,912 $41,951 $45,633 $43,674 $47,926 $45,966
MTS Projects And Services: Transit Service Improvements (Operations and Supporting Capital)** $28,853 $29,981 $28,590 $31,157 $29,766 $32,379 $30,988 $34,006 $32,614
ADA Services $766 $795 $759 $827 $790 $859 $822 $902 $865
NCTD Projects And Services: Transit Service Improvements (Operations and Supporting Capital) $11,811 $12,274 $11,704 $12,755 $12,185 $13,254 $12,686 $13,920 $13,352 ADA Services $313 $326 $310 $338 $323 $352 $336 $369 $354
Regional Discretionary Programs2: Competitive Grant Program for Senior Transportation Services $1,402 $1,457 $1,389 $1,514 $1,447 $1,574 $1,506 $1,653 $1,585 *Totals may not add up due to rounding **$1.275M of this amount is scheduled to be transferred to SANDAG to use as the local match to federally funded capital projects implemented by SANDAG on behalf of MTS. This also will be reflected in the FY 2015 transit CIP for scheduled for March Transportation Committee and Board meetings.
1The Transit System Services Improvements share is 16.5% of net available revenues. After deducting for ADA and Senior Services, the balance is available for operations and miscellaneous capital 2The funds are allocated via a Call for Projects process by SANDAG.
Other Notes: A. The estimated revenues are based on growth rate in taxable sales as forecasted by SANDAG and excludes interest and prior year excess funds. The low range is based on a 95% confidence interval of (-)$13 million for the overall program and (-)$2 million for the Transit System program B. Distribution of revenue estimates are based on the 2004 Proposition A Extension: San Diego Transportation Improvement Program and Expenditure Plan.
5 Attachment 4 Table 4
Federal Transit Administration Formula Programs Revenue Estimates - FY 2015 to 2019
FY 2014 FY 20151 FY 2016 ($000s) FY 2017 ($000s) FY 2018 ($000s) FY 2019 ($000s) Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional Apportion- Capital Regional Apportion- Capital Regional Apportion- Capital Regional Apportion- Capital Regional Apportion- Capital Regional Carryover ment Projects3 Planning ment Projects3 Planning ment Projects3 Planning ment Projects3 Planning ment Projects3 Planning Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funds MTS $1,626,748 $40,114,504 ($6,332,800) ($766,605) $40,362 ($1,202) ($767) $40,362 $0 ($767) $40,362 $0 ($767) $40,362 $0 ($767) NCTD $697,178 $17,191,930 ($1,352,072) N/A $17,298 ($3,204) N/A $17,298 ($3,495) N/A $17,298 ($2,914) N/A $17,298 ($2,623) N/A SANDAG (Vanpool Program)2 $0 $3,984,223 N/A $766,605 $4,000 N/A $767 $4,000 N/A $767 $4,000 N/A $767 $4,000 N/A $767
SANDAG (Capital Projects)3 $7,684,872 $4,407 $3,495 $2,914 $2,623
Total $2,323,926 $61,290,657 $0 $0 $61,659 $0 $0 $61,659 $0 $0 $61,659 $0 $0 $61,659 $0 $0
Section 5337 State of Good Repair/High Intensity MTS $715,821 $21,339,666 $0 N/A $21,340 $0 N/A $21,340 $0 N/A $21,340 $0 N/A $21,340 $0 N/A NCTD $383,193 $9,022,933 $0 N/A $9,023 $0 N/A $9,023 $0 N/A $9,023 $0 N/A $9,023 $0 N/A Total $1,099,014 $30,362,599 $0 N/A $30,363 $0 N/A $30,363 $0 N/A $30,363 $0 N/A $30,363 $0 N/A
Section 5339 Bus/Bus Facilities4 MTS $3,522,125 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A NCTD $1,509,482 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A Total $5,031,607 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 N/A
1Although the federal Omnibus passed in January, the Federal Register which provides the FTA apportionment is not yet available. Without the publication, this estimate keeps FFY 2014 (FY 2015 CIP) is the same as is for current FFY 2013. All future years remain the same without an assumption of growth. MAP-21 expires this year and there is no good trend data to rely on to make any forecast. 2SANDAG and transit agencies have agreed to fully fund the rideshare portion of the regional Transportation Demand Management program in recognition of the vanpool program's contribution to the funding level apportioned to the region. Prior year is reconciled and future years are re-estimated on an annual basis.
3Regional Capital Projects refer to projects and associated funding transferred to SANDAG to implement on behalf of MTS and NCTD based on the draft FY 2015 MTS/NCTD Capital budget. The specific projects and funding recommendation is scheduled to be presented to the Transportation Committee/Board of Directors as part of the FY 2015 Transit Capital Improvement Program at their respective meetings in March, and therefore is subject to change.
4Section 5339 is a new program and with MAP-21 expiring in FY 2015, future years are shown as zero until there is notification of continuation of this program. Also, FTA has determined that transit agencies cannot directly apply for these programs. SANDAG and the transit agencies agreed to exchange the Section 5339 for TransNet -MC. This table is for illustrative purposes to show the amount of the exchange, the actual application of the program will be done by SANDAG.
Note: SANDAG share is based on the estimated costs to operate the regional vanpool program and its estimated increase in future years. The balance of 5307 funds are allocated 70% to MTS and 30% to NCTD. The same 70/30 split applies to the 5337 and 5339 funds (SANDAG does not share in these programs).
6 Attachment 5
Forecast Methodology
Forecasting is a challenging venture made more difficult with the continued economic turmoil. History and previous experiences may not be good indicators of the course of events over the next few years. Even though the Great Recession officially ended more than four and a half years ago (June 2009), its impacts are lingering longer than most expected.
Although the recession may be behind us technically, a majority of economists are forecasting a modest recovery over the next few years, followed by a relatively slow expansion through 2017. In the near-term, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to expand in the 2 to 3 percent range; levels that are historically low for a recovery from a deep recession. For example, following the deep 1981-1982 recession in which GDP shrunk by 2.9 percent from peak to trough, the economy bounced right back – growing 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. The 2007-2009 Great Recession has been twice as deep and the rebound about half as robust as the 1981-1982 downturn. If the nation’s GDP increases at the expected 2 to 3 percent per year, it would likely be 2017 or beyond before the unemployment rate falls to the prerecession level of about 5.5 percent.
Overall, this slow pace of economic growth has influenced sales tax revenue. Since emerging from the Great Recession in July 2009, the rate of growth in sales tax revenue locally has been positive, but slightly lower each year. During FY 2013, sales tax revenue increased 4.6 percent, and through the first half of FY 2014 the growth rate has continued at 4.2 percent. However, the general positive growth in sales tax receipts is consistent with the SANDAG expectation that revenue increases will occur as the economy begins to experience increased job growth, which has occurred nationwide and locally over the past three-plus fiscal years. However, this trend of smaller growth rates indicates that the economy may not be out of the woods yet, and likely faces challenges during the next couple of years. The SANDAG forecast of sales tax revenue growth of 5.0 percent for FY 2014 and 4.0 percent for FY 2015 reflects this expected longer recovery period.
To account for the emerging structural changes taking place in the economy, staff refined its forecasting methodology that produces the short-term quarterly sales tax revenue estimates. The current methodology focuses on expected job growth, the level of unemployment, and the condition of consumers’ balance sheets to forecast sales tax revenue trends.
The short-term forecast methodology requires a different approach to calculating the confidence interval. Our forecast procedure provides a midpoint estimate with a range of accuracy of approximately plus or minus 5 percent or $13 million per year at the 95 percent level of confidence for TransNet. For example, for FY 2014 the TransNet revenue estimate for the entire program is approximately $260 million, making the range between $247 million at the low end and $273 million at the high end, with 95 percent confidence that the actual revenue amount will be within this range. We suggest continuing the established practice of using the midpoint of the confidence interval range for the future year projections. The high and low ranges are determined by beginning with the prior year midpoint, applying the estimated growth rate for the current year, and then adding and subtracting the confidence interval range ($13 million for TransNet and $6.5 million for TDA) from the midpoint. The $6.5 million for the TDA confidence interval range is based on the fact that the TDA receipts are approximately half of TransNet receipts. The low range estimate is provided for planning purposes.
7 Expected Trends
The positive growth in sales tax receipts is consistent with SANDAG’s expectation that revenue increases would occur as the economy begins to experience job growth, which has occurred nationwide and locally. Although the Great Recession that began in December 2007 officially ended in June 2009, the economic turnaround has been slow and sporadic. During 2011, for example, most economists expected the national economy to expand between 3.0 percent and 3.5 percent during calendar year 2011; whereas the national economy actually expanded by just 1.8 percent for the year. A similar trend has emerged for 2012 with the preliminary estimate of GDP growth showing the national economy expanded by 2.2 percent during 2012, including a decline of 0.1 percent recorded for the fourth quarter of 2012. This “on-again-off-again” growth in GDP continued into 2013 with slow growth during the first half of the year and a significant pick-up during the second half which according to the preliminary data show the highest back to back quarters of GDP growth in a decade.
To help counter the sluggish economic rebound, additional doses of monetary (operation twist and quantitative easing) and fiscal policy (payroll tax reduction and increases in public support programs) were implemented in both 2011 and 2012. Although some of the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve are expected to continue into 2014 but at a reduced level, the payroll tax reduction has ended, which means most employed people experienced a tax increase of 2 percent during 2013. On the positive side, Congress has agreed to a two year budget and both the housing sector and automobile sales have increased over the past year, and the consensus view is that these positive trends will continue, although the pace of growth will likely moderate. However, the economy still faces challenges over the next couple of years. Some of the economic paralysis caused by public policy uncertainty and the European sovereign debt crisis will continue to act as headwinds during 2014 and beyond keeping economic growth below the long term trend of 3.6 percent. Most economists believe it will require additional time to repair the damage caused by the Great Recession; for example, the consensus expects 2014 to be similar to 2012 and 2013 with the nation’s GDP, a measure of the total value of finished goods and services produced annually within the borders of the U.S., increasing by 2.5 percent, making it difficult for people without a job to find one. The improvement in the unemployment rate, normally a good indicator of the health of the economy, is due in part to a decline in the size of the labor force as more discouraged workers stop searching for employment. In addition approximately 35 percent of the unemployed have been unsuccessfully searching for seven months or longer, and 25 percent have been searching for more than one year. The number of people suffering from long term unemployment is at record levels and improving very slowly, which led the President to announce partnerships and programs to directly address this lingering problem, including 300 companies and the federal government willing to hire the long term unemployed, as well as, $150 million to fund the “ready to work” partnership, designed to pair the long term unemployed with job opportunities. For these reasons, SANDAG’s forecast of sales tax revenue growth reflects this expected longer recovery period.
Despite the relative poor performance of the national economy, locally we have experienced three and a half years of sales tax revenue increases after three consecutive years of decline, measured on a year over year basis. However, the emerging trend over the past three years shows that the rate of growth in sales tax revenue has been slower each year.
The table below shows actual and projected annual rates of change for TransNet revenues. By the end of FY 2013 TransNet revenue was slightly below the past peak recorded during FY 2008,
8 consistent with our expectations. Adjusting for the effects of inflation, that is, achieving the same level of purchasing power is expected to occur during FY 2015.
Growth in TransNet Sales Tax Receipts
Fiscal Year % Change Amount 2010 (Actual) -8.0% $204.2M 2011 (Actual) 8.4% $221.3M 2012 (Actual) 7.0% $236.9M 2013 (Actual) 4.3% $247.2M 2014 (Projected) 5.0% $260.0M* 2015 (Estimate) 4.0% $270.0M* 2016 (Estimate) 3.9% $280.5M* 2017 (Estimate) 3.9% $291.5M* 2018 (Estimate) 3.9% $302.9M* 2019 (Estimate) 5.0% $318.2M* *Represents the midpoint of confidence interval range
9 Attachment 6
TDA
TDA is the major subsidy source that supports the region’s public transit operators and nonmotorized transportation projects. TDA comes from a quarter of a percent of state sales tax assessed in the region. SANDAG, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, is responsible to release the apportionment of TDA funds each year in conformance with state statute. The transit operators and other member agencies submit their annual TDA claims based on the annual apportionment and in compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 027: TDA Administration Policy.
Pursuant to state statute, the County of San Diego Auditor Controller office has the responsibility for providing the TDA apportionment for the upcoming fiscal year. The County Auditor develops the apportionment in consultation with SANDAG staff and with the transit operators, based on actual sales tax receipts and projections. The apportionment for FY 2015 determines the amount of funds available to each agency to claim. SANDAG is required to notify prospective claimants of the apportionment by March 1, necessitating action by the Board of Directors in February each year.
The legislative priorities established by state law include certain categories for which TDA funds are taken “off the top.” These include the allocation to SANDAG for various planning, programming, and administrative-related expenses, funding of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and support of community transit services. In addition, the County Auditor receives an allocation based on estimates of its costs to administer the TDA program. The remaining apportionment, along with any prior year carryover funds, is available to be claimed by North County Transit District (NCTD), and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). The balance of current year funds are allocated based upon the population of the service area served by the two transit agencies.
Pursuant to provisions of Senate Bill 1703 (Peace, 2002) and as agreed to by MTS, NCTD, and SANDAG, regional transit capital projects are implemented by SANDAG with funding transferred from both MTS and NCTD. The amount of transfer of local match for the federal formula funds for the capital projects to be implemented by SANDAG on behalf of MTS is based on the draft five-year transit Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The final list of projects and associated funding will be included with the transit CIP scheduled for Transportation Committee and Board of Directors action in March 2014. An additional apportionment to SANDAG covers those indirect administrative functions not directly funded by projects. The calculation for the cost of these administrative functions was memorialized in Addenda Nos. 3 and 4 to the Memorandum of Understanding between SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD.
Attachment 1 shows the TDA estimates from FY 2015 to FY 2019. The FY 2015 apportionment is based on an assumption of a 4 percent increase over projected FY 2014 TDA revenue. The FY 2016 to FY 2019 estimates is based on the forecast methodology described in Attachment 5. Staff is forecasting sales tax revenue growth consistent with TransNet growth rates shown in Attachment 5. The ‘low’ estimates shown in Attachment 1 are based on the lower end of the 95 percent confidence interval, calculated by subtracting approximately $6.5 million per year from the mid- point forecasted value.
10 TransNet
The TransNet Extension, the 40-year half-cent sales tax transportation funding measure approved by the voters in 2004 became effective in FY 2009. TransNet provides funding for major transportation projects in the region. After deducting costs associated with administrative expenses, the operation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), and the bicycle/pedestrian program, the TransNet program is divided into Major Corridor Projects (42.4%), New Bus Rapid Transit/Rail Operations (8.1%), Local System Improvements (33%), and Transit System Improvements (16.5%). Attachment 2 shows the estimates for the overall program and the various subprograms as described.
Within the Transit System Improvements, services provided pursuant to ADA and subsidies for seniors have specific earmarks (2.5% and 3.25%, respectively). The remaining revenues can be used by the transit agencies for operating or miscellaneous capital purposes. Similar to TDA, the transit share between NCTD and MTS is allocated based upon the respective population of the two transit agencies’ service areas.
Attachment 3 shows the estimates from FY 2015 to FY 2019 for the Transit System Improvements program portion of the TransNet program. These estimates are based on the forecast methodology described in Attachment 5. As stated above, the sales tax revenue estimate for 2014 (midpoint of the confidence interval range) is the base year for the forecast.
Based on the forecast of sales tax revenue growth as shown in Attachment 5, the ‘low’ estimates are based on the lower end of the 95 percent confidence interval; calculated by subtracting approximately $13 million per year from the midpoint forecasted value for the overall TransNet program. The effect on the Transit System Improvements program (a subset of the overall TransNet program) equates to approximately $2 million each year.
The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is scheduled to review the TransNet estimates for the entire program at its February 2014 meeting. Any significant comments will be presented to the Transportation Committee.
FTA Formula Programs (Sections 5307, 5337, and 5339)
FTA 49 USC Section 5307 provides for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. For areas with populations of 200,000 and more, such as San Diego County, the formula is based on a combination of bus/vanpool revenue vehicle miles, bus/vanpool passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed guideway route miles, as well as population and population density. Eligible activities under this program include planning, engineering design, and an evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities; construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems, including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. The Job Access and Reserve Commute (JARC), a separate formula program under prior authorizations, has been eliminated under MAP-21; however JARC projects are now eligible under Section 5307. Preventive maintenance and some Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) complementary paratransit service, while recorded as operating expenditures, are considered capital costs for purposes of eligibility.
11 Section 5337 is a new formula-based State of Good Repair program that replaces and enhances former 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization program. Section 5337 is dedicated to repairing and upgrading the nation’s rail transit systems along with high-intensity motor bus systems that use high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including bus rapid transit (BRT). These funds reflect a commitment to ensuring that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development. Eligible activities include projects to replace and rehabilitate: rolling stock, track, line equipment and structures, signals and communications, power equipment and substations, passenger stations and terminals, maintenance facilities and equipment, operational support equipment (including computer hardware and software), and Transit Asset Management Plan development and implementation.
Section 5339 is a new formula-based Bus and Bus Facilities program that provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. This program replaces the Bus and Bus Facilities discretionary program. The FTA has determined that the transit agencies (NCTD and MTS) are not eligible recipients of this program. In order to keep the two transit agencies whole, SANDAG would exchange like amount of TransNet- Major Corridors (MC) funds with Section 5339, and program the funds to TransNet-MC eligible SANDAG projects. SANDAG plans to evaluate this exchange with the new reauthorization.
As stated above, the Section 5307 program is based on number of factors including data from the vanpool program. Over the years, the regional vanpool program has contributed substantially to the overall funding that comes to the region. In recognition of its contribution, the transit agencies have agreed to update the funding level to fully fund the regional vanpool program from the total apportionment. After deducting for the cost of the vanpool program, Section 5307 funds are allocated 70 percent for MTS and 30 percent for NCTD. The same 70/30 formula was used to allocate the Sections 5337 and 5339 between MTS and NCTD. SANDAG does not directly receive funds from neither Section 5337 nor Section 5339. These revenues are used to develop the FY 2015 transit CIP, which is scheduled for Transportation Committee and Board of Directions meetings in March 2014. The CIP identifies projects proposed for funding under the federal program, as well as outline the division of capital projects to be implemented either by MTS, NCTD, or SANDAG.
Attachment 4 shows the federal funds estimated to be available from FY 2015 to FY 2019 for Section 5307 and Section 5337 programs. As stated earlier, the annual revenues remain the same as in FY 2014 to remain conservative. No funds are shown for the Section 5339 program beyond the current FY 2015. As a new program, without a new reauthorization, we are uncertain as to the continuation of this program.
12
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-11 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – DISCUSSION
SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: File Number 3102000 DRAFT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Introduction
In past Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), SANDAG has utilized transportation project evaluation criteria and performance measures informed by the plan goals as elements of a multi-step process to prioritize and evaluate transportation projects in the development of the preferred revenue constrained transportation network. The SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the vision and goals for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) on May 10, 2013, which provide policy guidance for this process.
The evaluation criteria for highway corridors, transit services, connector projects, active transportation, and rail grade separations were approved by the Board on October 11, 2013. The criteria will be used to evaluate projects for each of those categories and develop lists of ranked projects. The ranked lists of projects, along with other factors such as funding availability, project readiness, and overall network connectivity, will be utilized when developing the initial revenue constrained transportation network scenarios for the Regional Plan.
The transportation networks will support local land use planning efforts as reflected in the current SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast. As shown below, over the past 14 years, local plans have been updated to concentrate growth within the urbanized areas of the region, closer to existing and planned transportation infrastructure while increasing land area dedicated to open space and habitat preservation. Performance measures will be used to provide comparative assessments between the multimodal network scenarios, and will aid the Board in the selection of a preferred network of transportation projects for the Regional Plan. The 2050 Regional Growth forecast will be an input to the Activity Based Model that will be used to project future travel patterns. This travel model has been validated to current travel conditions.
Projected housing and job growth – 1999 Projected housing and job growth – 2013 (Series 9 Regional Growth Forecast) (Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast)
At its February 7, 2014 meeting, the Regional Planning Committee discussed and provided feedback on the draft performance measures. Comments from some members focused on understanding the role of the performance measures in the future selection of the draft Regional Plan preferred network, support for including a list of key questions and narrowing down the number of measures from the 2050 RTP/SCS, and clarifications on how the data for the proposed draft performance measures would be generated. Transportation Committee members are asked to further discuss and provide feedback on the draft performance measures. Recommendations to the Board of Directors will be sought from both the Regional Planning Committee and Transportation Committee in March 2014.
Performance Measures Development
Using the performance measures from the 2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) as a starting point, staff initiated the review and refinement of the draft performance measures for the Regional Plan in September 2013. With the assistance from a consultant team with strong technical expertise, staff reviewed best practices as input in the development of the draft performance measures. In an effort to highlight how the plan is expected to perform in a more clear and easy to understand way, a list of key questions, which support the Regional Plan policy objectives established by the SANDAG Board, was developed. Additionally, revisions to the existing measures and methodologies were made to take advantage of the recently enhanced modeling tools, the Activity Based Model, and the economic and land use microsimulation model – the Production, Exchange and Consumption Allocation System (PECAS). Attachment 1 highlights the Regional Plan goals and policy objectives, and the draft performance measures, which would be used to gauge the plan’s performance and respond to key questions.
Staff received input on the draft performance measures from regional stakeholders at meetings of the Active Transportation Working Group, Cities and County Technical Advisory Committee, Community Based Organization partners, Freight Stakeholder Working Group, Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), Public Health Stakeholders Working Group, Regional Planning Technical Working Group, Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, and the Tribal Transportation Working Group. Staff also sought input from partner agencies including Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transit System, and the North County Transit District.
A peer review panel also was convened to review and assess the measures, and to provide feedback and input which is proposed to be incorporated into the draft performance measures. The panelists, which included experts from academia, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the private sector, met on November 12, 2013, and provided recommendations for revision and enhancement to the draft measures.
Performance Measures Proposed Refinements
The draft performance measures are nested within the Regional Plan’s goals: Innovative Mobility and Planning, Healthy Environment and Communities, and Vibrant Economy and also tie into the plan’s policy objectives. The proposed draft performance measures include twenty metrics which will assist in evaluating the performance of the multimodal transportation network scenarios. The performance measures will benefit from the investments that SANDAG has made to enhance its regional models over the past five years.
2 Key measures which have been added to provide more information with respect to new or enhanced policy objectives such as public health and social equity include:
• Total time engaged in transportation-related physical activity • Percentage of population engaging in more than 20 minutes of daily transportation related physical activity • Percent of income consumed by transportation costs for each of the Communities of Concern (COC)1
Other new and refined measures include:
• Truck and commercial vehicle travel times to and around regional gateways and distribution hubs • Average travel times to and from tribal lands • Average travel times to and from Mexico • Percent of population and employment within 0.5 miles of high frequency transit stops • Percent of population and employment within 0.25 miles of a bike facility • Average travel distance to work • Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education
Social Equity considerations have been incorporated into the performance measures to provide an indication of benefits and burdens to COC. A separate comprehensive Social Equity analysis will be conducted as part of San Diego Forward, in compliance with Title VI and Environmental Justice guidelines. This analysis may include additional measures specific to that analysis and will be presented in conjunction with the network performance measure analysis.
Public Outreach
Public input on the performance measures was solicited as part of the Regional Plan workshop series held in June 2013 throughout the San Diego region and at Caltrans. In addition to the workshop series, a public workshop focused on performance measures was held on November 4, 2013, at Balboa Park, with more than 40 participants.
Over 360 comments have been collected from local jurisdictions, partner agencies, stakeholders, and the general public and have been compiled into a comprehensive matrix (Attachment 2). Comments to date have been focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, access to jobs and services, safety, cost effectiveness, public health, social equity, mode share, and travel times in the evaluation of scenarios.
Peer Review
The peer review panel that provided input on the draft project evaluation criteria earlier this year was reconvened to review and assess the draft performance measures. A meeting was held at SANDAG on November 12, 2013, concluding with a session open to the general public. Prior to the meeting, the panelists were provided with the 2050 RTP/SCS performance measures, the proposed revisions/modifications to the Regional Plan draft performance measures, and a public outreach comment matrix.
1 Working with the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan community based organization network, staff proposes to define “Communities of Concern” as low-income (200 percent of Federal Poverty Rate), minority, and seniors (75 and over). 3 The panel complimented SANDAG’s ability to produce a concise number of performance measures that provide a comprehensive amount of quantifiable analysis to compare multimodal transportation network scenarios. The panel also had a favorable reaction to connection of the performance measures with the plan’s goals and liked the idea of creating a list of key questions which could be used to convey the data results in an easy to understand format. The panel recommended that SANDAG look for opportunities to further eliminate redundancy in the performance measures, consider varied land use scenarios in the network development, and consider varied levels of Intelligent Transportation System and arterial projects in network scenarios. The panelists also offered a list of specific performance measures for deletion or modification. A summary of the peer review panel’s findings and recommendations is included as Attachment 3A. Attachment 3B provides the panelists’ biographies.
Based on the panel’s review and comments received from the public, the following performance measures were eliminated from consideration: systemwide vehicle miles traveled per capita, transit miles per capita, return on investment/Net Present Value of transportation investments. The average travel time to work (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike and walk) was modified to specify peak-period travel and was expanded to look at data for the total population as well as COC and non-COCs and the total time engaged in transportation-related physical activity measure was modified to be calculated on a per capita basis. The percent of population engaging in more than 20 minutes of daily transportation related physical activity was added based on comments from the peer review and public. The response to the panel findings is highlighted in Attachment 3C.
During the public session, the panel shared its findings and recommendations, and participants posed questions to the panel and SANDAG staff as to how the panel’s recommendation for fewer performance measures might be accomplished. Inquiries as to the process in other regions and Metropolitan Planning Organizations were made. Comments also were received regarding the GHG metric, public health measures, average travel times to and from Mexico, potential measures for operations and maintenance, and environmentally sensitive lands.
Next Steps
In March, the Regional Planning Committee and the Transportation Committee will be asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the performance measures.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: Draft Performance Measures 2. Draft Performance Measure Comment Matrix 3A. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: Draft Transportation Network Performance Measures, Peer Review Panel Findings 3B. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: Draft Performance Measures: Peer Review Panel Biographies 3C. Peer Panel Finding Responses Key Staff Contact: Rachel Kennedy, (619) 699-1929, [email protected]
4 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Attachment 1 1 Draft Performance Measures
Policy Goals Key Questions Draft Performance Measure Objectives Innovative Mobility Choices 1. Are travel times reduced? 1A. Average peak-period travel time to work (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike, and walk) Mobility and (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) Planning 1B. Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes) 2. Are more people walking, 2A. Increase in walk, bike, transit, and carpool mode share biking, using transit and sharing rides? 3. Is the transportation system 3A. Annual projected number of vehicle (driver/passenger) injury/fatal collisions per vehicle miles safer? traveled (VMT) 3B.Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per bicyclist/pedestrian miles traveled (BPMT) Vibrant Economy Regional 4. Do the transportation 4A. Benefit/Cost Ratio of transportation investments Economic investments help to improve Prosperity, the regional economy? 4B. Average truck/commercial vehicle travel times to and around regional gateways and distribution Partnerships and hubs (minutes) Collaboration 5. Are the relative costs of 5A. Percent of income consumed by transportation costs (Communities of Concern and Non- transportation changing Communities of Concern) similarly for all communities? 6. Are connections to tribal 6A. Average travel times to/from tribal lands (minutes) lands and Mexico improved? 6B. Average travel times to/from Mexico (minutes) Healthy Complete 7. Does the transportation 7A. Percentage of population/employment within 0.5 miles of high frequency (<=15 min peak and Environment and Communities, network support smart midday) transit stops (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) Communities Habitat and growth? 7B. Percentage of population/employment within 0.5 miles of a transit stop (Communities of Open Space Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) Preservation, Environmental 7C. Percentage of population/employment within 0.25 miles a bike facility (class I and II, cycletrack, Stewardship and bicycle boulevard) (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) 7D. Average travel distance to work (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike, and walk) (miles)
7E. Total time engaged in transportation-related physical activity per capita (minutes)
7F. Percent of population engaging in more than 20 minutes of daily transportation related physical activity 8. Is access to jobs and key 8A. Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education (Communities of Concern destinations improving for and Non-Communities of Concern) all communities? 8B. Percent of population within 15 minutes of goods and services (retail, medical, parks and beaches) (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) 9. Is the region’s air quality 9A. On-road smog-forming pollutants (pounds/day) per capita improving? 10. Are GHG emissions reduced? 10A. On-road CO2 emissions (pounds/day) per capita
1 Work on the Performance Measures is being funded in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council. The statements and conclusions resulting from these efforts are not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the statements or the information contained in the work products. 5 Attachment 2
Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
1. Average peak-period travel time to work (drive Innovative alone, carpool, transit, Mobility and bike, and walk) Planning (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern)
The proposed cost benefit analysis will be applied to a scenario or package of transportation investments, Innovative not to evaluate roadway Mobility and Cost-benefit is narrowly projects relative to other Planning defined when comparing modal projects. In addition, the travel time savings; roadways Active proposed benefit cost come out ahead. Any scenario Transportation methodology includes a broad will give you a reduction in Working Group set of elements, not simply 1 pollutants. (ATWG) 10/10/2013 travel time savings.
Innovative 2. Daily vehicle delay per Mobility and Planning capita (minutes)
Remove daily vehicle delay per The set of proposed capita; it is too auto centric performance measures also Innovative Mobility and and needs to consider Active includes metrics related to Planning California legislation CEQA; Transportation transit, bicycle, and walk we need to move away from Working Group modes (refer to 1A, 2A, 3B, 7A, 2 auto centric measures. (ATWG) 10/10/2013 7B, 7C, and 7D).
6 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Congestion represents a cost to the regional economy both directly through reducing productivity as well as indirectly through reduced regional competitiveness. Congestion also represents and environmental cost due to increased air pollution. Daily Innovative vehicle delay is included similar Mobility and Planning to the way that other "mode- centric" performance measures are included. The mode share How does congestion fit into performance measure is under the goals? Remove daily the "mobility" goal area (refer vehicle delay per capita. Move to 2A). The "Healthy mode share to mobility. Environment and Reducing VMT should be the Active Communities" includes focus. Health should be Transportation performance measures related explicitly stated as one of the Working Group to health (refer to 7A-7F, 8B, 3 objectives. (ATWG) 10/3/2013 9A, and 10A).
SANDAG staff Innovative Mobility and summary of Public VMT reduction was considered Planning Health Stakeholders as an initial performance For “is congestion reduced?”, Working Group measure but was dropped 4 consider “is VMT reduced?” (PHSWG) meeting 10/11/2013 from the revised proposed list.
Innovative 3. Increase in walk, bike, Mobility and Planning transit, and carpool mode share
Innovative Cities/County A number of walk and bike Mobility and Transportation performance measures are Planning Advisory Committee included (refer to 1A, 2A, 3B, 5 Include walking with biking. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 7C, 7E, and 7F). 7 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response “Are more people walking, biking, using transit and sharing rides?” and “Are Innovative Mobility and people driving less?” – we Planning suggest that these two questions be combined since they capture similar Linda Vista, Sharon These two questions have been 6 information Hughes 11/1/2013 reduced to a single question. The “Are more people walking/biking/using transit?” Innovative Community-Based question is now associated Mobility and “Are more people Planning Organization with the first goal area, walking/biking/using transit?” Partner Network "Innovative Mobility and 7 – move to 1st category (CBO) 10/24/2013 Planning" (refer to 2A). Walk, bike, transit, and Public Health Innovative Mobility and carpool mode share should be Stakeholders More detailed mode share Planning stratified by income level and Working Group summaries could be prepared 8 race/ethnicity. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 for social equity analyses.
4. Annual projected
Innovative number of vehicle Mobility and (driver/passenger) Planning injury/fatal collisions per vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
For autos and bicycles, accident data is forecast by applying historical accident rates by Innovative Mobility and vehicle miles travelled and Planning bicycle miles travelled. For Active autos, these rates are stratified Transportation by roadway type. The How is accident data Working Group projected number of accidents 9 projected? (ATWG) 10/10/2013 are divided by the VMT/BPMT.
8 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response 5. Annual projected number of Innovative bicycle/pedestrian Mobility and Planning injury/fatal collisions per bicyclist/pedestrian miles traveled (BPMT) Vehicle accident rates are not stratified by speed ranges explicitly, but are stratified by Innovative roadway type, which is a proxy Mobility and For annual projected vehicle for speed. Bicycle accident Planning and bike/pedestrian Public Health rates do not reflect roadway injury/fatal collisions, consider Stakeholders speeds due to the inability to speed which is an indicator for Working Group estimate this relationship with 10 safety. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 confidence.
Innovative Cities/County Mobility and It is about further realigning Transportation Agreed. Investments in traffic Planning roadways and traffic calming, Advisory Committee calming could lead to safer 11 making infrastructure safer. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 travel conditions.
Rates of accidents by VMT and Innovative BPMT are used to estimate Mobility and Highway safety manual needs Cities/County accidents (refer to 3A and 3B). Planning to be specific to roadway in Transportation This method is broadly used by order to be modeled; Advisory Committee transportation planning 12 freeway/roadway algorithms. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 agencies.
Severity of accidents are estimated. The total number Innovative This does not identify the of accidents is calculated at a Mobility and severity; safety is not based on regional level, and is not Planning the facility alone. Look at Cities/County considered on a facility-specific accidents; does it slow the Transportation level. Non-recurrent delays roadway down (within Advisory Committee due to accidents are not 13 Complete Communities)? (CTAC) 10/3/2013 incorporated into the analysis. 9 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Rates of accidents by VMT and Innovative BMPT are used to estimate Mobility and Cities/County accidents (refer to 3A and 3B). Planning Transportation This method is broadly used by Advisory Committee transportation planning 14 How do you model safety? (CTAC) 10/3/2013 agencies. Innovative Mobility and Planning Other
Reducing congestion increases speeds. This is observable by the severity of collisions with higher speeds. Issues include Innovative Mobility and hospital costs and reliability of Planning the infrastructure, pedestrians getting hit at grade crossings (five-hour investigation occurs Cities/County afterward). Severity of Transportation collisions and speeds impact Advisory Committee Severity of accidents are 15 reliability. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 estimated.
Managing congestion should Innovative be the focus rather than Cities/County Mobility and reducing it. Managing Transportation Planning congestion will reduce system Advisory Committee 16 costs. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 Comment noted
Innovative Cities/County Mobility and Transportation Planning Advisory Committee 17 It is a balance, slow and fast. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 Comment noted
Innovative Cities/County Mobility and Transportation Planning Lower the 85th percentile Advisory Committee 18 speed. (CTAC) 10/3/2013 Comment noted 10 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response “Is congestion reduced?” is not what the question should be. “Is congestion priced accurately?” is better. Congestion pricing strategies Innovative Congestion relates to will be considered when Mobility and economic prosperity, more transportation network Planning congestion is an indicator of a scenarios are developed. A strong economy. The question Active benefit cost analysis will be should consider how Transportation conducted to estimate the congestion is priced or Working Group benefits of the transportation 19 managed. (ATWG) 10/3/2013 investments.
Is congestion reduced? (Much of this question deals with Innovative lessening the time of travel. A Mobility and suggestion is to combine this Planning measure with “Are travel times Due to technical limitations in more reliable?” Such as “Are forecasting reliability, it is not travel times shorter and more Linda Vista, Sharon incorporated as a performance 20 reliable?”) Hughes 11/1/2013 measure.
The question “Is congestion reduced?” suggests reducing This question has been Innovative congestion as an objective, but removed from the list of key Mobility and we should be focused more on questions. Congestion Planning managing congestion as we management strategies will be cannot build our way out of Regional Planning considered when congestion. This question Technical Working transportation network 21 needs to be reframed. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 scenarios are developed. Measuring congestion will produce a different outcome Innovative Mobility and than say measuring travel A number of travel time- Planning time, which might get closer Regional Planning related performance measures to goal of having land uses Technical Working are included (refer to 1A, 8A, 22 closer together. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 and 8B).
11 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response System preservation is an interesting issue. We hear from policy makers when we propose to build the regional bike network that they are concerned about how they are going to maintain these facilities. These are probably the least expensive projects to maintain, but since it would fall on the cities, it’s Innovative understandable that they Mobility and would ask. While the sources Planning of funds and responsibilities are different, I think it is a question worth considering for the entire system. Infrastructure maintenance backlogs are an issue that’s Maintenance and operations coming up more and more, so costs are not necessarily a “what would the operations metric of performance. and maintenance costs be for Previous RTPs have included an the different scenarios?” is SANDAG staff, analysis of revenues needed to worth asking if we can answer PHWSG Meeting preserve the regional highway 23 it. Follow-up 10/18/2013 and transit systems.
12 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
On the access issue, someone asked if we are evaluating whether the access mode matches the land uses and Innovative support facilities (e.g. parking) Mobility and Planning it serves. This probably is a project evaluation question that might even be better asked at the design phase, but The performance measures are it’s interesting nonetheless. It SANDAG staff, applied at a regional level to gets to the question of how a PHWSG Meeting distinguish the performance of 24 project would serve an area. Follow-up 10/18/2013 different alternatives.
13 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response The last significant issue I heard has to do with the congestion relief vs. travel time vs. travel distance issue. Particularly in the urban core, rewarding increased system speed may not support our multimodal smart growth goals, at least above a certain speed level. Even the travel time question is a little complicated. What’s better, a 15 minute auto trip or a 25 minute bike trip. In the public health context, it’s an easy call. And do we try to reduce travel time by easing traffic congestion or by facilitating shorter trips? The former is easier to address from a strictly transportation perspective, but the latter is an important objective in the smart growth Innovative framework. The objective for Mobility and Planning something like this is going to change depending on the The relationship between context, so I’m sure it will be travel time, travel distance, and hard to encompass these congestion are important, and consideration in the a number of performance performance measures. Even measures addressing different so, I think it is worth keeping SANDAG staff, aspects of these factors are this in mind as the measures PHWSG Meeting included (refer to 1A, 1B, 4B, 25 are developed. Follow-up 10/18/2013 6A-6B, 7A-7D).
14 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
A number of the performance measures are prepared for "communities of concern" and Innovative "non-communities of concern" Mobility and Planning populations (refer to 1A, 5A, Community-Based 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, and 8B). Will there be a social equity Organization Additionally, the Regional Plan analysis performed across all Partner Network will feature a social equity 26 network scenarios? (CBO) 10/24/2013 section. Community-Based Estimates of vehicle miles Innovative Mobility and Organization travelled are derived from Planning How is Vehicle Miles Traveled Partner Network SANDAG's activity-based model 27 measured? (CBO) 10/24/2013 system.
For safety, there are “hard assets” versus “soft assets”. Soft assets include video cameras, lighting, etc. There is an interface with the human Innovative Mobility and element connected with Planning accessing different modes of transportation. There are software solutions and human Additional investigation into solutions when it comes to the Community-Based the impacts of "hard assets" perception of safety and for Organization and "soft assets" is necessary ways to improve the safety of Partner Network before a performance measure 28 transportation access. (CBO) 10/24/2013 could be developed.
“Is congestion reduced?” – Innovative could be a deterrent – transit Community-Based Mobility and and bike could cause more Organization Congestion is recognized to Planning congestion but still could be Partner Network result in both direct and 29 considered good network (CBO) 10/24/2013 indirect effects.
15 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Innovative Community-Based Increasing MTS frequency Mobility and MTS Access service – doesn’t Organization (reducing wait times) is an Planning go everywhere, increasing in Partner Network input to a scenario, not an 30 frequencies. (CBO) 10/24/2013 output performance measure.
Increase reliability is not Innovative necessarily faster - timeliness is Mobility and important, I don’t see it as a Input from Chula Planning question but I do see it as a Vista Community Reliability is a component of performance measure - as long Collaborative, the benefit cost measure (refer 31 as it is measured then it is okay Margarita Holguin 10/30/2013 to 4A).
The question of safety is only Tools or methods are not Innovative Mobility and looking at the big issue of Community-Based currently available to quantify Planning accidents. Other issues related Organization or forecast stress and fear to stress and fear need to be a Partner Network impacts. User safety is 32 part of the process. (CBO) 10/24/2013 considered in project design.
Is there any data or analysis Innovative with respect to crime within Mobility and public transit station areas? Community-Based Planning There should be a category for Organization Transit station area safety is funding areas where these Partner Network considered in transit project 33 events occur. (CBO) 10/24/2013 design. A key question that should be asked is “Does operation of the system cause or relieve Tools or methods are not Innovative Mobility and mobility stress?” The Trolleys currently available to quantify Planning are too crowded, safety at Community-Based or forecast stress and fear stations is an issue, fares are Organization impacts. Transit station area expensive, these are Partner Network safety is considered in transit 34 operational issues. (CBO) 10/24/2013 project design.
16 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Tools or methods are not Innovative Stress and fear are major currently available to quantify Mobility and barriers for all people, not just Community-Based or forecast stress and fear Planning low-income and minority Organization impacts. Transit station area populations. We need to Partner Network safety is considered in transit 35 measure this. (CBO) 10/24/2013 project design.
Tools or methods are not Innovative There are ways to measure currently available to quantify Mobility and stress on a roadway. Driving is Community-Based or forecast stress and fear Planning more popular because stress is Organization impacts. Transit station area lower, you know what you are Partner Network safety is considered in transit 36 getting into. (CBO) 10/24/2013 project design.
There is a bus pass pilot The activity-based model used program which measured the to forecast trips incorporates Innovative comfort level associated with some aspects of transit rider Mobility and using the bus. This was done Community-Based comfort. Future enhancements Planning by surveys inquiring into the Organization to the model may address level of passenger comfort Partner Network transit service attributes more 37 during the service. (CBO) 10/24/2013 fully.
Innovative Community-Based Mobility and We need to make sure we are Organization Planning collecting the proper data and Partner Network Collecting relevant data is 38 information. (CBO) 10/24/2013 important.
Innovative We need to focus on existing Community-Based Tools or methods are not Mobility and data that gets us information Organization currently available to quantify Planning of what relieves stress and Partner Network or forecast stress and fear 39 increases comfort. (CBO) 10/24/2013 impacts.
17 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
San Ysidro interviewed 1,200 residents covering a variety of topics and transit-related items of major concern included lack of shelters from the sun and rain, blockage of utility boxes Innovative and other items, poor Mobility and conditions near stops, and Planning over-capacity utilizing the Trolley where residents must The activity-based model used wait 2-3 times before boarding to forecast trips incorporates – sometimes 1-2 hours to get some aspects of transit rider to work or 3-4 hours total trip Community-Based comfort. Future enhancements time. There needs to be an Organization to the model may address express Blue Line Trolley to key Partner Network transit service attributes more 40 employment destinations. (CBO) 10/24/2013 fully.
MTS Access does not go everywhere. Some users need to state that they live at a Innovative different address and wait Mobility and there just to get access to a Planning destination they need to go to. How do we evaluate the Community-Based access and where areas are Organization Access to transit is included in served? How do we evaluate Partner Network the performance measures 41 the service of existing routes? (CBO) 10/24/2013 (refer to 7A and 7B).
Under mobility choices, increasing the use of the The measures are proposed to Innovative Mobility and transit network could increase address a wide variety of Planning congestion. The measures Community-Based factors of concern to San Diego seem vague in that there are Organization residents. In some instances, different impacts of modes Partner Network these measures may result in 42 and the measures are broader. (CBO) 10/24/2013 seemingly "opposite" impacts.
18 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Most of the performance Innovative Community-Based measures address aspects of Mobility and Organization transportation system Planning There is too much emphasis on Partner Network performance other than 43 the reduction of congestion. (CBO) 10/24/2013 congestion.
The first section of the Most of the performance Innovative Mobility and performance measures comes Community-Based measures address aspects of Planning off as a deterrent, congestion Organization transportation system should not be dictating the Partner Network performance other than 44 network scenarios. (CBO) 10/24/2013 congestion.
Maintenance and operations
Innovative costs are not necessarily a Mobility and metric of performance. Planning Public Health Previous RTPs have included an We need to consider a Stakeholders analysis of revenues needed to maintenance/rehabilitation Working Group preserve the regional highway 45 measure within the process. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 and transit systems.
Vibrant Economy 6. Benefit/Cost Ratio of transportation investments The proposed cost benefit analysis will be applied to a scenario or package of transportation investments, not to evaluate roadway Vibrant Economy projects relative to other modal projects. In addition, Active the proposed benefit cost How do we decide to build a Transportation methodology includes a broad $1 billion highway versus a Working Group set of elements, not simply 46 bike project? (ATWG) 10/10/2013 travel time savings.
19 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
The performance measures are applied at a regional level to How are these performance distinguish the performance of measures reconciled with the different alternative packages Vibrant Economy TransNet fixed investments? If of transportation investments. these tie themselves to the These alternative packages of objectives, how do you Regional Planning investments include both reconcile that TransNet is Technical Working TransNet and non-TransNet 47 static? Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 projects.
7. Average Vibrant Economy truck/commercial vehicle travel times to and around regional gateways and distribution hubs
For goods movement, consider the impacts for disadvantaged communities by goods moved, Comment noted. There are a Vibrant Economy consider the export of goods, number of performance and consider locally grown Public Health measures that include analysis food and increase in local Stakeholders for communities of concern versus interregional goods Working Group (refer to 1A, 5A, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 48 movement. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 and 8B).
20 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
8. Percent of income consumed by Vibrant Economy transportation costs (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern)
How will the percent of transportation costs relative to The percent of transportation income measure take into cost performance measure Vibrant Economy account higher fare costs and Community-Based includes estimates of fares paid transfer costs being Organization by different segments of the experienced by low-income Partner Network regional population (refer to 49 and minority communities? (CBO) 10/24/2013 5A) .
There is a potential issue Community-Based The percent of transportation Vibrant Economy related to fare subsidies being Organization cost performance measure decreased, how is this dealt Partner Network assumes fare subsidies are 50 with long-term in the plan? (CBO) 10/24/2013 constant.
Travel time was originally proposed to be incorporated in Vibrant Economy We should consider breaking the calculation of the percent out the value of time and the Community-Based of income consumed by other costs of transportation Organization transportation costs (refer to relative to income for Partner Network 5A), but ultimately a simpler, 51 transparency. (CBO) 10/24/2013 user cost measure was defined.
Travel time was originally proposed to be incorporated in the calculation of the percent Vibrant Economy Percent of income consumed of income consumed by by transportation costs – transportation costs (refer to strictly evaluating on value of International Rescue 5A), but ultimately a simpler, 52 time. Committee (IRC) 10/30/2013 user cost measure was defined.
21 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Vibrant Economy 9. Average travel times to/from tribal lands
Tribal "Average travel times to/from Vibrant Economy Provide a separate question; Transportation tribal lands" is now included as are connections to tribal lands Technical Working a separate performance 53 improved? Group (TWG) 10/1/2013 measure (refer to 6A).
For regional economic Average travel times to/from prosperity and connections to tribal lands is included in Vibrant Economy tribal lands; how was it Regional Planning support of the "Partnerships determined to make this Technical Working and Collaboration" policy 54 connection? Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 objective of this goal area.
Vibrant Economy 10. Average travel times to/from Mexico
Are connections to tribal lands and Mexico improved? - Does Border crossing times are this include border crossing - assumed to be constant. Vibrant Economy are we measuring time to cross Performance measure 6B - this is a huge economic Input from Chula measures the average travel impact for South Bay - less Vista Community times to/from the U.S./Mexico crossing time = more buyers of Collaborative, border and does not include 55 goods come into South Bay. Margarita Holguin 10/30/2013 border crossing times.
Vibrant Economy Other Are jobs created based solely Active Vibrant Economy on capital improvements or do Transportation they consider operational jobs Working Group This performance measure has 56 for transit? (ATWG) 10/10/2013 been eliminated. An access to military bases Vibrant Economy Regional Planning performance measure was Add access to military gates Technical Working considered but ultimately not 57 and bases. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 included.
22 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
This came up at the last RPC meeting on project evaluation criteria for the various categories, ex. rail grade
Vibrant Economy separations is the only category tied to Regional Housing Needs Assessment because it is the only category that is discretionary. Good Regional Planning The RHNA link to rail grade point, a large portion of the Technical Working crossings is required as per 58 funds are constrained. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 Board Policy 033.
Measure “jobs generated due to transportation investments” could be just temporary construction related jobs which would really not have Vibrant Economy much long-term impact, and which could vary substantially year to year depending upon “Jobs generated due to capital improvement schedule. transportation investments” If this is intended to measure has been dropped from permanent jobs, this should be Diane Nygaard consideration as a performance 59 specified. (email comment) 10/14/2013 measure. I see you are measuring jobs generated, but improved Forecasts of employment by transportation should also income are not available, and Vibrant Economy help low income residents get Input from Chula SANDAG does not currently better jobs - are you Vista Community have any tools that allocate measuring job upgrades/better Collaborative, employment by income to 60 paying jobs? Margarita Holguin 10/30/2013 different populations.
23 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response Can we consider or measure the resiliency of our local
Vibrant Economy economy? Can we consider a Public Health It is possible to evaluate the scenario where the cost for Stakeholders sensitivity of regional residents' fuel is 3 times higher than Working Group travel choices to a significant 61 today? (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 increase in gas costs.
For the jobs generated, are “Jobs generated due to these local jobs within the Public Health transportation investments” Vibrant Economy region, or jobs being fulfilled Stakeholders has been dropped from from those outside of the Working Group consideration as a performance 62 region? (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 measure. Public Health "Change in regional housing Vibrant Economy Change in regional housing Stakeholders affordability" has been affordability should not be Working Group dropped from consideration as 63 used as a measure. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 a performance measure. A number of performance “Regional economy Community-Based measures specifically address Vibrant Economy improvements?” – can we do Organization impacts on "communities of analysis of investments in areas Partner Network concern" (refer to 1A, 5A, 7A, 64 with high LIM? (CBO) 10/24/2013 7B, 7C, 8A, and 8B). 11. Percentage of population/employment within 0.5 miles of high Healthy frequency (<=15 min peak Environment & Communities and midday) transit stops (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) 12. Percentage of Data from bicycle count population/employment Related to bike performance stations is used to help ensure within 0.25 miles a bike measures, there are existing that the activity-based travel Healthy Environment & facility (class I and II, bike count stations and Sherry model produces reasonable Communities cycletrack, and bicycle Ryan is putting up more Cities/County estimates bicycle travel, and boulevard) (Communities stations, how does this relate Transportation could also be used to track of Concern and Non- and what is the outcome for Advisory Committee longer term changes in bicycle Communities of Concern) 65 Complete Communities?24 (CTAC) 10/3/2013 usage. Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
The lower distance threshold Healthy Environment & Active for access to bicycle facilities Communities Increase the distance to 1-mile Transportation was chosen so as to represent for the bike criterion, vary it by Working Group this accessibility for all regional 66 density or typology. (ATWG) 10/10/2013 residents, including children.
"Percentage of Healthy Environment & population/employment within Communities SANDAG staff 0.25 miles a bike facility" is Access to Active summary of PHSWG included as a performance 67 Transportation? meeting 10/11/2013 measure (refer to 7C).
There should be a Safe Routes to Schools consideration; There are performance percent of students walking measures that consider non- Healthy and biking to school, percent auto mode usage, as well as Environment & Communities of population within ½ mile of proximity to bicycle facilities schools. Is the bike and Active (refer to 1A, 2A, and 7C). pedestrian data American Transportation Bicycle and pedestrian data is Communities Survey or Working Group derived from the activity-based 68 household survey? (ATWG) 10/10/2013 travel model.
Regarding the comment on "Percentage of Healthy Environment & distance to bike facilities, the SANDAG Staff population/employment within Communities facility is not the destination. Clarification for 0.25 miles a bike facility" is It is the way to the destination ATWG held on included as a performance 69 so it needs to be nearby. 10/10/2013 measure (refer to 7C).
Healthy 13. Average travel distance Environment & to work (drive alone, Communities carpool, transit, bike, and walk) Separate the average Public Health Healthy Environment & multimodal travel Stakeholders Communities time/distance measures by Working Group More detailed reporting of 70 mode. 25 (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 modal submarkets is possible. Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Healthy 14. Total time engaged in Environment & transportation-related Communities physical activity per capita (minutes)
The question “Are residents engaging in more physical Healthy Environment & activity?” should be removed; Communities it seems like this could be captured under “Are people The question “Are residents walking, biking, using transit Linda Vista, Sharon engaging in more physical 71 and sharing rides?” Hughes 11/1/2013 activity?” has been removed.
This performance measure is intended to capture only the
Healthy It seems a huge leap to assume time spent in transportation- Environment & that spending more time in related physical activity and Communities transportation related physical does not imply anything about activity assures that residents physical activity for other are engaged in more total Diane Nygaard purposes, or total physical 72 physical activity. (email comment) 10/14/2013 activity.
Seems like this should capture SANDAG does not currently concerns about obesity, have tools for quantifying Healthy particularly childhood obesity how transportation scenarios Environment & Communities and issues related to nature impact childhood obesity and deficit disorder and getting issues related to nature deficit kids outdoors. This whole area Diane Nygaard disorder and getting kids 73 seems to be missing. (email comment) 10/14/2013 outdoors. Physical activity-related performance measures are Healthy included because they are of Environment & Community-Based interest to many regional Communities Organization residents and support the Consider eliminating the Partner Network Regional Plan goals and policy 74 physical activity measure. (CBO) 10/24/2013 objectives. 26 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response 15. Percent of population
Healthy within 30 minutes of jobs Environment & and higher education Communities (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern) Include modes of Public Health Healthy Environment & transportation bike/walk Stakeholders Communities within the access to jobs and Working Group Access to jobs includes all 75 key destinations measures. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 modes (refer to 7D and 8A).
Healthy How is access measured, by Community-Based Environment & proximity? It is better to Organization Communities measure access by travel time Partner Network All accessibility measures are 76 rather than distance. (CBO) 10/24/2013 based on network travel times.
Healthy For access to jobs, goods and Public Health Environment & services, and parks and Stakeholders Communities beaches, specify whether this Working Group All accessibility measures are 77 will be time or distance-based. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 based on network travel times.
In terms of job access, the IRC feels that there needs to be The jobs access measure 8A additional considerations for does consider the impacts on this measure such as 1) "communities of concern". specification on the types of Access is calculated for drive Healthy jobs LIM/non-LIM communities alone auto and transit. Environment & Communities have access to via transit which SANDAG does not currently can be analyzed by creating have any tools or tiers of wage levels, 2) number methodologies that can of jobs that are accessible, 3) capture " missed trips by job missed trips by job seekers due seekers due to a lack of to a lack of available transit available transit options to options to areas with high International Rescue areas with high entry level 78 entry level opportunities. Committee (IRC) , opportunities." 27 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Healthy Community-Based Environment & “Access to jobs/goods/parks” – Organization Communities is this based on proximity or Partner Network All accessibility measures are 79 time? Time is better. (CBO) 10/24/2013 based on network travel times.
16. Percent of population Healthy within 30 minutes of goods Environment & and services (retail, Communities medical, parks, and beaches) (Communities of Concern and Non- Communities of Concern)
Healthy SANDAG does not have any Environment & Do residents have access to SANDAG staff base year or forecast year data Communities healthy food, farmers summary of PHSWG on the locations of healthy 80 markets? meeting 10/11/2013 food and farmers markets.
Healthy Environment & SANDAG staff Access to "active parks" is Communities Do residents have access to summary of PHSWG included as a performance 81 urban parks? meeting 10/11/2013 measure.
Healthy Public Health SANDAG does not have any Environment & Stakeholders base year or forecast year data Communities Consider including healthy Working Group on the locations of healthy 82 foods within access to retail. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 food.
Recreation centers are an Healthy important component of Community-Based Environment & recreational areas as they Organization Access to "active parks" is Communities support activities for the Partner Network included as a performance 83 elderly community. (CBO) 10/24/2013 measure.
28 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Consider facilities to support Healthy access to parks and beaches Environment & such as parking, etc. Also Public Health Communities consider the gaps in sidewalk Stakeholders SANDAG's modeling tools and bike facilities as a barrier Working Group cannot currently forecast gaps 84 to access. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 in sidewalks and parking. Healthy 17. On-road smog-forming Environment & pollutants (pounds/day) Communities per capita Same issue with air quality – Healthy Environment & per capita is important but by Eliminating the 'per capita' Communities itself does not assure that air is Diane Nygaard component of the air quality 85 getting any cleaner. (email comment) 10/14/2013 measures could be considered.
Healthy Environment & 18. On-road CO2 emissions Communities (pounds/day) per capita
How are the GHG’s measuring CO2 emissions calculated? Healthy Pounds/day, per capita? How Estimates of air quality impacts Environment & Communities are we measuring this? All (refer to 9A and 10A) are done in calculations. Some Regional Planning mandated to be produced by universities are doing some Technical Working the California-standard EMFAC 86 actual measurements. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 tool. Key question – “are GHG emissions reduced?” is really SANDAG will prepare a not the right question. Sustainable Communities Healthy Environment & Question should be something Strategy (SCS) as part of the Communities like “Are GHG reductions Regional Plan to demonstrate being reduced on a trajectory how the plan will meet the that will meet state Diane Nygaard GHG emissions reductions 87 requirements?” (email comment) 10/14/2013 targets established by CARB. Is air quality improved? (Can Healthy Environment & this information be captured Communities or be inferred by “Are GHG Linda Vista, Sharon This question is focused on 29 88 emissions reduced?”) Hughes 11/1/2013 ozone, a criteria pollutant. Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
The climate change question only addresses the mitigation Healthy side; consider addressing SANDAG does not currently Environment & adaptation more, especially have any methods or tools for Communities sea level rise. Suggest “how quantifying how successful successful are strategies at Regional Planning transportation scenarios are at addressing sea level rise as an Technical Working addressing sea level rise as an 89 adaptation strategy?” Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 adaptation strategy.
Measure of GHG reduction of CO2 per capita misses the impact of population growth. Healthy Of course for total reductions Environment & to go down, the per capita SANDAG will prepare a SCS as Communities reduction needs to be enough part of the Regional Plan to to offset population growth. A demonstrate how the plan will better measure would meet the GHG emissions incorporate both. Perhaps just Diane Nygaard reductions targets established 90 total CO2 emissions. (email comment) 10/14/2013 by CARB. Healthy Environment & Communities Other
Complete Communities mode Healthy share does not necessarily Active Environment & equate together, should not Transportation Communities include carpool within this Working Group 91 measure. (ATWG) 10/10/2013 Comment noted Complete Communities needs more focus on networks and quality of the networks. The Healthy Environment & auto network versus transit, A key goal in specifying the Communities walk and bike networks and Active performance measures was to the quality of each network’s Transportation focus on demand-based connectedness. Consider a Working Group "outcomes" rather than supply- 92 supply-side measure. (ATWG) 10/10/2013 side "inputs."
30 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response Percent of connections to Healthy network connectivity or the Active "Percent of connections to Environment & capacity across networks and Transportation network connectivity" and Communities the differences should be Working Group "capacity across networks" are 93 measured. (ATWG) 10/10/2013 not defined.
Are we proposing to be using all or just some of the categories? Questions seem fairly general, while the performance measures are much more specific. For example, does the region The questions are intended to move more goods with less be general, and the Healthy delay; also freight acreage performance measures are Environment & Communities may not be a good measure. intended to be more specific. Suggest that the questions and The number of proposed measures are more tightly tied performance measures together. Suggest fewer represents a significant questions and measures. reduction over past regional Physical activity, do we need plans. Physical activity-related this or does mode share get at and emissions-related it already? GHG emissions Regional Planning performance measures are reduced; do we need another Technical Working included because they are of 94 measure after this? Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 interest to regional residents. "All communities" is intended to ensure that the analysis look For Complete Communities, at impacts a different types of Healthy Environment & what do you mean by all communities of concern. Communities communities? Tighten up the Performance measures address language here. For habitat, Regional Planning access to parks and beaches, look more closely at open Technical Working but not all types of open 95 space category. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 spaces.
Healthy Performance measures address Environment & Tie the open space category Regional Planning access to parks and beaches Communities back to the transportation Technical Working (refer to 8B), but not all types 31 96 network. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 of open spaces. Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Focus should not just be on
Healthy consumption of open space Environment & acres; focus should also be on Communities connectivity and whether the Regional Planning right kind of acres are being Technical Working 97 preserved. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 Comment noted
Access to jobs seems more Access to jobs was included in relevant to Economic the complete communities Prosperity. Access to key goal area because having Healthy destinations seems more access to local jobs was Environment & relevant to Complete considered a key component of Communities Communities. Equal access to whether a community was transportation options such as complete. There are a number transit, biking and walking will SANDAG staff of performance measures that help improve community summary of PHSWG address access to other types of 98 health region-wide. meeting 10/11/2013 destinations.
Healthy SANDAG staff The accessibility based Environment & Is transportation connected to summary of PHSWG measures all assume housing as Communities 99 housing? TOD meeting 10/11/2013 the origin.
Encourage active uses in Healthy streets and public space to Environment & promote public safety. Crime Communities prevention through SANDAG staff environmental design; street summary of PHSWG User safety is considered in 100 lighting. meeting 10/11/2013 project design.
32 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Measure of gross acres “consumed” doesn’t match the question – are the region’s natural resources being “preserved”? Both should focus on either consumption or preservation – but Healthy Environment & preservation would be more Communities important. Also, for natural open space in the MHCP area, the gross measure is really the ratio of preservation to consumption with a goal of a 1:1 ratio. Using a ratio would The measure of gross acres be a better measure and consumed is no longer being would help capture both sides Diane Nygaard considered as a performance 101 of the equation. (email comment) 10/14/2013 measure.
There is no measure for water Healthy quality. Of course this is an Environment & Communities issue the regional planning has SANDAG does not currently not really addressed, but it have and methods or tools to seems strange to have nothing Diane Nygaard water quality impacts of 102 here. (email comment) 10/14/2013 transportation investments There really is nothing that gets to concerns about social equity. Is there equal access to transportation, clean air, open Healthy space and parks? The San Environment & Diego Foundation report Parks Communities are for Everyone makes some A number of the performance important connections measures specifically address between access to open space impacts on "communities of by income levels. This issue Diane Nygaard concern" (refer to 5A, 7B, 7C, 103 needs to be added. (email comment) 10/14/2013 8A, 8B). 33 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response Public Health Healthy Environment & Was forest included in the Stakeholders The natural resource measure Communities natural resource measure Working Group is no longer being considered 104 before? (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 as a performance measure. Consider the amount of network by mode and the A key goal in specifying the Healthy Environment & connectivity issue of each Public Health performance measures was to Communities mode, density of barriers, etc. Stakeholders focus on demand-based to get to bike/pedestrian Working Group "outcomes" rather than supply- 105 networks as a measure. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 side "inputs."
Include health in the Complete
Healthy Communities and Habitat and Environment & Open Space Preservation, Communities Environmental Stewardship, Public Health Health-related performance and Energy and Climate Stakeholders measures are included in the Change Mitigation and Working Group "Complete Communities" goal 106 Adaptation policy objectives. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 area. Community-Based Healthy Environment & Where can we input money Organization The 2050 RTP included funding Communities for improving interfaces with Partner Network for ADA and Specialized 107 people for disabilities? (CBO) 10/24/2013 Transportation services.
Where to do we identify criteria to allocate money for Healthy person with disabilities? We Environment & need more user friendly Communities systems. People become Community-Based stressed and afraid because of Organization The 2050 RTP included funding a lack of access and/or barriers Partner Network for ADA and Specialized 108 to accessible transportation. (CBO) 10/24/2013 Transportation services.
34 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response Based on a questionnaire, low- income refugees stated that only one out of 34 used transit; the reasons were Healthy because of lack of well-lit Environment & Communities areas, no shelters, infrequent transit services, hours of work Community-Based with no transit service, or Organization Transit station area safety is dangerous environments Partner Network considered in transit project 109 related to crime. (CBO) 10/24/2013 design.
For communities of concern Healthy there is a public health issue A number of the performance Environment & with the first and last mile of Community-Based measures specifically address Communities transit use, low-income and Organization impacts on "communities of minority analysis should be Partner Network concern" (refer to 5A, 7B, 7C, 110 included here. (CBO) 10/24/2013 8A, 8B).
Healthy Community-Based Bicycle-related improvements Environment & Organization will be included in the Communities Do bike path programs get Partner Network different plan network 111 evaluated? (CBO) 10/24/2013 scenarios. Recreational trips with destinations (i.e. trips to the gym or park) are generated by Healthy the activity-based model Environment & system. Recreational trips Communities Community-Based without a destination (i.e. Organization walking the dog around the How are recreational trips Partner Network block) are not generated by 112 accounted for in the model? (CBO) 10/24/2013 the activity-based model.
35 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
There needs to be a measure that considers how much Healthy transit-oriented development Environment & (TOD) funding gets placed into Communities communities. It is important Community-Based SANDAG is not currently for communities of concern to Organization considering any performance be able to have transparency Partner Network measures specifically focused 113 for this type of funding. (CBO) 10/24/2013 on the location of funding.
It is important for communities
Healthy of concern to know how the Environment & dollars are spent in their Communities communities; a social equity Community-Based SANDAG is not currently analysis needs to be a part of Organization considering any performance the performance measures Partner Network measures specifically focused 114 evaluation. (CBO) 10/24/2013 on the location of funding.
Healthy There does not seem to be a Community-Based Environment & clear question for the Organization Communities partnerships and collaboration Partner Network 115 policy objective. (CBO) 10/24/2013 Comment noted
In the mobility choices section, none of the questions and measures speaks to mobility. Healthy Mode shift should be included Environment & in this section. The percent of The mode choice performance Communities transportation costs relative to measure is now included in the income question is great. We mobility section (refer to 1A need to get a better Community-Based and 2A). Measure 5A includes understanding of the value of Organization user costs relative to income time component to measure Partner Network but does not incorporate the 116 for the income question. (CBO) 10/24/2013 value of travel time.
36 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response
Other Other General How are the evaluation criteria applied to the Project-level evaluation criteria different modes of are applied to rank projects transportation and then the Community-Based within modal segments. networks developed? Is this a Organization Projects are then grouped into quantitative or qualitative Partner Network network scenarios for 117 (subjective) process? (CBO) 10/24/2013 evaluation in the plan.
How do the revenue projections of the plan relate to the performance measures? Other What is the Quality of Life sales tax assumption funding Community-Based Revenue projections are and was it include in the 2050 Organization addressed in other components RTP/SCS? Is it included in this Partner Network of the plan, and not in the 118 plan? (CBO) 10/24/2013 performance measures. Community-Based Other What are the weights when Organization No weights are used, and no we compare all the measures Partner Network single composite measure is 119 together? (CBO) 10/24/2013 calculated.
The performance measures are applied at a regional level to distinguish the performance of different alternative packages Other of transportation investments. We are potentially not getting These alternative packages of the true system performance, Regional Planning investments include both but only the evaluation of the Technical Working TransNet and non-TransNet 120 pre-determined TransNet box. Group (TWG) 10/10/2013 projects. Public Health
Other Stakeholders The policy objects and plan Align the policy objectives Working Group goals are intended to be 121 with the regional plan goals. (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 consistent. 37 Comments from SANDAG Working Groups and Community Based Organization Partners
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Goals Number Comments Working Group Date Response Explicit targets are not included in the performance measures. SANDAG will Other prepare a SCS as part of the Public Health Regional Plan to demonstrate Stakeholders how the plan will meet the Working Group GHG emissions reductions 122 Do we have targets? (PHWSG) 10/17/2013 targets established by CARB.
38 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment 1. Average peak-period travel time to work (drive alone, Innovative Mobility carpool, transit, bike, and walk) and Planning (Communities of Concern and Non- Communities of Concern)
The wait time between buses should be Innovative Mobility included in time of travel. When the Time spent waiting for transit and Planning travel time isn’t practical people use their transfers is included in the travel 1 cars. times.
If you have a job you aren’t going to be Innovative Mobility able to rely on public transportation if Transit frequency is considered when and Planning you have to wait forty-five minutes predicting regional residents' mode 2 between buses. choices (refer to 7A).
Travel times and distances are Innovative Mobility considered when predicting regional and Planning Commuter times and distances also affect residents' travel related choices (refer 3 quality of life. to 1A, 7D).
Public transportation takes hours to get Innovative Mobility from where I live to where I work, and Planning therefore measuring travel time Transit frequency is considered when (especially by bus or other transit method) predicting regional residents' mode 4 is very important. choices (refer to 7A).
Average travel time to work destinations Innovative Mobility by mode is a helpful performance Average peak-period travel time to and Planning measure to evaluate transportation work by mode is included (refer to 5 systems. 1A).
39 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Aside from the traditional work commute Innovative Mobility times, the after school commute period is and Planning also important to consider for families and children, especially in terms of More detailed reporting by activity 6 personal safety and transportation. purpose submarket is possible.
It would be helpful to broaden the Innovative Mobility “average travel time to work” category to and Planning encompass recreational destinations as More detailed reporting by activity 7 well. purpose submarket is possible.
“Average travel time to work destinations by mode” is a helpful Innovative Mobility and Planning performance measure to evaluate transportation systems because it is one of the main factors I consider when deciding 8 how to travel to my destination. Use same response as comment #5.
Innovative Mobility 2. Daily vehicle delay per capita and Planning (minutes)
Innovative Mobility and Planning Level of Service concerns, multimodal 9 delays, cost benefit scenarios Comment noted
40 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Daily vehicle delay per capita is less important to me than it used to be; I personally would rather plan on using my car some times, despite the delays. However, it is more important to move more people in an efficient, Innovative Mobility and Planning environmentally sound manner. Measures of throughput could be "Throughput" is the greatest priority, considered, although they are especially in terms of social justice so that typically applied a smaller scale such areas where residents depend most on as corridors rather than on a regional public transportation have more mobility scale. Performance measures 7A and choices, and ones that are 7B evaluate transit access both for the environmentally clean and do not total population as well as for 10 negatively affect public health. communities of concern.
There is nothing worse than sitting in Innovative Mobility traffic on the highway; therefore, daily and Planning vehicle delay per capita is an important Vehicle delay per capita is included as 11 performance measure. a performance measure (refer to 1B).
Delay is an important consideration Innovative Mobility for many regional residents, and the and Planning Remove daily vehicle delay per capita, performance measures include many speed of car travel is overrated and that are oriented towards non-auto 12 should be worth less when rating modes (refer to 1A, 2A, 7D).
Innovative Mobility 3. Increase in walk, bike, transit, and Planning and carpool mode share
Innovative Mobility More detailed reporting of modal and Planning Evaluate mode share in various submarkets by geography is possible. 13 communities as part of the process
41 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
A reduction of freeway traffic measurement is needed (which would Roadway performance is an Innovative Mobility reward transit projects by encouraging important consideration for many and Planning SOVs to convert to alternative regional residents, and the transportation modes). (The CO2 performance measures include many emissions measure can similarly relate to that are oriented towards non-auto 14 this concern.) modes.
More detailed reporting of modal Innovative Mobility Consider a measure that sets a target submarkets by activity purpose is and Planning goal to increase the number of individuals possible, although the plan does not who bike to school, with a goal to reduce include setting targets. Forecasting childhood obesity in mind. We need to be public health outcomes is an area of 15 able to quantify these health effects. active research by SANDAG.
Explicit targets are not included in the performance measures. SANDAG will Innovative Mobility prepare a SCS as part of the Regional and Planning Plan to demonstrate how the plan will meet the GHG emissions A potential measurement could include reductions targets established by the setting a target of achieving a 10 percent California Air Resources Board 16 bike mode share by XXXX year. (CARB).
The refusal from SANDAG to do mode Innovative Mobility share projections is very troubling. The and Planning health benefits of additional transit options can’t assessed without those The proposed performance measures 17 projections. include mode share (refer to 2A).
42 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Citizens need options for different mode
Innovative Mobility shares. Right now mode share for bikes is and Planning 1% and transit is between 3-12%. In order The proposed performance measures for San Diego to reach any of its goals, include mode share (refer to 2A). The the mode shares will need to increase Regional Plan does not include target exponentially. Portland has 40% walking setting other than for GHG as per 18 mode share in an urban corridor. Senate Bill 375.
Innovative Mobility and Planning Having more travel mode choices is The proposed performance measures 19 important. include mode share (refer to 2A).
Bicyclists may want to travel from suburbs to downtown to commute from work; Innovative Mobility and Planning measuring how many people are biking in the system is an important aspect to consider in evaluating the transportation The proposed performance measures 20 system. include mode share (refer to 2A).
Innovative Mobility Public transit is not a low income or The proposed performance measures and Planning minority thing and should be encouraged include mode share (refer to 2A) and across the board, regardless of income transit accessibility measures (refer to 21 level. 7A and 7B).
Innovative Mobility The proposed performance measures and Planning include mode share (refer to 2A) and The more mass transit available, the more transit accessibility measures (refer to 22 people will use it. 7A and 7B).
43 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Innovative Mobility The proposed performance measures and Planning The Trolley is a great transit option, yet include mode share (refer to 2A) and there is still a small number of San transit accessibility measures (refer to 23 Diegans that use it. 7A and 7B).
Innovative Mobility The proposed performance measures and Planning As more options become available, include mode share (refer to 2A) and hopefully even those who drive cars will transit accessibility measures (refer to 24 begin to use other transit options. 7A and 7B).
Innovative Mobility and Planning Increase in walk, bike, transit and carpool The proposed performance measures 25 mode share is an essential component include mode share (refer to 2A).
Looking at the increase in ride-sharing Innovative Mobility and non single occupancy vehicles with and Planning competitive travel times is very important. We need more people to bike, walk, take transit, and ride share, but most transit The proposed performance measures 26 system choices take longer than driving. include mode share (refer to 2A).
Innovative Mobility and Planning It's important to reduce the reliance on single occupancy vehicles by encouraging The proposed performance measures 27 people to use innovative transit methods. include mode share (refer to 2A).
Innovative Mobility Collisions and their impact on the and Planning Identify the number of collisions and economy will be incorporated into 28 dollar impact on the economy the benefit cost calculation.
44 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
The proposed performance measures include mode share (refer to 2A). The regional plan does not include target Innovative Mobility Interested in much more biking and setting. Collisions are forecast as a and Planning pedestrian use, measures of success: 10% function of usage. The performance Bike mode share by 2020, Reduction of measures cannot consider project serious injuries, Specific deliverable on delivery timelines because the timing bike mode share at schools and or phasing of project implementation universities, Deliverable timeline on is an input to the analysis, not an 29 project implementation. output. 4. Annual projected number of Innovative Mobility vehicle (driver/passenger) and Planning injury/fatal collisions per vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Collisions and their impact on the Innovative Mobility and Planning economy will be incorporated into Identify the number of collisions and the benefit cost calculation (refer to 30 dollar impact on the economy 4A).
The performance measures include "Annual projected number of vehicle Innovative Mobility (driver/passenger) injury/fatal and Planning collisions", and "Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian Safety should be considered as a key injury/fatal collisions" (refer to 3A 31 measure and 3B).
Regarding the “system-wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day” measurement: It Innovative Mobility and Planning would be better to use time as a measurement since time is the most important factor in evaluating the This measure has been eliminated as 32 networks. per public and peer panel comments. 45 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment 5. Annual projected number of Innovative Mobility bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal and Planning collisions per bicyclist/pedestrian miles traveled (BPMT)
The performance measures include "Percentage of population/employment within 0.25 Innovative Mobility and Planning Some communities do not report crashes, miles a bike facility (class I and II, additionally there are roads that are so cycletrack, and bicycle boulevard)" dangerous that people will not bike or (refer to 7C), although other walk. Quality of infrastructure should be infrastructure such as sidewalks are 33 included as evaluation criteria. not considered.
The performance measures include "Annual projected number of vehicle Innovative Mobility (driver/passenger) injury/fatal and Planning Safety should also be considered in the collisions", and "Annual projected performance measures, which would number of bicycle/pedestrian include quality pedestrian environments injury/fatal collisions" (refer to 3A 34 around major transit arterials/corridors. and 3B).
Innovative Mobility The performance measures include and Planning Consider a measurement that captures a "Annual projected number of reduction in pedestrian/cyclist related bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal 35 injuries. (Safety) collisions." (refer to 3B).
46 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
I live in the Spring Valley-Lemon Grove- San Diego corridor and I wouldn't bike or let my children bike in that community Innovative Mobility because it is not bicycle friendly. Safety is and Planning very important to measure performance of the networks, so annual projected number of bicyclist/pedestrian injury/fatal The performance measures include collisions per bicycle and pedestrian miles "Annual projected number of traveled is an important measure of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal 36 performance. collisions." (refer to 3B).
The revenue formula needs to be revisited Innovative Mobility to encourage transit ridership. The and Planning conversation has shifted from what the major issues were 10 years ago and what The proposed performance measures 37 appears today. include mode share (refer to 2A).
The evaluation tools used to develop Innovative Mobility the performance measures are and Planning Smaller scale projects, such as painting typically not sensitive to the impacts crosswalks near schools, should also be of policies such as painting 38 considered in this analysis. crosswalks.
Innovative Mobility Safety is a big concern, especially when The performance measures include and Planning promoting transit usage, walkability, bike- "Annual projected number of ability; how is safety (which includes law bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal 39 enforcement) considered in this process? collisions." (refer to 3B).
47 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Innovative Mobility and Planning People want easy mobility and will not 40 give up their cars without it. Comment noted
One attendee took the train into San Diego from Los Angeles. She then took Innovative Mobility the bus route-7, which comes every and Planning twelve minutes, to the workshop. She felt that those transit options were practical. She also commented that the SANDAG performance measures were similar to 41 those used by other communities. Comment noted
Innovative Mobility Google maps does a good job providing and Planning transit routes and options; better than 42 MTS. Comment noted
San Diego has been going backwards with transit. Bus routes have been cut back. When routes are cut, less people use public transit making it harder to keep Innovative Mobility the existing routes. A destination that and Planning may have taken two bus changes may now take four. The funds need to already be in place to create a great system. The system may eventually be profitable, but profit should not be what initially drives 43 the system. Comment noted
48 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Innovative Mobility and Planning Comment noted. Performance measure 7A includes the "Percentage People need/want high frequency and of population/employment within 0.5 44 dependable service for buses and Trolleys. miles of high frequency transit stops."
Innovative Mobility Bus/Trolley stops also need time and and Planning money put into them, not just the main 45 transit facilitates. Comment noted
Innovative Mobility and Planning The stops in La Jolla are really nice and lit up, but in other areas of the county they 46 are not lit up and that can lead to crime. Comment noted
There is not enough seating as the bus Innovative Mobility stops and, sometimes, the only seating and Planning that is available puts the rider right near 47 the street. Comment noted
The performance measures include Innovative Mobility and Planning "Average peak-period travel time to Public transit options need it to be work" by submode, including transit 48 efficient with time and costs. (refer to 1A).
49 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
What does a multimodal network mean to you? It means many interactions Innovative Mobility between modes. Citizens should be able and Planning to drive and park at the light rail stations, take that transit, and then arrive at a destination where there are more transit The proposed performance measures options. People want many options to get include indicators of access to transit 49 from point A to point B. and bicycle facilities (refer to 7A-7C).
Innovative Mobility Multimodal means moving away from and Planning inefficient systems. People want to be A significant number of non-auto able to attend meetings, like the SANDAG oriented performance measures are 50 workshop, without having to drive. proposed.
The last mile question is very important in Innovative Mobility a multimodal system. People can travel and Planning long distances with mass transit, but it is important that they are really able to The proposed performance measures arrive at their destinations with public include indicators of access to transit 51 transit options in the last mile. facilities (refer to 7A and 7B).
Consider identifying which types of A number of the performance Innovative Mobility populations are being served by which measures are reported for both and Planning services? A new measurement could make "communities of concern" as well as sure that we are serving all income the region overall (refer to 1A, 5A, 52 brackets. 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, and 8B).
Innovative Mobility Offering an Express Service route for the and Planning Trolley to key locations would be a good 53 idea. Comment noted
50 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Increasing the frequency of the COASTER Innovative Mobility is important because I prefer not to drive and Planning since I see an advantage to my health, stress levels, the environment, and the 54 community. Comment noted
Personal safety is also important. Innovative Mobility Designing transit stations so that they are and Planning located in safe areas, or so that they at SANDAG does not currently have any least feel safer by installing more lighting, tools or methods for forecasting 55 would be a good idea. personal safety.
Car sharing is not currently Innovative Mobility represented in the activity-based and Planning Find a way to evaluate how much people model, but may be considered in are encouraged to use ride-sharing, and future model updates, pending the 56 electric vehicles or Car-to-Go. availability of data.
Innovative Mobility VMT-based cost-effectiveness is and Planning Key criteria - VMT reduction per dollar implicitly captured as part of the 57 spent benefit-cost analysis.
Modern and comprehensive system that Innovative Mobility uses good technology, dynamic pricing and Planning based on congestion and energy efficient 58 vehicles. Comment noted
Innovative Mobility and Planning 59 Options, both a paid and non-paid Comment noted
51 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Innovative Mobility The performance measures include a and Planning number of active-transportation Cater to “smaller” scale transportation related measures (refer to 1A, 2A, 3B, 60 options 7C, 7D, 7E, and 7F).
The performance measures report Innovative Mobility results for the integrated multimodal and Planning Connectivity – having multi-transport transportation network, which nodes to link different transit systems, includes multi-modal transportation 61 also filling gaps in the system nodes.
The performance measures report Innovative Mobility Transit is not being integrated as well as it results for the integrated multimodal and Planning should be, there are gaps in the system transportation network, which there needs to be better links between includes multi-modal transportation 62 Trolley and bus. nodes.
Innovative Mobility The proposed performance measures and Planning There needs to be more options for first include basic indicators of access to 63 and last mile transit facilities (refer to 7A and 7B).
Innovative Mobility Different mode of transit need to better and Planning 64 accommodate bicycles Comment noted
Innovative Mobility SANDAG should offer some kind of and Planning incentive for people to give up their car 65 and encourage multi modal travel. Comment noted
52 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Car sharing is not currently Innovative Mobility represented in the activity-based and Planning model, but may be considered in Have “share” or rental options to fill in future model updates, pending the 66 transit gaps availability of data.
The performance measures report Innovative Mobility results for the integrated multimodal and Planning transportation network, which includes multi-modal transportation 67 Bus to rail is a very important connection nodes.
Innovative Mobility and Planning LOS concerns, multimodal delays, cost 68 benefit scenarios Comment noted
Innovative Mobility and Planning Look at the demographics of income class More detailed reporting of on each mode of transportation, VMT per performance measures by income 69 passenger, per income level. class or other submarkets is possible.
Innovative Mobility There should be ways to measure and and Planning value alternative options such as Telecommuting is reflected in the 70 telecommuting activity-based model.
Innovative Mobility and Planning Look at charging people to drive, 71 especially with lower gas prices Comment noted
Innovative Mobility Good public transportation is the key, and Planning without effect transit people will not be 72 inclined to switch modes Comment noted
53 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Innovative Mobility and Planning Estimates of energy consumption and How much energy/pollution is being pollution by mode are partially 73 produced in different modes captured in the benefit cost analysis.
The performance measures include "Annual projected number of vehicle Innovative Mobility (driver/passenger) injury/fatal and Planning collisions", and "Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian Safety should be considered as a key injury/fatal collisions" (refer to 3A 74 measure and 3B).
A number of the performance Innovative Mobility measures are reported for both and Planning "communities of concern" (refer to Look at the different demographics of 5A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B) as well as the 75 users region overall.
A number of the performance Innovative Mobility measures are reported for both and Planning How to make the best use of new "communities of concern" (refer to technologies, such as car-share and other 5A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B) as well as the 76 carpooling programs region overall.
A number of the performance Innovative Mobility measures are reported for both and Planning Consider the change in demographics and "communities of concern" (refer to accommodate all ages as well as people 5A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B) as well as the 77 with disabilities region overall.
Ensure that people aren’t left behind with Innovative Mobility and Planning technological changes, look at ways to incorporate technology into low income 78 transit strategy Comment noted 54 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Innovative Mobility Make sure that multimodal trips are and Planning 79 valued Comment noted 6. Benefit/Cost Ratio of Vibrant Economy transportation investments
The proposed benefit cost analysis will include a number of elements Vibrant Economy Benefit/cost ratio of transportation that address all modes, and could investments – need more elaboration, potentially be reported in such a way need to go deeper, mention economic as to provide information for 80 justice on that criteria communities of concern.
Vibrant Economy The Benefit/cost ratio measure may double count issues found/measured in 81 other measures. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Need to make sure you capture all the The benefit cost methodology direct and indirect benefits in the addresses both direct and indirect 82 cost/benefit ratio measure. benefits.
Vibrant Economy Benefit/cost ratio – if people are biking or on foot they are more likely to spend It is unlikely that the benefit cost 83 money on businesses method will capture these benefits. 7. Average truck/commercial vehicle travel times to and Vibrant Economy around regional gateways and distribution hubs
Vibrant Economy Like how the freight related measures are worked in and parallel with vehicle 84 passenger trips. Comment noted
55 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Need many different route options for Vibrant Economy improving traffic related to goods 85 movement. Comment noted
The freight acreage performance measure has been dropped. Vibrant Economy Performance measure 4B will evaluate Q. How does this capture goods the "Average truck commercial movement? A. The freight acreage and vehicle travel time to and around travel time measures address rail, trucks, regional gateways and distribution 86 etc. hubs."
Vibrant Economy EJ impacts/costs of freight movement need to be addressed. Pollution, need to 87 look at localized impacts. Comment noted 8. Percent of income consumed by transportation costs Vibrant Economy (Communities of Concern and Non- Communities of Concern)
Great public transit rates are available if you are a senior or disabled, but if you are
Vibrant Economy a single mom with four kids the rates are too high. It makes it difficult for riders to take public transit to part-time jobs when they have to spend a large amount of the Percent of income consumed by money earned at that job just getting to transportation costs is reported for 88 their job. communities of concerns.
56 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Vibrant Economy People pay more for transit in San Diego than in other communities. That means there are reduced lines and the bus lines 89 don’t integrate well with the Trolleys. Comment noted
Trolley fares are quite cost-prohibitive, Vibrant Economy especially for families wanting to take Comment noted. Percent of income public transit down to Las Americas from consumed by transportation costs is North County, for example. Therefore, reported for communities of 90 discount family fares should be offered. concerns.
Vibrant Economy Frequency and affordability are important measures to use in evaluating public Transit frequency and costs are 91 transit. included in the activity-based model.
Looking at transportation and housing costs as a percentage of family income makes a lot of sense; both of those factors Percent of income consumed by Vibrant Economy should be kept low. This will help get transportation costs is included as a away from the model of having to live performance measure, but the further and further away to afford housing cost component was not housing, and then having to commute a included due to unreliability of future 92 far distance to work. forecasts of housing costs.
Vibrant Economy Affordability – cheaper to drive than take Costs are included in the activity- 93 public transportation based model.
57 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Percent of income consumed by Vibrant Economy transportation costs is reported for Because of population growth, looking at communities of concern, and this the cost of transportation and housing for analysis could be extended to provide families and how far they have to travel further detail on which segments of 94 to work is important. the population are most impacted.
Percent of income consumed by Vibrant Economy transportation costs is included as a performance measure, but the housing cost component was not Add housing costs to this, including access included due to unreliability of future 95 to more affordable housing options. forecasts of housing costs.
Percent of income consumed by
Vibrant Economy Housing costs and affordability not transportation costs is included as a addressed in the current measures. It is performance measure, but the extremely relevant. Measure together housing cost component was not with transportation costs or as a separate included due to unreliability of future 96 measure. forecasts of housing costs.
Travel time was originally proposed Vibrant Economy to be incorporated in the calculation of the percent of income consumed Travel time should be considered in travel by transportation costs, but ultimately costs in the percentage of income a simpler user cost measure was 97 consumed by transportation costs. defined.
58 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Travel time was originally proposed to be incorporated in the calculation Vibrant Economy of the percent of income consumed by transportation costs, but ultimately The value of time should be considered in a simpler user cost measure was 98 user transportation costs. defined. 9. Average travel times to/from Vibrant Economy tribal lands
Q. What does the travel time to tribal Vibrant Economy lands measure get us? A. we are real engaged with the tribal nations and this is a way to address how this Plan affects 99 their communities. Comment noted
Q. How do we measure response times for Performance measure 6A reports Vibrant Economy emergency vehicles to needed areas such average travel times to/from tribal as tribal lands or special needs lands. Emergency vehicle services are populations? A. we can consider this in under the purview of other agencies, 100 healthy communities or elsewhere. including the County of San Diego. 10. Average travel times to/from Vibrant Economy Mexico
Border crossing times are assumed to Vibrant Economy be constant. Performance measure 6B measures the average travel times Measuring delay of vehicle travel times at to/from the U.S./Mexico border and the border and idling time is very does not include border crossing 101 important. times.
59 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
It is shocking that it takes two hours using Vibrant Economy public transit to get from the San Ysidro Trolley station to San Diego State 102 University. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Need infrastructure improvements in San 103 Ysidro – need more development up. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy 104 More pedestrian bridges, ramps Comment noted
Vibrant Economy "Average travel times to/from More connections to Mexico as a “mega- Mexico" is included as a performance 105 region” measure (refer to 6B).
San Ysidro has infrastructure for many different modes of transportation but that infrastructure is poorly organized. Vibrant Economy Trolleys that begin their route at the San Ysidro station are often too full to stop at the next station because so many people get on in San Ysidro. There need to be more organized mobility choices so that modes of transit are segregated. There should be grade separations at the new 106 San Ysidro Inter-modal Transit Center. Comment noted
60 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
The bottleneck at the border is a big Vibrant Economy problem. Get people out of their cars and into public transportation by providing more parking at the San Ysidro Port of 107 Entry. Comment noted
Giving priority to projects that serve those with greater need, such as San Ysidro, is Vibrant Economy very important. One example is the over- capacity of the Trolleys for the commuters at the border. For this reason, it would be good to give priority to creating Express routes and active transportation such as 108 bike lanes in that community. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Ship movement of goods from Mexico is not being discussed. Could help on the 109 border issues. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy There should be a Tijuana representative 110 on the SANDAG Board. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Specify average travel time to Mexico Average travel times to/from Mexico includes train, Trolley, freight movement, could be refined to reflect 111 and tourism trips. multimodal conditions.
Vibrant Economy Residents in San Ysidro cannot get to 112 their destinations Comment noted
61 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Vibrant Economy Blue Line improvements are helping 113 residents and travel times Comment noted Vibrant Economy Other
Fiscal efficient should not be a major Vibrant Economy criteria, being effective should be the ultimate goal; this will have residual benefits with the economy and the 114 environment. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy The activity-based model used to Cost of transportation based on different generate the performance measures 115 modes includes mode-specific costs.
Vibrant Economy Consumer cost and efficiency are the 116 ultimate criteria Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Look at ways to incorporate both public 117 and private sectors in meeting needs Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Don’t see anything about quality of jobs – SANDAG is developing tools that may we need to be encouraging more higher provide the ability to forecast future 118 paying jobs. wages.
Vibrant Economy It’s important to recognize that greater 119 investment provides more jobs. Comment noted
62 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
When you talk about vibrant economy, communist countries perform poorly. Pay for what you use, don’t force people to pay for things they don’t use. Make Vibrant Economy driving a vehicle true market cost – a free market system for roads. We should incentivize other modes and be more comprehensive. Subsidize mass transit as much as we can subsidize mass transit. we need comprehensive pricing program for 120 vehicles. Comment noted
“Jobs generated due to Vibrant Economy transportation investments” has been dropped from consideration as a Jobs generated by transportation performance measure. A financial investments may be a real short term analysis will be prepared for the draft 121 measure that is not that important. Regional Plan.
Vibrant Economy Commute times and distances (refer Quality of life issues need to be to 1A, 7D) as well as air quality (refer addressed, commute times/distances, air to 9A, 10A) are directly represented in 122 and water quality. the proposed performance measures.
Lacking the healthy region points – Vibrant Economy reducing freeway traffic – there are too many cars. Too many single passenger The proposed performance measures 123 vehicle trips. include mode share (refer to 2A).
63 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Vibrant Economy How to get transit options spread further 124 among the region. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Just because freeways are full does not 125 mean we need to build more of them. Comment noted
The performance measures report Vibrant Economy Integration and coordination of modes to results for the integrated multimodal minimize travel time and increase transportation network, which productivity. Coordinate modes! Key includes multi-modal transportation 126 transfer point coordination, etc. nodes.
Q. How are we addressing the potential Vibrant Economy for gas prices to sky rocket? It makes our economy vulnerable if we are so reliant 127 on gas/vehicles. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Don’t invest in options that encourage longer commutes/travel time/vehicle miles 128 traveled. Comment noted
Homes near freeways – freeways devalue Vibrant Economy quality of life (aq, noise, property values). Would like to see a metric that addresses Noise impacts could be considered for 129 this. future performance level efforts.
Vibrant Economy Freeways encourage long distance travel, 130 which is not desirable. Comment noted
64 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
These seem well thought out. Relation to the smart growth projects and areas. It is Vibrant Economy important that the network includes the smart growth areas and is focused in the The performance measures report smart growth areas. Connectivity between results for the integrated multimodal smart growth areas and connectivity transportation network, which among modes in these areas. Investments includes multi-modal transportation 131 should focus in the smart growth areas. nodes.
Measure increases in population/employment density within a certain distance of major transportation Vibrant Economy investment. Measure how it increases land value, tax benefits, etc. you can correlate it with specific populations, etc. who gets the value from the investments. Wants a Accessibility to different modal fine grain measure that can understand options are incorporated in localized area benefits of performance measures 7A, 7B, 7C, 132 investments/choices, etc. and 8A.
Congestion costs cause great loss to our economy – wasted fuel, pollution, value Vibrant Economy of time. Measure how many billions of dollars/hours did we lose to congestion Vehicle delay per capita is included as 133 this year. performance measure 1B.
65 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
A number of active transportation-
Vibrant Economy related performance measures are included (refer to 2A, 3B, 7D, 7E, 7F). Need more bike and pedestrian Measure 7C includes the percentage infrastructure, and that would benefit the of populations/employment within 134 businesses versus building highways 0.5 miles of a bike facility.
Vibrant Economy Express lines that get travelers to 135 destination would be most effective Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Fairmont Avenue could use more 136 pedestrian enhancements, improvements Comment noted
Vibrant Economy 137 Increased bus lines to Trolley centers Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Major streets that are geared towards 138 vehicles are under-utilized Comment noted
Vibrant Economy 139 Grade separation on Trolleys Comment noted
There is no one single metric that can Vibrant Economy be identified as the "most important" What’s the most important metric when because of the diversity of the modes 140 comparing potential networks? and users in the region.
A number of the proposed performance measures include Vibrant Economy explicit analysis of impacts on Economic justice – need to address communities of concern (refer to 1A, 141 inequity 5A, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, and 8B).
66 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Invest in lesser-utilized parts of county, Vibrant Economy encourage growth, redevelop urban core 142 – done cheaper Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Look at focusing investments on poorer 143 areas Comment noted
There is no single definition of what Vibrant Economy "convenience" represents, although the activity-based model that Convenience – without that, people are generates many of information used not going to use it - most important to calculate these measures includes metric when comparing potential aspects related to convenience such as 144 networks frequency of transit service and costs.
Vibrant Economy Impact on the environment, emissions - A number of performance measures most important metric when comparing explicitly address air quality impacts 145 potential networks (refer to 9A and 10A).
Cost that user pays - most important Cost is one of many factors that Vibrant Economy metric when comparing potential travelers consider when making travel 146 networks choice decisions.
How much time it takes to get from place Average travel times are included in a Vibrant Economy to place; efficiency - most important number of performance measures metric when comparing potential (refer to 1A, 1B, 4B, 6A, 6B, 8A, and 147 networks 8B).
Vibrant Economy What should a future transit network 148 attempt to accomplish? Comment noted 67 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
A future transit network attempt to Vibrant Economy accomplish - linking communities across 149 the region Comment noted
A number of performance measures Vibrant Economy A future transit network attempt to reflect the multi-modal aspects of the accomplish - Giving people options – transportation system (refer to 2A 150 walking, biking, public transit, cars and 7A-7D).
Vibrant Economy A future transit network attempt to SANDAG does not currently have any accomplish - give people a safe option; tools or methods for forecasting 151 make it safe for people to use mass transit personal safety.
The activity-based model used to Vibrant Economy generate the performance measures includes many factors that influence Has to be an incentive to get people out residents' mode-specific, such as 152 of their cars travel time and costs.
The activity-based model used to Vibrant Economy generate the performance measures Best incentive to get people out of their includes many factors that influence cars- financial, money, time – depends on residents' mode-specific, such as 153 which you have less of travel time and costs.
People need to feel safe; there’s a stigma Vibrant Economy of people being scared because of scary- SANDAG does not currently have any looking people, or people try to steal tools or methods for forecasting 154 valuable items personal safety.
68 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Vibrant Economy Mass Transit is seen as something you 155 have to take, not choice Comment noted
SANDAG does not currently have any Vibrant Economy Need more controls of access to board the tools or methods for forecasting 156 Trolley to improve safety personal safety.
The proposed performance measures Vibrant Economy include basic indicators of access to Transit stops need to be more convenient transit and bicycle facilities (refer to 157 to access 7A-7C).
Vibrant Economy 158 Need more grade separations of Trolley Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Need more dedicated bike paths 159 separated from cars Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Too much focus on freeway projects, need to invest more money in other transit 160 options Comment noted
A number of performance measures Vibrant Economy If you add more choices of transportation, reflect the multi-modal aspects of the people use these different modes and it transportation system (refer to 2A 161 will improve congestion on freeways and 7A-7D). A number of performance measures Vibrant Economy Environment needs to be considered reflect environmental factors (refer to 162 when evaluating projects 9A and 10A).
Vibrant Economy 163 Need to extend Trolley to the airport Comment noted
69 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
A number of performance measures Vibrant Economy Our current transportation system forces reflect the multi-modal aspects of the people to use cars and doesn’t provide transportation system (refer to 2A 164 enough alternatives and 7A-7D).
Vibrant Economy A number of performance measures reflect the active transportation 165 Making more safe, connected Bike Routes aspects of the transportation system.
Vibrant Economy Need to connect bike paths to Trolleys, 166 buses Comment noted
The activity-based model used to Vibrant Economy generate the performance measures includes many factors that influence Have more shared bike programs in the residents' mode-specific, such as 167 city travel time and costs.
Vibrant Economy Doesn’t seem like there’s enough "Average truck/commercial vehicle emphasis on connecting the San Diego travel times to and around regional region to North County, Orange County, gateways" is included as a 168 Los Angeles. performance measure (refer to 4B).
Vibrant Economy There should be more thought to putting 169 more mass transit lines Comment noted
Vibrant Economy 170 Not enough mass transit Comment noted
70 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
SANDAG should think bigger when it comes to mass transit projects. Example: Vibrant Economy in 2050 Escondido will be connected to Downtown only by bus rapid transit, but shouldn’t there be a rail line as a goal 171 instead? Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Instead of building more lanes of traffic, why not just add a lane of rail or bike 172 path. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy 173 Can’t have piecemeal mass transit. Comment noted
Vibrant Economy 174 Other major cities have subway Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Not enough connectivity between 175 communities Comment noted
Vibrant Economy Should focus transit investment on all 176 people, not just poor & minority Comment noted 11. Percentage of population/employment within Healthy Environment 0.5 miles of high frequency (<=15 & Communities min peak and midday) transit stops (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern)
Healthy Environment A performance measure quantifying & Communities Need to determine if transit modes are accessibility to transit for those with accessible for those with strollers, special mobility may be considered in 177 wheelchairs, and the visually impaired. future performance measures.
71 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Accessibility to different modal Healthy Environment Is there a way to track that? For major options are incorporated as a & Communities transit stops GIS should be used to performance measure (refer to 7A- 178 determine if that last mile is walkable. 7D).
Healthy Environment & Communities Accessibility to high-frequency transit The frequency of buses or Trolleys at a is included as a performance measure 179 stop is important. (refer to 7A).
The distance to transit isn’t always a good Healthy Environment measurement of a neighborhoods transit & Communities score since there may be impediments like railroad tracks. A transit stop may be 200 Accessibility to transit is based on an feet away, but people may need to walk a "all streets" network that realistically 180 mile to get to it. represents barriers to access.
Measuring the efficiency of the transit Healthy Environment system would be great. Fewer lines make & Communities it more efficient fiscally but it may draw in fewer riders, so there is a fine 181 balancing point. Comment noted
72 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment 12. Percentage of population/employment within 0.25 miles a bike facility (class I Healthy Environment and II, cycletrack, and bicycle & Communities boulevard) (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern)
A number of active transportation-
Healthy Environment related performance measures are & Communities included, although they are more demand-oriented rather than supply- oriented. In addition, health and Bicycle facilities are important, health cost environment benefits are included in 182 savings, and environmental benefits the benefit cost analysis.
Healthy Environment Consider looking at a quarter mile for & Communities high frequency transit; consider an eighth of a mile for population/employment 183 within XXX miles of a bike facility. Comment noted
Healthy Environment & Communities Consider a sidewalk measure that Sidewalk-based measures may be encourages biking/walking. (First-Mile, considered in future performance 184 Last-Mile) measure updates.
Healthy Environment Increasing the amount of people that will & Communities be able to walk or bike to their The proposed performance measures 185 destinations is needed. include mode share (refer to 2A). 13. Average travel distance to Healthy Environment work (drive alone, carpool, & Communities transit, bike, and walk)
73 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
14. Total time engaged in Healthy Environment transportation-related physical & Communities activity per capita (minutes)
A number of performance measures reflect the active transportation Healthy Environment aspects of the transportation system. & Communities Measures 7E and 7F highlight the population engaged in transportation- A healthy community spends less time in related physical activity. In addition, cars. Being sedentary in general is bad, the benefit cost measure incorporates and the emissions people breathe in when the benefits from a more physically 186 they are in traffic is very bad. active lifestyle.
Performance measure refer to 7F
Healthy Environment measures the "percent of the & Communities population engaging in 20 minutes of daily transportation related physical A measurement should be included that activity. The proposed benefit cost encourages people to reach a minimum analysis will also include benefits transportation-related physical activity associated with reaching a minimal 187 level. level of physical activity.
It is recommended that people get in Healthy Environment thirty minutes of walking a day, and & Communities transportation-related activity can count for that. However, for people that are visually impaired that may not be an 188 option. Comment noted 74 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment Routes may be ranked higher for physical & Communities activity, but that might be more difficult 189 for the visually impaired. Comment noted
Healthy Environment & Communities Would be healthier for people if they Accessibility to transit is included as a could walk a quarter mile, or so, to the performance measure (refer to 7A- 190 bus or Trolley. 7B).
15. Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher Healthy Environment education (Communities of & Communities Concern and Non-Communities of Concern)
Healthy Environment For many people who are looking for & Communities jobs, taking the Trolley to work would be a huge draw. Unfortunately, some people Accessibility to transit is included as a need to drive to the Trolley station due to performance measure (refer to 7A- 191 the lack of easily accessible bus routes. 7B).
Healthy Environment If jobs are closer to where people live, & Communities that will improve all of the externalities of Accessibility to jobs is included as a 192 transportation in our communities. performance measure (refer to 8A).
Healthy Environment Access to education and jobs training & Communities needs to be addressed. Retraining for Accessibility to educational those with obsolete skills also needs to be opportunities is included as a 193 addressed. performance measure (refer to 8A).
75 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
16. Percent of population within 30 minutes of goods and services Healthy Environment (retail, medical, parks, and & Communities beaches) (Communities of Concern and Non-Communities of Concern)
Healthy Environment There aren’t any Trolley stops at the high Comment noted. Access to parks and & Communities sought after destinations such as Balboa beaches by auto and transit is 194 Park and the beaches. included in measure 8B.
Healthy Environment 17. On-road smog-forming & Communities pollutants (pounds/day) per capita
The network scenario-level Healthy Environment & Communities performance measures are regional in Consider localized air pollution impacts in scope. More locally detailed air the measurement analysis. Poor air quality quality impact analyses should be 195 is a safety and health concern. performed at a project-level.
A number of emissions-related Healthy Environment & Communities For a mega-region, such as San Diego, performance measures are included, consider measuring the air pollutants with but they are calculated at a regional a goal to reduce emissions near major level and do not specifically look at 196 transit hubs. proximity to transit hubs.
Healthy Environment & Communities The pollution in the air is evident by the 197 amount of dirt/soot on our cars. Comment noted
76 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment & Communities The consolidation of trips should be 198 encouraged to help improve air quality. Comment noted
San Diego hasn’t been up to date with health costs. Studies have come out Healthy Environment recently on the effects of poor air quality & Communities on asthma development rates and other The proposed benefit cost analysis health effects, yet none of that will includes benefits associated with information is included in the planning reaching a minimal level of physical 199 documents. activity.
Healthy Environment & Communities Carbon based modes of transportation 200 tend to pollute more. Comment noted
Incidents of asthma can be projected using the current mode trends of the City. Healthy Environment If mode share changes, how much will & Communities those asthma rates change? SANDAG should come up with a plan that at least gets the City a passing grade from the SANDAG does not currently have any American Lung Association instead of its tools or methods for forecasting 201 current failing grade. changes in incidents of asthma.
Trains are releasing huge amounts of Healthy Environment fumes that aren’t being addressed the & Communities way that they should be. Cars seem to be Comment noted. In past RTP EIRs making headway with cleaning up, but emissions estimates for trains has 202 transit vehicles need to clean up. been calculated.
77 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment 18. On-road CO2 emissions & Communities (pounds/day) per capita
Consider a measurement that works to Healthy Environment reduce greenhouse gas emissions by & Communities means of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A cost-effectiveness measurement that VMT-based cost-effectiveness is needs to be considered is VMT per dollar implicitly captured as part of the 203 spent. benefit-cost analysis.
Healthy Environment It is also important to take environmental Emissions-related performance & Communities consequences of transportation modes measures are included (refer to 9A 204 into account. and 10A).
Vehicle delay and reducing vehicle miles Healthy Environment travelled (VMT) are at odds; if we are While reduced VMT may reduce GHG & Communities going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, other strategies or (GHG) emissions, VMTs need to be technologies may as well, and which reduced by 15%, meaning daily vehicle may not result in the economic delay should not even be considered as a inefficiencies associated with vehicle 205 performance measure. delay.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has to Healthy Environment & Communities be the number one priority, identify Emissions-related performance projects that reduce greenhouse gas measures are included (refer to 9A 206 emissions. and 10A).
78 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment Other & Communities
Geographic location may shape the types of performance measures SANDAG is Healthy Environment looking at for this analysis. While transit & Communities may not be available/appropriate in areas such as the Mountain Empire, access to The performance measures are active transportation facilities (biking and typically applied and evaluated at a walking) are needed to connect to the regional level, although subregional 207 available social services. analyses may also be performed.
The constrained lands measurement is too Healthy Environment overgeneralized. There are too many & Communities effects on protected agriculture lands versus protected sensitive habitat lands. These two items need to be The constrained lands performance 208 differentiated. measure has been dropped.
Healthy Environment & Communities High Density needs to be considered. (This concern is addressed in the existing 209 performance measurements.) Comment noted
79 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
A water quality measurement is needed Healthy Environment for this analysis. Transportation projects & Communities can affect the amount of water-polluted SANDAG does not currently have a run-off from creeks and streams in urban tool or methodology for quantifying areas. Standing water can also the water quality impacts of accommodate mosquitoes and can transportation policies or 210 disproportionately impact communities. investments.
Economic justice should be addressed in the measurement tool. The older Healthy Environment communities (such as San Ysidro) have not & Communities been considered for LRT grade separation; Impacts on communities of concern however, in newer transit projects (Mid- are incorporated into a number of Coast), grade separation is being performance measures (refer to 1A, 211 considered. 5A, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, and 8B).
Healthy Environment Higher intensity units and mixed use units & Communities need to be emphasized to make neighborhoods as walkable and bikable 212 as possible. Comment noted
Healthy Environment & Communities Sidewalks should be required in all 213 neighborhoods. Comment noted
Healthy Environment & Communities SANDAG does not have regionwide base year or forecast year data on the 214 Access to healthy foods is very important locations of healthy foods.
80 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment & Communities In many communities, there is not a SANDAG does not have regionwide nearby supermarket, and the ones that base year or forecast year data on the 215 are near are not healthy. locations of healthy foods.
Healthy Environment The benefits of increased physical & Communities The costs of poor health should be a activity are included in the benefit 216 factor in the criteria. cost analysis.
Healthy Environment Some cities have free public transit or & Communities offer free transit in certain corridors near 217 commercial areas. Comment noted
Healthy Environment The airport doesn’t have a train or easy & Communities transportation. That is something that can 218 be improved. Comment noted
Places like the airport are planning on Healthy Environment & Communities building larger parking lots, but that money should be invested in better transit 219 options. Comment noted
Healthy Environment & Communities The performance measures should include The benefits of increased physical multimodal measurements that activity are included in the benefit 220 encourage safe and healthy communities. cost analysis.
Healthy Environment A First-Mile, Last Mile measurement is SANDAG does not currently have any & Communities needed, which also takes into account tools or methods for forecasting 221 what the first and last mile look like. personal safety.
81 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
A bike sharing program in San Diego Healthy Environment would certainly address some of these & Communities issues. It would improve the health of riders, address the last mile issue, and 222 lower the pollutants in the air. Comment noted
Healthy Environment & Communities A bike share program would be a great 223 addition at high frequency transit stops. Comment noted
Connectivity and interconnectivity seems Healthy Environment important to everybody. There should be & Communities a way to measure the density between The performance measures report transit options; similar to a results for the integrated multimodal neighborhood’s walk score. The score transportation network, which would help to measure the improvement includes multi-modal transportation 224 of a city’s walkability over time. nodes.
Healthy Environment & Communities Walk San Diego did a study similar to that transit options. It has some issues, but it is 225 a great step. Comment noted
Carpooling used to be an emphasis at the City of San Diego many years ago. That Healthy Environment & Communities seemed to fade away over time since there wasn’t an appropriate conduit to share that information. Now, social media may be able to push carpooling once 226 again. Comment noted 82 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment & Communities The hours that people work don’t seem to work well with others, so carpooling is 227 difficult. Comment noted
Healthy Environment The jobs with rigid work hours that may & Communities have worked best for carpooling in the 228 past may be disappearing. Comment noted
Healthy Environment The activity-based model that is used & Communities to generate many of the performance The occasional carpooler or telecommuter measures includes carpooling and 229 should be captured in studies. working from home as alternative.
SANDAG's icommute offers a free Healthy Environment online RideMatcher service, which & Communities allows people to find vanpools, There should be a service that makes carpools, and people to bike to work 230 carpooling convenient. with.
There is the fear with carpools that Healthy Environment & Communities something might come up in the day that makes carpooling difficult. However, if there was a bigger pool of people to 231 choose from that might help. Comment noted
83 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment Telecommuting should be encouraged & Communities and San Diego should help build the The activity-based model that is used infrastructure for that. The coaster has Wi- to generate many of the performance Fi which allows commuters to work on the measures includes working from 232 train and still leave work at a decent time. home as alternative.
Healthy Environment & Communities The network needs to connect attractable 233 and high-density destinations. Comment noted
Healthy Environment Ways to make public transit more & Communities appealing with improvements to aesthetics, safety, and other measures 234 need to be considered. Comment noted
Downtown San Diego is a great place to live with its great weather, cultural Healthy Environment activities, and ease of access between & Communities point A and point B. That ease of access is possible because of the high-density in the downtown neighborhood, but how can other areas be turned into the 235 downtown model. Comment noted
Healthy Environment SANDAG does not currently have any & Communities Quality of life should be an important tools or methodologies for 236 measure. quantifying "quality of life".
84 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Healthy Environment In order to measure the performance of & Communities the network, we have to consider the Land use assumptions are a key input land uses that affect them; having a to the activity-based model that higher share of mixed land use will help generates many of the performance 237 increase multi-modal transportation use. measures.
Healthy Environment Land use assumptions are a key input & Communities to the activity-based model that Increasing density along land use generates many of the performance 238 corridors measures.
The proposed performance measures Healthy Environment include mode share (refer to 2A) as & Communities well as a performance measure related to the percentage of How walkable and how ride-able are population/employment within 0.5 239 communities miles of a bike facility (refer to 7C).
Healthy Environment A number of active transportation- & Communities related performance measures are Bike and pedestrian infrastructure is included (refer to 2A, 3B, 7D, 7E, and 240 important in multi modal links 7F).
85 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
SANDAG does not currently have any tools or methods for forecasting Healthy Environment & Communities personal safety. A number of performance measures consider Poor communities often get overlooked; impacts on communities of concern safety is essential and should not be (refer to 1A, 5A, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, and 241 overlooked 8B).
Healthy Environment A number of diverse performance & Communities Have social justice listed as specific measures consider impacts on 242 evaluation criteria communities of concern.
Other Comments Other: General
Other Comments The performance measures seem 243 comprehensive. Comment noted
Other Comments SANDAG needs to work on not only getting information out to underserved communities, but also providing the SANDAG strives to staff meetings with 244 appropriate staff at these meetings. personnel to support all communities.
Other Comments At some stops people lean against walls or sit on the grass of nearby houses when 245 waiting for the bus. Comment noted
86 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
The performance measures are used Other Comments Are the criteria going to be used to to help identify a preferred regional distinguish where the billion dollars gets transportation network scenario 246 spent? alternative.
Some downtown residents are affected by the overnight parking of the trains at the Santa Fe Depot. The trains run Other Comments throughout the night, even when they are not in use. The noise is terrible and the health issues from the pollutants are 247 even worse. Comment noted
Other Comments The maintenance of the transportation vehicle needs occur in an appropriate area 248 and not in residential areas. Comment noted
Offering Compass Cards that could be Other Comments attached to key chains would be a great incentive for people to purchase Compass Cards who tend to lose them and have to 249 continually replace them. Comment noted
87 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Network scenarios are developed by assembling packages of Other Comments transportation projects which have Q. How are the scenarios determined? – previously been ranked based on A. through the evaluation criteria first project-level evaluation criteria. and then other policy considerations may These scenarios are evaluated using influence certain emphasis scenarios. The the performance measures, and scenarios will be tested through these refined as necessary until a preferred 250 performance measures. alternative can be selected.
Q. Are there restrictions on where the monies can be spent – freeway, etc.? it seems we have constraints put in place Other Comments already from the beginning unless we can address that. Should focus only on the flexible funds then. A. Currently only about 3-5% are flexible funds which allows us to do “emphasis scenarios”. There are a number of constraints Policy side we have more flexibility that influence how money can be 251 though with parking policies, etc. spent.
88 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Q. Does the $214 Billion include actual construction costs through the full networks? Q. Are we just here to discuss the 3-5% then? A. We are here to discuss Other Comments how the complete networks may differ in terms of meeting goals for vibrant economy or healthy communities, etc. we will see differences among the networks given funding options, etc. The restrictions on the monies may not need There are a number of constraints to be pre-ordained for ever – there are that influence how money can be 252 policy options we could make in future spent.
Other Comments Q. Will these be weighted? A. we were not planning on weighting these measures as we do with the project The performance measures are not 253 evaluation criteria. weighted.
Refueling and servicing of Amtrak trains Other Comments at the Santa Fe station is a problem for residents in the area due to noise and 254 environmental pollution. Comment noted
Agreed. Many of the performance measure are interrelated, which Other Comments reflects the fact that many aspects of You have to recognize the inter- the transportation system, land use relatedness of all of the performance and the environment are also 255 measures. interrelated.
89 Comments from the November 2013 Public Workshop
Regional Plan Comment Performance Measures Response Goals Number Comment
Other Comments SANDAG strives to use real data in the We need to look at real data to make decision-making process to the 256 informed decisions greatest extent possible.
Projects are first evaluated and ranked using a different set of project- Other Comments level evaluation criteria. Packages of projects are then bundled to create network scenarios, which are Question – are we evaluating different evaluated using the performance 257 projects altogether or separate? measures.
Other Comments SANDAG has been actively working to System of evaluating projects is flawed create a rational and transparent 258 from the very beginning project evaluation process.
Some explanation of how past performance measures have affected current plans and project would have Other Comments helped us understand what we are discussing. For Example trying to reduce commute time for auto users can encourage more driving, thereby 259 increasing VMT. Comment noted
Other Comments What should we consider when we There is no one single metric that can compare transportation networks? What’s be identified as the "most important" the most important performance because of the diversity of the modes 260 measure? and users in the region.
90 Attachment 3A
Draft Transportation Network Performance Measures Peer Review Panel Findings
November 12, 2013
A five-member peer review panel met on November 12, 2013 to review and provide comments on the draft transportation network performance measures for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Below is a summary of the panel’s comments and findings, as prepared by the peer review panel.
Comments:
• The panel likes that there are fewer performance measures than in past plans • Likes the concept of developing key questions • Likes many of the new performance measures being proposed
INNOVATIVE MOBILITY AND PLANNING
- Measures proposed to be cut o Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) o Travel time to work o Transit passenger miles - Measures proposed to be added o Travel time peak (reported by Low Income-Minority (LIM)/non-LIM and total) o Travel time off-peak (reported by LIM/non-LIM and total) - Measures proposed to be kept/refined o Daily vehicle delay o Increase in non-SOV mode share o Vehicle safety o Bike/ped safety VIBRANT ECONOMY
- Measures proposed to be cut o Return on investment o Jobs generated and regional output growth (require different land use scenarios, or running integrated model), unless there are expected to be differences across scenarios o Total freight capacity acreage (can make available for reporting)
91 - Measures proposed to be kept/refined o Benefit cost analysis o Daily truck delay to/from gateways and distribution hubs (total, or per trip) o Percentage of income consumed by out-of-pocket transportation costs (drop time component) (reported by LIM/non-LIM and total) o Average travel times to/from Mexico o Average travel times to/from tribal lands HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES
- Measures proposed to be cut o Average travel distance to work destinations o Total gross acres of constrained lands - Measures proposed to be kept/refined o Percentage of population within 0.5 mile of high-frequency transit o Percentage of population within 0.25 mile of bicycle facility (Class I, Class II, etc.) o Number of persons achieving minimum physical activity (30 min) from transportation-related physical activity o Access to jobs + post-secondary enrollment by auto by occupation/industry (30 min) o Access of jobs + post-secondary enrollment by transit by occupation/industry (30 min) o Access to goods and services (retail, medical, etc.) (30 min) o Smog-forming and toxic pollutants o Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions In development of questions, consider including:
- Is the health of residents improved? o Put transportation-related physical activity under this question o Put smog-forming and toxic pollutants Future monitoring efforts may want to include:
- Transit system utilization/efficiency (passenger mile/seat mile) - Bicycle and pedestrian safety measures
OVERARCHING CONSTRAINTS
- Issues of uncertainty as the plan has a horizon year of 2050 - Funding constraints - limited flexible funding - Intelligent Transportation System & Arterials constraints - Land use constraints
92 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS:
- System should be modeled as a whole, and include arterials. Work with local agencies to incorporate municipality desires into the modeling process.
- Integrate parallel land use-transportation scenario development with current Regional Plan scenario development. Land use scenarios should be defined in conjunction with, and explicitly linked to, specific transportation network scenarios
93 Attachment 3B Draft Performance Measures PEER REVIEW PANEL BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Jennifer Dill Professor, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning, Portland State University Dr. Jennifer Dill is a professor in the Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University and Director of the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC). Dr. Dill’s research interests include the relationship between transportation policy and planning and land use, health, and the environment, with a focus on non- motorized travel behavior. Prior to entering academia, Dr. Dill worked as an environmental and transportation planner for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and US Environmental Protection Agency. She was also research director at the Local Government Commission, where she worked on energy, land use, and transportation issues. Dr. Dill has a Ph.D. in City and Regional Planning from UC Berkeley, an MA in Urban Planning from UCLA, and a BS in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from UC Davis.
Charlie Howard Transportation Planning Director,Puget Sound Regional Council Charlie Howard is the Transportation Planning Director for the Puget Sound Regional Council, a position that he has held since February 2005. Prior to joining PSRC, Charlie worked with the Washington State Department of Transportation for 18 years, most recently as the Director of Strategic Planning and Programming. Charlie has been involved in state and regional transportation issues for the past 30 years, including an active role in developing and implementing the state's growth management act.
Ben Stabler Senior Supervising Planner with Parsons Brinckerhoff’s Systems Analysis Group Ben Stabler specializes in planning modeling systems development and application. He is an expert in travel demand model development, software development, and data analysis/visualization. Ben has worked internationally on numerous activity- based and four-step travel demand and land use modeling systems and has presented at numerous conferences. He is a certified Geographic Information System (GIS) Professional and has worked in both the public and private sectors. He is an experienced software developer, having previously worked for a private transportation software company. Ben has also been a member of the Transportation Research Board Urban Transportation Data and Information Systems Committee (ABJ30) since 2009 and is an instructor for the National Highway Institute course on travel demand forecasting.
David Vautin Associate Transportation Planner, Metropolitan Transportation Commission David Vautin is a Transportation Planner at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in Oakland, California, specializing in transportation performance assessment. His analytical work informs regional policy decisions by monitoring adherence to adopted goals and targets and by identifying high-performing transportation investments that support the region’s sustainability objectives. As part of Plan Bay Area, the region's first Sustainable Communities Strategy, David's work on project-level performance assessment helped policymakers to prioritize the region’s top transit expansion priorities for future New Starts and Small Starts funding opportunities, in addition to highlighting cost-ineffective and sprawl-inducing projects as low performers.
Martin Wachs Senior Principal Researcher at RAND, Distinguished Professor Emeritus in Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Martin Wachs is a senior principal researcher at RAND. He formerly served as director of the RAND Transportation, Space, and Technology Program. Prior to joining RAND, he was professor of civil and environmental engineering and professor of city and regional planning at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was also director of the Institute of Transportation Studies. Prior to this, he spent 25 years at UCLA. Wachs is the author of 160 articles and four books on subjects related to relationships between transportation, land use, and air quality; transportation finance and policy; transportation needs of the elderly; techniques for the evaluation of transportation systems and performance measurement in transportation planning. His research also addresses issues of equity in transportation policy.
SANDAGRegion @SANDAG SANDAGRegion
94 2125 8/13 Attachment 3C Draft Performance Measures Peer Panel Review Findings November 12, 2013
Regional Plan Goals Peer Panel Finding Response to Findings Measures proposed to be cut o Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Dropped VMT performance measure. Kept travel time performance measure, but refined so that is peak period only, and added o Travel time to work modal and community of concern detail (refer to 1A). Dropped transit passenger miles performance o Transit passenger miles measure. Measures proposed to be added Refined travel time performance measure to o Travel time peak (reported by Low Income-Minority (LIM)/non-LIM and total) reflect peak period only, and to provide details Innovative Mobility and for communities of concern (refer to 1A). Planning Did not add a new off-peak travel time o Travel time off-peak (reported by LIM/non-LIM and total) performance measure; not as relevant as peak travel time. Measures proposed to be kept/refined Kept it in the draft set of performance measures o Daily vehicle delay (refer to 1B). Kept it in the draft set of performance measures o Increase in non-SOV mode share (refer to 2A). Kept in the draft set of performance measure o Vehicle safety (refer to 3A). Kept in the draft set of performance measure o Bike/ped safety (refer to 3B). Measures proposed to be cut Dropped return on investment performance o Return on investment measure. Benefit-cost ratio (refer to 4A) is a similar metric. o Jobs generated and regional output growth (require different land use scenarios, or running integrated model), unless there are expected to be differences across Dropped these performance measures. scenarios o Total freight capacity acreage (can make available for reporting) Dropped this performance measure. Measures proposed to be kept/refined Kept benefit-cost ratio performance measure Vibrant Economy o Benefit cost analysis (refer to 4A). Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Daily truck delay to/from gateways and distribution hubs (total, or per trip) (refer to 4B). Refined percent of income consumed by o Percentage of income consumed by out-of-pocket transportation costs (drop time transportation costs to eliminate the value-of- component) (reported by LIM/non-LIM and total) time component (refer to 5A). Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Average travel times to/from Mexico (refer to 6B). Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Average travel times to/from tribal lands (refer to 6A). 95 Draft Performance Measures Peer Panel Review Findings November 12, 2013 Regional Plan Goals Peer Panel Finding Response to Findings Measures proposed to be cut Refined travel distance to work destinations to o Average travel distance to work destinations provide modal detail (refer to 7D). Dropped gross acres of constrained lands o Total gross acres of constrained lands performance measure. Measures proposed to be kept/refined Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Percentage of population within 0.5 mile of high-frequency transit (refer to 7A). Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Percentage of population within 0.25 mile of bicycle facility (Class I, Class II, etc.) (refer to 7C). Healthy Environment and o Number of persons achieving minimum physical activity (30 min) from Refined persons achieving minimum physical Communities transportation-related physical activity activity performance measure (refer to 7F). o Access to jobs + post-secondary enrollment by auto by occupation/industry (30 Refined access to jobs and education min) performance measure (refer to 8A). o Access of jobs + post-secondary enrollment by transit by occupation/industry (30 Refined access to jobs and education min) performance measure (refer to 8A). Refined access to goods and services performance o Access to goods and services (retail, medical, etc.) (30 min) measure (refer to 8B). Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Smog-forming and toxic pollutants (refer to 9A). Kept in the draft set of performance measures o Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions (refer to 10A).
96 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-02-12 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 21, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION
INTERSTATE 805 BUS RAPID TRANSIT/47TH STREET File Number 1280512 TROLLEY STATION AREA PLANNING PROJECT
Introduction
The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) includes a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along the Interstate 805 (I-805) corridor between the Otay Mesa Border Crossing and University City/ Sorrento Mesa via Chula Vista, National City, Southeastern San Diego, Mid-City, and Kearny Mesa. This project is included in the TransNet program of projects for both capital and operating funding and is included in the 2050 RTP, intended to align with the expansion of the High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes now under construction along the I-805 Corridor into a four-lane Express Lanes facility. One of the key stations along the future BRT line will be at the 47th Street Trolley Station (see Attachment 1, Map), which will provide regional connectivity to the Orange Line Trolley and local buses, and serve as the main access point for the Southeastern San Diego Communities.
In March 2012, SANDAG and Caltrans initiated the I-805 BRT/47th Street Trolley Station Area project, collaborating with community members and stakeholders to develop and evaluate alternative station designs. Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) staff participated in the Project Development Team (PDT), reviewing and providing input throughout the study. The result of this joint work effort is concurrence by all project team members on four alternatives that best meet SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, and community objectives to be further analyzed in the environmental phase of the project.
Discussion
Background
On March 2, 2012, the Transportation Committee received a report on the formation of a temporary Community Working Group (CWG) to assist in the development of project goals and priorities, and the evaluation of station design concepts for the I-805 BRT/47th Street Trolley Station Area Planning Project. The creation of this working group was developed in coordination with then Councilmember Tony Young’s office, and approved by the SANDAG Executive Director with concurrence of the Board Chair on January 12, 2012. A kick-off meeting was held on March 5, 2012, and seven subsequent meetings were held including a bus tour. The bus tour provided an opportunity to see examples of freeway transit centers used for the Interstate 15 BRT project.
Station Design Concept Development and Evaluation
Initially, 15 alternative station concepts were developed by the project team with feedback from the CWG. These alternatives ranged from an in-line station within the Express Lanes facility with elevator connections to the trolley station, to a station located adjacent to the trolley station with connector ramps to the Express Lanes. The evaluation of the alternatives occurred in two phases to allow lower-ranked alternatives to be eliminated early on, with most of the study budget focused on those alternatives that showed the most promise for implementation.
The first evaluation phase screened the 15 initial concepts using seven evaluation criteria (order of magnitude of cost estimates; effect on BRT and Trolley operations; proximity of platforms and ease of access; economic development potential; need for design exceptions; environmental impacts; and passenger security) that were developed in collaboration with the CWG. Based on this initial evaluation phase, the project team concurred to move forward with six alternatives to be analyzed in the second, more detailed evaluation phase.
The second evaluation phase further developed the concepts for the six remaining alternatives, including identifying a number of design variations on the station location and connector ramps. The end result was identification of five alternatives that the project team felt the most promising for possible implementation. These five alternatives were then evaluated and scored based on a detailed set of 21 criteria developed by the project team and categorized into five key areas: 1) transit operations, 2) station design, 3) non-motorized access, 4) engineering elements, and 5) environmental impacts. Cost estimates for each alternative were developed by engineers on the consultant team using practices established by Caltrans. Attachment 2 provides a matrix of the scoring for each of the evaluation criteria for the five alternatives.
The five alternatives are shown in Attachment 3 and described below:
• Alternative 1: Freeway Level, In-Line Station, Side Platforms ($50-$55 Million): This alternative provides dedicated northbound and southbound BRT lanes within the existing freeway median with side station platforms south of the Trolley bridge. The platforms are located in the freeway median, with separate northbound and southbound bus platforms positioned to the right of the bus lane. The station would be separated by concrete barriers from the adjacent Express Lanes. Pedestrians would access the BRT station from the existing 47th Street Trolley Station east of I-805 via a pedestrian overcrossing and stairs/elevators). The pedestrian overcrossing of I-805 would be placed at track level adjacent to the Trolley bridge, providing access from both the east and west side of the freeway.
• Alternative 2: Mid-Level, In-Line Station with Left Hand Bus Rapid Transit Ramp ($50-$55 Million): This alternative provides dedicated northbound and southbound BRT lanes within the existing median, with a Bus Rapid Transit Ramp and side station platforms south of the Trolley Bridge. The platforms are located at mid-level vertically between the freeway and track levels. The bus lanes would be built on retained earth with cantilevered station platforms to minimize the widening of the freeway footprint. Pedestrians would access the BRT station from the existing Trolley station via a pedestrian overcrossing of the freeway and a ramp connecting the pedestrian overcrossing to the BRT platform. The pedestrian overcrossing would be placed at track level and adjacent to the Trolley bridge, providing access from both the east and west side of the freeway.
2
• Alternative 3: Track Level, In-Line Station with Left Hand Bus Rapid Transit Ramp ($55-$60 Million): This alternative includes dedicated northbound and southbound BRT lanes within the existing median with a ramp to reach track level. Separate northbound and southbound side platform bus stations would be located near the Trolley bridge. Although the elevation of the bus lances change between freeway level and track level, its alignment remains within the freeway median. Pedestrians would access the station platforms from the Trolley station via a pedestrian overcrossing at track level adjacent to the Trolley bridge. The pedestrian bridge would extend to the west side of the freeway, providing access from both the east and west of the freeway.
• Alternative 4BN: Track Level, Off-Line Station North of Trolley Tracks with Left Hand Bus Rapid Transit Ramp ($65-$70 Million): This alternative includes dedicated northbound and southbound BRT lanes within the existing median with a ramp to reach track level. A track level vehicular bridge adjacent to and north of the Trolley bridge allows for buses to reach the BRT platform, located between the existing Trolley station and I-805. The Trolley and BRT platforms would be located adjacent to each other, allowing convenient transfers via a walkway. The project would still include a pedestrian bridge at track level adjacent to the Trolley bridge, allowing for access to the station from both the east and west side of the freeway.
• Alternative 4C: Mid-Level, Off-Line Station South of Trolley Tracks with Left Hand Bus Rapid Transit Ramp ($60-$65 Million): This alternative includes dedicated northbound and southbound BRT lanes within the existing median with a ramp to reach mid-level (vertically between the freeway and track levels). Once at mid-level the bus would use a bridge over the freeway to connect to the bus station on the east side of the freeway, south of the tracks. Transfers between the two transit modes would be made via a walkway between the BRT and Trolley platforms. The project would still include a pedestrian bridge at track level adjacent to the Trolley bridge, allowing for access to the station from both the east and west side of the freeway.
The scoring matrix helped determine which alternatives would be the best candidates to move forward for consideration as part of the environmental phase and include Alternatives 2, 3, 4BN, and 4C of which Alternatives 2, 3, and 4BN were the highest scoring. Although Alternative 1 scored higher than Alternative 4C, Alternative 1 was not included due to the many similarities to Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 2 proved to be a better option than Alternative 1 based on improving the experience for passengers utilizing that station (improved access to the BRT platforms for bicycles, improved passenger security, less walk time for passengers transferring from the Trolley) and elimination of the need for elevators. Alternative 4C also was selected to be analyzed as part of the environmental review process because it is significantly different from any of the other alternatives. This alternative avoids having the BRT vehicles cross the trolley bridge at grade while providing improved access to the BRT platform for pedestrians and less walk time for passengers transferring from the Trolley similar to Alternative 4BN.
3
Next Steps
The work completed in this initial phase will be used to develop a Project Study Report (PSR), Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR), and environmental document. Environmental studies are expected to begin in FY 2015, and the environmental document would be finalized in early 2017. I-805 Corridor funds will be used to complete the PSR, PEAR and environmental document, which are estimated to cost $3.65 million.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. 47th Street Station Location Map 2. Detailed Evaluation Matrix 3. Alternative Station Design Concepts
Key Staff Contact: Danielle Kochman, (619) 699-1921, [email protected]
4 Attachment 1
47th Street Station Location
5 Attachment 2
I-805 BRT/47th STREET TROLLEY STATION AREA PLANNING STUDY DETAILED EVALUATION MATRIX
Update to 4C Criterion #5 9/29/13
Alternatives
4BN 4C 1 2 3 Track Level, Off-Line Mid-Level, Off-Line Freeway Level, In- Mid-Level, In-Line Track Level, In-Line Station North of Station South of Trolley Line Station, Side Station with Left Station with Left Trolley Tracks with Tracks with Left Hand No. Evaluation Criteria Description Platforms Hand DAR Hand DAR Left Hand DAR DAR Transit Operations Changes in BRT travel time between on line and off line stations including the Effect on BRT Passenger 1 potential for impacts from waiting for 4 4 4 2 3 Travel Time trains and circulating through the BRT station platform Differences in operating cost due to the 2 Effect on BRT Operating Costs presence of elevators, maintenance 2 3 3 2 2 requirements, trip time variations Differences in security systems and 3 Effect on Security Costs 3 3 3 5 4 personnel needs Extent of potential conflicts between BRT Interaction w/Private 4 private vehicles and pedestrians accessing 5 5 4 3 4 Vehicles & Pedestrians the station Subtotal 14 15 14 12 13 Station Design Ease of Transfers between Walk time related to horizontal distances 5 1 3 3 5 3 BRT and Trolley Services and vertical circulation Distance and quality of connection 6 Pedestrian Circulation between BRT and local buses, drop off 1 2 3 5 3 area, and parking Line of sight, lighting, security equipment 7 Passenger Security 1 2 3 4 3 and operation, etc. Consideration of noise, air quality, other 8 Passenger Comfort 2 2 3 5 4 factors Subtotal 5 9 12 19 13 Nonmotorized Access
Pedestrian experience to access the station including horizontal and vertical Pedestrian Access 9 walking distances, quality of lighting along 2 2 3 4 4 Opportunities routes, directness of routes, protection for crossing major roadways, etc.
Bicycle experience to access station including availability of bicycle facilities 10 Bicycle Access Opportunities 2 3 3 3 3 and many of the pedestrian access considerations Subtotal 4 5 6 7 7 Engineering Elements Comparison of capital costs using Caltrans 11 Capital Costs 5 5 5 2 3 11-page estimate
Complexity of construction phases, bridge 12 Constructability replacement requirements, effect on 4 4 4 3 3 Trolley and railroad operations
Design Exceptions within Need, nature, and number of design 13 2 2 2 2 2 Caltrans Right of Way exceptions Approvals/design requirements within 14 CPUC Requirements railroad right of way to ensure operations 4 4 2 2 4 safety Right of Way/Easement Need for ROW outside the freeway or 15 3 3 3 2 2 Requirements railroad Unusable components when LRT is 16 Future Conversion to LRT 4 3 3 2 2 implemented in the corridor. Subtotal 22 21 19 13 16 Environmental Impacts
Displacements to adjacent land uses, 17 Effect on Adjacent Land Uses 3 3 3 3 2 lighting spillover, miscellaneous
18 Noise Impacts Potential impact to sensitive receptors 3 3 2 3 1
Change in area of creek covered, Chollas Creek Hydrology & 19 differences in water quality treatments 2 2 2 2 2 Water Quality required Nature and duration of impacts during 20 Construction Impacts construction to freeway and railroad, 2 2 2 1 1 transit passengers, residents, etc.
Land form changes, need for retaining walls higher than 6', view blockage, native 21 Visual Impacts 3 3 2 2 2 vegetation removal, mature tree removal for both residents and freeway users
Subtotal 13 13 11 11 8
Totals 58 63 62 62 57 Scoring System: 5 - Major Positive Effect, 4 - Minor Positive Effect, 3 - Neutral or No Effect, 2 - Minor Negative Effect, 1 - Major Negative Effect
6 Attachment 3 Alternative Station Design Concepts
Alternative 1: Freeway Level, In‐Line Station
Elevators connecting BRT station & Trolley station
Alternative 2: Mid‐Level, In‐Line Station with Left Hand Direct Access Ramp
7 Alternative 3: Track Level, In‐Line Station with Left Hand Direct Access Ramp
• Alternative 4BN: Track Level, Off‐Line Station North of Trolley Tracks with Left Hand Direct Access Ramp
8 Alternative 4C: Mid‐Level, Off‐Line Station South of Trolley Tracks with Left Hand Direct Access Ramp
9 1/17/2014
2013 Plan of Finance Update
February 21, 2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update Overview
• Annual update last approved in November 2012 • Program revenue, costs, and cash flow assumptions • EAP project cost and schedule changes
2
1 1/17/2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update Early Action Program
3
Extension Plan of Finance Update Trolley Renewal – Pacific Fleet Station
4
2 1/17/2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update SR 76/I-15 Interchange
5
Extension Plan of Finance Update I-15 Mira Mesa Direct Access Ramp
6
3 1/17/2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update I-15 BRT – Sabre Springs Parking Structure
7
Extension Plan of Finance Update Trends: Average Number of Bidders on Caltrans projects more than $5 million
10
8
6
4
2
0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
8
4 1/17/2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update Comparison of TransNet Revenues and Construction Cost
Cumulative escalation indexed to FY 2002 200%
150% Actual Projected
100%
TransNetTransNet Revenue Revenue 50% CaltransCaltrans Construction Construction CostCost Index 0% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
9
Extension Plan of Finance Update 2013 Plan of Finance Assumptions
• State and federal matching revenues – Consistent with MAP-21 and 2014 STIP revenue forecasts – Continue to dedicate formula funds to EAP • Program costs – Consistent with Board-approved FY 2014 SANDAG Capital Program Budget
10
5 1/17/2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update 2013 Plan of Finance Project Highlights
• Keep Mid-Coast Corridor Transit and North Coast Corridor projects on track • Coordinate major corridor improvements – COASTER: San Diego River Double Track – COASTER: Elvira to Morena – COASTER: Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track • Incorporate I-5 Voigt DAR • Continue to make progress on EMP
11
Extension Plan of Finance Update 2013 Plan of Finance Summary
• Maintains course on TransNet EAP • Maintains adequate debt service coverage • Substantially meets overall TransNet program capital needs through FY 2038 • Next bond transaction anticipated late FY 2014 / early FY 2015
12
6 1/17/2014
Extension Plan of Finance Update Recommendation
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance update, which incorporates changes to the various Early Action Program projects in the Interstate 15 Corridor, Interstate 5 (I-5) North Coast Corridor, and State Route 52 Corridor, and the Environmental Mitigation Program; and (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2014 Program Budget to incorporate funding for the I-5 Voigt Direct Access Ramp Project (CIP 1200507), as shown in Attachment 5.
13
7 2/26/2014
Draft Network Performance Measures Transportation Committee February 21, 2014
Criteria vs. Performance Measures
Project Evaluation Performance Measures Criteria • Applied to network of • Individual projects projects • Mode specific • Mode neutral • Weighted with points • No points or weighting • Ranked lists of • Performance of projects network
2
1 2/26/2014
Criteria vs. Performance Measures
Project Evaluation Performance Measures Criteria • Applied to network of • Individual projects projects • Mode specific • Mode neutral • Weighted with points • No points or • Ranked lists of weighting projects • Performance of network
3
Process and Timeline
Spring 2013Fall 2013 Winter 2014Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015
Policy Area Development
Project Evaluation Ranked Criteria Revenue Projects by Projections All Modes Category
Vision Goals Network Objectives Development All Modes Revenue Revenue Draft Constrained San Diego Unconstrained Constrained/ Preferred 2050 Network SCS Network Network Forward: The Regional Scenarios Scenario Regional Plan Growth Alternative Land Use and Forecast Transportation Scenarios
Network Performance Apply Measures Performance Measures All Modes
Ongoing Public Involvement
4
2 2/26/2014
Regional Plan Vision and Goals
5
Network Performance Measures
• Used in past regional transportation plans – Evaluate multimodal transportation networks – Select the transportation network for the draft RTP
6
3 2/26/2014
Scenario Development Based on Revenue Constraints
Bike/Pedestrian 1.‐‐ 2.‐‐ 3.‐‐ Criteria Network Transit #1 1.‐‐ 2.‐‐ 3.‐‐ Criteria Highway Unconstrained Network Multimodal Criteria 1.‐‐ 2.‐‐ 3.‐‐ Network $ #2 HOV Connectors Criteria 1.‐‐ 2.‐‐ 3.‐‐ 2050 Criteria Freeway Connectors No-Build 1.‐‐ 2.‐‐ 3.‐‐ Network Criteria Rail Grade Separation 1.‐‐ 2.‐‐ 3.‐‐
7
Network Selection Based on Performance Measures
Network #1
UnconstrainedNetwork Multimodal Performance Board Selects Network#2 Measures Draft Regional Plan Network
2050 No-Build Network
8
4 2/26/2014
Activity Based Travel Demand Model
• Simulates individual and household transportation decisions • Predicts whether, where, when, and how people travel • Based on travel survey and vehicle counts, transit ridership data, and national census data
9
Draft Network Performance Measure Development Process • Working group and partner agency input • Public outreach • Peer panel review • Input and recommendations from Policy Advisory Committees
10
5 2/26/2014
Draft Performance Measures
• Support Regional Plan goals and policy objectives • Fewer performance measures • Key questions • Simplified format
11
Innovative Mobility and Planning
1. Are travel times reduced? – Average peak‐period travel time to work – Daily vehicle delay per capita 2. Are more people walking, biking, using transit, and sharing rides? – Change in walk, bike, transit, and carpool mode share 3. Is the transportation system safer? – Annual projected number of vehicle injury/fatal collisions per vehicle mile traveled – Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per mile traveled
12
6 2/26/2014
Vibrant Economy
4. Do the transportation investments help to improve the regional economy? – Benefit/cost ratio of transportation investments – Average truck/commercial vehicle travel times to and around regional gateways and distribution hubs 5. Are the relative costs of transportation changing similarly for all communities? – Percent of income consumed by transportation costs 6. Are connections to tribal lands and Mexico improved? – Average travel times to/from tribal lands – Average travel times to/from Mexico
13
Healthy Environment and Communities
7. Does the transportation network support smart growth? – Percentage of population/employment within 0.5 mile of high frequency transit stop – Percentage of population/employment within 0.5 mile of a transit stop – Percentage of population/employment within 0.25 mile of a bike facility – Average travel distance to work – Total time engaged in transportation‐related physical activity per capita – Percent of population engaging in more than 20 minutes of daily transportation‐related physical activity
14
7 2/26/2014
Healthy Environment and Communities
8. Is access to jobs and key destinations improving for all communities? – Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education – Percent of population within 15 minutes of goods and services 9. Is the air getting cleaner? – On‐road smog‐forming pollutants (pounds/day) per capita 10. Are GHG emissions reduced? – On‐road CO2 emissions (pounds/day) per capita
15
Performance Measure Dashboard
• Plan goals and policy objectives • Key questions • Graphics • Key statistics
16
8 2/26/2014
Example: Wisconsin DOT Dashboard
17
Example: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Dashboard
18
9 2/26/2014
Example: Performance Measure Dashboard
Innovative Mobility & Planning Vibrant Economy Healthy Environment & Communities
2050 Network Network Question Performance Measure No‐Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Are travel times reduced? Average peak-period travel time to work (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike, and walk) Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes)
Are more people walking, Increase in walk, bike, transit, and carpool biking, using transit, and mode share sharing rides? Is the transportation system Annual projected number of vehicle safer? injury/fatal collisions per vehicle mile traveled (VMT) Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per bicycle/pedestrian mile traveled
19
Schedule and Next Steps
• February 2014: Draft performance measures to Policy Advisory Committees for discussion
• March 2014: Draft performance measures presented to Policy Advisory Committees for recommendation
• March 2014: Draft performance measures presented to Board of Directors for discussion and approval
• Spring/summer 2014: Apply performance measures to the draft Regional Plan transportation networks
20
10 2/26/2014
Discussion
• Are the key questions easy to understand? • Are there fewer or additional performance measures you would like to include to support the Regional Plan goals? • Is the dashboard an effective way to illustrate performance results?
21
sandag.org/sdforward
11 2/26/2014
INTERSTATE 805 BUS RAPID TRANSIT/ 47TH STREET TROLLEY STATION AREA PLANNING Transportation Committee February 21, 2014
Planned BRT Along I‐805 Corridor . Route 680 connecting Otay Mesa and University City via • Chula Vista • National City • Southeastern San Diego (47th Street Trolley Station) • Mid‐City • Kearny Mesa
2
1 2/26/2014
Initial Study Goal
. To develop, in conjunction with the community, alternatives for how to provide access to the BRT Network at the 47th Street Trolley Station • Provides Southeastern San Diego community with access • Improves regional connectivity . Facilitates transfers between the BRT network and the Trolley
3
I‐805/47th St. Trolley Station Area
. Greenwood Underpass . Market and Imperial Interchanges . Greenwood Memorial Park . Jackie Robinson YMCA . Creekside Villas
4
2 2/26/2014
Community Working Group . Met eight times over two years . Assisted in • Development of project goals and priorities • Evaluation of station design concepts
5
Station Design Concept Development and Evaluation
Develop Second Evaluation Background alternatives Phase
Identify First Evaluation Select alternative objectives, Phase for environmental develop criteria review
. Two Evaluation phases • Weaker alternatives eliminated throughout process . Five most promising alternatives included in final Detailed Evaluation Scoring Matrix . Four selected for environmental review
6
3 2/26/2014
Detailed Evaluation Scoring Matrix
. Twenty‐one evaluation criteria organized in five categories • Transit operations • Station design • Non‐motorized access • Environmental impacts . Scores guided discussion on evaluating alternatives • Variety between alternatives also considered in selecting alternatives for further analysis
7
Alternative 1
8
4 Slides 8 through 12 were short videos Illustrations of the videos can be found on the SANDAG website at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=407 &fuseaction=projects.detail 2/26/2014
Next Steps
. Project Study Report (PSR) . Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) . Environmental Document Estimated Cost = $3.65M
13
INTERSTATE 805 BUS RAPID TRANSIT/ 47TH STREET TROLLEY STATION AREA PLANNING Transportation Committee February 21, 2014
7
MILETHE MARKER A CAL TRAN S PERFORMAN CE R EPORT
What’s Inside Mile Markers Level of Service By the Numbers Traffic Technology Safety Traffic Delays Revenue Amtrak California Caltrans Delivers Carpool Lanes Project Spotlight Bicycling Taming the Devil Sustainability Bridge Health Small and Disabled Pavement Health Veteran Businesses
JanuaryJanuary 20142014 || Vol.Vol. 11 || Iss.Iss. 11
Table of Contents Mile Markers...... 3
Caltrans By the Numbers...... 5
Safety...... 7
Revenue...... 9
Caltrans Delivers...... 10
Project Spotlight Taming the Devil...... 15
Bridge Health...... 21
Pavement Health...... 23
Level of Service...... 25
Traffic Technology...... 27
Traffic Delays...... 29
Amtrak California...... 31
Carpool Lanes...... 32
Bicycling...... 33
Sustainability ...... 34
Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses...... 35
Edmund G. Brown Jr. Brian P. Kelly Governor Secretary State of California California State Transportation Agency Malcolm Dougherty Tamie McGowen Director Assistant Deputy Director California Department of Caltrans Public Affairs Transportation (Caltrans) Pete Spaulding, Steve Guenther, Cathy Gomes Matt Rocco Office of Strategic Management Public Affairs Chief Writing Staff Caltrans Public Affairs Angela Tillotson, Erin Gallup Graphic Design Ty Johnson On the cover: In March 2013, Caltrans opened tunnels on State Route 1 at Devil’s Slide, in San All photography provided Mateo County, the state’s newest tunnels in by Caltrans photographers Ed Andersen, William Hall, nearly 50 years. John Huseby, Steven Hellon, Scott Lorenzo This page: The scenic roadway on the California coastline was vulnerable to rockslides that often All video provided by or edited closed the highway. The new tunnels, pictured by Caltrans videographers Jim O’Brien, Mark Matus in the center, provide a safe and reliable route for travelers. 1 Message From The Caltrans Director This is the first issue of theThe Mile Marker: A Caltrans Performance Report, a plain-language, multimedia accounting of the California Department of Transportation. The Mile Marker is reform. It raises the bar on transparency and accountability, providing in one place a clear way to communicate our performance.
Caltrans this year will provide 24 specific reports to the state legislature. Some of them are complicated and include reams of data that can be difficult to decipher. The Mile Marker is different. It delivers information that policy experts want in plain language and clear illustrations. The report is written for anyone who wants to know how well the Department of Transportation does its job.
This report is a natural extension of reforms I began since being appointed the director of Caltrans. It addresses ongoing efforts and improvements coming from my departmentwide Program Review. The report was prompted by the secretary of the California State Transportation Agency and the chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. It also addresses input from various transportation stakeholders to ensure transparency of the department’s operations.
Performance reporting—the clear measurement of government activity—is a growing trend among transportation departments around the country. The federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century program specifically calls for performance measurements. The Mile Marker will be the tool with which we communicate our performance results with policymakers, the media, and the public.
This first report does not pretend to be anything but a start, a beginning on a road that will lead to greater transparency and real accountability. As we develop this process and this report, The Mile Marker will grow, adding relevant measurements that can be monitored over time, so that the performance of the department and the condition of California’s transportation infrastructure can be plainly understood.
I hope you find this first issue useful, and I look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Malcolm Dougherty
2 CALTRANS
CA MM 1 LE LE MARKERSMARKERS
Previous Current Goal Five-Year Trend Desired Performance Measure Goal Period Period Met (unless otherwise noted) Trend SAFETY
Number of fatal accidents in 2011, on the California state highway system, for 0.64 0.66 1.0 every 100 million vehicle miles traveled. or less
Number of work-related injuries and illnesses per 200,000 employee hours. 7.10 6.83 6.09
MOBILITY Total train and bus revenue for Amtrak California for federal fiscal year 2013 $ $ $ resulted in a 1.8 percent increase over 134.8M 137.3M 140.6M the prior year.
Amtrak California ridership (in millions) for calendar year 2012. 5.5 5.6 6.1
STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY
Percentage of Caltrans’ total annual state expenditure that went to small 23.53 21.6 25 businesses.
Percentage of Caltrans’ total annual state expenditure that went to disabled 4.04 1.96 5 veteran business enterprises.
Percentage of Caltrans’ total annual flexible pavement placed, consisting of rubberized hot-mix asphalt, which uses 35.9 29.2 25 recycled tires.
3 Mile Markers Legend
Goal Met Goal Not Met
Previous Current Goal Five-Year Trend Desired Performance Measure Goal Period Period Met (unless otherwise noted) Trend DELIVERY
Percentage of planned projects delivered on schedule and ready for construction 99 98 100 in fiscal year 2012–13.
Percentage of project awards not exceeding more than 10 percent of 86 82 100 the estimate in fiscal year 2012–13.
Percentage of planned project approval/ environmental documents delivered in 93 88 90 fiscal year 2012–13. MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2012–13 overall maintenance roadway service score, on a 87 85 87 scale of 0–100, with 100 being the best.
Percentage of state highway system pavement that is healthy. Caltrans’ goal 75 84 90 is expected to be reached by 2023.
Overall condition of California’s bridges on a scale of 0–100, with 100 being the 95.3 95.6 94 best.
Percentage of Caltrans’ vehicle detectors that are “good” or functioning properly. 65.2 64.6 70
Level-of-service score for highway litter and debris collected statewide 85 84 80 for fiscal year 2012–13.
4 Number of lane miles in the state highway system... 50,486
Number of state highway system centerline miles.... 15,133
Number of state highways...... 265
Annual vehicle miles traveled on all public roads...... 325 billion
Number of state-owned bridges and other structures...... 13,063
Number of carpool vehicle-lane miles in California. This is more than 40 percent of the nation’s total carpool lanes...... nearly 1,600
Number of carpool vehicle miles traveled, in billions, in California...... 3.54
Number of potholes Caltrans has repaired over the last five years, at a cost of $29.9M...... 584,262
Photo: A highway worker carries lumber toward a helicopter bucket during the U.S. Highway 395 widening project. ByBy TheThe NumbersNumbers5 Number of construction projects that Caltrans Number of vehicle charging stations Caltrans is completed in fiscal year 2012–13...... 542 installing statewide to accommodate our 2013 purchase of electric vehicles...... 33 Percentage of national transportation funds California received in federal fiscal year 2013, Level-of-service score for highway litter and or $3.4B...... 9.43 debris collected statewide for fiscal year 2012–13. Our goal was 80...... 84 Amount California’s annual base fuel tax revenues have decreased since 2006...... $344M Roadway striping score for fiscal year 2012–13. Our goal was 95...... 87 Statewide total time spent in delayed traffic, in 2012, in millions of hours, at up to 35 miles Level-of-service score for guardrails for fiscal year per hour...... 93.7 2012–13. Our goal was 95...... 92
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions Caltrans Overall level-of-service score for roadway or our contractors have reduced annually. condition for fiscal year 2012–13. This is the equivalent of removing 31,000 cars Our statewide goal was 87...... 85 from the road...... 161,079 Number of California public-use airports that Caltrans fleet size in 2013, a reduction of 1,324 Caltrans regularly inspects for safety and permit since 2011...... 12,137 compliance...... 245
Number of Caltrans structures statewide on which Number of hospital heliports that Caltrans we have installed solar panels, between late 2009 regularly inspects for safety and permit and early 2013...... 70 compliance...... 177
Amount Caltrans expects to save with our solar Amount Caltrans awarded, from the State Bicycle energy systems...... $4.3M Transportation Account, to bike projects over the last five years...... $40.7M
6 Caltrans’ No.1 GOLGO L is Safety For Workers and Motorists
altrans has a goal of reducing fatalities to Caltrans also tracks the number of work-related zero on California’s state highways. Caltrans employee fatalities and has a goal of no work-related C measures safety on the state highway system employee deaths. Since 1924, Caltrans has lost by reviewing and tracking fatal accidents and 180 of its employees on the job. One of the biggest comparing them to the national average. The chart hazards is motorists who do not exercise caution below shows that California’s state highway fatality while driving near highway workers. Caltrans works rate is lower than the national average and lower to change motorists’ behavior through its Slow for than the national goal of less than one death for the Cone Zone and Move Over campaigns. every 100 million vehicle miles traveled. In 2012 Caltrans had no work-related deaths. In April 2013, however, two workers died in a Fatalities on the California rock-scaling accident. State Highway System
State Highways All California roads U.S.A.
2.0 California is among the top states for safety, ranking 11th in the nation for lowest 1.5 fatality rates on all public roadways. The state highway system is even safer.
1.0
0.5 Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled per 100 Million Vehicle Fatalities
0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Data Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Division of Traffic Operations Note: Data is by calendar year
7 In addition to work-related deaths, Caltrans measures To help reduce worker IR, we have renewed our work-related illnesses and injuries, referred to as focus on worker safety, which has contributed to the worker incident rate (IR). An incident is any the decline in work-related illnesses and injuries. work-related injury or illness that requires medical We have greatly enhanced our safety programs, attention. Worker IR is an effective performance and most recently, we have begun focusing our measure of our employee safety program. efforts on maintenance staff, since they sustain about 70 percent of our departmental injuries. For 2013, Caltrans’ worker IR was 6.83 reflecting We have also hired safety officers specialized in a slight decline from 7.10 the previous period. Our maintenance safety. In addition to the constant current goal is 6.09, and we will work to continue to efforts of our safety officers to ensure the safety of reduce our worker IR each year, with a 2018 goal of all our employees, we are purchasing defibrillators, 5.58 incidents for every 200,000 employee hours. and placing them in Caltrans facilities.
Work-Related Injuries Number of Caltrans and Illness Work-Related Fatalities (per 200,000 employee hours) Actual Target 3 10
9
2 8
7 1
Work-related Fatalities Work-related 6 Work-related Injuries and Illnesses Work-related
0 5 20132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200220012000 20132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200220012000 Data Source: Division of Human Resources Data Source: Division of Human Resources Note: Data is by calendar year Note: Data is by calendar year
A Caltrans highway worker looks for oncoming traffic on Interstate 80 in Sacramento. Highway workers have one of the most dangerous jobs in America.
8 Revenues Down $344 Million from 2006 Peak
Base Fuel Excise Tax History
Gasoline Diesel/other $2,250
$2,000 $344M Drop
$1,750
$1,500
$1,250 Deposits to the State Highway Account (in millions)
$1,000 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Source: Division of Budgets Note: Data is by fiscal year
altrans receives funding through multiple drove less. Furthermore, vehicle emission and fuel state and federal sources. The primary source for efficiency standards have lowered fuel consumption Cmaintenance and operation of the state highway and will likely continue the downward pressure system is the base fuel excise tax. The excise tax, on fuel tax funding. Even if people drive the same unlike many other taxes, is collected on each gallon of amount, vehicles require less and less fuel, which fuel sold. The revenue collected by the state from fuel means less funding for transportation. While greater taxes has increased over the last couple of decades, fuel efficiency means less air pollution, revenues are but 2006 was the peak year for fuel tax revenue. insufficient to address the needs of the state and local Since then, fuel tax funding has declined to levels not transportation systems. As available transportation seen since 1996. The most drastic drop occurred in funding decreases, difficult decisions must be made fiscal year 2008–09, concurrent with the beginning to prioritize maintenance and repair projects. of the “Great Recession”—a time when people
9 Caltrans Delivers
altrans Project Delivery is made up of several functional areas, which all provide a core purpose in solving transportation problems. Under Cthe leadership of the chief engineer and the 12 district directors, the functions of project management, environmental analysis, design, right- of-way and land surveys, engineering services, and construction work together to conceive, design, and build highways, bridges, and other transportation facilities for the traveling public. All Project Delivery functions design and build projects collaboratively with stakeholders, on schedule and within budget, and adhere to all laws and regulations. Specialized and experienced staff and consultants, know ledgeable in their field, provide the best quality projects, products, and services.
Project Delivery Staff
12,000 Project Delivery staffing has declined in recent years to adjust to workload. Since fiscal 11,000 year 2007–08, staff has been reduced by 2,322 positions.
10,000
9,000 Total Project Delivery Staff Total 8,000
7,000 Note:07-08 Data is by 08-09fiscal year 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Data Source: Division of Project Management
This 525-foot-tall tower supports the world’s largest self-anchored suspension span, and is the signature element of the new San Francisco– Oakland Bay Bridge East Span.
10 Delivery Products by Phase During development, transportation projects are broken into phases that have defined achievement milestones, such as environmental, right-of-way, design, and construction. Construction Project Approval and 246 Environmental Document Project Approval 166 and Environmental Document As part of project delivery, it is important to get final approval to proceed on a project and to document environmental conditions and identify mitigation. Right-of-Way In fiscal year 2012–13, Caltrans Project Delivery 168 delivered project approval and environmental Design documents on 166 projects. 208
Right-of-Way A delivery commitment is to secure and certify all necessary right-of-way requirements for all projects scheduled for delivery. In fiscal year 2012–13, Caltrans Total Deliverables (actual) - 788 Project Delivery certified right-of-way on 168 projects. Data Source: Division of Project Management
Design Construction During the design phase, a complete set of plans Delivery in the eyes of the public is achieved when and specifications are developed for a project. construction is complete and the roads are open In fiscal year 2012–13, Caltrans Project Delivery for use. In fiscal year 2012–13, Caltrans Project completed development of plans and specification Delivery completed construction on 246 major for 208 projects. State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects.
Below: Dignitaries celebrate the Caldecott Tunnel Right: Crews construct a new overcrossing Fouth Bore punch through. at Alondra Boulevard on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles County.
11 Contract to Deliver Project Delivery Performance Commitment delivered Since fiscal year 2005–06, the Caltrans Director 100% has signed a contract with each of the department’s 12 district directors, committing to deliver projects 95% on schedule and ready for construction. This Contract for Delivery is Caltrans’ plan for the 90% year, and it includes major projects funded from various sources, including state, federal, and local transportation agencies. 85%
The goal is to deliver 100 percent of the projects, 80% and Caltrans has delivered nearly all. In fiscal year
2012–13, we committed to delivering 170 projects Planned Projects Delivered 75% valued at $1.4 billion. We delivered 167, or 98 percent, of the highway construction contracts with 70% 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 an estimated value of $1.2 billion. The three projects Data Source: Division of Project Management that were not delivered had not secured coastal Note: Data is by fiscal year commission permits by the planned delivery dates. Cost Estimating Performance Managing Cost Percent of Bids at or Below Target Range 100% is Part of the Process
Caltrans tracks estimating performance to ensure the 80% most effective use of transportation dollars. Engineers prepare cost estimates during the design of a project, based on the location, prices of items, and the type 60% of work to be done. Contractors will submit bids to perform the work, and the lowest responsible and 40% responsive bidder will be awarded the contract.
The graph (right) shows the percentage of low 20% bids that did not exceed the engineer’s project Awarded Projects Not Exceeding the Awarded Estimate by more than 10 percent cost estimate by more than 10 percent. In fiscal 0% year 2012–13, 82 percent of the low bids fell in 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Data Source: Division of Construction this range. Note: Data is by fiscal year
12 Many variables, including the number of bidders, manage the construction of a project (support cost) the time of year, amount of work available, and the to the amount spent on building the actual project complexity and level of risk of a project determine (capital cost). We have different support cost goals the final bid amount. The following chart shows depending on the size of a project. For larger projects, how low bids will vary with the number of bidders we aim to have lower support to capital ratios than on a project, relative to the cost estimate. we do for smaller projects.
Bids Affected by the Number of Bidders Project Cost Support/Capital Support/Capital (Low bid data from 2011 through 2013) (millions) Goal Results
Average amount $1-5 Less than 60% 51.1% 120% $5-10 Less than 45% 34.0% 115% $10-15 Less than 35% 28.8%
110% $15-25 Less than 32% 23.0% Greater than $25 Less than 30% 26.5% 105% Support/Capital data for fiscal year 2012–13 100% 95% Open for Business 90% In fiscal year 2012–13, we completed construction 85% on 542 projects, which includes 246 major SHOPP
Bids Relative to Estimate 80% and STIP projects, opening nearly $2.5 billion worth 75% of infrastructure for the public. As of January 2014, Caltrans has approximately 650 projects under 70% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 construction valued at more than $11 billion. Data Source: Division of Engineering Services It is a great source of pride for Caltrans when we One way Caltrans tracks and manages the total cost can deliver a safe, functional highway, bridge, or rest of delivering a project is by comparing the amount area to the public, regardless of the project size, and spent by our own staff to complete the design and we strive to do so on time, and on budget.
13 Ongoing Construction by Year* Project Delivery is a significant part of how we On Interstate 80, the San Francisco–Oakland Bay accomplish our mission of improving mobility. In Bridge has undergone a major seismic retrofit the last year, we have had multiple major projects and replacement following the 1989 Loma Prieta open for business, such as the new San Francisco– earthquake. This vital transportation lifeline bridges Oakland Bay Bridge and the fourth bore of the the bay with a new side-by-side design with Caldecott Tunnel. panoramic views of the San Francisco Bay and the East Bay hills. The new bridge is the longest self- Number of Projects Project Volume ($ in billions) anchored suspension span bridge in the world, 900 $14 with a length of 2,047 feet.
800 $12 Caltrans works on hundreds of projects each year. As of January 2014, Caltrans 700 has approximately 650 projects under $10 600 construction valued at more than $11 billion. The new $417 million Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore 500 $8 project, on State Route 24, provides congestion relief to residents and workers in the East Bay. The 400 $6 new two-lane, 3,300-foot-long tunnel ends the daily 300 process of switching the traffic direction of the third $4 bore to accommodate travel between Alameda and Number of Ongoing Projects 200 of Projects (in billions) Value Contra Costa counties. $2 100 Our next story highlights another historic project: the new tunnels between Pacifica and Montara on 0 $0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 State Route 1, a project we call “Devil’s Slide.” Data Source: Division of Project Management * In July of the noted year In 2013, Caltrans opened the new Devil’s Slide twin tunnels and bridges on a section of State Route 1, about 15 miles south of San Francisco. The area was notorious for road closures due to slides.
14 by Angela Tillotson Caltrans Research Writer
Pictured: Plastic lining helps keep water out of the tunnels during construction.
1905 1937 1938 1958 1960 1969 1970 1983 1986 1992-2004 1995 1996 2004 2004 2006
15 PROJECT SPOTLIGHT
It’s mesmerizing and majestic. It’s breathtaking— and it was temperamental.
Taming the Devil After decades-long debates between citizens, environmental groups, and government, the new Devil’s Slide tunnels and bridges fix a coastal route notorious for rockslide closures.
Located in San Mateo County, on California’s coastal State Route 1, Devil’s Slide winds across California’s coast between Pacifica and Montara, carved out of the steep cliff sides. Route 1 hugged the coastline across the aptly named Devil’s Slide region, a steep, unstable section of highway with a long history of closures due to rockslides and land slippage.
With the Devil’s Slide project, 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011 2011 2013 Caltrans created a safe, reliable route along California’s unpredictable coastal Bay Area.
16 The Devil’s History Tunnel Project Means It took two years for the California Division of Safer Drive Highways, Caltrans’ predecessor, to complete the Caltrans’ No. 1 goal is safety, and the new Devil’s original section of State Route 1 at Devil’s Slide, Slide project helps the department achieve that goal. opening the famed stretch in 1937. The previous route through Devil’s Slide was a That same year, California Division of Public Works two-lane divided highway with no median and District Construction Engineer E. G. Poss boasted many short-radius curves, typical of a mountainous that before his new road, “the highway along the route. The new route eliminates the tight-radius cliff face required men with the agility of mountain curves and divides the highway with twin tunnels goats, courage, experience, and complete lack and bridges for opposing traffic, eliminating the of nerves. One false step meant a tumble into potential for cross over. It gives drivers a smooth, the breakers.” safe route, and the bridges, which go over the But just one year later, State Route 1 at Devil’s Shamrock Ranch below, have guardrails to help Slide experienced the first of many slide-related keep drivers from crashing, thus enhancing safety. closures; significant slides would happen each decade thereafter..
Devil’s Slide Tunnel Project Facts Distance Devil’s Slide is from San Francisco...... about 15 miles The length of each tunnel...... 4,100 feet The width of each tunnel...... 30 feet Amount of soil, clay, and rock removed from San Pedro Mountain...... 320,000 cubic meters The number of years since Caltrans built a tunnel before Devil’s Slide...... 49 Length of each bridge leading to the tunnels...... 1,000 feet
This photo, taken in February 1960, shows a missing section of highway that slipped away during one of the route’s many slides.
17 A Continuing Battle In 1958, the search for a permanent solution to (CEQA) also became law in 1970, with both laws the area’s landslide problems began. The Division requiring more in-depth environmental impact of Highways proposed an overland bypass, but studies for projects, which would drastically change advocacy groups concerned about the effects of the process for building transportation projects. constructing a highway over the mountain area opposed the project. This would be the beginning The bypass idea reemerged in the early 1970s when of a series of battles. Environmental lawsuits would developers sought greater freeway access. Once follow, with Caltrans proposing projects and local again, residents opposed a bypass. Then, in 1972, residents insisting on maintaining the area’s scenic California voters passed legislation limiting coastal beauty and considering the ecological effects of a development. That same year, the San Mateo proposed project. Board of Supervisors approved plans for a new freeway, but citizens and environmental groups The first plan to tame the area came in 1960. The filed a multiplaintiff lawsuit to stop the freeway Devil’s Slide Bypass, a six-lane freeway would run based on NEPA and CEQA requirements. Later for about seven miles from Half Moon Bay, over that year, a U.S. district court judge ruled in Montara Mountain, to Pacifica. Developers hoping favor of the environmentalists. The bypass plan to bring buildings and people to the area supported was abandoned due to the new environmental the project, but residents weren’t enthusiastic about requirements and the costs involved. turning their rural area into an urban one. A tunnel was first proposed in 1973, but Caltrans Environmental awareness increased in the 1960s, initially dismissed the idea as too costly. In the early and on January 1, 1970, President Nixon signed into 1980s, the department decided to look at new ways law the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to fix the problem highway while also adhering to of 1969. The California Environmental Quality Act environmental requirements. The Marine Disposal
The video above shows the progress of the new tunnels from the damaged highway, to the groundbreaking, and through the opening ceremony.
Alternative proposed to scrape the unstable part of Another slide in 1995 closed the road for about the mountain, dump it into the ocean, and replace it five months, making life nightmarish for residents with a new road on the new ledge. Federal officials and costing more than $3 million to repair. refused to endorse it, and this alternative was also dismissed as too costly. Then, in 1983, the Devil Desperate for a solution, a panel of local engineers was sliding again—this time closing State Route 1 and geologists, with the approval of county supervi- for 84 days. sors, recommended a tunnel as a permanent fix and in November 1996, San Mateo County
18 voters—74 percent of them—approved Measure T, the Devil’s Slide Tunnel Initiative. Caltrans again reviewed the tunnel proposal and this time found that it would cost about the same as a bypass.
The final design not only put an end to the ongoing road closures at Devil’s Slide, but also met public approval, preserved the environment, and complemented the natural surroundings. Tapered piers and curved struts give a graceful shallow arch look to the two bridges that connect the north portal of each tunnel to Highway 1. An open-design tubular steel pedestrian/bicycle guardrail preserves spectacular views from both bridges. The community was heavily involved in the process from the beginning, and the project was designed based on community and stakeholder input. Caltrans gave regular project tours and engaged the media, creating excitement for a long-awaited project. Tunneling is Challenging The new Devil’s Slide tunnels are Caltrans’ first completed tunnel project in nearly 50 years. To prepare for the tunnel work, crews took core samples from the mountain so they could choose the best equipment to dig the tunnels. The samples showed both soft rock and hard rock; however, work got really tricky in the last third of the tunnels when crews met with rapidly-changing rock formations. As crews met with a rock change, they had to swap out some of the equipment—even the ventilation system. This meant more time and money. As if that wasn’t enough, at one point, the tunnel began to shift, requiring increased reinforcement of the structure.
In order to deal with the unforeseen changes in the rock formations, the project’s schedule was increased from five to six and one-half years, and the cost was raised from $263 million to $439 million. Federal emergency relief funds were allocated to cover the additional cost. Protecting the Environment The Devil’s Slide project has two bridges that pass over a valley at the Shamrock Ranch, which contains a pond and wetlands. The wetland was fenced off to protect the environmentally sensitive area, home to many species, including pelagic cormorants, white-crowned sparrows, western scrub jay, California newts, peregrine falcons, and several endangered species such as the California red-legged frog, the San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat, the mission blue butterfly, and San Mateo County’s only known remaining population of Hickman’s potentilla. To make sure that the best care was taken of these sensitive populations, all project engineers went through endangered species identification training.
An offsite mitigation project, required by Caltrans’ regulatory partners, Jet fans clear smoke from restored additional habitat. Biologists cultivated plants and monitored the tunnel in the event of native species with drought-tolerant characteristics, while removing a fire. other invasive and noninvasive varieties. Biologists also monitored all migratory nesting birds on site.
To preserve the natural beauty of the area, an earthen berm was built to surround the operations and maintenance center. The building has a vegetation-covered roof, and is located about 1,000 feet south of the south portal. These elements help the facility blend into its natural
19 surroundings and shield it from the highway view. A equipment rooms and 16 fans in each tunnel for small maintenance crew ensures safe operation of ventilation. The tunnels also feature a day and night the tunnel and carries out routine maintenance tasks. lighting system with brightness transition at each end and state-of-the-art detection systems for fire So What is the Public Getting? suppression, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and over-height vehicles. The total cost of the Devil’s Slide project was $439 million. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer helped Electronic message signs displaying safety/advisory get additional emergency funding for the stretch information, closed-circuit television monitoring, and of highway in addition to the original $50 million emergency and call box telephone systems allow secured by Congressman Tom Lantos in 1983. Caltrans to watch and communicate tunnel activity. The project received 100 percent of its funding The tunnels are designed to withstand the largest from federal emergency relief. expected earthquake for the area, and each tunnel is accessible to bicyclists. The project was split into six contracts: one each for tunnels, bridges, south rock cut, and three for Motorists can now enjoy the new stretch of highway mitigation: one onsite and two offsite. The largest on State Route 1, but the old scenic route isn’t a contract, the tunnel contract, constructed twin complete thing of the past. Caltrans relinquished tunnels, approach roads, an operations center, the old stretch of highway at Devil’s Slide to San and public access features. The project includes a Mateo County to convert it into a public facility for separated two-lane road, one lane in each direction. hiking and bicycling. People drawn to the devilishly The new road passes through twin tunnels, over twin beautiful area will still be able to enjoy it, but instead bridges, and connects with an existing nonseparated of driving it, they can walk or bike and breathe in the two-lane road at each end. The new road is approx beauty the area has to offer. imately 6,500 feet long, made of roughly 4,000-foot twin tunnels, and a 1,500-foot north approach road, While the area has long been known as Devil’s Slide, which includes the 1,000-foot parallel bridges, and California Senate Concurrent Resolution 71 (2008), the 1,000-foot south approach road, with the tunnels authored by State Senator Leland Yee, officially running through a portion of the San Pedro Mountain. named the tunnels the “Tom Lantos Tunnels at The new tunnels are the longest in the state. Devil’s Slide,” in honor of the congressman who worked to get the first funding for the project. The tunnels have 10 emergency cross passages, three equipment chambers, three underground You can learn more about the Devil’s Slide tunnels and bridge project at the Caltrans District 4 website.
Antique cars were the first to drive through the Devil’s Slide tunnels during the opening celebration.
20 Structural Checkup: Bridge Health Increased Bridge Health Index (Total median bridge health)
100
98
96
94 Total Median Bridge Health Total 92
90 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Data Source: Division of Maintenance Note: Data is by fiscal year Number of Bridges Needing Repair (Caltrans is responsible for more than 13,000 state-owned bridges)
1,000
900
800
700
Number of Bridges Needing Repair 600
500 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Data Source: Division of Maintenance Note: Data is by fiscal year
21 altrans regularly inspects more than 13,000 state-owned bridges C to ensure they are safe for the traveling public. If inspectors find any issue that could compromise the bridge’s structural integrity, they do whatever it takes to protect public safety, including closing the bridge or posting weight limitations until it’s repaired.
Caltrans spends about $450 million annually on bridge maintenance, preservation, and inspection. District Southern California’s San Diego-Coronado Bridge, with its bridge crews usually handle small distinctive curve and soaring sweep, is 2.12-miles long and repairs, and contractors perform has a vertical clearance of approximately 200 feet so the more extensive repairs. tallest ships can pass beneath it. The most recent data on bridge health shows that investment in inspection, repair, and retrofit has improved the Monterey County’s Bixby Creek Bridge is one of the country’s health of California’s bridges. Of the highest single-span, concrete-arch bridges. With a view of the more than 13,000 bridges Caltrans Pacific Ocean, it crosses 260 feet above the Bixby Creek and inspects, the number of bridges that Canyon and has an arch span of 330 feet. need repair has declined from 750 in fiscal year 2007–08 to 582 in fiscal year 2012–13.
A healthy bridge may have cracks and some corrosion, which are not unusual and don’t affect the integrity of the structure.
Caltrans also measures the overall condition of the state bridge network through the Bridge Health Index (BHI). The BHI is a number from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best.
During the 2012–13 fiscal year, the average BHI of the state-owned bridge The Tower Bridge, in Sacramento, was opened in 1935 and inventory was 95.6. The health index was the first vertical-lift bridge on the state highway system. showed a significant improvement as a result of Caltrans’ aggressive effort to address bridge issues with lower-cost preservation to slow deterioration that would require major rehabilitation or replacement.
22 Best in Ten Years! Higher Overall Pavement Health Statewide Pavement Condition Percent of pavement in good health Target 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Pavement Health 50% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2011 2013 Data Source: Division of Maintenance
altrans is responsible for maintaining and Generally, Caltrans gets about $685 million a year for operating California’s 50,000 highway lane pavement needs, but has benefitted from one-time C miles and measures the health of the pavement funds from the Proposition 1B 2006 transportation to determine future maintenance needs. This bond, and the 2009 Recovery Act. This has brought pavement survey is completed annually. us to the highest level of pavement health in more than a decade with 84 percent or 42,000 lane miles Most of California’s 50,000 highway lane miles were of healthy, well-maintained pavement. Caltrans’ built more than half a century ago. Traffic volumes goal is to improve to 90 percent, which is 45,000 have quadrupled since the 1960s, and vehicle loads healthy lane miles of pavement by 2023, at a are ever increasing. Today, the state’s highways carry cost of $2.8 billion a year for the next 10 years to 40 percent of the nation’s imports and 10 percent of pay for pavement rehabilitation, reconstruction, the nation’s vehicle miles traveled. and preservation. Preventative maintenance on the roadways helps prevent costlier repair and Caltrans repaved Interstate 80 over the Sierra, replacement by a factor of 4-to-1. as shown here at Gold Run in Placer County.
23 Healthier One-Time Funds Pay Pavement Means Less Potholes Caltrans measures the number of for Smoother Ride potholes it fixes in a year to ensure we are properly maintaining the Potholes Fixed and the Cost to Fix Them state’s 50,000 lane miles.
Potholes fixed (in thousands) FY cost (in millions) Caltrans fixed more potholes in 200 $8 2010 and 2011. In 2012 and 2013, Caltrans filled fewer potholes be cause we had repaved much of 150 $7 the old worn highways throughout the state with additional one- time funding from the 2006 100 $6 transportation bond Proposition 1B and the Recovery Act. Caltrans also benefited from lower const ruction bids during the recession. 50 $5 Repairing potholes and worn pavement helps us meet our goal to continually maintain and 0 $4 increase the miles of healthy, or 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Data Source: Division of Maintenance smooth, pavement throughout the state.
A Recovery Act-funded road paving project using rubberized asphalt, a new recycled tires technology, and shoulder backing on State Route 33 in Newman.
24 Overall Roadway Level of Service Drops Slightly, but Remains Steady
Overall Roadway Maintenance Level of Service Score Litter/Debris Pick-Up Level of Service Score 90 90 88 88 86 86 84 84 82 82 80 80 78 78 76 76
Level of Service Score 74 Level of Service Score 74 72 72 70 70 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Data Source: Division of Maintenance Data Source: Division of Maintenance Note: All data sets listed are by fiscal year
altrans measures and evaluates the roadways In fiscal year 2012–13, Caltrans spent $9.3 million and once a year to determine how well we maintain the applied more than 88,000 miles of striping on California Cstate’s highways. Areas are given scores, which is highways. This is enough to go around the equator of level of service, between 0 and 100, with 100 being the the Earth about three and a half times. Although our best. This is a score of our ability to service the area statewide score for striping was 87, we did not meet and is not a score of the area’s condition. Guardrail, our goal of 95. Completing all annual striping night striping, litter and debris, and overall roadway condition inspections statewide will help us meet our goal. are the major components we evaluate. Caltrans divides California’s approximately 15,000 highway For guardrail, Caltrans had a statewide score of centerline miles into one-mile segments, and 20 92, but we did not meet our goal of 95. To achieve percent, or approximately 3,000 of these segments this goal, we must shorten the window between across the state, are randomly selected for evaluation. when a guardrail is hit and damaged and the time Scores may have a five-point variance from year to it is repaired. We can achieve this by increasing the year, and scores that are within five points from the number of guardrail crews throughout the state. In previous year are considered stable. fiscal year 2012-13, we spent $9.2 million repairing and replacing nearly 60 miles of guardrail, which is
25 Overall Roadway Level of Service Drops Slightly, but Remains Steady
Guardrail Maintenance Level of Service Score Striping Maintenance Level of Service Score
04-05 04-05 05-06 05-06 06-07 06-07 07-08 07-08 08-09 08-09 09-10 09-10 10-11 10-11 Data Source: Division of Maintenance Data Source: Data Source: Division of Maintenance Data Source: 11-12 11-12 12-13 12-13 75 80 85 90 95 75 80 85 90 95 Level of Service Score Level of Service Score
On the Job with Caltrans In the video, right, Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty shows some of the ways that Caltrans builds and maintains the state highway system.
Photo left: Caltrans’ maintenance forces remove snow and ice 24 hours a day, seven days a week during winter storms.
the equivalent of stretching the guardrail end to end 7 million square feet of graffiti, which is equal between Los Angeles and San Bernardino, California. to 121 football fields.
Caltrans also evaluated highway segments for litter Our overall roadway score was 85 in fiscal year and debris. The score for litter and debris was 84, 2012–13, and we did not meet our statewide goal which met our statewide goal of 80. To maintain this of 87. Increased funding for travelway and roadside goal, allocations for litter and debris removal must maintenance will help us meet this goal. The overall not decline from the prior year. In fiscal year 2012–13, roadway score measures maintenance needs of Caltrans crews spent $37.2 million removing litter and the entire 15,000 highway centerline miles and is debris, and Adopt-A-Highway program volunteers’ calculated based on the average of more than collection efforts were valued at an additional $16.7 30 elements that include the travelway, which is million. That’s more than 155,000 cubic yards, or the the visual driving surface, and ride-ability, striping, equivalent of almost 9,700 dump trucks full of litter guardrail, litter and debris, landscaping, drainage, and debris, which if placed bumper to bumper, would and components that guide drivers. The overall level stretch approximately 50 miles. We also removed of service on the state’s highways has remained relatively stable during the past three years.
26 CaltransCaltrans UsesUses TechnologyTechnology toto ImproveImprove YourYour DriveDrive
The lines pictured here on the pavement are sensors that count vehicles and measure their speed. The data Caltrans collects from devices on the highways is sent to transportation management centers (pictured below) to help Caltrans and California Highway Patrol employees manage traffic and respond to incidents.
altrans doesn’t just build infrastructure. Smart expansion of the system starts with good data C that accurately relays what is happening on California’s transportation system and help determine the most effective investments to get travelers from point A to point B safer and more efficiently.
In the future, there will be smarter cars and an intelligent roadway system that will help meet transportation challenges—from safety improvements in automobiles, to traveler infor mation advancements, to the next generation of system management and congestion pricing.
Throughout the state, Caltrans operates 12 transportation management centers to monitor highway and weather conditions within a region. devices send each day to manage traffic, provide These centers are a hub for intelligent transportation information to travelers and partners, and to plan system (ITS) technology devices. long-term improvements.
In the last decade, Caltrans has invested in more To better manage traffic, Caltrans uses technology than 50,000 of these ITS devices that measure and and innovation to collect information about how report vehicle speed, weight, and traffic volume motorists are using the highways. Those data- on California highways. Caltrans transportation collection devices include electronic message management centers use the information these signs, ramp meters, and closed-circuit cameras.
27 Caltrans’ inventory of all field devices has more than Statewide Detector Health doubled in the last decade, while staffing has not. Detectors in good working condition Current goal Caltrans investments for detection include 100% magnetometers and radar sensors. Another tool that has proven useful in managing congestion is ramp meters, which stagger cars entering freeways 90% to prevent merge chokepoints. Caltrans now has 60 percent of all ramp meters in the United States and plans for more. 80% In addition to posting drive times on electronic message signs on California freeways, Caltrans has developed an online service that provides real-time 70% traffic and travel information that allows motorists to make better decisions about how to reach their destination more rapidly. It is called QuickMap, and 60% it shows the public current traffic speeds, incidents, lane closures, closed-circuit TV camera images from the highways, and snow chain requirements. 50% 2013201220112010200920082007200620052004 Caltrans also installs and monitors its 39,000 Data Source: Division of Traffic Operations Note: 2013 data is for the year through December 17, 2013 vehicle detectors, imbedded in urban freeways, Note: Data is by calendar year. which collect traffic vehicle volume and speed data and send it to the traffic management centers every Caltrans measures how well its traffic detectors 30 seconds. This allows us to monitor and evaluate are working to ensure we are collecting accurate the highway system in real time. The detectors also data. Caltrans has the same staffing levels and help with long-term planning and analysis, and traffic over 5,000 more detectors now than it had management. Maintaining vehicle detectors in good in 2007, yet the percentage of operational working condition is critical to ensuring the state’s detectors has remained the same. We have transportation system data collected can be used in worked toward increasing detector health, making operational and road improvement decisions. as shown in 2008 and 2009, but copper wire theft, aging detectors and temporarily disabled Caltrans’ target is to maintain at least 70 percent detectors due to construction have dropped of the detectors in good working condition with a the percentage of functioning detectors. longer-term goal of achieving 90 percent by reduc- ing construction-related outages and developing funding strategies to maintain and replace ITS This magnetometer is one of the various types of elements, over the next 10 years. sensors Caltrans uses to collect traffic volumes and speed. Caltrans is currently falling short of the 70 percent target for several reasons. Many detectors are reaching the end of their lives. Some are temp orarily disabled because of construction, and others are disabled because of the theft of field equipment and copper wire, which has become a larger problem in recent years. Since the inventory of ITS devices has more than doubled in the last 10 years, but the staffing to maintain them has not, keeping up with the maintenance demand is increasingly difficult. To prevent future copper theft, we are investigating the use of aluminum wire and reducing the number of places someone can gain access to the wires. Caltrans is developing additional tools to help identify and report failed detectors.
28 Hours of Delay
altrans uses sensors to collect vehicle Statewide Average Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay* counts and speeds at all hours of the day (at 35 miles per hour) C on metropolitan-area freeways throughout 2009 2010 2011 2012 California. This information helps identify congestion 273,000 332,000 303,000 328,000 bottlenecks. Our core goal is to reduce the amount of time Californians spend accessing the people, * non-holiday, weekdays. jobs, goods, and services they need.
Caltrans measures congestion in terms of vehicle California has some of the most congested hours of delay, or the extra time spent in traffic freeways in the nation. The time motorists spent beyond what people would experience if they were in traffic on the state highway system increased in traveling at a certain speed. Caltrans uses a 35 mph 2012 from the year before. Nobody is more likely and 60 mph speed on the freeways to distinguish to get stuck in traffic than someone driving in Los heavy congestion (motorists traveling less than Angeles County. The graph below shows increases 35 mph) from all congestion experienced for and increases on delay trends most likely due to the motorists traveling less than 60 mph. economy that is beginning to grow again and the
Delay Trend with Associated Costs Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total annual vehicle hours of delay 78.9 million 95.7 million 86.5 million 93.7 million (at 35 mph) Total annual cost of delay (at 35 mph) $1.3 billion $1.4 billion $1.5 billion $1.6 billion
Hourly Cost of Delay provided by the Economic Analysis Branch, Office of State Planning, Division of Transportation Planning
29 Time Spent in Traffic* Most Congested for Selected Metro Areas California Freeways (in millions of hours) Caltrans measures freeway traffic congestion throughout 2011 2012 the state to determine which freeways have the greatest need for improvement. Half of Alameda the most congested freeways in the state, listed here, are Contra Costa in Los Angeles County, with Interstate 5 being No. 1. Los Angeles
Marin Vehicle Hours Route County of Delay*
Orange 5 Los Angeles 6,581,609 405 Los Angeles 5,722,148 Riverside 101 Los Angeles 4,516,141 60 Los Angeles 4,440,585 Sacramento 5 Orange 3,346,209 10 Los Angeles 3,294,890 San Bernardino 210 Los Angeles 3,152,598 405 Orange 3,119,284 San Diego 580 Alameda 2,648,174 80 Alameda 2,520,715 San Francisco 110 Los Angeles 2,402,760 San Mateo 101 Santa Clara 2,392,486 880 Alameda 2,015,921 Santa Clara 91 Riverside 1,888,264 Solano 605 Los Angeles 1,878,749 5 San Diego 1,820,953 Ventura 57 Orange 1,797,855 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 101 San Mateo 1,648,420 Data Source: Division of Traffic Operations * (at 35 mph) 55 Orange 1,460,141 91 Los Angeles 1,402,309 105 Los Angeles 1,344,034 benefits achieved from highway investments funded by the * (at 35 mph) 2012 federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and California’s 2006 Proposition 1B bond program.
Caltrans’ “Mobility Performance Report” provides detailed data about highway system performance related to congestion and mobility.
In addition to measuring congestion, Caltrans is partnering with local and federal governments to obtain data that measures overall travel times, how reliable California travel time is, how many people travel on a given mile of roadway, and vehicle miles traveled per person relative to population growth.
30 Revenues Up, Ridership at All-time High nder the Amtrak California banner, Caltrans Ridership for FFY 2013 was up 1.7 percent and funds three of the five busiest intercity pass was 99.3 percent of the performance goal. Ridership Uenger rail routes in the Amtrak system: the increased by 95,471 passengers systemwide from Pacific Surfliner corridor (ranked second), the FFY 2012 to set an all-time ridership record. Ridership Capitol Corridor (ranked third), and the San Joaquin on the Pacific Surfliner route was up 2.5 percent, up corridor (ranked fifth). Caltrans manages both the 6.6 percent on the San Joaquin route, and down Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin corridors. The 2.6 percent on the Capitol Corridor. The ridership Capitol Corridor, although funded by Caltrans, is decline reflects a more accurate ridership count for managed by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers users of multiride tickets. Since FFY 2003, ridership Authority. Caltrans’ goal is to increase intercity has increased more than 37 percent. rail ridership on these state-supported routes. Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 (October 2012– Total Train and Bus Revenue September 2013) train and bus revenue was (in millions) $137.3 million, a 1.8 percent increase from Total Train and Bus Revenue (FFY) Goal the previous fiscal year. $150
$140 Amtrak California’s Pacific Surfliner gives travelers a scenic view of $130 the southern coastline. $120
$110
$100 2010 2011 2012 2013 Data Source: Division of Rail
Intercity Rail Ridership by Route (in millions by FFY)
Pacific Surfliner San Joaquin Capitol Corridor Total passengers 6
5
4
3
2
1
0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Data Source: Division of Rail
31 Carpool Lane Use Increased
California Maintains 40 percent Statewide Total of the Nation’s Carpool Lanes of Carpool Lanes Caltrans uses managed lanes to improve air quality, reduce 2,000 congestion, and improve California travel time reliability. Carpool Lanes All Other States Carpool Lanes 40% Managed lanes include 1,750 Combined high-occupancy vehicle 60% All Other D a t (HOV) lanes, also known as a States S o u r ce carpool lanes, and express : D 1,500 ivi sio lanes. Express lanes are HOV n o f Tra ffiic Operations lanes that may be used by tolled vehicles, offering a congestion-free alternative Miles of Carpool Lanes Total for motorists. Caltrans staff routinely conducts manual 1,250 vehicle occupancy counts on managed lanes to measure their use. Based on vehicle occupancy counts, HOV lanes carry an average of 2.25 people per vehicle, compared 1,000 to 1.15 people per car in the general-purpose lanes. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Data Source: Division of Traffic Operations Data also shows that more and more vehicle miles are Note: Data is by calendar year being traveled in managed lanes as Caltrans continues to build the system and opens HOV lanes to tolled vehicles. California has nearly Total Vehicle Miles 1,600 lane miles of HOV and express Traveled in Carpool Lanes lanes, which is more than 40 percent (in billions of miles) of the nation’s HOV and express lanes. 3.6
3.5
3.4 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Total
3.3
3.2 2009 2010 2011 2012 Data Source: Division of Traffic Operations Note: Data is by calendar year
32 Bicyclingcling It’s healthy, it’s green, it’s great!
Bicyclists and pedestrians use the new San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge bike path. icycle commuters help improve air quality, Projects Funded reduce traffic congestion and parking demand, Bsave energy, and promote healthy living through Through Bicycle enjoyable exercise. In concert with the members of Transportation Account the Strategic Growth Council, Caltrans began this year exploring new ways to measure effectiveness Fiscal Projects Awarded and efficiency of California’s transportation system, Year Awarded (in millions) including transit, biking, and walking. Caltrans 2012–13 39 $11.9 promotes bicycle safety and convenience to the 2011–12 24 $7.2 public by funding bicycle projects and providing 2010–11 23 $7.2 technical expertise to our federal, state, and local 2009–10 23 $7.2 transportation partners, bicycling advocates, and 2008–09 18 $7.2 legislative staff. Total 127 $40.7
Improving bicycle safety is one of the focus Data Source: Division of Local Assistance areas in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, a comprehensive, data-driven effort to funding comes from a variety of local, state, and reduce fatalities and serious injuries on public federal sources. On September 26, 2013, Governor roads statewide. Caltrans has worked with the Brown signed legislation (SB 99, Chap. 359) that Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to put bicycle creates the Active Transportation Program (ATP). safety language in the DMV drivers’ handbook, The ATP will consolidate existing federal and state improved bicycle trip and collision data collection, transportation programs into a single program and integrated bicycle facility design in the 2012 focused on making California a national leader in edition of the Highway Design Manual. active transportation. It will also provide more than $130 million a year in state and federal funds to Caltrans is also looking at all modes of travel to bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects. help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state. This includes bicycle-friendly policies and an The ATP will enhance public health and safety by increase in bicycle and pedestrian project funding. encouraging an increase in bicycling and walking and advance the efforts of regional transportation Bicycle projects are primarily funded through the agencies to achieve GHG reduction goals. The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and over the ATP will ensure that disadvantaged communities last five years, Caltrans awarded $40.7 million in fully share in the benefits of the program, and will BTA funding to 127 bike projects. Bicycle projects provide a broad spectrum of projects that will may also be part of a larger project, and additional benefit many types of active transportation users.
33 Sustainability Through Innovation Caltrans’ new Philip S. Raine Safety Roadside Rest Area on State Route 99 earned the Platinum “Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design” certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.
ustainability and environmental stewardship Caltrans is the only state agency in California that are key priorities for the California State applied to issue federally backed Clean Renewable STransportation Agency and Caltrans. In early Energy Bonds, or CREBs. In 2009, the state an 2013, Caltrans released a comprehensive report, nounced the sale of $20 million in CREBs to pay Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change, detailing our efforts to address climate change Summary of Caltrans’ Efforts by curbing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and to Reduce GHG Emissions embracing new technology, such as low-energy Average Annual cement and efficient LED lighting. The report shows Strategy GHG Reductions that Caltrans or its contractors have reduced (tons CO2) emissions by more than 161,000 tons annually, the Alternatives to 47,236 equivalent of removing 31,000 cars from the road. conventional concrete* Furthermore, Caltrans was one of the first state Alternatives to 61,475 agencies to successfully certify its GHG inventory conventional asphalt* with the California Climate Action Registry. The Roadway lighting 38,819 registry provides estimates of the amount of GHG Alternative fuels and 2,182 emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by vehicles in fleets human activities. Renewable energy projects 1,391 Building energy and 3,511 Climate change poses a growing threat to water efficiency California’s economy, environment, and Workplace commute programs 6,465 infrastructure. To prepare for climate change and adapt to its effects, Caltrans is focused on Total 161,079 preserving our state’s existing transportation *Annual reduction values are based on 2011 data instead of average annual reductions infrastructure, while continually developing Source: April 2013 report, “Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change” better solutions for reducing GHG emissions.
(continued on page 36) 34 CaltransCaltrans SeeksSeeks toto IncreaseIncrease SmallSmall BusinessBusiness andand DisabledDisabled VeteranVeteran BusinessBusiness ParticipationParticipation Caltrans Contract Analyst Betty Graham talks to small business owners at a Caltrans-sponsored workshop in February 2012 at the Rancho Cordova City Hall.
altrans is committed to increasing the economic Small Business and Disabled Veteran Business opportunity and development of small business Enterprise Participation in Caltrans Contracts C(SB) and disabled veteran business enterprise FY 2012–13 (DVBE) firms within California by setting goals of participation of these firms in our contracts. Contracts Participation Participation Goal awarded State Small Business and Disabled Veteran Small business $500 million 21.62% 25% Business Enterprise Participation Disabled Veteran $45 million 1.96% 5% Caltrans has established an overall annual SB Business Enterprise participation goal of 25 percent; Caltrans’ overall annual DVBE participation goal is 5 percent, and construction services. Caltrans compares SB which exceeds the state-mandated requirement and DVBE participation to the total annual state of 3 percent. expenditures, in the categories mentioned, in a In fiscal year 2012–13, Caltrans fell short of achieving given fiscal year. its overall annual SB and DVBE participation goals. Federal Disadvantaged SB participation was $500 million, or 21.62 percent, Business Enterprise Participation and DVBE participation in Caltrans projects was $45 million, or 1.96 percent. This is due, in part, In addition, Caltrans has established an overall annual to the availability of certified SB and DVBE firms disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goal of qualified to work on Caltrans projects, and passage 12.5 percent for federal-aid projects. A DBE is a for- of the 2006 transportation bond, Proposition 1B, profit small business that is at least 51 percent owned which has affected the scope and dollar value of by one or more individuals who are both socially state-funded projects. Caltrans has taken steps to and economically disadvantaged. In the case of a increase participation by sponsoring educational corporation, 51 percent of the stock is owned by one opportunities for SB and DVBE, reevaluating goal- or more such individuals, and whose management setting methods, and strengthening the process of and daily business operations are controlled by one or collecting and reporting SB and DVBE data. more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who own it. The DBE program benefits Caltrans reports annually to the Department small businesses that qualify for DBE certification. of General Services its levels of SB and DVBE For more information about Caltrans’ DBE program, participation, broken down by category of expense: please review Caltrans’ DBE Annual Element Report information technology goods and services, for federal fiscal year 2013. noninformation technology goods and services,
35 In an effort to be more energy efficient, Caltrans uses a photo voltaic system to produce solar power for its Stockton offices.
(continued from page 34) for solar projects on 70 Caltrans structures, including plug-in electric vehicles that will be purchased for the maintenance facilities and equipment shops, safety Caltrans fleet, to further reduce greenhouse gases. rest areas, office buildings, laboratories, and toll/ management facilities. Additional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include continually working with our These projects generate 2.4 megawatts of electricity, partners to reduce traffic congestion, expanding enough to power approximately 500 homes per year. active transportation such as walking and biking, It is anticipated that these projects will ultimately and embracing new technology in construction generate approximately 3.6 million kilowatt hours materials, alternative fuels, efficient lighting and annually, keeping more than 1,000 tons of GHG renewable energy. emissions out of the atmosphere each year.
Because the solar projects began generating Caltrans has electricity one year after bond sales, it is estimated installed electric that the bond debt will be fully paid through the vehicle charging annual energy savings. After accounting for the cost stations like this of paying off bond debt and maintaining the facilities, statewide. this translates into millions of dollars in savings over the anticipated 25-year life of the solar panels.
Other steps Caltrans is taking to adapt to climate change include using native plants, mulch, and hardscape, which uses elements such as sidewalks and retaining walls, in lieu of traditional landscaping plants to reduce the need for irrigation, and devel oping a standard for cool pavements that reduce urban heat in the face of global warming.
Caltrans is also installing 33 electrical vehicle charging stations statewide, to accommodate the
For more information on Caltrans data please see the following links: QuickMap Division of Maintenance Program Review Map21 - 2012 Congressional Reauthorization Caltrans Performance Measures Quarterly Report of the Federal Transportation Program Structures Maintenance & Investigations Caltrans Five-Year Maintenance Plan Annual Report Caltrans Earth State of the Pavement Executive Fact Book Strategic Highway Safety Plan Other Transportation Reports California State Rail Plan
36