Members Todd Gloria, Chair Councilmember City of San Diego Mary Salas, Vice Chair Mayor, Chula Vista (Representing South County) Ron Roberts, Supervisor TRANSPORTATION County of San Diego Mary Sessom COMMITTEE Mayor, Lemon Grove (Representing East County) AGENDA Harry Mathis, Chair Metropolitan Transit System Lisa Shaffer Councilmember, Encinitas (Representing North County Coastal) Friday, March 20, 2015 Judy Ritter 9 a.m. to 12 noon Mayor, Vista (Representing North County Inland) SANDAG Board Room Rebecca Jones, Vice Chair 401 B Street, 7th Floor North County Transit District San Diego David Alvarez San Diego County Regional Beginning in February, the parking garage elevators at Wells Fargo Plaza will Airport Authority undergo a six-month mechanical modernization. During this period, only one garage elevator will be in service. Please allow yourself extra time to make your Alternates way up from the garage to the SANDAG offices and Board Room. For those requiring special assistance, please call the SANDAG front desk in advance of any Mark Kersey, Councilmember City of San Diego meetings at (619) 699-1900. Michael Woiwode Councilmember, Coronado (Representing South County) Bill Horn, Chair AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS County of San Diego • PROPOSED FY 2015 PROGRAM BUDGET Greg Cox, Supervisor County of San Diego AMENDMENT: INTERSTATE 5/GILMAN DRIVE Bill Baber BRIDGE Councilmember, La Mesa (Representing East County) • FY 2016 REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL Lorie Bragg IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Metropolitan Transit System Mike Nichols Councilmember, Solana Beach • SANDAG PARTICIPATION IN THE (Representing North County Coastal) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Sam Abed CONNECTED VEHICLE MODEL DEPLOYMENT Mayor, Escondido (Representing North County Inland) PROGRAM Bill Horn / John Aguilera North County Transit District PLEASE SILENCE ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES DURING THE MEETING Lloyd Hubbs San Diego County Regional Airport Authority YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEBSITE AT SANDAG.ORG Advisory Members Laurie Berman / Chris Schmidt MISSION STATEMENT District 11, Caltrans The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. Raymond Hunter, Sr. (Jamul) SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) Southern California Tribal and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the Chairmen’s Association region's quality of life.

Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ 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. 022315 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, March 20, 2015

ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE

The Transportation Committee is asked to review and approve the minutes from its March 6, 2015, meeting.

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. CALIFORNIA LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPROVE PARTICIPATION (Dawn Vettese)

The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties are requesting that Regional Transportation Planning Agencies across the state participate in the ongoing needs assessment of local streets and roads. The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the use of up to $22,849 in Regional Surface Transportation Program apportionment funds to pay for the SANDAG share of the California Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment.

REPORTS

+4. PROPOSED FY 2015 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: RECOMMEND INTERSTATE 5/GILMAN DRIVE BRIDGE (Allan Kosup, Caltrans)

The Interstate 5 (I-5)/Gilman Drive Bridge project would link the east and west campus of UC San Diego, and facilitate the completion of other major regional transportation improvements. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve an amendment to the FY 2015 Program Budget to fund the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge project.

3 +5. FY 2016 REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMEND (Kimberly Monasi)

The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) have developed their Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) for FY 2016, which are the basis for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funding grants and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) amendment for the related projects. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the FY 2016 transit CIPs for the San Diego region; (2) approve the submittal of FTA grant applications for the San Diego region; and (3) adopt Resolution No. 2015-22, approving Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP.

+6. DRAFT FY 2014 TransNet FISCAL AND COMPLIANCE AUDITS: INITIAL INFORMATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Carolyn Lee, ITOC Member; Tritia Foster, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.; Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, SANDAG)

In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) has the responsibility to conduct the annual fiscal and compliance audits of TransNet recipients. As required by the Extension Ordinance, ITOC and the independent auditor will share the initial audit findings and recommendations with the Transportation Committee prior to release of the final audit reports.

+7. FY 2014 REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTION TO TransNet EXTENSION RECOMMEND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS (Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin)

The North County Transit District and City of National City did not meet certain eligibility requirements as noted in their draft FY 2014 TransNet annual compliance audit. As permitted by the Extension Ordinance, both agencies have submitted requests for exception to gain compliance. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the requests for exception to the Extension Ordinance requirements.

+8. DRAFT FY 2015 TransNet TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT DISCUSSION AND RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS (Carolyn Lee, ITOC Member; Cathy Brady, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc.; Ariana zur Nieden, SANDAG)

The TransNet Extension Ordinance requires that the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the implementation of the TransNet program. ITOC and the independent auditor will present the results and recommendations of the FY 2015 Triennial Performance Audit (covering the period FY 2012 through FY 2014). The Transportation Committee is asked to discuss the draft audit report and recommendations, including staff responses to recommendations.

4 +9. SANDAG PARTICIPATION IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTED VEHICLE MODEL DEPLOYMENT ACTION PROGRAM(James Dreisbach-Towle)

Staff will update the Transportation Committee on plans to apply for a U.S. Department of Transportation grant to fund planning for connected and autonomous vehicles within the San Diego region. SANDAG as part of a statewide consortium that includes Caltrans, LA Metro, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, are seeking to further the planning, implementation and operation of connected vehicles within California through the application of federal funds.

10. 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.

11. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION

The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for April 3, 2015, at 9 a.m.

12. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-1 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS

MARCH 6, 2015

The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Todd Gloria (City of San Diego) at 9:03 a.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Transportation Committee member attendance.

1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Rebecca Jones (Vice Chair, North County Transit District [NCTD]), and a second by Councilmember Lisa Shaffer (North County Coastal), the Transportation Committee approved the meeting minutes of February 20, 2015. Yes – Chair Gloria, Vice Chair Mary Salas (South County), Mayor Judy Ritter (North County Inland), Councilmember Shaffer, Mayor Mary Sessom (East County), Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego), Chair Harry Mathis (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), Vice Chair Jones, and Lloyd Hubbs (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]). No - None. Abstain –None. Absent – None.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Martha Welch, a member of the public, spoke regarding the crowds on the Blue Line trolley in the morning and other various issues with transit.

John Wotzka, a member of the public, spoke regarding federal and state budget concerns and various other transportation issues.

CONSENT

3. STATE ROUTE 125 AND INTERSTATE 15 STATUS UPDATES (INFORMATION)

This report provided a status report on State Route 125 and the Interstate 15 Express Lanes toll traffic and fiscal performance through the first half of FY 2015, as well as year-over-year comparative results.

Action: This item was presented for information.

REPORTS

4. PROPOSED SANDAG EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE FY 2014-2015 CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM (RECOMMEND)

The Transportation Committee was asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the quantitative criteria used in the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program for the evaluation of the full applications for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program in the San Diego region.

Coleen Clementson, Principal Regional Planner, presented the item.

Martha Welch, a member of the public, spoke in support of the item.

Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Roberts, and a second by Councilmember Shaffer, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors approve the quantitative criteria used in the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program for the evaluation of the full applications for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program in the San Diego region. Yes – Chair Gloria, Vice Chair Mary Salas, Mayor Ritter, Councilmember Shaffer, Mayor Sessom, Supervisor Roberts, Chair Mathis, Vice Chair Jones and Mr. Hubbs. No - None. Abstain –None. Absent – None.

5. REGIONAL TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY UPDATE (INFORMATION)

SANDAG is preparing a Regional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategy to create and enhance communities and employment centers near transit. Staff reviewed the white papers that were discussed at the January 2015 Regional TOD Implementation Forum and requested feedback from the Transportation Committee for consideration in the preparation of the draft Regional TOD Strategy, which will be an appendix of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.

Susan Baldwin, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item.

Action: This item was presented for information.

6. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL PLAN, ITS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY, AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (INFORMATION)

In April, the Board of Directors will be asked to release a draft of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, its Sustainable Communities Strategy, and its Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis, as well as the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report – all for public review and comment.

Ms. Clementson introduced the item.

David Hicks, Public Information Manager, presented the proposed approach for public outreach.

Action: This item was presented for information.

2

7. REGIONAL BIKE NETWORK BRAND (INFORMATION)

SANDAG has developed a new brand for the San Diego Regional Bike Network to represent regional bikeway projects as well as programs and services designed to support and encourage more people to ride a bike for transportation.

Elizabeth Cox, Marketing Communications Manager, and Beth Robrahn, Associate Regional Planner, presented the new brand and provided examples of its application.

Action: This item was presented for information.

8. CITY OF SAN DIEGO BIKESHARE: DECOBIKE (INFORMATION)

DECOBIKE is the City of San Diego’s new citywide bikeshare. It is operated as a partnership with the City of San Diego and DECOBIKE.

Brian Genovese, San Diego Senior Traffic Engineer, provided an overview of the program and usage since the program launched earlier this year.

Action: This item was presented for information.

9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no additional public comments.

10. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for March 20, 2015, at 9 a.m.

11. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Gloria adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.

3 Meeting Start Time: 9:03 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 10:40 a.m.

CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 06, 2015

MEMBER/ JURISDICTION NAME ATTENDING ALTERNATE

Lisa Shaffer Member Yes North County Coastal Mike Nichols Alternate No

Judy Ritter Member Yes North County Inland Sam Abed Alternate Yes

Mary Sessom Member Yes East County Bill Baber Alternate Yes

Mary Salas (Vice Chair) Member Yes South County Michael Woiwode Alternate Yes

Todd Gloria (Chair) Member Yes City of San Diego Mark Kersey Alternate Yes

Ron Roberts Member Yes

County of San Diego Bill Horn Alternate No

Greg Cox Alternate Yes

Harry Mathis Member Yes Metropolitan Transit System Lorie Bragg Alternate Yes

Rebecca Jones Member Yes

North County Transit District Bill Horn Alternate No

John Aguilera Alternate No

David Alvarez Member No San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Lloyd Hubbs Alternate Yes

ADVISORY MEMBERS

Laurie Berman Member Yes Caltrans Chris Schmidt Alternate Yes

Raymond Hunter Sr. Member No SCTCA Allen Lawson Member No

Dahvia Lynch NCTD Yes

Sharon Cooney MTS Yes Other Attendees Chairman, Jack Dale No SANDAG

4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-3 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

CALIFORNIA LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS File Number 1500000 NEEDS ASSESSMENT PARTICIPATION

Introduction Recommendation

The first comprehensive California Statewide Local The Transportation Committee is asked to Streets and Roads Needs Assessment was published in approve the use of up to $22,849 in 2009, the results of which have been used to educate Regional Surface Transportation Program the public, local elected officials, and decision-makers apportionment funds to pay for the at the state and federal level on the condition and SANDAG share of four years of work effort needs of the local streets and roads system. The data for the California Statewide Local Streets have also been used to advocate against and avoid and Roads Needs Assessment as shown in significant cuts to local transportation funding, and Attachment 1. more recently to advocate for a share of cap-and-trade proceeds. In 2011, the Transportation Committee approved funding for four years of work effort to pay for the SANDAG share of the California Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment. In order to fund the next four years of this effort, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities (LCC) are once again requesting support from Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) across the state. This report provides additional detail regarding the needs assessment effort and funding.

Discussion

The California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment is an effort lead by CSAC and LLC to document the state of the local transportation infrastructure via surveys, analysis, and other tools. The first-ever California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment report was released in 2009, with updates following in 2011, 2013, and 2014. The reports have been used to educate public officials at the local, state, and federal levels about the current state of repair of the infrastructure and the deterioration of the infrastructure over time. Presentations have been made to key members of the Legislature and to the California Transportation Commission to advocate against budget cuts to local streets and roads transportation funding and to advocate for a share of cap-and-trade proceeds to support local active transportation and complete streets projects.

The initial effort was paid for with contributions from cities and counties. In 2011, CSAC and LCC asked RTPAs to contribute half of the estimated cost for the next four years in order to continue to quantify and document the impacts of budget cuts to the state of local streets and roads, similar to Caltrans updating the State Highway Operations and Protection Program, which looks at the state of good repair of the state highway system. At that time, the Transportation Committee approved

the use of up to $21,000 of the region’s Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) apportionments for the needs assessment effort. This year, CSAC and LLC are asking the RTPAs to contribute half of the estimated cost in order to continue this important effort for another four years. As the report evolves, it is continuously improved. For example, the 2012 report presented new information on sustainable pavement and environmentally friendly pavement practices. Therefore, CSAC and LLC are requesting a total budget of $550,000, with half of this amount ($275,000) coming from the RTPAs. Under this proposal, the region’s total share over the four-year period is $22,849, an increase of $1,849 over the previous contribution. The proposed funding mechanism is to allow Caltrans Local Assistance to re-direct this proportionate share from the regions’ RSTP apportionments. The region’s approximate RSTP apportionment for FY 2015 is $36.9 million; therefore, this effort represents significantly less than 1 percent on an annual basis for the duration of the four-year assessment.

The assessment is believed to be a valuable effort which brings together in a single document the current state of the local streets and roads across the state, their continued deterioration, the potential impacts of continued budget cuts, and the insufficiency of funding for basic maintenance and rehabilitation. It has been well received by decision-makers and is a powerful tool to educate and advocate with the Legislature and Governor’s Office.

JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director

Attachment(s): 1. Letter from CSAC and LCC dated January 30, 2015

Key Staff Contact: Dawn Vettese, (619) 595-5346, [email protected]

2 California State Association of Counties Attachment 1 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814

January 30, 2015

To: Executive Directors, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies

From: Kiana Buss, Legislative Representative, California State Association of Counties Jennifer Whiting, Assistant Legislative Director, League of California Cities

Re: Ongoing Financing for the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment

Background. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), League of California Cities (League), County Engineers Association of California (CEAC), and the state’s regional transportation planning agencies just completed another successful assessment of the statewide local streets and roads network. The 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report (Report) is the fourth report of its kind since the start of this important effort in 2007. The Report is a comprehensive and systematic statewide assessment of the state’s local street and road network. It includes an analysis of current funding available to cities and counties to maintain the local network and identifies a funding shortfall to preserve the public’s $188 billion investment. It is updated biennially to ensure that information is up to date. The goal of the Report is to educate the public, and policy‐ and decision‐makers at all levels of government about the infrastructure investments needed to provide California with a seamless, safe, and efficient multi‐modal transportation system.

The Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee), consisting of the project manager and representatives from counties, cities, and regional transportation planning agencies, have already begun work on the 2016 Report.

The cost of developing the 2012 and 2014 reports was approximately $550,000. The Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA’s) contributed $250,000; cities and counties contributed $250,000; and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission provided a one‐time contribution of $50,000 dedicated to a robust analysis of the statewide bridge needs as part of the 2012 Report.

Value of the Report. The Report continues to be extremely valuable. In addition to educating the public, local elected officials, and key policy‐ and decision‐makers at the state and federal levels on the condition, status of, and needs on the local streets and roads system, CSAC and the League have used the comprehensive data to advocate against, and avoid significant cuts to local transportation funding. Most recently, the report even helped CSAC and the League to advocate for a share of cap and trade auction proceeds. The auction proceeds will support complete streets and active transportation projects on the local system that are consistent with SB 375 sustainable communities strategies and other greenhouse gas emission reducing regional plans. Moving forward, the Report will serve counties and cities well as we work towards generating and appropriating new revenues for transportation.

Funding Proposal. In 2011, the RTPA’s agreed to financially partner with CSAC and the League for the development of the 2012 and 2014 reports. The reports continue to improve in terms of the quality of data, its use as a tool for educating policy‐ and decision‐makers, and the scope of the assessment. For instance, the 2012 Report introduced new information about sustainable pavement practices that are cost‐effective and environmentally friendly. Considering these improvements, the Oversight Committee recommends a modest increase in the budget for the 2016 and 2018 reports of $50,000. This increase would be shared equally by the regions and cities and counties.

3 With your continued support and approval of the budget augmentation, we propose using the same formula that was used to determine Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) contributions to the Caltrans’ Cooperative Training Assistance Program (CTAP). Specifically, we request that each region send a letter to Caltrans by March 31, 2015 authorizing Caltrans to reduce its share of Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding by the specific formula amounts shown in the attached chart as each region’s contribution to the effort.

After March 31, 2015, Caltrans will reduce the RSTP balance for each Region in accordance with the letter to Caltrans. The amounts contributed by regions would then be provided to the County Engineer’s Association of California (CEAC) who is responsible for payments on the Report contract.

Attached is a template letter to Ray Zhang at Caltrans Local Assistance that you could use for your request to Caltrans. Please copy Chris Lee with CSAC on your letter by email or hard copy ([email protected] or California State Association of Counties, 1100 K Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA 95814).

If you would prefer to contribute to this effort with different funds (i.e. Non RSTP funds), please send a check payable to “CEAC” directly to Mike Crump, CEAC Treasurer, or contact Chris Lee to discuss alternative options.

Mike Crump Director of Public Works Butte County Department of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965

Finally, while Executive Directors in many regions have authority to contribute funds to this effort without board approval, for those that would like to take this action to their boards, a sample resolution that could be used is attached.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.

Contact. If you have any questions regarding this request, or want more information on the history of or specific findings from the reports, please contact Jennifer Whiting, League Assistant Legislative Director, at (916) 658‐8249 or [email protected], or Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst at (916) 327‐7500 ext. 521 or [email protected]. cc: Regional Transportation Planning Agency Group Rural Counties Task Force

4 Formula Distribution of RTPA contributions to the Statewide Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Needs Assessment Formulas based on Actual Final Distribution, 2013‐2014 of RSTP/contributions to CTAP

Proposed STP Large Urbanized Percent STP Small Area CTAP LSR Assessment MPO/RTPA/County Apportionment Share to Apportionment Adjustment Contribution Area CTAP (2015) Alpine $0 $13,431 $16 0.00% $9 Amador $0 $435,407 $511 0.10% $281 Butte $0 $2,514,754 $2,953 0.59% $1,624 Calaveras $0 $520,988 $612 0.12% $337 Colusa $0 $244,834 $287 0.06% $158 Del Norte $0 $327,032 $384 0.08% $211 El Dorado $702,096 $1,016,281 $2,018 0.40% $1,110 Fresno $7,482,856 $3,152,839 $12,488 2.50% $6,868 Glenn $0 $321,454 $377 0.08% $207 Humboldt $0 $1,538,835 $1,807 0.36% $994 Imperial $0 $1,994,977 $2,342 0.47% $1,288 Inyo $0 $211,994 $249 0.05% $137 Kern $5,989,618 $3,607,952 $11,269 2.25% $6,198 Kings $0 $1,748,691 $2,053 0.41% $1,129 Lake $0 $739,166 $868 0.17% $477 Lassen $0 $398,874 $468 0.09% $257 Los Angeles $111,376,742 $856,788 $131,779 26.36% $72,478 MTC $70,270,698 $11,467,256 $95,973 19.19% $52,785 Madera $0 $1,724,493 $2,025 0.40% $1,114 Mariposa $0 $208,622 $245 0.05% $135 Mendocino $0 $1,004,084 $1,179 0.24% $648 Merced $0 $2,923,893 $3,433 0.69% $1,888 Modoc $0 $110,718 $130 0.03% $71 Mono $0 $162,339 $191 0.04% $105 Monterey $0 $4,744,392 $5,571 1.11% $3,064 Nevada $0 $1,128,942 $1,326 0.27% $729 Orange Co. $34,356,295 $52,764 $40,402 8.08% $22,221 Placer $2,911,445 $951,949 $4,536 0.91% $2,495 Plumas $0 $228,694 $269 0.05% $148 Riverside $18,833,416 $6,195,714 $29,388 5.88% $16,163 SACOG $16,088,802 $4,332,475 $23,978 4.80% $13,188 San Benito $0 $631,763 $742 0.15% $408 San Bernardino $22,906,083 $357,792 $27,315 5.46% $15,023 San Diego $33,893,706 $1,487,889 $41,543 8.31% $22,849 San Joaquin $4,236,023 $3,597,504 $9,198 1.84% $5,059 San Luis Obispo $0 $3,082,140 $3,619 0.72% $1,990 Santa Barbara $0 $4,845,417 $5,689 1.14% $3,129 Santa Cruz $0 $2,999,210 $3,522 0.70% $1,937 Shasta $0 $2,025,783 $2,379 0.48% $1,308 Sierra $0 $37,035 $43 0.01% $24 Siskiyou $0 $513,238 $603 0.12% $332 Stanislaus‐Modesto $4,094,157 $1,786,401 $6,905 1.38% $3,798 TRPA $0 $470,671 $553 0.11% $304 Tehama $0 $725,427 $852 0.17% $469 Trinity $0 $157,584 $185 0.04% $102 Tulare 2,508,513 $2,545,903 $5,935 1.19% $3,264 Tuolumne $0 $632,861 $743 0.15% $409 Ventura $6,351,731 $3,059,370 $11,050 2.21% $6,077 Statewide Totals $342,002,181 $83,836,620 $500,000 100.00% $275,000

5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND

PROPOSED FY 2015 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: File Number 1200508 INTERSTATE 5/GILMAN DRIVE BRIDGE

Introduction Recommendation

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), The Transportation Committee Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and Caltrans have recommends that the Board of Directors been working collaboratively with the University of approve an amendment to the FY 2015 California, San Diego (UC San Diego), for the last Program Budget to add a new capital several years to plan and design transportation project for I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge improvements for the region within and adjacent to (CIP 1200508) for $15 million in UC San Diego. The Interstate 5 (I-5)/Gilman Drive substantially the same form as shown in Bridge is one project in a portfolio of projects being Attachment 2. coordinated with UC San Diego. The projects include the Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project (Project No. 1257001), the I-5/Genesee Avenue Interchange (Project No. 1200506), I-5 / Voigt Drive Improvements (Project No. 1200507), and the I-5 North Coast Corridor (Project No. 1200501 and 1200504). Staff is proposing the addition of a $15 million I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge Project to the capital program to fund construction of this bridge. In addition, funding this project with UC San Diego is a component of a larger agreement that provides public access from I-5 to Genesee Avenue through UC San Diego and secures property for the future I-5 North Coast Corridor widening. The proposed action is being requested now to coordinate the construction of the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge with Mid-Coast LRT and Voigt Drive Improvements to minimize the overall construction time and impacts to UC San Diego and its surrounding community.

The TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee reviewed this proposed budget amendment at its March 11, 2015, meeting and expressed support.

Discussion

The I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge is a new crossing of I-5 connecting UC San Diego campus facilities on opposite sides of I-5. The Gilman Bridge would not connect to the freeway. Currently, the only campus connection across I-5 is the two-lane Voigt Drive Bridge. UC San Diego campus master plans have included a Gilman Drive Bridge for many years. The campus on the east side of I-5 is being intensely developed with medical and research facilities. An additional I-5 crossing is vital to UC San Diego to link its facilities on both sides of the freeway. The project’s environmental and design phases have been funded by UC San Diego. Design and environmental studies have been completed. The Gilman Drive Bridge project is anticipated to begin construction in winter 2015 and be open to traffic in March 2017. Caltrans would bid the project and manage construction.

The area around I-5 and Genesee Avenue is highly congested. The TransNet program included projects to improve transportation capacity in this area. Caltrans has started reconstruction of the I-5 Genesee Avenue interchange, the Mid-Coast LRT Project will add high capacity rail transit, and the Voigt Drive Bridge will be replaced and widened for future direct access ramps (DARs) and lengthened for future widening of I-5. Voigt Drive also will be widened from I-5 to Genesee Avenue to accommodate UC San Diego growth and DAR traffic. Attachment 1 shows the projects planned in the area.

The 2013 TransNet Plan of Finance update identified funding of $45 million for Phase 1 of the I-5 / Voigt Drive improvements. To begin preliminary engineering, $4 million was programmed initially. Additional funds of up to $41 million would be programmed by the Board of Directors once design concepts were solidified and the funding responsibilities of SANDAG and UC San Diego were established.

SANDAG, MTS, Caltrans, and UC San Diego have been coordinating this list of projects to complete all the projects in the shortest practical timeframe and provide for future projects with the least amount of re-work. Within the UC San Diego campus, the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge will be constructed prior to the Voigt Drive Bridge reconstruction and the Mid-Coast LRT bridges. The proposed order of work is to open the Gilman Drive Bridge by early 2017 allowing the reconstruction of the Voigt Bridge and the Mid-Coast LRT Bridge over I-5 to occur in a single stage as opposed to multiple stages, thereby reducing costs and construction-related impacts.

Agreements

To facilitate cooperation and coordination for these projects between SANDAG, MTS, Caltrans, and UC San Diego, specific agreements are being developed to address the exchanges of property and construction values. These agreements cover the elements of the transactions, including construction, management, access, easements, licenses, and temporary and long-term maintenance and operation responsibilities. The parties have developed high-level policy points to be included in project specific agreements. Those policy points include:

• All parties agree that mutual cooperation is necessary to efficiently and successfully deliver the proposed projects. • In lieu of other consideration, UC San Diego agrees to transfer land, and permanent and temporary property rights for construction of the Mid-Coast LRT, I-5/Genesee Avenue interchange, Voigt Drive and Campus Point Drive improvements, Gilman Drive Bridge, and future expansion of I-5 required for the Voigt DAR Bridge and North Coast Corridor freeway widening. • To eliminate rework and limit construction-related disruptions to the campus and recognize UC San Diego’s right-of-way contribution, SANDAG, with the approval of its Board of Directors, would program $15 million for the construction of the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge and $26 million for the construction of the Voigt DAR Bridge and Campus Point Drive realignment. • Caltrans will administer, on behalf of SANDAG and UC San Diego, construction of the Gilman Drive Bridge.

2 • Concurrent with the construction of the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge, UC San Diego will fund and construct road improvements on Gilman Drive to connect Gilman Drive to the bridge. • UC San Diego will close Voigt Drive over I-5 for the duration of the Voigt Drive Bridge reconstruction. • SANDAG, with the approval of its Board of Directors, would program additional funds at a future date for the reconstruction of the Voigt Drive Bridge and Voigt Drive improvements to serve the future DAR, including the realignment of Campus Point Drive. • UC San Diego agrees to accept future DAR connections to the reconstructed Voigt Bridge and provide public access on Voigt Drive between I-5 and Genesee Avenue. • UC San Diego will maintain Voigt Drive as a public street between I-5 and Genesee Avenue.

Additional roles and responsibilities for construction, right-of-way, and maintenance would be developed through project specific agreements between SANDAG, MTS, Caltrans, and UC San Diego.

Next Steps

UC San Diego, Caltrans, and SANDAG staff will continue developing project-specific agreements related to the portfolio of projects. Pending Board of Directors approval, the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge project would be included in the next quarterly Regional Transportation Improvement Program amendment currently scheduled for April 2015. Caltrans would then advertise, award, and administer the I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge project.

JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director

Attachments: 1. I-5/Gilman Drive Project Map 2. Proposed FY 2015 Budget Amendment for Capital Improvement Project No. 1200508, I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge

Key Staff Contact: Allan Kosup, (619) 688-3611, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1

4 Attachment 2

Project Number: 1200508 Corridor Director: Allan Kosup RTIP Number: CAL3XX Project Manager: Arturo Jacobo Project Name: I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge PM Phone Number: (619) 688-6816

PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Construct new overcrossing over I-5 between Gilman Drive and Medical Design is complete and project is being prepared for advertisement. Center Drive.

PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES On I-5 between La Jolla Village Drive and Voigt Drive overcrossing. Draft Environmental Document N/A Final Environmental Document N/A Ready to Advertise Oct-15 Begin Construction Feb-16 Open to Public Apr-17 Close-Out Apr-18

SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 TOTAL

Administration $0 $0 $1 $51 $93 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 Environmental Document 000000000000 Design 000000000000 Right-of-Way Support 000000000000 Right-of-Way Capital 000000000000 Construction Support 000100200000000300 Construction Capital 000000000000 Vehicles 000000000000 Legal Services 000000000000 Communications 000351500000050 Project Contingency 000000000000 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $1 $186 $308 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500

CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 TOTAL

Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0075750000000150 Right-of-Way Support 000000000000 Right-of-Way Capital 000000000000 Construction Support 0008001,250300000002,350 Construction Capital 0004,0007,8002000000012,000 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $75 $4,875 $9,050 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,500 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $76 $5,061 $9,358 $505 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000

TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $100 $715 $495 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,310 Caltrans RE Services $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 TOTAL

FEDERAL: RSTP $0 $0 $0 $4,300 $8,390 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,190 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet -MC 00767619685000001,810

TOTAL: $0 $0 $76 $5,061 $9,358 $505 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000

5

AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-5 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND

FY 2016 REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL File Number 8000100 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Introduction Recommendation

The regional transit Capital Improvement Program The Transportation Committee is asked to (CIP) is a rolling five-year plan, which outlines recommend that the Board of Directors: current transit needs and planned investments in (1) approve the FY 2016 Capital transit capital, rehabilitation, and replacement Improvement Program for the San Diego projects. The program is updated annually and is region (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS] designed to meet ongoing transit operational and and North County Transit District [NCTD]); infrastructure needs in a responsive and efficient (2) approve the submittal of Federal manner. The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and Transit Administration Sections 5307, 5337, the North County Transit District (NCTD) have and 5339 grant applications for the developed their CIPs for FY 2016. These CIPs are the San Diego region (SANDAG, MTS, and basis for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) NCTD); and (3) adopt Resolution Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula, Section 5337 No. 2015-22, in substantially the same State of Good Repair, and Section 5339 Bus and Bus form as shown in Attachment 4, approving Facilities grant applications and for updating the Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 Regional 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Transportation Improvement Program. Program (RTIP).

Discussion

The MTS Board of Directors is scheduled to approve its CIP on March 12, 2015. The NCTD CIP was approved by its Board of Directors on February 19, 2015. Funding assumptions used for CIP development were preliminary and based on the anticipated federal fiscal year (FFY) 2015 apportionments and some carryover of the FFY 2014 apportionments. The estimate for FTA formula programs conservatively remains the same as in the current FY 2015 and continues to FY 2020. The funding estimate for the FY 2016 CIP reflects the transit revenue estimates approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its February 27, 2015, meeting. Upon receipt of the FFY 2015 FTA apportionments, any increase in the funding level over the estimate would be included with the FY 2017 CIP process. Funding for the lowest priority projects in the program would be reduced for FY 2016 if the FTA apportionment for San Diego comes in below the estimate.

Capital Improvement Program Funding

Three FTA formula programs: Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, Section 5337 State of Good Repair Program, and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program are the primary source of funding for the transit agency CIPs and provide, generally, 75 percent of the cost of eligible activities.

Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program is the largest of the FTA grant programs and 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 revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed guideway route miles, as well as population and population density and number of low-income individuals. 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. These funds constitute a core investment in the enhancement and revitalization of public transportation systems in the nation’s urbanized areas, which depend on public transportation to improve mobility and reduce congestion.

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 under this grant program. The FTA defines preventive maintenance as all maintenance costs related to vehicles and non-vehicles. Specifically, it is all the activities, supplies, materials, labor, services, and associated costs required to preserve or extend the functionality and serviceability of the asset in a cost-effective manner, up to and including the current state-of-the-art for maintaining such an asset.

Section 5337 is a formula-based State of Good Repair Program that 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. 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 under this program 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 formula-based Bus and Bus Facilities Program which provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities.

Pursuant to established practice, after allocating funds to SANDAG for the cost of the Vanpool Program, the balance of the Section 5307 funds are allocated to the operators on a 70 percent/0 percent basis, with the more populous MTS area receiving 70 percent and the 30 percent share going to NCTD. This methodology was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its February 23, 2007, meeting. The same 70/30 formula was used to allocate the

2

Sections 5337 and 5339 Programs between MTS and NCTD. These FTA formula funds combined with the required 20 percent local match make over one half of the funding for the transit agency CIPs. Additional state and local funding sources supplement the FTA programs. The combined regional CIP is $193 million for FY 2016 and $771 million for the five-year period from FY 2016 to FY 2020. The individual transit agency program summaries are in Attachments 1a and 1b.

Based on the CIPs, SANDAG will apply for FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula funds and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities funds for MTS and NCTD capital projects for which SANDAG is the implementing agency in accordance with Senate Bill 1703 (Peace, 2002). These include capital projects for planning; design and construction of new infrastructure and facilities; rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and facilities; capital projects involving environmental, engineering, and construction support; and construction right-of-way.

Both MTS and NCTD are grantees for routine capital projects that support the day-to-day business of the operators and will apply for FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula, and Section 5337 State of Good Repair funds. Examples of projects for which each operator would apply for its own respective federal grants include maintenance and repair projects and procurements, right-of-way and equipment in support of operations, revenue and nonrevenue vehicle procurements, light rail vehicle maintenance, and revenue vehicle parts and components, as well as operating assistance for new rail extensions, preventive maintenance, associated capital maintenance, and some ADA paratransit services.

FY 2016 Capital Improvement Program Development

MTS and NCTD undertook similar project selection processes based on established criteria and involving the active participation of sponsoring agencies and/or departments. The transit agencies reviewed and prioritized capital project submittals to ensure that operationally critical projects were funded. The MTS and NCTD FY 2016 Transit Capital Program fiscally constrained CIPs can be seen in Attachments 2a and 2b, respectively. The proposed CIPs are revenue constrained programs, meaning they are based on existing, committed, or reasonably expected funding levels for each of the next five years. MTS and NCTD conducted separate social equity analyses of their proposed capital projects to assure that the benefits and burdens of their transit investments were shared equitably in their respective service areas.

Metropolitan Transit System Attachment 1a includes a summary of the five-year MTS Capital Program. The program is primarily funded with FTA formula funds and the required local match. In addition to the FTA formula funds, the MTS FY 2016 CIP includes $18 million of FTA discretionary Ladders of Opportunity funding and some additional funding from State of California Proposition 1B security funds and Cap-and-Trade Program, State Transit Assistance (STA), Transportation Development Act (TDA), transfers from existing capital projects that have been delayed or completed under budget, and local transportation funds. The MTS CIP Program assumes approximately $52.4 million to $52.7 million for preventive maintenance and planning projects for each of the next five years. The remaining funds would be used for capital projects ranging from $55.7 million to $102 million over the five-year program. For FY 2016, the CIP will provide approximately $154.7 million for MTS projects and preventive maintenance, of which the $102 million allocated to capital projects represents 76.8 percent of the MTS total capital project needs of $132.9 million for the coming year.

3

North County Transit District Attachment 1b includes a summary of the five-year NCTD Capital Program. The NCTD FY 2016 CIP assumes approximately $15.2 million to $18.4 million of formula funds for preventive maintenance and planning projects for each of the next five years, with the remainder being used for capital projects ranging from $19 million to $19.9 million over the five-year program. For FY 2016, the CIP will provide approximately $38.3 million for NCTD projects and preventive maintenance, of which the $19.9 million allocated to capital projects, represents 49 percent of the NCTD total capital project needs of $40.5 million for the coming year.

Unfunded Capital Needs

Unfunded transit capital and rehabilitation projects are the transit capital projects that are necessary, but for which the region will not have adequate resources to fund, based on the FY 2016 – FY 2020 fiscally constrained funding estimates. The unfunded projects range from $13.6 million to $47.8 million for MTS and from $13.9 million to $29.5 million for NCTD over the five-year program. The unfunded project lists from MTS and NCTD can be used as a basis to actively seek regional funding through the federal and state legislative processes. The FY 2016 regional transit capital and rehabilitation unfunded project lists for MTS and NCTD are shown in Attachments 3a and 3b.

Regional Transportation Improvement Program

As the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the San Diego region, SANDAG is the designated recipient for FTA formula funds and is responsible for programming the FTA funds in the RTIP. The RTIP is the multiyear funding program for major transportation projects in the San Diego region. Projects included in the CIP, and subsequently in the FTA grant application, also must be programmed in the RTIP. The Board of Directors has delegated authority to the Transportation Committee to approve RTIP amendments pursuant to Board Policy No. 001: Operations Policy for New Agency; however, approval of this proposed amendment is sought from the Board of Directors because the Transportation Committee does not have authority to approve the operator’s CIPs, which are the foundation for Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP.

The projects shown in Table 1 - Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP (Attachment 5), are currently being circulated for public review and comment, which closes on March 6, 2015. The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is scheduled to review Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP at its March 11, 2015, meeting, focusing its review on the TransNet-funded projects within this amendment. There were no comments.

Federal regulations require the 2014 RTIP to be a revenue-constrained document with programmed projects based upon available or committed funding and/or reasonable estimates of future funding. Funding assumptions are generally based upon: (1) authorized or appropriated levels of federal and state funding from current legislation; (2) conservative projections of future federal and state funding based upon a continuation of current funding levels; (3) the most current revenue forecasts for the TransNet Program; and (4) the planning and programming documents of the local transportation providers.

Tables 2a through 2c (Attachment 6) provide updated program financial summaries, including a comparison from the prior approved formal amendment (Amendment No. 1) to the 2014 RTIP. (Chapter 4 of the Final 2014 RTIP discusses in detail the financial capacity analysis of major program

4

areas, including discussion of available revenues.) Based upon the analysis, the projects contained within the 2014 RTIP, including Amendment No. 2, are reasonable when considering available funding sources.

Air Quality Analysis

On September 26, 2014, SANDAG found the 2014 RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan (SIP) and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy for the San Diego region. All of the required regionally significant capacity increasing projects were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the 2050 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region Our Future (2050 RTP) and the 2014 RTIP. The Federal Highway Administration and FTA jointly approved the conformity determination for the 2014 RTIP and the conformity redetermination for the 2050 RTP on December 12, 2014.

The proposed amendment does not reflect a change in the design, concept, or scope of the project or the conformity analysis years as modeled for the regional emissions analysis of the 2014 RTIP and 2050 RTP. Projects in the 2014 RTIP Amendment No. 2 meet the conformity provisions of the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.122(g)). All capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 2 were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the 2050 RTP and 2014 RTIP. All other projects not included in the air quality conformity analysis are either non-capacity increasing or are exempt from the requirement to determine conformity according to the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.126). SANDAG followed interagency consultation procedures to determine which projects are exempt. Amendment No. 2 does not interfere with the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures. The 2014 RTIP, including Amendment No. 2, remains in conformance with the SIP.

ANDRÉ DOUZDJIAN Director of Finance

Attachments: 1a-1b. Proposed Transit CIP Summary for FY 2016 to FY 2020 2a-2b. Proposed FY 2016 Transit CIP - Fiscally Constrained 3a-3b. Proposed FY 2016 Transit CIP Unfunded Transit Capital and Rehabilitation Projects 4. Resolution No. 2015-22: Approving Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP 5. Table 1 - Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP 6. Tables 2a-2c: Fiscal Constraint Analysis for Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP

Key Staff Contact: Kimberly Monasi, (619) 699-6902, [email protected]

5 Attachment 1a SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY FY 2016 to FY 2020 in '000's

Five Year FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 Total

Federal Formula Program 5307 (inc. carryover)* $44,560 $41,708 $41,708 $41,708 $41,708 $211,393 Local Match for 5307 11,140 10,427 10,427 10,427 10,427 52,848 Federal Formula Program 5337 (inc. carryover) 22,024 21,682 21,682 21,682 21,682 108,750 Local Match for 5337 5,506 5,420 5,420 5,420 5,420 27,188 TransNet for 5339 Exchange 4,004 0 0 0 0 4,004 Federal 5311 18,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 TDA 28,977 14,929 14,929 14,929 14,929 88,691 STA 13,900 13,900 13,900 13,900 13,900 69,500 State - Prop 1B - TSGP 2,779 2,779 2,779 0 0 8,338 State - Cap and Trade 1,204 2,408 0 0 0 3,612 Federal Transfer 143 0 0 0 0 143 Local - Other 2,461 0 0 0 0 2,461

Total Transit CIP Funding $154,698 $113,253 $110,845 $108,066 $108,066 $594,928

Preventive Maintenance /ADA/Planning 52,659 52,365 52,365 52,365 52,365 262,119

Total Funding Available For Capital Projects $102,039 $60,888 $58,480 $55,701 $55,701 $332,809

Total Project Needs 132,875 102,646 106,288 81,760 69,260 492,829

Total Deficit ($30,836) ($41,758) ($47,808) ($26,059) ($13,559) ($160,020)

% of Funding/Needs 76.8% 59.3% 55.0% 68.1% 80.4% 67.5%

*FY16 5307 is net of prior year adjustment calculation done by MTS and net of planning

6 Attachment 1b NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY FY 2016 to FY 2020 in '000's

Five Year FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 Total

Federal Formula Program 5307 (inc. carryover)* $19,198 $18,207 $18,207 $18,207 $18,207 $92,026 Local Match for 5307 4,800 4,552 4,552 4,552 4,552 23,008 Federal Formula Program 5337 (inc. carryover) 9,344 9,183 9,183 9,183 9,183 46,078 Local Match for 5337 2,336 2,296 2,296 2,296 2,296 11,520 TransNet for 5339 Exchange 1,716 0 0 0 0 1,716 State - Prop 1B Bonds 860 860 0 0 0 1,721

Total Transit CIP Funding $38,254 $35,099 $34,239 $34,239 $34,239 $176,069

Preventive Maintenance /ADA/Planning 18,393 15,239 15,239 15,239 15,239 79,348

Total Funding Available For Capital Projects $19,860 $19,860 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $96,720

Total Project Needs 40,539 49,317 46,331 36,139 32,926 205,252

Total Deficit ($20,679) ($29,457) ($27,331) ($17,139) ($13,926) ($108,532)

% of Funding/Needs 49.0% 40.3% 41.0% 52.6% 57.7% 47.1%

*FY16 5307 is net of prior year adjustment calculation done by MTS

7 Attachment 2a SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM FY 2016 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM FISCALLY CONSTRAINED In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

1 MTS Miscellaneous Capital 1,289 0 0 0 0

2 MTS Fare System Upgrades 6,000 6,540 10,000 0 0

3 MTS Mobile Ticketing 200 0 0 0 0

4 MTS Compass Vending Machines at Airport 63 0 0 0 0

5 MTS Enterprise Resource Planning/Transit Asset Management System 3,191 0 0 0 0

6 MTS Copier & Printer Replacement 80 65 0 0 0

7 MTS Compass Card Back Office 405 0 0 0 0

8 MTS KMD Fiber 200 0 0 0 0

9 MTS Wireless Network Expansion 160 0 0 0 0

10 MTS Bus Benches 300 300 300 0 0

11 MTS Green Line Entry Monument Signs 300 0 0 0 0

12 MTS Old Town Transit Center West Improvements 1,055 650 0 0 0

13 MTS Variable Message Sign at Transit Centers 300 0 0 0 0

14 MTS System-wide CCTV 1,334 2,779 2,779 1,000 1,000

15 MTS Behavioral Analytical Software 110 110 110 110 110

16 MTS Forklift Replacement 70 0 0 0 0

17 MTS Bus Replacement- 40 ft. and 60 ft. heavy buses 58,872 7,638 22,537 22,434 26,000

18 MTS Bus Replacement- 27 ft. Mid Size (Type VII) 4,990 0 0 0 0

19 SANDAG IAD HVAC and Roof Improvements (SANDAG) 400 0 0 0 0

20 MTS CCTV for ADA/Paratransit Buses 1,445 0 0 0 0

21 MTS ADA Para-Transit Vehicles 510 3,362 3,463 3,566 0

22 MTS CPD Roof and HVAC Replacement 90 0 0 0 0

23 MTS IAD/KMD Fall Protection 85 0 0 0 0

24 MTS Transit Service Trucks 320 230 186 0 250

25 MTS Automatic Vehicle Announcements on Buses 1,450 0 0 0 0

26 MTS Shelters Replacement (Amaya, Arnele, Gillespie) 894 0 0 0 0

27 MTS El Cajon Transit Center 630 0 0 0 0

28 MTS Transportation Office Renovations 220 0 0 0 0

29 MTS Station Cleaning Equipment 163 0 0 0 0

30 MTS Building B & C HVAC 93 0 0 0 0

31 MTS Facilities Electric Utility Vehicle 16 0 0 0 0

32 MTS SD100 Replacement 10,000 3,302 894 20,541 18,041

33 MTS SD100 Buffer/Coupler Replacement 1,100 1,100 0 0 0

34 MTS LRV Fall Protection Building C 260 0 0 0 0

35 MTS Wheel Truing Machine 250 0 0 0 0

36 MTS Replace Wiggins Forklift 200 0 0 0 0

37 MTS Paint Booth Overhaul (Vents & Motors) 83 54 0 0 0

38 MTS Grade Crossing Replacement (5) 1,870 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

39 MTS Replacement of Switches #9 and #11 900 0 0 0 0 8 SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM FY 2016 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM FISCALLY CONSTRAINED In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

40 MTS Orange Line Horseshoe Curve Rail Replacement 407 0 0 0 0

41 MTS Network Switches & Communication Cabinet 400 0 0 0 0

42 MTS SDSU Fire Alarm System Replacement 350 0 0 0 0

43 MTS Replacement of Switch #5 300 0 0 0 0

44 MTS Orange & Green Line Print Verification 258 0 0 0 0

45 MTS Crossing Diamond at Broadway 150 0 0 0 0

46 MTS Euclid/University Crossing - Design 80 650 0 0 0

47 MTS Concrete steps at 12 Traction Power Substations 55 0 0 0 0

48 MTS Signal Case Fencing 40 0 0 0 0

49 MTS MTS Electric Bus Demonstration 0 6,000 0 0 0

50 MTS Replacement of 10 CPC substations 0 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300

51 MTS 25th & Commercial Crossovers - Design 0 1,460 0 0 0

52 MTS Bus Shelters 0 2,270 2,270 0 0

53 MTS SB BRT CCTV 0 120 0 0 0

54 MTS Transit Facility 0 0 2,898 0 5,000

55 MTS Bus Replacement- 27 ft. Mid Size (Type VII) Rural 0 435 0 0 0

56 MTS IAD/KMD Lighting Upgrades 0 300 0 0 0

57 MTS IAD Chassis Wash Hoist and Canopy 0 900 0 0 0

58 MTS IAD/KMD Tire Shop Canopy 0 280 0 0 0

59 MTS IAD Gas Detection System Replacement 0 150 0 0 0

60 MTS SBMF Diesel Tank Removal and Service Lanes 0 250 0 0 0

61 MTS KMD Bus Wash Blowers and Modifications 0 0 250 0 0

62 MTS IAD/KMD Yard Camera Replacement 0 250 0 0 0

63 MTS KMD Parts Storage Second Flooring 0 50 0 0 0

64 MTS Courthouse Station - Mid-Coast 0 3,000 0 0 0

65 MTS Orange Line Parking Lots Resurface (5 Stations) 0 500 0 0 0

66 MTS LRV Remote Diagnostic System (128 LRVs) 0 3,840 0 0 0

67 MTS SD100 Traction Motor Overhaul 0 2,100 500 0 0

68 MTS SD7 Truck Overhaul 0 0 0 2,750 0

69 SANDAG OCS Insulator/Catch Cable Replacement 0 1,603 0 0 0

70 MTS Substation DC Feeder Breaker Replacement 0 2,300 2,300 0 0

71 MTS 8th Street Bridge Repairs 0 3,000 0 0 0

72 MTS C Yard Track Expansion 0 0 4,693 0 0

73 MTS Access to Transit Improvements 101 0 0 0 0

FIVE YEAR CIP - CONSTRAINED 102,039 60,888 58,480 55,701 55,701

9 Attachment 2b NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT FY 2016 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM FISCALLY CONSTRAINED In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

1 NCTD BREEZE Bus Replacement 3,667 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535

2 NCTD BREEZE Engine and Transmission Replacement 0 250 275 275 275

3 NCTD COASTER Vehicle Rehabilitation and Renovation Program 631 3,125 2,510 2,465 1,715

4 NCTD SPRINTER Vehicle Rehabilitation and Renovation Program 1,265 3,258 3,080 2,165 2,925

5 NCTD MOW Rail Replacements 2,153 0 0 0 0

6 NCTD COASTER Mesh System Expansion II 0 0 650 0 0

7 NCTD MOW Crossing Replacements 497 0 0 0 0

8 NCTD SPRINTER Fiber Upgrades Signal Project - PTC Compliance 3,783 39 1,688 0 0

9 NCTD IT Enhancement and Network Upgrades 0 600 750 750 750

10 NCTD General Administration Building Remodel 2,478 0 0 0 0

11 NCTD Fall Protection System 756 0 0 0 0

12 NCTD COASTER Train Maintenance Fall Protection 187 0 0 0 0

13 NCTD Catwalk Exterior Wall 57 0 0 0 0

14 NCTD East Division Parking Expansion 0 1,130 0 0 0

15 NCTD Bridge 243 Strengthening 0 0 0 0 1,657

16 NCTD BREEZE Zonar G3 Upgrade 25 0 0 0 0

17 SANDAG San Onofre Bridge Replacement 3,001 3,703 0 0 0

18 SANDAG Rose Canyon Bridge Replacement 0 0 2,944 6,029 4,143

19 NCTD Compass Card Back Office 500 0 0 0 0

20 NCTD PTC 860 860 0 0 0

FIVE YEAR CIP - CONSTRAINED 19,860 19,860 19,000 19,000 19,000

10 Attachment 3a SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM FY 2016 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM UNFUNDED TRANSIT CAPITAL AND REHABILITATION PROJECTS In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

1 MTS Fare System Upgrades 0 3,460 0 0 0

2 MTS SD100 Replacement 21,600 28,298 30,706 11,059 13,559

3 MTS Bus Stop Improvement - Hollister St./Conifer Av. 33 0 0 0 0

4 MTS Bus Stop Improvement - Hotel Circle South/Bachman Pl. 33 0 0 0 0

5 MTS ADA Paratransit Propane Buses Demonstration 300 0 0 0 0

6 MTS SD100 LED Interior Lighting Retrofit 1,470 0 0 0 0

7 MTS Replacement of 10 CPC substations 4,300 0 0 0 0

8 MTS 25th & Commercial Crossovers - Design 200 0 0 0 0

9 MTS Transit Facility 0 10,000 17,102 15,000 0

10 MTS C-Building Shop Doors Replacement 200 0 0 0 0

11 MTS Replace S70 (3000) Bode ADA Ramps 1,500 0 0 0 0

12 MTS Mobile Learning Deployment and Demonstration 1,200 0 0 0 0

FIVE YEAR CIP - UNFUNDED 30,836 41,758 47,808 26,059 13,559

11 Attachment 3b NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT FY 2016 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM UNFUNDED TRANSIT CAPITAL AND REHABILITATION PROJECTS In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

1 NCTD BREEZE Bus Replacement 3,028 0 0 0 0

2 NCTD MOW Drainage Improvements 200 200 200 200 200

3 NCTD MOW Crossing Replacements 420 377 377 0 0

4 NCTD Signal Upgrades and PTC Related Work 942 837 1,033 1,166 1,095

5 NCTD Bridge Projects 700 690 0 0 0

6 NCTD Planning Studies 125 0 0 0 0 Bus & Rail Support Facility/Equipment Rehabilitation 7 NCTD & Upgrades 6,200 6,112 5,501 3,939 1,909

8 NCTD Non-Revenue Vehicle Replacements 329 414 170 331 125

9 NCTD Rail Stations and Bus Stops Improvements 1,819 1,258 0 0 0

10 NCTD Camp Pendleton Station 0 3,120 9,360 9,360 9,360

11 NCTD Solana Beach Station Parking Expansion 2,000 8,630 8,630 0 0

12 NCTD LIFT Scheduling System Upgrade 250 0 0 0 0

13 NCTD Track and Track Structure Rehabilitation 117 4,649 0 0 0

14 NCTD SPRINTER System Enhancements 0 570 0 0 0

15 NCTD Transit Enforcement Program 435 60 60 42 42

16 NCTD IT-related Improvements & Oracle System Upgrades 3,855 2,000 2,000 1,500 0

17 NCTD LIFT/FLEX Revenue Vehicle Replacements 0 540 0 600 600

18 NCTD Hand Held Fare Enforcement Devices 260 0 0 0 0

19 NCTD Bridge 243 Strengthening 0 0 0 0 595

FIVE YEAR CIP - UNFUNDED 20,679 29,457 27,331 17,139 13,926

12 Attachment 4

401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-22 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org

APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 2014 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2014, SANDAG adopted the 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and found the 2014 RTIP in conformance with the applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), in accordance with California law; and

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) determined the 2014 RTIP and 2050 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region Our Future (2050 RTP) in conformance to the applicable SIPs in accordance with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93; and

WHEREAS, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD) and SANDAG have requested various changes to existing projects for inclusion into the 2014 RTIP as shown in Table 1 (Attachment 5); and

WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning regulations per 23 CFR Part 450; and

WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the 2050 RTP which conforms to the 2002 and 2004 SIPs and to the emissions budgets from the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2008; and

WHEREAS, the regionally significant capacity increasing projects have been incorporated into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the 2050 RTP and the 2014 RTIP; and

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP continues to provide for timely implementation of transportation control measures contained in the adopted RAQS/SIP for air quality and a quantitative emissions analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the RTIP projects and programs meet all the federally required emissions budget targets; and

WHEREAS, projects in Amendment No. 2 satisfy the transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(g) and all applicable transportation planning requirements per 23 CFR Part 450; and

WHEREAS, all other projects in Amendment No. 2 are either non-capacity increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; and

13

WHEREAS, the 2014 RTIP Amendment No. 2 are fiscally constrained as shown in Tables 2a through 2c (Attachment 6); and

WHEREAS, the amendments are consistent with the Public Participation Policy adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors does hereby approve Amendment No. 2 to the 2014 RTIP; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that SANDAG finds the 2014 RTIP, including Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the 2050 RTP, is in conformance with the applicable SIPs, and with the 2009 RAQS for the San Diego region, is consistent with SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures, and is consistent with the SANDAG Public Participation Policy, as amended.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March 2015.

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.

14 Attachment 5 Table 1 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD02 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Preventive Maintenance Project Description: NCTD service area - fixed route, rail fleet and facility maintenance costs

Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $79,349

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,716 $1,716 $1,716 FTA 5307 $28,596 $8,747 $5,475 $5,015 $4,979 $4,379 $28,596 FTA 5337 $33,509 $4,595 $6,715 $7,175 $7,211 $7,811 $33,509 Local Funds $15,528 $3,336 $3,048 $3,048 $3,048 $3,048 $15,528 TOTAL $79,349 $18,394 $15,238 $15,238 $15,238 $15,238 $79,349 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $23,692 $5,889 $5,612 $6,095 $6,095 $23,692 FTA 5337 $30,400 $7,600 $7,600 $7,600 $7,600 $30,400 Local Funds $13,523 $3,372 $3,303 $3,424 $3,424 $13,523 TOTAL $67,615 $16,861 $16,515 $17,119 $17,119 $67,615

MPO ID: NCTD03 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: ADA Paratransit Services Project Description: NCTD service area - operating cost associated with providing ADA/paratransit services Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $22,217

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $2,786 $1,109 $310 $323 $336 $354 $354 $2,786 FTA 5307 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Local Funds $17,431 $7,981 $1,747 $1,821 $1,896 $1,993 $1,993 $17,431 TOTAL $22,217 $11,090 $2,057 $2,144 $2,232 $2,347 $2,347 $22,217 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $2,776 $1,109 $313 $326 $338 $336 $354 $2,776 FTA 5307 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Local Funds $17,334 $7,981 $1,747 $1,821 $1,896 $1,896 $1,993 $17,334 TOTAL $22,110 $11,090 $2,060 $2,147 $2,234 $2,232 $2,347 $22,110

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

15 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD05 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Bus/ADA/ Revenue Vehicle Purchases & Related Equipment Project Description: NCTD service area - purchase replacement vehicles and related equipment; Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) vans and shuttle vehicles Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet Est Total Cost: $33,617

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $26,894 $2,954 $5,717 $5,902 $6,073 $6,248 $26,894 Local Funds $6,723 $738 $1,429 $1,476 $1,518 $1,562 $6,723 TOTAL $33,617 $3,692 $7,146 $7,378 $7,591 $7,810 $33,617 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,509 $1,509 $1,509 FTA 5307 $21,891 $5,743 $6,087 $6,254 $3,806 $21,891 Local Funds $5,510 $1,369 $1,522 $1,669 $951 $5,510 TOTAL $28,910 $8,621 $7,609 $7,923 $4,757 $28,910

MPO ID: NCTD06 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Bus/Rail Support Equipment & Facility Project Description: NCTD service area - facility and support equipment for fixed route and rail services including radio equipment, buildings and structures, shop and garage equipment, computer hardware & software, furnitures and fixtures, service vehicles and solar installations Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase of office, shop and operating equipment for existing facilities Est Total Cost: $28,541

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $16,909 $8,640 $3,183 $1,415 $2,471 $600 $600 $16,909 FTA 5309 (Bus) $332 $332 $332 FTA 5337 $2,137 $2,137 $2,137 Transit Security (TSGP) $1,538 $1,538 $1,538 Local Funds $7,542 $5,474 $796 $354 $618 $150 $150 $7,542 TDA $83 $83 $83 TOTAL $28,541 $18,204 $3,979 $1,769 $3,089 $750 $750 $28,541 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $10,927 $8,640 $440 $523 $378 $946 $10,927 FTA 5309 (Bus) $332 $332 $332 FTA 5337 $3,804 $2,137 $631 $289 $747 $3,804 Transit Security (TSGP) $1,538 $1,538 $1,538 Local Funds $11,275 $5,474 $1,154 $1,517 $1,701 $1,427 $11,275 TDA $83 $83 $83 TOTAL $27,959 $18,204 $2,225 $2,329 $2,826 $2,373 $27,959

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

16 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD16B RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Oceanside to Escondido Rail Operations Project Description: For Sprinter service - debt service payments on $34 million Certificates Of Participation (COP) after construction is completed Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $11,145

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $11,145 $2,343 $2,347 $2,174 $2,180 $2,101 $11,145 TOTAL $11,145 $2,343 $2,347 $2,174 $2,180 $2,101 $11,145 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $13,930 $2,591 $2,722 $2,832 $2,832 $2,952 $13,930 TOTAL $13,930 $2,591 $2,722 $2,832 $2,832 $2,952 $13,930

MPO ID: NCTD18 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Rail - ROW Improvements Project Description: NCTD service area - cross-tie renewal program, street cross protection, rail structure rehabilitation, rail replacement, storage tracks, rail lubricators, at-grade crossing renewal, turnout renewal, rehabilitation of bridges to maintain the track structure in a state of good repair, such as Bridge 243 repair, signal upgrades on right-of-way, and other misc. improvements Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $8,090

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,723 $397 $1,326 $1,723 FTA 5337 $4,749 $4,749 $4,749 Local Funds $1,618 $1,287 $331 $1,618 TOTAL $8,090 $6,433 $1,657 $8,090 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,726 $1,198 $528 $1,726 FTA 5337 $3,965 $792 $1,074 $676 $1,423 $3,965 Local Funds $3,727 $2,572 $268 $372 $515 $3,727 TOTAL $9,418 $4,562 $1,342 $1,048 $2,466 $9,418

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

17 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD20 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Rail Vehicles & Related Equipment Project Description: NCTD service area - locomotive purchase/overhaul, revenue vehicles, misc. support equipment including vehicles, spare components and signal equipment upgrade/replacement and Positive Train Control (PTC) Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet Est Total Cost: $26,305

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $10,691 $1,517 $2,638 $2,464 $1,732 $2,340 $10,691 FTA 5337 $7,820 $2,468 $2,008 $1,972 $1,372 $7,820 Prop 1B - PTMISEA $1,445 $1,445 $1,445 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $1,721 $860 $860 $1,721 Local Funds $4,628 $379 $1,277 $1,118 $926 $928 $4,628 TOTAL $26,305 $4,201 $7,243 $5,590 $4,630 $4,640 $26,305 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $7,630 $1,093 $1,580 $1,657 $3,300 $7,630 FTA 5337 $60 $60 $60 Prop 1B - PTMISEA $1,303 $1,303 $1,303 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $1,721 $860 $860 $1,721 Local Funds $4,713 $273 $1,710 $1,904 $825 $4,713 TOTAL $15,427 $3,529 $4,210 $3,561 $4,125 $15,427

MPO ID: NCTD34 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Expanded Transit Service Project Description: NCTD service area - operating support for existing fixed route and rail transit service, including intercity bus and rural services Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $229,139

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $52,134 $9,361 $9,838 $10,512 $11,172 $11,251 $52,134 FTA 5311 $2,586 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $2,586 STA $28,836 $5,767 $5,767 $5,767 $5,767 $5,767 $28,836 Local Funds $145,583 $26,160 $27,860 $29,287 $31,138 $31,138 $145,583 TOTAL $229,139 $41,805 $43,982 $46,083 $48,594 $48,673 $229,139 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $49,017 $9,220 $9,552 $9,923 $9,923 $10,400 $49,017 FTA 5311 $2,069 $517 $517 $517 $517 $2,069 STA $22,024 $5,506 $5,506 $5,506 $5,506 $22,024 Local Funds $105,792 $23,755 $25,514 $26,336 $30,188 $105,792 TOTAL $178,902 $38,998 $41,089 $42,282 $46,134 $10,400 $178,902

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

18 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN39 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Rail Electrification & Power Distribution 125-00 SANDAG ID: 1142000, 1144400 Project Description: MTS service area - cantenary improvements, substation standardization, and improvements related to fixed guideway electrification and power distribution Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $25,499

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $497 $497 $497 FTA 5307 $6,798 $6,798 $6,798 FTA 5309 (FG) $2,682 $2,682 $2,682 FTA Funds - AR-5307 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Local Funds $951 $951 $951 TDA $2,571 $968 $1,603 $2,571 TOTAL $25,499 $23,399 $497 $1,603 $25,499 * TransNet funds programmed as match in following year for FTA funds PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $497 $497 $497 FTA 5307 $8,081 $6,798 $1,282 $8,081 FTA 5309 (FG) $2,682 $2,682 $2,682 FTA Funds - AR-5307 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Local Funds $951 $951 $951 TDA $1,288 $968 $321 $1,288 TOTAL $25,499 $23,399 $2,100 $25,499

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

19 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN40 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Metropolitan Planning SANDAG ID: 33001, 33201, 33003, 34200 Project Description: Countywide - ongoing regional transportation planning as well as administrative oversight for various TransNet and FTA-funded programs. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Non construction related activities Est Total Cost: $24,223

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $40 $20 $20 $40 TransNet - MC $203 $203 $203 TransNet - SGIP $40 $20 $20 $40 TransNet - SS $62 $42 $20 $62 TransNet - TSI $192 $192 $192 FTA 5307 $19,111 $3,850 $3,815 $3,815 $3,815 $3,815 $19,111 Local Funds $4,575 $760 $954 $954 $954 $954 $4,575 TOTAL $24,223 $5,087 $4,829 $4,769 $4,769 $4,769 $24,223 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $20 $20 $20 TransNet - SGIP $20 $20 $20 TransNet - SS $42 $42 $42 TransNet - TSI $192 $192 $192 FTA 5307 $7,611 $3,806 $3,806 $7,611 Local Funds $1,903 $951 $951 $1,903 TOTAL $9,788 $5,031 $4,757 $9,788

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

20 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN114 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Grouped Projects for Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of Track Structures , SANDAG ID: 1239803, Track, and Trackbed in Exisiting Rights-of-Way: Coastal Rail Corridor 1239805, 1239808, 1239810, 1239813, 1239814, 1239815, Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 93.126 and 93.127 Exempt 1239816 Tables 2 and 3 categories: rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing right-of-way (non-capacity increasing)- from Oceanside to San Diego along the Coastal Rail Corridor; design track improvements Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $209,027

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $146,036 $11,566 $6,769 $17,586 $38,295 $45,777 $26,043 $146,036 CMAQ $27,419 $27,419 $27,419 FTA 5307 $945 $945 $945 FTA 5339 $5,720 $5,720 $5,720 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 Other Fed - ARRA - FRA $10,335 $10,335 $10,335 RSTP $10,771 $10,771 $10,771 Prop. 116 $501 $501 $501 TOTAL $209,027 $67,892 $13,434 $17,586 $38,295 $45,777 $26,043 $209,027 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $151,199 $12,317 $8,367 $25,527 $33,170 $45,775 $26,043 $151,199 CMAQ $27,419 $27,419 $27,419 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 Other Fed - ARRA - FRA $10,335 $10,335 $10,335 RSTP $10,771 $10,771 $10,771 Prop. 116 $501 $501 $501 TOTAL $207,525 $68,643 $8,367 $25,527 $33,170 $45,775 $26,043 $207,525

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

21 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN199 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Rose Canyon Bridge Replacements SANDAG ID: 1145300 Project Description: From MP 257.2 to MP 254.7 - replace four aging timber trestle railway bridges in order to maintain compliance with FRA bridge standards for state of good repair and support intercity, commuter and freight rail services in a segment of the nations second busiest rail corridor. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $14,534

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $11,546 $1,053 $2,355 $4,823 $3,314 $1,053 $10,493 TDA $2,988 $365 $589 $1,206 $829 $365 $2,623 TOTAL $14,534 $1,418 $2,944 $6,029 $4,143 $1,418 $13,116 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $8,921 $1,053 $2,623 $2,623 $2,623 $2,239 $6,682 TDA $2,333 $365 $656 $656 $656 $662 $1,671 TOTAL $11,254 $1,418 $3,279 $3,279 $3,279 $2,901 $8,353

MPO ID: SAN200 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: San Onofre Bridge Replacement SANDAG ID: 1145400 Project Description: From MP 207.6 to MP 209.9 - replace three aging timber trestle railway bridges in order to maintain compliance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards and support intercity, commuter and freight rail services in the second busiest rail corridor in the nation Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $13,641

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $10,047 $4,684 $2,400 $2,962 $217 $9,830 TDA $2,511 $1,171 $600 $741 $54 $2,457 TOTAL $12,558 $5,855 $3,000 $3,703 $271 $12,287 * An additional $1.08M contributed from previous FTA grants PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $10,913 $9,166 $582 $872 $292 $217 $10,696 TDA $2,728 $2,292 $145 $218 $73 $54 $2,674 TOTAL $13,641 $11,458 $727 $1,090 $365 $271 $13,370

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

22 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS23A RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Transit Service Operations Project Description: MTS service area - Operating support for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Paratransit bus service Change Reason: Reduce funding, Revise project description Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $41,821

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $16,510 $16,510 $16,510 FTA 5307 $21,140 $4,456 $4,171 $4,171 $4,171 $4,171 $21,140 TDA $4,171 $1,043 $1,043 $1,043 $1,043 $4,171 TOTAL $41,821 $20,966 $5,214 $5,214 $5,214 $5,214 $41,821 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-01 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $156,382 $28,859 $29,981 $31,157 $32,379 $34,006 $156,382 FTA 5307 $16,144 $4,036 $4,036 $4,036 $4,036 $16,144 TDA $16,144 $4,036 $4,036 $4,036 $4,036 $16,144 TOTAL $188,670 $36,931 $38,053 $39,229 $40,451 $34,006 $188,670

MPO ID: MTS28 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Bus & Rail Rolling Stock purchases and Rehabilitations Project Description: MTS service area - purchase replacement buses, replacement Light Rail Vehicles, procurement of materials and services for the rehabilitation or retrofit of mechanical components, electrical components, and coach bodies of Light Rail Vehicles and buses Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet Est Total Cost: $217,086

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $3,544 $3,544 $3,544 TransNet - TSI Carry Over $2,247 $2,247 $2,247 FTA 5307 $58,110 $13,234 $11,219 $11,219 $11,219 $11,219 $58,110 FTA 5309 (Bus) $18,054 $18,054 $18,054 STA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Local Funds $1,461 $1,461 $1,461 TDA $123,670 $29,233 $10,618 $15,675 $35,322 $32,822 $123,670 TOTAL $217,086 $77,773 $21,837 $26,894 $46,541 $44,041 $217,086 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-01 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI Carry Over $2,247 $2,247 $2,247 FTA 5307 $42,314 $9,617 $10,899 $10,899 $10,899 $42,314 FTA 5309 (Bus) $18,054 $18,054 $18,054 TDA $112,069 $29,177 $19,505 $22,695 $40,691 $112,069 TOTAL $174,684 $59,095 $30,404 $33,594 $51,590 $174,684

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

23 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS29 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Bus and Fixed Guideways Station Stops and Terminals Project Description: MTS service area - maintenance, improvements, upgrades, and retrofits of bus and trolley stations and stops throughout the San Diego area Change Reason: Carry over from 12-30 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $12,285

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,838 $944 $894 $1,838 FTA 5309 (Bus) $347 $347 $347 FTA 5309 (FG) $528 $528 $528 FTA 5311 $39 $39 $39 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $1,008 $1,008 $1,008 STA $1,010 $1,010 $1,010 Local Funds $610 $137 $473 $610 TDA $6,905 $2,673 $582 $3,650 $6,905 TOTAL $12,285 $6,686 $1,949 $3,650 $12,285 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 12-30 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $944 $944 $944 FTA 5309 (Bus) $347 $347 $347 FTA 5309 (FG) $528 $528 $528 FTA 5311 $39 $39 $39 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $1,008 $1,008 $1,008 STA $1,010 $1,010 $1,010 Local Funds $137 $137 $137 TDA $2,673 $2,673 $2,673 TOTAL $6,686 $6,686 $6,686

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

24 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS30 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Bus/Rail Support Facilities and Equipment EARMARK NO: D2012-BUSP-054 Project Description: MTS facilities throughout the MTS service area - install security cameras on bus/rail rolling stock and at bus/rail facilities and stations; Southbay and East County bus maintenance facility expansions and upgrades including: land acquisition, Site development plans, building demolition and remodeling, fencing, lot paving, and storm water pollution prevention program compliance; other misc capital equipment for transit maintenance; design and procurement of materials and services for support equipment Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase of office, shop and operating equipment for existing facilities Est Total Cost: $57,447

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON STA $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 Local Funds $731 $731 $731 TDA $52,816 $10,583 $17,829 $16,404 $2,750 $5,250 $52,816 TOTAL $57,447 $15,214 $17,829 $16,404 $2,750 $5,250 $57,447 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,375 $1,375 $1,375 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $7,558 $2,000 $2,779 $2,779 $7,558 TDA $66,779 $13,487 $24,356 $23,466 $5,470 $66,779 TOTAL $75,712 $16,862 $27,135 $26,245 $5,470 $75,712

MPO ID: MTS31 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Rail Electrification and Power Project Description: Along Blue Line Right-Of-Way (ROW) - Substation DC Feeder Breaker Replacement; Baltimore Power Switch Replacement Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $23,546

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON STA $1,746 $1,746 $1,746 TDA $21,800 $6,600 $6,600 $4,300 $4,300 $21,800 TOTAL $23,546 $1,746 $6,600 $6,600 $4,300 $4,300 $23,546 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON STA $1,746 $1,746 $1,746 TDA $4,600 $2,300 $2,300 $4,600 TOTAL $6,346 $1,746 $2,300 $2,300 $6,346

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

25 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS32A RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Preventive Maintenance Project Description: MTS service area - maintenance of equipment, rolling stock, and facilities for bus and rail systems Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $380,578

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $140,578 $12,344 $30,692 $31,157 $32,379 $34,006 $140,578 FTA 5307 $131,248 $25,976 $26,318 $26,318 $26,318 $26,318 $131,248 FTA 5337 $108,752 $22,024 $21,682 $21,682 $21,682 $21,682 $108,752 TOTAL $380,578 $60,344 $78,692 $79,157 $80,379 $82,006 $380,578 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $98,640 $24,660 $24,660 $24,660 $24,660 $98,640 FTA 5337 $85,360 $21,340 $21,340 $21,340 $21,340 $85,360 TDA $46,000 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $46,000 TOTAL $230,000 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $230,000

MPO ID: MTS33A RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Senior Disabled Program Project Description: MTS service area - subsidy for senior and disabled as required by TransNet Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $6,905

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $6,872 $2,704 $766 $814 $827 $859 $902 $6,872 TransNet - ADA Carryover $33 $33 $33 TOTAL $6,905 $2,737 $766 $814 $827 $859 $902 $6,905 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $6,853 $2,704 $766 $795 $827 $859 $902 $6,853 TransNet - ADA Carryover $33 $33 $33 TOTAL $6,886 $2,737 $766 $795 $827 $859 $902 $6,886

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

26 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS34 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Bus Signal and Communications Equipment Project Description: MTS service area - rehabilitation of light rail vehicles (LRV), electronic control circuit (U2), LRV HVAC retrofit, rehabilitate traction motor phase II and pilot motor control unit drive, LRV tires; design and implement new ITS to replace failing radio/CAD and scheduling system Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $31,993

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $3,116 $3,116 $3,116 FTA 5309 (Bus) $800 $800 $800 FTA 5309 (FG) $120 $120 $120 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $8,337 $2,779 $2,779 $2,779 $8,337 STA $2,446 $2,446 $2,446 Local Funds $765 $765 $765 TDA $16,409 $11,081 $2,518 $480 $110 $1,110 $1,110 $16,409 TOTAL $31,993 $18,328 $5,297 $3,259 $2,889 $1,110 $1,110 $31,993 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $3,116 $3,116 $3,116 FTA 5309 (Bus) $800 $800 $800 FTA 5309 (FG) $120 $120 $120 STA $2,446 $2,446 $2,446 Local Funds $765 $765 $765 TDA $11,337 $11,081 $256 $11,337 TOTAL $18,584 $18,328 $256 $18,584

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

27 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS35 RTIP #:14-02

Project Title: Fixed Guideway Transitways/Lines Project Description: MTS service area - Rail infrastructure maintenance and upgrades including rail tie replacement, WYE switch indicator standardization, rail file grinding, and traction motor disconnects Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $22,750

TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $622 $622 $622 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $800 $800 $800 STA $2,165 $2,165 $2,165 Local Funds $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 TDA $18,163 $1,653 $2,707 $6,110 $5,693 $1,000 $1,000 $18,163 TOTAL $22,750 $5,240 $3,707 $6,110 $5,693 $1,000 $1,000 $22,750 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-00 TOTAL PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $622 $622 $622 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $800 $800 $800 STA $2,165 $2,165 $2,165 TDA $7,003 $1,653 $2,350 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $7,003 TOTAL $10,590 $5,240 $2,350 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $10,590

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

28 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2 San Diego Region (in $000s)

RTIP Fund Types

Federal Funding ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Federal Stimulus Program) CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality FRA-ARRA Federal Railroad Administration (Federal Stimulus) FRA-PRIIA Federal Railroad Administration Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 FTA Section 5307 Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program FTA Section 5309 (Bus) Federal Transit Administration Discretionary Program FTA Section 5309 (FG) Federal Transit Administration Fixed Guideway Modernization Formula program FTA Section 5311 Federal Transit Administration Rural Program FTA Section 5337 Federal Transit Administration State of Good Repair Grant Program FTA Section 5339 Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grant Program IM Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ITS Intelligent Transportation System RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program TSGP Transit Security Grant Program CMAQ/RSTP Conversion Reimbursement of advanced federal funds which have been advanced with local funds in earlier years State Funding Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy Fund PTMISEA Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (State Prop 1B) STA State Transit Assistance TSGP Transit Security Grant Program (State Prop. 1B) TSGP Transit Security Grant Program (State Prop. 1B) Local Funding Local Funds AC Local Funds - Advanced Construction; mechanism to advance local funds to be reimbursed at a later fiscal year with federal/state funds TDA Transportation Development Act TDA-B Transportation Development Act-Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities TransNet-ADA Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit TransNet-B Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Bike TransNet-BPNS Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax extension - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program TransNet-MC Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Major Corridors TransNet-MC AC TransNet - Major Corridors - Advanced Construction; mechanism to advance TransNet funds to be reimbursed at a later fiscal year with federal/state funds TransNet-SS Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Senior Services TransNet-T Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit TransNet-TSI Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax- Transit System Improvements

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

29 TABLE 2a: Revenues San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Attachment 6 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) Amendment No. 2

2014/2015 2015/20162016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 TOTAL Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Sales Tax $567,279 $569,634 $537,972 $535,634 $483,704 $495,329 $437,974 $445,611 $793,550 $807,554 $4,564,831 -- County $567,279 $569,634 $537,972 $535,634 $483,704 $495,329 $437,974 $445,611 $793,550 $807,554 $4,564,831 Other Local Funds $608,106 $611,771 $90,890 $91,085 $90,078 $91,031 $47,661 $48,615 $72,554 $73,508 $1,273,301 -- County General Funds -- City General Funds $35,074 $38,739 $80,018 $80,212 $86,092 $87,045 $25,990 $26,944 $24,359 $25,313 $486,495 -- Street Taxes and Developer Fees $573,032 $573,032 $10,872 $10,872 $3,986 $3,986 $21,671 $21,671 $48,195 $48,195 $786,806 -- RSTP Exchange funds Other $156,555 $138,560 $101,800 $85,241 $103,811 $88,242 $102,068 $85,648 $1,993 $85,504 $1,020,663 Local Total $1,331,940 $1,319,965 $730,662 $711,960 $677,593 $674,603 $587,703 $579,874 $868,097 $966,565 $6,858,795 State Highway Operations and Protection Program $119,101 $119,101 $154,052 $154,052 $127,713 $127,713 $42,188 $42,188 $474,966 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $119,101 $119,101 $154,052 $154,052 $127,713 $127,713 $42,188 $42,188 $474,966 SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program $27,021 $27,021 $100,236 $100,236 $37,105 $37,105 $50,105 $50,105 $1,105 $1,105 $550,759 STIP (Including Augmentation) $27,021 $27,021 $100,236 $100,236 $37,105 $37,105 $50,105 $50,105 $1,105 $1,105 $520,601 Transportation Enhancement $6,223 STIP Prior $22,562 Transportation Enhancement $1,373 Proposition 1 A $99,698 STATE LOCAL Proposition 1 B $24,184 $25,106 $3,639 $3,639 $2,779 $2,779 $1,007 $1,007 $782,613 GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $2,713 $2,713 $2,713 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $2,752 $2,752 $63,023 $63,023 $209,428 State Transit Assistance (e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $26,347 $40,508 $5,506 $5,767 $5,506 $5,767 $5,506 $5,767 $5,767 $110,754 Active Transportation Program $16,971 $16,971 $9,076 $9,076 $26,047 Other $2,944 $2,944 $2,896 $2,896 $2,896 $2,896 $16,401 State Total $219,281 $234,363 $278,157 $278,419 $239,022 $239,283 $97,799 $98,060 $2,112 $7,879 $2,470,379 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $62,344 $68,554 $61,659 $64,690 $61,659 $64,690 $61,659 $64,690 $64,690 $709,288 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program $1,565 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,398 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $543,731 $543,731 $867,062 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $18,054 $18,054 $49,725 5310 - Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $8,102 5316 - Job Access and Reverse Commute Program $1,556 5317 - New Freedom $826

FEDERAL TRANSIT 5337 - State of Good Repair $30,363 $31,368 $30,363 $30,865 $30,363 $30,865 $30,363 $30,865 $30,865 $213,124 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $5,720 $10,407 Other $100,576 Federal Transit Total $111,278 $124,212 $192,539 $196,073 $192,539 $196,073 $192,539 $196,073 $543,731 $639,804 $2,061,629 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $28,587 $28,587 $31,287 $31,287 $31,287 $31,287 $26,090 $26,090 $31,287 $31,287 $405,822 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $14,736 $14,736 $81,894 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) Federal Lands Highway Ferry Boat Discretionary High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $4,716 $4,716 $2,436 $2,436 $68,580 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $6,325 $6,325 $30,723 $30,723 $14,000 $14,000 $10,881 $10,881 $215,120 $215,120 $344,136 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $3,143 $3,143 $8,906 $8,906 $3,059 $3,059 $16,937 National Scenic Byways Program Public Lands Highway Railway Highway Crossings Recreational Trails $389 $389 $644 FEDERAL HIGHWAY Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $18,102 $18,102 $18,101 $18,101 $36,966 $36,966 $36,966 $36,966 $36,966 $36,966 $581,868 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program $719 $719 $3,266 Tribal High Priority Projects (THPP) Tribal Transportation Program Other $170,067 Federal Highway Total $76,717 $76,717 $96,390 $96,390 $85,312 $85,311 $73,937 $73,937 $283,373 $283,372 $1,678,152 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $24,242 Other FRA Federal Railroad Administration Total $24,242 Federal Total $187,995 $200,930 $288,929 $292,463 $277,851 $281,384 $266,476 $270,010 $827,104 $923,175 $3,764,023 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) VE VATI FINA

INNO Innovative Financing Total REVENUES TOTAL $1,739,216 $1,755,259 $1,297,748 $1,282,842 $1,194,466 $1,195,269 $951,978 $947,944 $1,697,313 $1,897,620 $13,083,205

Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment

30 TABLE 2b: Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) Amendment No. 2

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 TOTAL Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current

Local Total $1,305,670 $1,293,580 $713,622 $690,013 $653,530 $643,969 $542,459 $527,609 $834,153 $918,618 $6,688,238 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program $119,101 $119,101 $154,052 $154,052 $127,713 $127,713 $42,188 $42,188 $474,966 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $119,101 $119,101 $154,052 $154,052 $127,713 $127,713 $42,188 $42,188 $474,966 SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program $27,021 $27,021 $100,236 $100,236 $37,105 $37,105 $50,105 $50,105 $1,105 $1,105 $550,759 STIP (Including Augmentation) $27,021 $27,021 $100,236 $100,236 $37,105 $37,105 $50,105 $50,105 $1,105 $1,105 $520,601 Transportation Enhancement $6,223 STIP Prior $22,562 Proposition 1 A $99,698 Proposition 1 B $24,184 $25,106 $3,639 $3,639 $2,779 $2,779 $1,007 $1,007 $782,613 STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $2,713 $2,713 $2,713 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $2,752 $2,752 $63,023 $63,023 $209,428 State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $26,347 $40,508 $5,506 $5,767 $5,506 $5,767 $5,506 $5,767 $5,767 $110,754 Active Transportation Program $16,971 $16,971 $9,076 $9,076 $26,047 State Emergency Repair Program Other $2,944 $2,944 $2,896 $2,896 $2,896 $2,896 $16,401 State Total $219,281 $234,363 $278,157 $278,419 $239,022 $239,283 $97,799 $98,060 $2,112 $7,879 $2,470,379 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $62,344 $68,554 $60,698 $63,730 $56,894 $63,730 $54,270 $63,730 $63,730 $695,213 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program $1,565 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,398 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $543,731 $543,731 $867,062 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $18,054 $18,054 $49,725 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $517 $8,102 5312 - National Research and Technology Program 5311f - Intercity Bus 5316 - Job Access and Reverse Commute Program $1,556

FEDERAL TRANSIT 5317 - New Freedom $826 5337 - State of Good Repair $30,363 $31,368 $30,363 $30,865 $30,363 $30,865 $30,363 $30,865 $30,865 $213,124 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $5,720 $10,407 Other $100,576 Federal Transit Total $111,278 $124,212 $191,578 $195,113 $187,774 $195,113 $185,150 $195,113 $543,731 $638,844 $2,047,554 Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $28,587 $28,587 $31,287 $31,287 $31,287 $31,287 $26,090 $26,090 $31,287 $31,287 $405,822 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $14,736 $14,736 $81,894 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) Federal Lands Highway Ferry Boat Discretionary High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $4,716 $4,716 $2,436 $2,436 $68,580 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $6,325 $6,325 $30,723 $30,723 $14,000 $14,000 $10,881 $10,881 $215,120 $215,120 $344,136 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $3,143 $3,143 $8,906 $8,906 $3,059 $3,059 $16,937 National Scenic Byways Program Projects of National/Regional Significance (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1301) Public Lands Highway

FEDERAL HIGHWAY Railway (Section 130) Recreational Trails $389 $389 $644 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $18,102 $18,102 $18,101 $18,101 $36,966 $36,966 $36,966 $36,966 $14,153 $14,153 $559,056 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program $719 $719 $3,266 Transportation Improvements (TI) Other $170,067 Federal Highway Total $76,717 $76,717 $96,390 $96,390 $85,312 $85,311 $73,937 $73,937 $260,560 $260,559 $1,655,340 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $24,242 Other FRA Federal Railroad Administration Total $24,242

Federal Total $187,995 $200,930 $287,968 $291,503 $273,086 $280,424 $259,087 $269,050 $804,291 $899,403 $3,727,136 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) INN TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total PROGRAM TOTAL $1,712,946 $1,728,874 $1,279,747 $1,259,934 $1,165,638 $1,163,676 $899,345 $894,720 $1,640,556 $1,825,900 $12,885,753

Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment

31 TABLE 2c: Revenues versus Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) Amendment No. 2

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 TOTAL Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current

Local Total $26,270 $26,385 $17,040 $21,947 $24,063 $30,634 $45,244 $52,265 $33,944 $47,947 $179,178 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program SHOPP (Including Augmentation) SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program STIP (Including Augmentation) Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior Proposition 1 A Proposition 1 B STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) Highway Maintenance (HM) Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) Active Transportation Program State Emergency Repair Program Other State Total 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $961 $960 $4,765 $960 $7,389 $960 $960 $3,840 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program 5311c - Public Transportation on Indian Reservation 5312 - National Research and Technology Program 5316 - Job Access and Reverse Commute Program

FEDERAL TRANSIT 5317 - New Freedom 5337 - State of Good Repair 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program Other Federal Transit Total $961 $960 $4,765 $960 $7,389 $960 $960 $3,840 Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) Federal Lands Highway Ferry Boat Discretionary High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) National Scenic Byways Program Projects of National/Regional Significance (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1301) Public Lands Highway

FEDERAL HIGHWAY Railway (Section 130) Recreational Trails Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $22,813 $22,813 $22,813 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program Transportation Improvements (TI) Other Federal Highway Total $22,813 $22,813 $22,813 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA)

FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total Federal Total $961 $960 $4,765 $960 $7,389 $22,813 $23,773 $48,506 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) INN TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total REVENUES - PROGRAM TOTAL $26,270 $26,385 $18,001 $22,907 $28,828 $31,593 $52,633 $75,078 $33,944 $71,720 $227,683

32

AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-6 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

DRAFT FY 2014 TransNet FISCAL AND File Number 1500200 COMPLIANCE AUDITS: INITIAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) has the responsibility to conduct the annual fiscal and compliance audits of TransNet recipients. The TransNet Extension Ordinance also requires the ITOC to share the initial audit findings and its recommendations with the Transportation Committee 60 days prior to its release to resolve any inconsistencies and technical issues.

On March 11, 2015, the ITOC reviewed and accepted the initial findings and recommendations of the FY 2014 TransNet fiscal and compliance audits conducted by the independent certified public accounting firm of Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM). ITOC Member Carolyn Lee and MHM staff will present the initial audit findings and recommendations to the Transportation Committee.

Discussion

The TransNet Extension Ordinance requires an independent annual fiscal and compliance audit of each recipient of TransNet funds. SANDAG Board Policy No. 031: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules, contains several rules regarding the administration of the TransNet Program, including procedures for the fiscal and compliance audits. The independent certified public accounting firm of MHM performed the audits of the FY 2014 TransNet sales tax revenue recipient agencies using the agreed-upon procedures approved by the ITOC, which include requirements specific to the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 031.

Attachment 1 includes a summary of results of the independent auditor’s report of the FY 2014 fiscal and compliance audits.

The TransNet Extension Ordinance also requires the ITOC to prepare an annual report to the Board of Directors presenting the results of the annual audit process. The annual report includes an assessment of the consistency of the expenditures of TransNet funds with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and any recommendations for improving the financial operation and integrity of the program for consideration by the Board of Directors. Following Transportation Committee review, the ITOC will make any final amendments it deems appropriate to the FY 2014 fiscal and compliance audit report and recommendations, and it will adopt the annual ITOC report for submission to the Board of Directors and the public.

Request for Exception to TransNet Extension Ordinance Requirement

The FY 2014 TransNet compliance audit resulted in a finding for the North County Transit District (NCTD) and the City of National City, which would require Board of Directors approval of an exception to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 7 of the March 20, 2015, Transportation Committee agenda (FY 2014 Requests for Exception to TransNet Extension Ordinance Requirements) addresses the request for exception for NCTD and the City of National City.

Next Steps

The following are key next steps for completion of the TransNet FY 2014 fiscal and compliance audit cycle.

• March 27, 2015, Board of Directors meeting: Request for exception for NCTD and the City of National City

• June 10, 2015, ITOC meeting: Issuance of the final audit reports and adoption of the 2015 ITOC Annual Report, including the results of the annual audit and its process

• June 26, 2015, Board of Directors meeting: Presentation of the 2015 ITOC Annual Report

ANDRÉ DOUZDJIAN Director of Finance

Attachment: 1. Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, Summary of Results of TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities, for the year ended June 30, 2014

Note: The full report of the independent auditor’s FY 2014 audit report and draft FY 2014 audit reports for recipient agencies in electronic format can be downloaded at http://www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_3985_18801.pdf

Key Staff Contact: Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, (619) 699-1942, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

Year Ended June 30, 2014

3 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

Year Ended June 30, 2014

Table of Contents

Page Background 1

Scope of Engagement 1

Results of Procedures: TransNet and TransNet Extension Expenditures 2 Maintenance of Effort (MOE) 3 SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule #17, Section IV, Local Agency Balance Limitations (30% Rule) 3 Local Street Improvements – Congestion Relief vs. Maintenance 4 Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) 5 Transit Operator Eligibility for Receipt of Funds 6 Indirect Cost Allocated to Projects in RTIP 6

Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency 7

Attachment A: Compliance with Maintenance of Effort Requirement 8

Attachment B: Compliance with 30% Fund Balance Limitation 9

Attachment C: Compliance with Allocation of Local Street Improvements Revenues 10

4 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

Year Ended June 30, 2014

Background

TransNet is the half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects that was first approved by voters in 1988. In 2004, the San Diego voters renewed their commitment to the region's transportation improvement program by approving Proposition A, implemented through the Extension Ordinance, and continuing an existing half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 40 years. Administered by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the program has been instrumental in expanding the region's transportation system, reducing traffic congestion, and bringing critical transportation programs to life.

Scope of the Engagement

This engagement was to apply agreed-upon procedures in order to assist the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) and SANDAG in determining whether the recipients of TransNet funds were in compliance with the TransNet Ordinance and the TransNet Extension Ordinance for the year ended June 30, 2014. We performed the procedures in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

In accordance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule #17, Section I, fiscal and compliance audit procedures are to be completed in a timely manner. The Policy recommends that the auditors issue a report of compliance audit results and present them to the ITOC.

The following are the major compliance components included in the scope of the procedures:

• TransNet and TransNet Extension Expenditures; • Maintenance of Effort (MOE); • SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 17, Section IV, Local Agency Balance Limitations (30% Rule); • Local Street improvements – Congestion Relief vs. Maintenance; • Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP); and • Transit Operator eligibility for receipt of funds.

The procedures performed were approved by the ITOC prior to commencing fieldwork. The sufficiency of those procedures is solely the responsibility of the ITOC. The specific procedures performed and the results of those procedures are included in each of the draft reports for the recipient agencies. Following approval of the procedures, we scheduled and performed our fieldwork during the months of August 2014 through February 2015.

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 1 5 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

(Continued)

Results of Procedures

TransNet and TransNet Extension Expenditures

As required by SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, each recipient agency is required to account for TransNet activities in a separate fund, or if an alternative approach is used, it must be approved by SANDAG. All recipient agencies complied with this requirement.

During our fieldwork, we obtained the following items:

• Trial balance including balance sheet and income statements;

• Detailed general ledger including revenue and expenditure details;

• Schedule A – Schedule of Status of Funds by Project; and

• Schedule B – Cumulative Schedule of Status of Funds by Project.

The objectives of the procedures were to ensure the following:

• Expenditures were allowable in accordance with the TransNet Ordinance and TransNet Extension Ordinance;

• Revenues were recorded and agreed to SANDAG's payment records;

• Interest income allocation methodology was reasonable;

• Explanations were obtained and disclosed for projects that had a negative balance; and

• Proper approvals were obtained for inter-project transfers.

Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies were in compliance with the revenue and expenditure requirements. In addition, the following City’s are in the process of obtaining proper approvals for inter-project transfers during the draft report period. The Cities anticipate obtaining all approvals and be in compliance prior to issuing the final reports.

• City of Chula Vista • City of Poway • City of San Marcos

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 2 6 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

(Continued)

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)

In accordance with Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, each recipient agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain, at a minimum, the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years completed prior to the operative date of the TransNet Extension Ordinance (FY 2001 through FY 2003), as was reported in the State Controller’s Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Street and Roads, and as re-indexed in FY 2009.

During our fieldwork, we obtained the following items:

• From SANDAG, the current MOE requirements for each recipient agency subject to this requirement; and

• From the recipient agencies, Schedule 3 of the Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads.

Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies, with the exception of the City of National City, were in compliance with the MOE requirements for the year ended June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2013, the City of Vista had an outstanding unmet MOE requirement in the amount of $57,072. The City of Vista had committed to eliminating its unmet MOE by June 30, 2015. As of June 30, 2014, the City of Vista has resolved the issue and eliminated the unmet MOE. See the Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency section of this report (page 7). Also, see Attachment A for a summary of compliance with the MOE requirements.

SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule #17, Section IV, Local Agency Balance Limitations (30% Rule)

In accordance with the 30% Rule, a recipient agency that maintains a balance of more than 30 percent of its annual apportionment (after debt service payments) must use the remaining balance to fund projects. SANDAG will defer payment until the recipient agency’s Director of Finance, or equivalent, submits a certification that the unused balance has fallen below the 30 percent threshold, and will remain below the threshold until such time that a new threshold is determined.

The objectives of the procedures were to ensure that the recipient agency’s TransNet fund balance for those programs that receive funding from the annual apportionment (Local Streets and Roads, Local Street Improvements, and Transit Services) is not more than 30% of the recipient agency’s current year annual apportionment (net of debt service payments).

In order to ensure compliance with the 30% Rule, we performed the following:

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 3 7 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

(Continued)

• Obtained the schedule of annual apportionments from SANDAG;

• Obtained and reviewed the fund balance of the programs that received annual allocations; and

• Compared the fund balance of the programs noted above to the apportionment schedule to ensure the excess fund balance did not exceed the 30% threshold.

Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies, with the exception of those noted below, were in compliance with the 30% Rule:

• City of Carlsbad • City of Imperial Beach • City of National City • City of Oceanside

These instances of non-compliance were reported for informational purposes only and not as a finding. However, SANDAG continued to defer payments to these agencies until they were in compliance with the 30% rule. The Cities of Imperial Beach, National City and Oceanside were also in non-compliance for the year ended June 30, 2013. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, there were four agencies that were not in compliance with this requirement. See Attachment B for a summary of compliance with the 30% Rule.

Local Street Improvements – Congestion Relief vs. Maintenance

As specified in Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, at least 70% of the revenues provided for local street and road purposes should be used for congestion relief, and no more than 30% for maintenance. In order to ensure SANDAG is in compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, we performed the following:

• Inquired and obtained source data used to calculate the Local Street Improvements Allocation Schedule in SANDAG’s TTrak program (SANDAG’s TransNet tracking program) and recalculated the total fund distribution per jurisdiction; and

• Reviewed the FY 2014 TransNet Streets and Road Fund Allocation Schedule and determined that at least 70% of the revenues provided for local street and road purposes were used for congestion relief purposes and that no more than 30% were used for maintenance purposes.

Based upon the results of the procedures performed, SANDAG was in compliance with the Local Street Improvement requirements. See Attachment C for the Local Street Improvement allocation between congestion relief and maintenance, by recipient agency.

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 4 8 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

(Continued)

Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP)

In accordance with Section 9(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, each local agency in the San Diego region shall contribute a minimum of $2,000, subject to an annual adjustment based upon an index, in exactions from the private sector, for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to the RTCIP. However, each jurisdiction may use their own fee schedule, as long as the fees are at a minimum the adjusted amount as approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors annually. The RTCIP revenue is to be used to construct improvements to the Regional Arterial System.

The objectives of the procedures were to ensure the following:

• Each recipient agency collected at least the minimum exaction fee of $2,209 from each newly constructed residential housing unit;

• Documentation was submitted to the ITOC on a timely basis and proper approval was obtained for the exaction fee; and

• Expenditures were allowable in accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.

In order to ensure compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, we performed the following:

• Obtained a detailed general ledger from the recipient agencies;

• Obtained the RTCIP approved schedule for collecting and/or contributing private sector exactions;

• Obtained the RTCIP schedule (Schedule C of the associated reports) including beginning balance, exactions collected, interest earned, expenditures, and ending balance;

• Verified that the exaction fee being collected was approved by the City Council or Board of Supervisors and is in compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 031; and

• Verified that expenditures, if any, complied with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 031.

Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies, with the exception of the Cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach were in compliance with the RTCIP requirements. The Cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach were collecting amounts less than the minimum approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors, and have taken appropriate steps according to SANDAG board policy No. 31 to collect the RTCIP revenue shortfall.

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 5 9 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

(Continued)

Transit Operator Eligibility for Receipt of Funds

In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, in order for transit operators to maintain eligibility for receipt of funds, the operator must limit the increase in its total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus or revenue vehicle mile for rail services from one fiscal year to the next, to no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego County over the same period.

In order to ensure compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, we performed the following:

• Calculated the increase in operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services and revenue vehicle mile for rail services between June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014;

• Calculated the increase in the CPI for San Diego County between June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014; and

• Compared the increase in total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services, and revenue vehicle mile for rail services, to the increase in the CPI.

North County Transit District (NCTD) was not in compliance with the bus operator eligibility requirements. See the Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency section of this report (page 7).

Indirect Cost Allocated to Projects in RTIP

At the request of the ITOC, we inquired of management whether indirect costs are allocated to the projects included in the RTIP. If so, we documented the indirect cost rate allocated and the basis of allocation. We documented whether the recipient agency’s indirect cost plan had been reviewed by a cognizant agency. If not, then we documented the year the indirect cost plan was last updated, the year the methodology was last reviewed, and whether the methodology was reasonable. The following cities or agencies allocated indirect costs to projects included in the RTIP. See Procedure (6)(e)(v) in the associated reports attached for indirect cost rate allocated and the basis of allocation.

If Not Reviewed by Cognizant Agency Indirect Costs Approved Year Last Methodology Agency by Cognizant Agency Reviewed Reasonable Caltrans Yes n/a n/a City of Chula Vista No 2012 Yes City of Escondido No 2014 Yes City of La Mesa No 2012 Yes City of San Diego Yes n/a n/a

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 6 10 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities

Summary of Results

(Continued)

If Not Reviewed by Cognizant Agency Indirect Costs Approved Year Last Methodology Agency by Cognizant Agency Reviewed Reasonable City of Santee No 2014 Yes County of San Diego No 2014 Yes SANDAG Yes n/a n/a MTS Yes n/a n/a

Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency

The following findings were identified during performance of the agreed-upon procedures.

Recipient Agency Finding City of Coronado City did not collect the approved exaction fee City of Imperial Beach City did not collect the approved exaction fee City of National City MOE requirement not met North County Transit District Increase in vehicle revenue hours exceeded increase in CPI

Responses from the recipient agencies to the findings identified are included in the individual recipient agency reports.

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. 7 11 Attachment A Compliance With Maintenance of Effort Requirement

Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2011 Specialized Transit In Streets and Deficit In Deficit In Deficit In Deficit Transportation Bus Compliance Roads Amount Compliance Amount Compliance Amount Compliance Amount Services Subsidies Carlsbad Yes $5,564,996 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Chula Vista Yes $3,749,587 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Coronado Yes $778,768 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Del Mar Yes $418,597 $19,288 N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A No $25,560 El Cajon Yes $1,595,336 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Encinitas Yes $1,892,771 $52 N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Escondido Yes $2,880,601 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Imperial Beach Yes $247,546 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A La Mesa Yes $1,738,723 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Lemon Grove Yes $167,474 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A National City No $1,658,957 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Oceanside Yes $2,638,484 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Poway Yes $1,005,319 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A San Diego Yes $22,027,565 $162,992 $877,451 N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A San Marcos Yes $4,323,369 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Santee Yes $551,186 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Solana Beach Yes $472,898 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Vista Yes $2,385,097 N/A N/A N/A No $57,072 Yes N/A Yes N/A County of San Diego Yes $0 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A (1)

Yes = In Compliance No = Not in compliance N/A = Not applicable

Results: The City of National City has an unmet requirement in the amount of $601,821 for the year ended June 30, 2014. The City of Del Mar had an outstanding unmet requirement for the year ended June 30, 2011, which was resolved during the year ended June 30, 2012. In addition, the City of Vista had an outstanding unmet MOE requirement for the year ended June 30, 2013, in the amount of $57,072. The City had committed to eliminating its unmet MOE by June 30, 2015. The City has resolved its unmet MOE requirement for the year ended June 30, 2014. Note 1 - The County does not have discretionary expenditures or projects that can be reported under the MOE. 12 Attachment B Compliance With 30 Percent Fund Balance Limitation FY 2012 – FY 2014

Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2012 In Excess 30% Excess In Excess 30% Limitation S&R Balance In Compliance Compliance Amount Limitation Amount Compliance Amount Streets and Roads Carlsbad No $780,727 $806,475 $25,748 Yes $727,757 N/A No $1,858,224 Chula Vista Yes $1,605,089 $(486,936) N/A No $1,453,784 $909,526 Yes N/A Coronado Yes $163,700 $48,864 N/A Yes $157,160 N/A Yes N/A Del Mar Yes $61,814 $4,837 N/A Yes $55,635 N/A Yes N/A El Cajon Yes $666,897 $49,489 N/A Yes $620,913 N/A Yes N/A Encinitas Yes $451,720 $144,344 N/A Yes $445,014 N/A Yes N/A Escondido Yes $977,677 $163,542 N/A Yes $923,891 N/A No $1,078,696 Imperial Beach No $193,256 $480,312 $287,056 No $190,695 $183,274 No $608,888 La Mesa Yes $269,924 $(96,750) N/A Yes $259,721 N/A Yes N/A Lemon Grove Yes $199,134 $(45,094) N/A Yes $186,698 N/A Yes N/A National City No $272,058 $2,563,626 $2,291,568 No $241,344 $554,196 No $1,974,060 Oceanside No $1,260,451 $1,336,178 $75,727 No $1,240,023 $2,731,304 Yes N/A Poway Yes $413,710 $74,183 N/A Yes $405,195 N/A Yes N/A San Diego, City Yes $8,753,756 $7,663,289 N/A Yes $8,418,123 N/A Yes N/A San Marcos Yes $577,021 $63,632 N/A Yes $208,118 N/A No $1,580,845 Santee Yes $214,126 $42,660 N/A Yes $211,275 N/A Yes N/A Solana Beach Yes $56,113 $35,230 N/A Yes $56,487 N/A No $162,713 Vista Yes $625,717 $114,917 N/A Yes $595,831 N/A Yes N/A County of San Diego Yes $3,778,838 $2,184,719 N/A Yes $3,604,957 N/A Yes N/A In Excess 30% Excess In Excess 30% Limitation Transit Balance In Compliance Transit Compliance Amount Limitation Amount Compliance Amount Metropolitan Transit System Yes $8,651,563 $0 N/A Yes $8,239,583 N/A Yes N/A (MTS) North County Transit District Yes $3,499,208 $0 N/A Yes $3,302,807 N/A Yes N/A (NCTD) Yes = In Compliance No = Not in compliance and not receiving TransNet payment.

13 Attachment C Compliance with Allocation of Local Street Improvements Revenues

Fiscal Year 2014 Allocation of Sales Tax Recipient Agency 70% Congestion Relief Allocated 30% Maintenance Allocated Revenues Received Carlsbad $ 2,579,143 $ 1,805,400 $ 773,743 Chula Vista 5,301,954 3,711,368 1,590,586 Coronado 541,145 378,801 162,343 Del Mar 204,829 143,380 61,449 El Cajon 2,203,171 1,542,219 660,951 Encinitas 1,492,457 1,044,720 447,737 Escondido 3,229,658 2,260,760 968,897 Imperial Beach 638,766 447,136 191,630 La Mesa 1,420,046 994,032 426,014 Lemon Grove 658,182 460,727 197,455 National City 1,278,481 894,937 383,544 Oceanside 4,163,639 2,914,548 1,249,092 Poway 1,366,910 956,837 410,073 San Diego, City 28,913,515 20,239,461 8,674,055 San Marcos 1,906,319 1,334,423 571,896 Santee 1,295,094 906,566 388,528 Solana Beach 401,691 281,184 120,507 Vista 2,067,155 1,447,009 620,147 County of San Diego 13,760,488 9,632,342 4,128,146

Result: SANDAG appropriately allocated TransNet revenues for the Local Street Improvements program in accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance.

14 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-7 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND

FY 2014 REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTION TO TransNet EXTENSION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS File Number 1500100

Introduction Recommendation

The TransNet Extension Ordinance (Ordinance) The Transportation Committee is asked to includes an annual eligibility requirement of transit consider the requests of the North County operators receiving Transit Services Program revenues Transit District and the City of National pursuant to Section 4(C)5, and it includes an annual City to recommend that the Board of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement of each Directors, acting as the San Diego County local agency receiving Local Street Improvement Regional Transportation Commission, Program revenues pursuant to Section 4(D). These approve the exceptions to the TransNet requirement calculations are included in the June 30, Extension Ordinance (Ordinance) detailed 2014, annual compliance audits (see Agenda Item No. in Attachments 1 and 2, as permitted 6), which were prepared by the independent certified under the Ordinance. public accounting firm of Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. If a transit operator or a local agency does not meet its annual compliance requirement, the Ordinance provides guidance on additional steps that may ensue.

The North County Transit District (NCTD) and the City of National City did not meet certain TransNet requirements and have submitted requests for exception to these requirements, as permitted under the Ordinance.

At its March 11, 2015, meeting, the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) recommended approval of the requests.

Discussion

North County Transit District Request

The FY 2014 TransNet compliance audit for NCTD includes the following finding:

The North County Transit District’s, Oceanside, California (NCTD’s) increase in its operating cost per revenue vehicle hour from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 for bus services exceeded the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego County. The CPI increased by 0.5%, while the operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services increased by 3.8%.

Per Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance, NCTD is requesting to calculate the bus services requirement as an average over the previous three fiscal years, described in detail in the attached letter from NCTD (Attachment 1).

Board of Directors approval of the average calculation as requested by NCTD would enable compliance with Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance, and NCTD would be eligible to receive all apportioned FY 2015 TransNet revenues. If the Board of Directors does not approve the requested calculation, NCTD would remain in non-compliance with the Ordinance eligibility provisions concerning operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services. NCTD would be eligible to receive FY 2015 TransNet revenues equal only to those received in FY 2014, adjusted for any increase in the CPI for San Diego County over the same period as shown in detail below.

FY 2014 .5% CPI for FY 2015 Final FY 2015 Projection Difference NCTD Transit Operations $ 11,397,170 $ 11,454,156 $ 11,810,385 $ (356,229) NCTD Specialized Services 302,312 $ 303,824 313,273 (9,449) NCTD Totals $ 11,699,482 $ 11,757,979 $ 12,123,658 $ (365,679)

If the actual TransNet receipts are identical to the FY 2015 projections, these amounts in the Transit Services Program would be reduced from the FY 2015 transit operator apportionment and withheld from the FY 2016 TransNet disbursements to NCTD.

City of National City Request

The FY 2014 TransNet compliance audit for the City includes the following finding:

The City did not meet the MOE requirement for Streets and Roads as follows: MOE requirement $1,658,957 Streets and Roads discretionary expenditures 1,057,136 Shortfall of MOE expenditures $ 601,821

TransNet Extension Ordinance Section 8 states, in part: “Each local agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years completed prior to the operative date of this Ordinance…”

Section 8 of the Ordinance also includes the following language: “Any local agency which does not meet its maintenance of effort requirement in any given year shall have its funding under Section 4(D)(1) reduced in the following year by the amount by which the agency did not meet its required maintenance of effort level. In the event that special circumstances prevent a local agency from meeting its maintenance of effort requirement, the local agency may request up to three additional fiscal years to fulfill its requirement.”

2

In accordance with Section 8 of the Ordinance, the City is requesting approval of three additional years, or until June 30, 2017, due to special circumstances as described in Attachment 2 to make up the deficit as follows:

FY 2014 MOE Fiscal Additional Deficit Year MOE Balance 2014 $ - $ (601,821) 2015 - (601,821) 2016 300,910 (300,911) 2017 300,911 -

Board of Directors approval of the special circumstances as requested by the City would enable compliance with the annual MOE requirement. The City would be required to meet its annual MOE requirement for each of the three fiscal years listed above, in addition to making up the $601,821 deficit from FY 2014. Verification of the three-year make up would be conducted by the independent auditors as part of the FY 2017 fiscal and compliance audit. If the City does not make up the full deficit by June 30, 2017, the unmet portion would be distributed to all other recipient agencies in the TransNet Local System Improvement Program in accordance with Section 8 of the Ordinance according to the FY 2018 apportionment calculation which is based on total population and maintained street and road mileage as specified in Section 4(D)1 of the Extension Ordinance.

If the Board of Directors does not approve the special circumstances as requested by the City, the $601,821 deficit would be deducted from the City’s FY 2016 apportionment. In accordance with Section 8 of the Extension Ordinance, the $601,821 would be distributed to all other recipient agencies in the TransNet Local System Improvement Program, according to the FY 2016 apportionment calculation which is based on total population and maintained street and road mileage as specified in Section 4(D)1 of the Ordinance.

Next Steps

The NCTD and City requests are scheduled for presentation at the March 27, 2015, Board of Directors meeting.

ANDRÉ DOUZDJIAN Director of Finance

Attachments: 1. Letter of Request from NCTD dated February 3, 2015 2. Letter of Request from City of National City dated February 25, 2015

Key Staff Contact: Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, (619) 699-1942, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1

4 5 Attachment 2

6

AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-8 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – DISCUSSION

DRAFT FY 2015 TransNet TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE File Number 1500200 AUDIT REPORT AND RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, one of the responsibilities of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is to conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs. The ITOC conducted the FY 2015 Triennial Performance Audit, covering the three-year period FY 2012 through FY 2014, with the assistance of an independent auditor. ITOC member Carolyn Lee and staff from the audit firm of Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. will present the draft audit report for discussion by the Transportation Committee.

Discussion

The ITOC selected Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. to conduct the FY 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit on its behalf. The audit examined operational processes and overall performance of programs with an emphasis on providing recommendations to improve the efficiency of project delivery, cost control, and schedule adherence. Key audit results reveal that SANDAG and its partner agencies continue to implement strong practices that enhance operations and proactively address recommendations for improvement.

The ITOC reviewed the draft report at its March 11, 2015, meeting, including the audit recommendations for program improvements. SANDAG staff prepared responses to the audit recommendations, which are included in Appendix C (Auditee Response) of the draft report (pp. 78 to 87 of Attachment 1).

In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the ITOC must make available its draft audit report and recommendations to the Transportation Committee 60 days prior to final adoption by the ITOC. Paragraph 3 of the ITOC Responsibilities Section of the “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee for the TransNet Program” states as follows:

A draft of ITOC’s report and recommendations regarding the performance audits shall be made available to the SANDAG Transportation Committee at least 60 days before its final adoption by the ITOC to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues related to the ITOC’s draft report and recommendations.

Next Steps

The ITOC is scheduled to adopt the final report for the FY 2015 Triennial Performance Audit at its June 10, 2015, meeting. The final report is scheduled for presentation at the June 26, 2015, Board of Directors meeting, as part of the broader 2015 ITOC Annual Report presentation.

JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director

Attachment: 1. Draft Fiscal Year 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Report and SANDAG Staff Initial Responses

Key Staff Contact: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

3

TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee

TransNet Triennial Performance Audit

Draft March 4, 2015

Submitted To: Kai Ramer, Chair Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101

Submitted By:

455 Capitol Mall•Suite 700•Sacramento, California•95814•Tel 916.443.1300•www.secteam.com

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction and Background ...... 4 Scope and Methodology ...... 7 Chapter 1: Progress and Changes Since Prior Audit ...... 8 Chapter 2: Major Corridor Capital Improvement Program ...... 12 Chapter 3: Local Street and Road Performance ...... 27 Chapter 4: Environmental Mitigation Efforts ...... 35 Chapter 5: Transit Service Performance ...... 42 Chapter 6: Grant Activities ...... 50 Chapter 7: Active Transportation Capital Projects ...... 56 Chapter 8: ITOC Practices ...... 61 Chapter 9: Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 65 Appendix A: Detailed Audit Methodology ...... 69 Appendix B: Transit Performance Peer Analysis Detail ...... 74 Appendix C: Auditee Response...... 78

SJOBERGEVASHENK i Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

5

[This page intentionally left blank for reproduction purposes]

SJOBERGEVASHENK ii Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

6

Executive Summary

In 2004, San Diego residents voted to extend an existing half-cent sales tax for an additional forty years funding $14 billion of transportation, transit, and environmental programs through the TransNet Extension Ordinance. As part of the TransNet measure, safeguards were put into place requiring a triennial performance audit of the program through its sunset in 2048. In June 2014, the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) selected Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., (SEC) to conduct the required performance audit. Objectives of the audit include evaluating implementation of prior audit recommendations, assessing organizational structure and processes, determining the efficiency and effectiveness of project delivery practices including contracting and controls, and reviewing ITOC activities and adherence to its bylaws. This report provides the results of the third performance audit of TransNet focused on changes implemented during the three-year period between Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 as well as operational processes and functional performance for all TransNet programs.

Audit Results In general, SEC’s review reveals there continues to be strong practices in place at the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and its partner agencies to guide and implement the wide-variety of complex programs envisioned under the TransNet Extension Ordinance and to continually improve operations and proactively address recommendations for improvement. SEC’s review found SANDAG and its transportation partners continue to employ a solid framework of practices, controls, activities, management, and oversight to sustain and deliver a viable 40-year transportation system. Our audit revealed that SANDAG and its regional partners are operating a well-run TransNet program that encompasses many best and leading practices related to program development and delivery, environmental mitigation, cost and schedule control, contracting and construction, and general management and oversight. All parties involved with TransNet activities seem highly focused on collaborative relationships, goals and accomplishments, and continual improvement.

Audit highlights include:  While the Major Corridor Capital Improvement Program has experienced some project delays and budget increases, nearly 30 percent of Early Action Program projects have been opened to traffic since 2007. Additionally, SANDAG and Caltrans exercise solid project delivery practices, although some enhancements should be made and potential risks associated with the new Construction Manager/General Contractor approach should be closely monitored.  Similar to the 2011 audit, Local Street and Road Program performance related to congestion relief, mobility, and safety still cannot be assessed—primarily due to the lack of an arterial traffic detection infrastructure and available funding dedicated for building the infrastructure. While SANDAG has made strides to capture performance data for local streets and roads through development of an annual report, more can be done in this area. Additionally, deteriorating local streets and roads may warrant a reexamination of congestion relief and maintenance project definitions.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 1 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

7

 The Environmental Mitigation Program continues to be well-run. Since the prior audit, SANDAG has implemented strategic plans with goals and objectives, defined the concept of Economic Benefit, and developed an Environmental Mitigation Program Dashboard to provide the public and stakeholders with financial and performance data. Still, additional work is required to utilize available local mitigation program monies, formally measure results of mitigation efforts, and create a methodology to quantify how much economic benefit has actually been achieved thus far.  Transit service operators continue to have solid on-time performance and improved reliability. Further, services provided by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) continue to outperform peers for fixed route and all rail modes. Additionally, operators are making improvements to provide user-friendly transit dashboard performance data.  While grant activities are diligently monitored by SANDAG staff, there is limited performance data captured to summarize what has been achieved toward overall program goals and objectives for several of the programs. However, SANDAG has made progress in tracking grant performance through stronger monitoring and grantee progress reporting. Additionally, minor adjustments could be made to enhance performance monitoring. On a positive note, average grant processing timelines have decreased by several months since the 2011 audit.  While it is still too early to fully assess Active Transportation capital project activities as few projects have been completed, the audit found that several projects reflected schedule delays. Additionally, associated emerging project management practices could be improved and plans should be developed to capture performance results.  The ITOC continues to comply with the TransNet Ordinance and fulfill its responsibilities.

To assist SANDAG and its TransNet partners in its quest for continual improvement in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to the taxpayers of the San Diego region, ITOC should suggest that SANDAG and its partners consider the following series of recommendations. SEC believes these recommendations could be implemented without significant use of resources, and that no significant barriers exist to impede that implementation. Key recommendations include:  Enhancing practices over the Major Corridor capital projects by formalizing certain project management protocols, closely monitoring risks associated with the implementation of the Construction Manager/General Contractor approach, and implementing related leading practices of the Construction Manager/General Contractor approach as well as implementing project delivery performance metrics;  Improving Local Street and Road Program performance by implementing one of the suggested options for regional arterial detection and summarizing currently reported performance data as well as capturing local pavement condition index information;  Assisting local jurisdictions with managing future needs for roadway maintenance by revisiting the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan’s provision

SJOBERGEVASHENK 2 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

8

definitions between congestion relief and maintenance categories to allow local jurisdictions the ability to better identify projects to meet local street and road needs;  Strengthening the Environmental Mitigation Program by continuing efforts to market local mitigation program money available for locals, beginning to focus on formally measuring results of mitigation efforts against strategic goals and objectives, and creating a methodology to quantify how much economic benefit has been actually achieved to compare against what was released to identify funding deficits or surpluses;  Building upon the successful transit program by working collaboratively with transit partners to build user-friendly transit operations performance dashboards that report MTS and NCTD transit performance data and results;  Beginning to capture, track, and report performance outcome data to measure whether grant activities are meeting stated goals and objectives as well as making minor adjustments to improve certain grant progress reporting and monitoring processes; and  Improving project management practices and performance monitoring for the Active Transportation Early Action Program capital projects by developing project delivery and management plans, ensuring practices are consistent with other TransNet capital projects, and establishing performance indicators to measure performance.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 3 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

9

Introduction and Background

To relieve traffic congestion and improve highways, transit, streets, and environmental services in the San Diego region, voters passed Proposition A in November 2004 calling for a continuation of an existing TransNet half-cent sales tax for an additional 40-year period, from 2008 through 2048. This proposition, implemented through the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors’ adoption of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Ordinance), paved the way for dedicated local funds to be leveraged through state and federal matching dollars for improving regional systems. SANDAG is ultimately responsible for administering the TransNet Program and projects funded through the TransNet Extension Ordinance in coordination with several TransNet partner entities.

TransNet Extension Ordinance of 2004 Recognizing the continued need for transportation and transit improvement projects in the region and the importance of minimizing their environmental impacts, the SANDAG Board of Directors prepared and authorized the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan to expand upon the foundation and projects completed under the original TransNet program approved by voters in 1987. The Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, a legal document that formally enacts the sales tax measure, provided for the implementation of the region’s transportation improvement program and identified an estimated $14 billion for transportation improvement projects to be funded by tax revenues over the 40-year period. TransNet revenues are distributed among a mix of transportation and environmental projects in accordance with established percentages. Some programs planned under TransNet are grant based, and others are project-based—still others are more regionally-focused.

Funding Allocations Under TransNet Under provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, funds generated must be allocated to each program using a specified percentage or amount as shown in Figure 1.

Nearly 75 percent of funds are dedicated to major corridor capital projects for highways and transit in addition to local streets and roadways. The remaining 25 percent is mostly spent on transit services, environmental mitigation, and Active Transportation Capital Projects as well as various grant programs. Additionally, up to one percent of annual TransNet revenues is available for SANDAG administration as well as another $250,000 a year (with inflationary adjustments) set-aside for ITOC oversight activities.

Moreover, TransNet monies are leveraged with a variety of state, federal, and local funds—such as state Transportation Development Act funding, local street funding, and Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration funding—to accomplish the program vision for the San Diego region.

Approximately $5.4 billion of the TransNet Extension Ordinance’s estimated $14 billion program has been spent as of June 30, 2014 or committed to be spent over the next five years.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 4 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

10

Figure 1: TransNet Sales Tax Funding Allocation

Early Action Program Prior to the start of the TransNet Extension in 2008, SANDAG and its partners took the initiative to launch an “Early Action Program” to accelerate the start and completion of certain projects. Mostly, the Early Action Program focused on major capital corridor construction of freeways and transit facilities with a minimal amount spent on the new Environmental Mitigation Program. Using innovative financing including commercial paper and bonding, the Early Action Program started in 2005—three full years before the first TransNet Extension sales tax revenues were generated.

After the TransNet Extension became effective in 2008, additional programs were initiated and funded such as local streets and roads, environmental project mitigation, transit services, and grant programs including Smart Growth Incentive, Senior Mini-Grants, and Active Transportation. Although the “early” period prior to the effective date of the TransNet Extension Ordinance has passed, all current projects, grants, and activities related to Major Corridors and the Active Transportation capital projects are still considered part of the Early Action Program.

Entities Involved with TransNet While SANDAG is the primary entity responsible for the TransNet program, several others partner together in the San Diego region to cooperatively share responsibilities for planning, implementing, and monitoring projects and programs funded through the TransNet Extension Ordinance as shown in Figure 2.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 5 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

11

Figure 2: Responsibilities of Entities Involved with TransNet Programs

SJOBERGEVASHENK 6 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

12

Scope and Methodology

In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) has the responsibility for conducting triennial performance audits of the agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs.

Audit Scope In June 2014, ITOC hired Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting (SEC), to conduct the third triennial performance audit for the three-year period covering Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Specifically, ITOC asked SEC to examine the performance of SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, NCTD, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and a representative sample of the other cities of the region that have been involved in TransNet-funded projects. Of particular note, the review was required to focus on changes that have occurred since the second triennial audit to TransNet programs including Major Corridor Capital Projects, Environmental Mitigation Program, Local Street and Road, Transit Operations for both existing and new corridors, Smart Growth Incentive Program, Senior Mini-Grant, and Active Transportation Programs.

Audit Objectives Five primary objectives were identified for this performance audit as follows: 1. Evaluate the status of implementation of recommendations from the second triennial performance audit and effectiveness of these prior recommendations. 2. Determine whether the organizational structure and operational processes allow for effective and efficient project delivery, cost control, and schedule adherence. 3. Identify process changes in contracting, construction, permitting, and other procedures that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TransNet program. 4. Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of ITOC, including adherence to its bylaws. 5. Identify and evaluate any potential barriers to and opportunities for proposed changes.

As part of fulfilling these audit objectives, SEC reviewed operational processes and organizational structures that had changed since the second audit as well as assessed program activities and analyzed the performance of each program.

Audit Methodology To fulfill these objectives, SEC conducted a series of in-depth audit tasks involving data mining and analysis, documentary examinations, peer comparisons, source data verification, and one- way interviews. Appendix A provides the detailed methodology employed on this audit. SEC conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that SEC plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. SEC believes that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 7 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

13

Chapter 1: Progress and Changes Since Prior Audit

With the TransNet program in the early phases of its 40-year duration, it is challenging to draw conclusions on ultimate project delivery efficiencies or performance effectiveness given that many projects are still in preliminary scoping or environmental phases. As shown in Figure 3, only 15 percent of the 40-year timeline has elapsed; thus, the vast majority of the program has not yet been launched. However, SANDAG and its partners have performed many activities and made significant strides in the short time since the TransNet Extension Ordinance began in 2008 spending $2.7 billion of the estimated $14 billion TransNet Program.

Figure 3: Timeline Showing Critical TransNet Dates and Time Elapsed

Strong Practices Continue, While Certain Processes have Been Enhanced While certain changes and process improvements have been made since 2011, the same solid foundation that TransNet was built upon continues to exist. Specifically, SEC found:  Strong governance and oversight structure continues to be employed relying on cooperation, collaboration, and communication between the many different entities involved with TransNet with significant input at the project and overall program level.  Financial strategies incorporated into the TransNet Plan of Finance continue to be reasonable and in line with similar financing structures at peer entities. Assumptions behind revenue and cost projections included in the model seem sound. While adjustments could be made to tweak components based on individual philosophy and preference, the current model has been vetted by project team experts, economists, management, and external financial specialists. Moreover, current debt service coverage ratios at 3.1 times indicate strong financial strength to repay debt.  Additionally, the current 2014 Plan of Finance demonstrates that total capital costs may be funded in a way to maintain positive fund balances and ample debt service coverage in the Major Corridor Program through Fiscal Year 2048—the TransNet Extension Ordinance sunset date. However, there is still another 25 years where circumstances and situations may change warranting revisions to the model at that time. As the end date draws near, more will be known as to whether all promised projects can be delivered or whether significant modifications may be necessary. Thus, it is essential for SANDAG to continue vigorously monitoring results and fine-tuning its model on an on-going basis.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 8 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

14

While the solid TransNet framework remains the same, several processes have been improved, including shortening grant award timelines, implementing environmental mitigation program strategic plans, and establishing an early action program for bike facility capital projects as described more in subsequent report chapters.

Prior Audit Recommendations were Addressed, Although Improvements can be Made In 2011, the prior audit offered 22 recommendations to improve on the strong practices in place over the various TransNet program areas. For instance, some recommendations increased efficiencies such as those related to streamlining grant processes; while other suggestions strengthened effectiveness through performance measurement and reporting. Recommendations were also made in various TransNet areas to increase efficiency such as revising administrative rules and practices surrounding the Local Street and Road program, employing checklists and standardized documentation over grant site visits, and streamlining processes to minimize delays in processing grant awards. Other recommendations strengthened oversight and accountability to ensure the foundation surrounding the program continues to be solid.

Following the issuance of the second performance audit report, SANDAG staff immediately began addressing the audit recommendations as described in their initial response to the audit report. As of November 2014, SANDAG indicated all recommendations were addressed and implemented.

Continued Effort is needed on Performance Outcomes While SANDAG and its TransNet partners have incorporated the recommendations in some manner, additional efforts are needed to better address the initial audit concerns related to performance tracking over local streets and roads, as well as grants. Currently, there are numerous documents produced by SANDAG and its partners reporting on major capital project performance and transit operations including annual State of the Commute reports, biennial Regional Comprehensive Plan Monitoring Reports, Quarterly TransNet Progress Reports, and Environmental Mitigation Program status as well as transit operator produced information. SANDAG also uses its public Dashboard for communicating budget and schedule progress for TransNet capital projects in addition to travel delay data for three highway corridors only—the I- 15, I-5 North, and SR 52.

However, while some performance data is available for certain TransNet categories such as major corridors and transit services, SEC was unable to assess performance for other TransNet areas such as the Local Street and Road Program outcomes related to congestion relief, mobility, and safety as well as several grant-funded programs’ progress towards meeting overall grant program goals as described in Chapters 3 and 6 in this report. Recently, SANDAG has made strides to capture some performance data for local streets and roads through development of an annual report as well as tracks individual grant performance through stronger monitoring and grantee progress reporting; although, more can be done in this area.

Additionally, one peer entity combines project delivery metrics with system performance outcomes together in a quarterly report. Using a single page “Performance Dashboard,” the

SJOBERGEVASHENK 9 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

15

Washington Department of Transportation provides a concise view of how highway performance tracks against its goals and targets as shown in Figure 4.

SANDAG and its partners might want to consider a similar comprehensive, one-stop report card to summarize TransNet major corridor performance—or consider expanding the report card to include other TransNet areas. Much of the data is readily available, so it would likely just require summarizing and assembling information into a comprehensive format. Other data, such as the project delivery statistics, would require some effort to establish a mechanism for capturing data and reporting results—although the resources required should not be operationally significant. With more emphasis being placed on performance measurement with the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the pending 10-year comprehensive program review required by the TransNet Extension Ordinance to evaluate performance, a comprehensive tool like Figure 4 may assist in addressing those mandates.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 10 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

16

Figure 4: Example of Washington Department of Transportation Performance Tracker

SJOBERGEVASHENK 11 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

17

Chapter 2: Major Corridor Capital Improvement Program

CHAPTER SUMMARY Implement identified major highway and transit congestion relief projects. - TransNet Extension Ordinance – Major Transportation Corridor Improvements Program

Program Performance With over $1.8 billion in TransNet funds spent on major transportation corridor improvements as of June 30, 2014, the major corridor capital improvement program is the largest TransNet category.  Projects in this program are making progress and being completed, although many show schedule delays in the Dashboard.  Annual hours of traffic delay per traveler decreased between 2005 and 2009 system-wide and have remained stable since then at 37 hours.  In 2013, freeway delay increased 24 percent from 2012.

Audit Results Highlights . Dashboard schedule and cost performance data indicates some delays and budget increases o More than 58 percent of the 74 early action projects register a caution or critical status for schedule delays—although circumstances appear reasonable. o Budgets have increased 57 percent since 2007, mainly due to additional projects and phases. . Nearly 30 percent of EAP projects have been opened to traffic since 2007. . Solid project delivery exists, although improvements can be made and the new construction manager/general contractor approach risks should be closely monitored . Internal project efficiency should be measured by metrics such as: o Percent of projects delivered on schedule and ready for construction; o Percent of change orders against original contract amount; and o Percent of projects delivered on budget. . Change orders as a percent of contracts seem reasonable o SANDAG and Caltrans issued nearly 990 change orders worth $57.8 million for 19 completed projects that were selected for review. These change orders averaged between 13 percent for SANDAG and 17 percent for Caltrans of the original contract bid value. Recommendations . Improve SANDAG transit capital project management practices by finalizing SANDAG’s Construction Management Manual. . Manage CM/GC risks by establishing and tracking performance, employing risk management, ensuring consistent data for cost estimates, and implementing communication protocols. . Track and measure project delivery performance.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 12 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

18

Performance Results are Available for Major Capital Corridors As mentioned previously, there are several tools used to track and report performance data for the San Diego transportation network. Data is analyzed by SANDAG staff and reported to decision makers and the public related to the entire system and not just the isolated impacts of TransNet program projects.

According to SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan 2012-2013 Biennial Performance Monitoring Report, annual hours of traffic delay per traveler has remained fairly stable since 2005 with 37 hours per traveler in 2013 as described in Table 1. Travel volumes have remained fairly stable on certain corridors from 2005 to 2013 as well, while other corridors have seen big increases such as on the I-15 (Escondido to Downtown) with volumes growing from 276,000 to 309,000 and on the SR 52 with growth from 82,000 to 110,000 over the eight-year period between 2005 and 2013. Although volume has increased on the I-15, travel times have decreased for the morning commute from 46 minutes in 2005 to 32 minutes in 2013 and from 38 minutes in 2005 to 32 minutes in 2013 for the evening commute due in part to the economic downturn as well as completed managed lanes funded with TransNet money.

Table 1: Performance Reports on Major Transportation Corridors Document Relevant Indicators Results Provided  Transit Ridership is stable since 2007 with 96 million boardings in 2013, and operator-reported data showing growth to 107.6 million riders in 2014 as discussed in Chapter 5  Annual Transit Ridership RCP Biennial  Travel time mostly unchanged majority of  Travel Time Performance corridors, although several corridors Monitoring Report  Travel Volume realized decreases since 2005. (2012-2013)  Annual Hours Traffic Delay  Travel volume is relatively consistent,

per Traveler other than some corridors registering increases.  Annual Hours Traffic Delay per Traveler is currently 37 hours—down from 44 hours per traveler in 2005.  Weekday travel increased from 8.8 billion to 9.3 billion vehicle miles between 2012 and 2013. ate of the  Travel Volume Annual St  In 2013, freeway delay increased 33  Travel Time Commute Report percent for the morning commute and 20 (2013)  Peak Period Freeway Delay percent in the evening compared to 2012.  However, delays have decreased since 2006 by more than 26 percent.

Source: RCP Biennial Performance Monitoring Report, p. 7, 12, 14, 17; Annual State of the Commute Report 2011-2013), p.4, 9.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 13 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

19

Looking at a more recent time period, the 2013 State of the Commute report shows increased use of the transportation system and increased peak delays since the prior year report from 2012. Travel times remain fairly stable in some corridors, but show increases in other corridors such as the I-805 impacted by construction between SR52 and Mira Mesa Boulevard.

Additionally, in September 2014, Caltrans issued its first District 11 Mile Marker report intended to provide an assessment of its performance on both TransNet and non-TransNet projects towards goals such as safety, system performance, and stewardship and efficiency. As shown in Table 2, Caltrans exceeded goals for maintaining a healthy highway and limiting fatal accidents. Additionally, all planned projects were delivered according to planned schedules.

Table 2: Examples of Caltrans District 11 Capital Project Performance Current Performance Measure Goal Goal Met Period Safety Number of Fatal Accidents in 2011 for 1 or less 0.61 Yes every 100 million vehicle miles Delivery Percentage of planned projects delivered on schedule and ready for construction in 100 100 Yes Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Maintenance Percentage of District 11 highway system 90 94 Yes pavement that is healthy

Source: District 11 Mile Marker 11.0, September 2014, page 6

Although Some Project Schedules are in Caution Status, Dashboard Data Indicates Projects are Being Completed Since 2006, SANDAG has used a “Dashboard” concept to provide certain project information to taxpayers and detailed information to assist internal program staff with managing projects. This interactive tool allows the public to obtain timely information about an early action program corridor or individual project status, budgets, and schedules at a level of detail commensurate with their personal interest. The Dashboard not only provides transparency to the public, but also promotes greater accountability within its organization through its encouraged use as a program management vehicle promoting awareness on ensuring accuracy of publically- distributed data. Data is organized by the 11 early action program corridors and at the individual segment, or project, level within the Dashboard.

One of the Dashboard’s central features is a project performance indicator tool divided into three distinct colors or sections—green, yellow, and red. If a TransNet project is over-budget by 10 percent or unlikely to meet schedule milestones, the Dashboard arrow in the particular gauge will be in the yellow zone. Budget variances greater than 20 percent or missed schedule deadlines would change the indicator to red. If all project indicators are on target, the indicator will

SJOBERGEVASHENK 14 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

20

register in the green zone. Generally, these project performance indicators provide a quick view of status and highlight where budgets or key milestones appear to be in jeopardy.

Although Schedule Status Shows Several Delays, Circumstances Seem Reasonable As shown in Table 3, only three corridors are on schedule while most are delayed later than expected—with some end dates extending several years past expected baseline end dates. Additionally, more than 58 percent, or 43 projects, of the 74 project segments within the TransNet corridors are in a caution or critical status as of September 2014.

Table 3: Comparison of Corridor-Level Baseline Schedules with Current Completion Dates Early Action Program Baseline Baseline Current plan Current Plan Reported Corridors Start Date End Date Start Date End Date Status

I-5 South Corridor 11/24/2003 06/01/2018 11/24/2003 12/23/2024

I-15 Corridor 01/01/1998 07/31/2017 01/01/1998 12/28/2018

SR 52 Corridor 04/07/1987 06/30/2014 04/07/1987 08/13/2019

SR 76 Corridor 06/01/2000 12/01/2018 06/01/2000 06/30/2022

Orange/Blue Line Corridor 07/07/2007 06/30/2015 07/06/2007 04/28/2016

SR 94/SR 125 Corridor 07/23/2010 12/31/2013 07/23/2010 07/05/2015

SR 78/SPRINTER Corridor 01/01/1996 06/30/2011 01/01/1996 06/30/2011

I-5 North Corridor 01/01/2001 12/01/2019 01/01/2001 04/20/2026

Mid-City Corridor 06/23/2008 12/31/2012 06/23/2008 06/02/2015

I-805 Corridor 01/28/2005 12/31/2016 07/01/2005 07/23/2020

Border Access Corridor 01/01/1994 06/30/2016 07/31/2001 07/29/2016 Source: TransNet Dashboard Schedules as of September 30, 2014

To understand the circumstances surrounding delays in start times and completion dates, SEC reviewed selected projects in corridors that reported some of the greater delays. For example, SEC found delays on a Caltrans-led project constructing two high occupancy vehicle lanes on the SR 94 from I-805 to downtown. These delays were caused by redesign needed based on public concerns on freeway transitions and access to a Market Street off-ramp as well as new design solutions that were needed for bike paths and pedestrian overcrossings that added work and extensive public outreach. While these combined activities significantly increased the schedule, the rationale behind the schedule changes is reasonable.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 15 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

21

Many Projects Have Been Completed While the Dashboard shows schedule delays, SANDAG and Caltrans have completed 22 projects since 2007—nearly 30 percent of the 74 current EAP projects that are open to traffic as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: TransNet Major Corridor Capital Projects Completed, as of November 2014 Date # Segment Name Open to Traffic I-5 South Corridor 1 SuperLoop 06/27/2012 I-15 South Corridor 2 I-15 BRT Stations: Rancho Bernardo, Sabre Springs, Del Lago 03/23/2009 3 I-15 Express Lanes Middle Segment 03/31/2009 4 I-15 Express Lanes North Segment 12/10/2010 5 I-15 Express Lanes South Segment 06/28/2011 6 I-15 FasTrak 01/16/2012 7 SR 78 Nordahl Road Interchange 11/07/2012 8 I-15 BRT Sabre Springs Parking Structure 03/03/2014 9 I-15 Bus Rapid Transit 06/09/2014 SR 52 Corridor 10 SR 52 Widening: I-15 to Mast Blvd 08/07/2007 11 SR 52 Extension 03/29/2011 12 SR 76 Middle 11/21/2012 Orange Line-Blue Line Corridor 13 Orange and Blue Line Platforms 04/15/2013 14 Blue Line Crossovers and Signals 11/18/2013 15 Low-Floor Light Rail Transit Vehicles 02/21/2014 I-5 North Corridor 16 I-5 HOV Extension & Lomas Santa Fe Interchange 02/07/2009 17 Carlsbad Double-Track 01/09/2012 18 Tecolote to Washington Crossovers 10/14/2013 19 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 1 03/17/2014 I-805 Corridor 20 I-805 E Street Auxiliary Lane 02/07/2009 Border Access Corridor 21 I-805/SR 905 Connectors 02/10/2012 22 SR 905: I-805 to Britannia Boulevard 04/28/2014 Source: TransNet Dashboard Data as of September 2014

Because the Dashboard does not register a project “end date” until the claim and warranty period are complete, if a project or segment within a corridor is materially complete and open to traffic, the Dashboard schedule could still show an “end date” that would be months or years out to account for the claim and warranty period. Further, when projects or segments are summarized

SJOBERGEVASHENK 16 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

22

at the corridor level, the Dashboard uses the most distant calendar date as the overall end date for the entire corridor. For instance, while the I-5 North Corridor shows an end date that is seven years after expected baseline, there have been four projects within that corridor that are complete and open for traffic.

Most Corridor Budget Increases Result from Additional Projects Added Throughout the lifecycle of a corridor, segment, or project, costs can vary significantly with scope changes, cost overages and cost savings, and the addition of new budgeted phases within a project—all activity that is typically documented in detailed project files. Dashboard budget data for the 11 EAP corridors shows growth from $4.4 billion in expenditures originally anticipated in Fiscal Year 2006-2007 to $6.9 billion currently budgeted as of Fiscal Year 2013-2014 for an 57 percent increase.

As such, more than half of the 11 corridors experienced a significant budget increase between Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Fiscal Year 2013-2014 as shown in Table 5—although much of the increase seems to be attributable to new projects or phases added to the corridors since Fiscal Year 2006-2007 that were not originally anticipated to start during those early years of the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Additionally, because the timeframes on capital projects can extend over several years, actual current cost and prices can greatly fluctuate from early expectations.

Table 5: Comparison of Historical and Current Total Budget by Corridor, FY 2007 to FY 2014 Total Budget1 Change Over Corridor (in millions) Time FY 2007 FY 2011 FY 2014 I-5 South $1,285 $1,283 $1,857 $605 I-15 $1,253 $1,380 $1,416 $140 SR 52 $719 $571 $489 ($230) SR 76 $400 $373 $373 ($27) Orange Line – Blue Line $0 $454 $569 $569 SR 94/SR 125 $0 $0 $11 11 SR 78/SPRINTER $478 $478 $480 $2 I-5 North $126 $313 $960 $834 Mid-City $0 $45 $45 $45 I-805 $153 $295 $539 $386 Border Access N/A $225 $192 $192 Total $4,414 $5,417 $6,931 $2,517 Source: TransNet Dashboard, September 2014 Budget History and Segment Budget Detail Note: 1Budget includes non-TransNet funds in capital improvement program as well.

For instance, between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2014, the Orange Line – Blue Line (Trolley Rehab) capital improvement project budget increased from $454 million to $569 million—an increase of

SJOBERGEVASHENK 17 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

23

25 percent due to several factors. First, the project was originally programmed to procure 57 low-floor vehicles; however, a total of 65 low-floor vehicles were purchased increasing costs by $36 million, or a third of the budget. The largest rise was related to the Blue Line station rehabilitation project where the budget was increased by $69 million to include the project management aspects and consolidate all blue line infrastructure work under this project.

Moreover, these types of budget changes are typical for large scale, major capital construction projects throughout the nation. Budgets are typically funded in phases as the projects progress through their lifecycle. Given the uncertainty of conditions that could be encountered during a longer term construction project, such as environmental requirements or construction price fluctuations, costs are often more than originally anticipated. What is important is that all significant changes to funding must be communicated, discussed, and approved by SANDAG and Caltrans management as well as the SANDAG Board of Directors. Prior to that approval, it appears that staff provide detailed reports discussing rationale for overruns, options or alternatives considered, and impact of changes to the overall program budget or schedule, among other items.

Solid Project Delivery Exists, Although New Approach Should be Closely Monitored For highway and transit capital projects, the TransNet program continues to employ good management practices over project documentation, monitoring and oversight, and on-going formal and informal meetings with project team members and senior and executive level management. These aspects help expedite problem-solving and provide opportunity for discussion and buy-in on project direction from staff at all levels. Caltrans, with assistance from SANDAG-hired consultants is still responsible for delivering freeway capital projects, while SANDAG is responsible for transit capital construction.

For instance, the foundation for Caltrans’ project delivery and management processes has remained relatively stable since the prior audit. Project delivery manuals and project specific guidelines are followed, and detailed protocols are in place related to budget and schedule control, change control, and document retention practices. However, more recently, emphasis is being placed on task management practices where individuals are assigned to manage the production and completion of a discrete deliverable within a project with goals including improved accountability, facilitated communication, and reduced budget and schedule change requests. Responsibilities are defined and formalized in writing.

For SANDAG led transit capital projects, staff indicated that there continues to be a strong working relationship with MTS and NCTD including regular communication, collaboration, and project status meetings. However, according to SANDAG, there is no formal project delivery manual for the oversight and management of transit capital projects—instead, project management practices can vary depending on the project corridor directors and assigned project manager. While there is a strong foundation in place that is functioning effectively over the capital construction projects, there are no agency-wide delivery manuals guiding SANDAG- managed transit projects on best practices, uniform protocols, and project delivery file retention. Rather, SANDAG Board Policies No. 015: Records Management and No. O19: Project Plans, Specifications, and Estimates outline record management requirements and provide direction for

SJOBERGEVASHENK 18 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

24

the design of major transit projects and preparation and approval of contract plans, specifications, and cost estimates.

To enhance project management and delivery practices, SANDAG implemented a prior audit recommendation to develop and formalize certain project management and delivery guidelines. Specifically, SANDAG established corridor specific Configuration Management Plans and Document Control Plans for the Mid-Coast and LOSSAN corridors outlining processes and controls for document changes and the storage and tracking of documents. While SANDAG indicated during the last audit that it was in the process of developing a Construction Management Manual, this manual is still in draft format and has not been finalized.

New Delivery Model should be Closely Monitored Recently, SANDAG and Caltrans have employed a new construction model—known as the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) model—for two of its TransNet capital construction projects. Specifically, this new approach is being used on the I-5 North Coast Corridor program managed by Caltrans and the Mid-Coast Corridor Trolley Project managed by SANDAG. Both projects are still in the early design phase.

The model relies on commitments from a construction manager to deliver projects within a guaranteed maximum price under an integrated approach where the CM/GC is involved in each stage of the project delivery acting as consultant to the owner in the development and design phases and as a general contractor during the construction phase. This differs from traditional approaches where separate consultants are used for design and construction phases. As illustrated in Figure 5, the owner generally bears a greater proportion of the risk and control with the traditional industry Design-Bid-Build project delivery method, than the CM/GC project delivery method. Yet, once a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established, the CM/GC is generally contractually obligated to complete the project within the established price and, as such, assumes a greater share of the risk.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 19 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

25

Figure 5: Comparison of Capital Project Delivery Methods

Source: US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration “CMGC 101 Workshop,” 2012 CMGC Peer Exchange

Under the CM/GC project delivery method, the contractor is awarded two contracts—one for pre-construction services during the design phase and another for the construction phase. During the pre-construction services phase, the CM/GC provides support with design review, feasibility studies, value engineering, cost-risk analysis, schedule-risk analysis, and prequalifying subcontractors. The second contract will set the guaranteed maximum price including subcontracts, CM/GC general conditions, CM/GC fee, and CM/GC contingency. Once established, the guaranteed maximum price is generally modified if there is a change in scope of the project or changes due to latent conditions or other factors beyond the control of the CM/GC.

As illustrated in Figure 6, national research available cites many benefits and challenges as well as associated risks that must be considered when using the CM/GC project delivery method.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 20 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

26

Figure 6: Benefits, Challenges, and Risks of Using CM/GC Approach

Source: Auditor-Generated from other government agency’s CM/GC documents and national CM/GC research As SANDAG and Caltrans move forward with the two projects, they should closely monitor the risks of the new approach and consider implementing leading practices identified by peer agencies’ lessons learned analysis and publications, including the “CM/GC Guidelines for Public Owners,” such as:  Establish Performance Goals and Track Performance. For example, compare “traditional” time to CM/GC model, compare original cost estimates to actual, and determine the value-added and cost savings attributed to CM/GC value engineering and recommendations;  Employ Risk Management Practices. Identify and manage risk through formal tools such as risk registries;  Ensure Consistent Data Is Used for Cost Estimates. For Independent Cost Estimates, Engineer Estimate, and Contractor discussions, discuss the means and methods, materials, and sources, but only discuss dollar ranges. This will help ensure estimates are independent, but use the same criteria and methodology. Further, ensure the independent cost estimator is involved during the pre-construction phase; and  Implement Strong Communication Practices. Communication is key to success during pre-construction and construction phase. Co-location of work sites during pre- construction helps improve collaboration and communication between project team members.

SANDAG and Caltrans staff seem aware of the potential risks of the CM/GC project delivery method. As the projects move forward, it appears that SANDAG and Caltrans are taking steps in accordance with recommended practices across the nation. For instance, Caltrans indicated that it has established a baseline for estimating and scheduling purposes for the North Coast Corridor project based on traditional contract procurement. Further, SANDAG indicated that it plans to

SJOBERGEVASHENK 21 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

27

use risk registries, has an agreement in place for co-location, and plans to establish goals that can be used to assess project performance for the Mid-Coast Trolley Project.

Project Delivery Efficiency Should be Measured Regardless of what project delivery approach is used, enhancements should be made to measure and report on SANDAG’s internal performance and efficiency of delivering TransNet capital projects. While performance data exists on what projects have achieved such as reduced travel delay, SANDAG could improve its practices by capturing and analyzing metrics related to project management’s performance delivering projects on schedule and budget. Specifically, SEC believes that setting meaningful goals and tracking performance against those goals can help highlight potential areas in need of improvement, hold project owners accountable and economical, and demonstrate performance to the public. Moreover, several departments of transportation—including Caltrans—use some type of project delivery performance indicators to track organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Capturing and tracking similar data for transit capital projects should not take a significant amount of resources.

For instance, Caltrans has been tracking and reporting on a series of performance measures for its statewide operations and District 11 performance for a number of years. SEC believes that the same or similar metrics would be useful for SANDAG to track for its transit capital projects to assess performance. Metrics include:  Percent of projects delivered on schedule and ready for construction;  Percent of project awards not exceeding more than 10 percent of estimates;  Percent of change orders against original contract amount;  Percentage of support costs as a percent of budget; and/or  Percent of projects delivered on budget.

Other transportation entities across the country are finding that efficiency performance measurement is a critical tool used at the project level allowing stakeholders to evaluate the benefits of highway and transit improvements. Examples can be found in Washington, Missouri, Virginia, and Florida where agencies are more focused and accountable to stewardship goals through project delivery performance.

Task Order Amendments and Change Orders as a Percent of Contract Value Appear Reasonable While the dollar value of task orders and construction contracts are significant for most, if not all of the TransNet projects, amendments and change orders are standard practice for capital projects when unfolding circumstances require changes to scope, schedule, or cost. These modifications may be caused by unforeseen circumstances, weather, emergencies, inadequate service or quality, or insufficiently defined scope of work.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 22 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

28

Amendments Average 29 Percent of Original Task Order Value, but Are Reasonable As of December 2014, SANDAG and Caltrans combined had established 40 contracts with architectural and engineering consulting firms with 405 related task orders and 259 amendments totaling $221.5 million, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Task Order Amendments as a Percentage of Consulting Contracts, as of December 2014 Number Number of Value (incl. Amendment Amendment Contract Number of Task Task Order amendments) Value Value % Orders Amendments SANDAG On-Call Environmental Planning & Architect & Engineering Design Services 5001900 17 $4,647,992 10 $493,883 10.6% 5001901 14 $7,706,032 4 $0 N/A 5001902 7 $13,660,009 6 $916,624 6.7% 5001903 6 $10,616,439 9 $3,488,230 32.9% 5001904 6 $67,591,071 6 $35,257,999 52.2% A 5001905 0 $0 0 N/A N/A 5001906 13 $24,412,605 9 $787,150 3.2% 5001907 11 $2,417,808 5 $0 N/A 5001908 14 $6,078,947 14 $1,668,937 27.5% 5001909 1 $6,507,202 3 $6,329,557 97.3% B 5001910 3 $1,302,519 1 $0 N/A 5001911 2 $1,365,314 1 $8,000 0.6% 5001912 3 $735,654 2 $0 N/A 5001913 6 $822,077 4 $0 N/A 5001914 7 $1,822,859 6 $289,785 15.9% SANDAG Sub-Total: 110 $149,686,528 80 $49,240,165 32.9% Caltrans On-Call Architect & Engineering Design Services 111300000019 1 $77,450 0 N/A N/A 11A1190 23 $8,121,319 55 $1,255,333 15.5% 11A1526 5 $4,807,361 2 $1,324,340 27.5% 11A1529 12 $24,741,297 10 $10,933,778 44.2% C 11A1625 26 $4,365,087 7 $464,884 10.7% 11A1749 2 $318,174 3 N/A 0.0% 11A1793 24 $392,915 3 $19,744 5.0% 11A1897 17 $39,050 3 $1,750 4.5% 11A1940 1 $188,279 0 N/A N/A 11A1963 4 $129,379 8 $5,551 4.3% 11A1967 14 $481,536 8 $30,670 6.4% 11A1969 34 $4,185,427 13 -$756,903 -18.1% 11A1974 9 $26,245 2 $2,980 11.4% 11A1978 7 $378,320 7 $136,355 36.0% 11A1991 12 $2,156,900 4 $187,900 8.7% 11A1992 14 $2,290,916 10 $108,459 4.7% 11A1996 23 $1,594,554 7 $49,746 3.1% 11A2024 5 $188,009 2 N/A 0.0%

SJOBERGEVASHENK 23 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

29

Number Number of Value (incl. Amendment Amendment Contract Number of Task Task Order amendments) Value Value % Orders Amendments 11A2026 10 $10,003,124 21 $304,045 3.0% 11A2043 1 $1,413,123 2 $632,660 44.8% c 11A2047 30 $4,622,102 5 $170,239 3.7% 11A2077 4 $1,209,716 2 $176,918 14.6% 11A2108 9 $41,000 1 $500 1.2% 11A2121 8 $89,812 4 $4,840 5.4% CA118314 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Caltrans Sub-Total: 295 $71,861,095 179 $15,053,789 20.9% Grand Total: 405 $221,547,623 259 $64,293,954 29.0%

Source: Caltrans and SANDAG TransNet Staff, December 2014 A = SANDAG determined efficiencies could be achieved by combining common tasks—such as potholing—for three projects sharing same corridor and footprint into one consultant contract resulting in higher percentage. B = According to SANDAG, amendments were made for each additional work phase on the LOSSAN San Diego River Bridge project such as initial background information, 30% design, etc. C = According to Caltrans, they cannot have geographical overlapping A&E contracts; because the contracted firm is the only one eligible to perform the work, scope is added via amendments.

While total amendment values as a percentage of the original task order varied from -18 percent to 97 percent, amendments were 29 percent of the original task order value, on average. While this percent is more than double the 14 percent rate noted during the first TransNet Triennial Audit, SEC’s limited review on this audit for a sample of amendments mostly seemed reasonable in that they aligned with the original scope of work and were modifying the agreement to add on similar work.

Specifically, SEC reviewed 10 task orders in depth to understand the rationale behind amendments and determine reasonableness. While the documentation provided by SANDAG discussed the nature of the amendment and provided justification for most of the amendments tested, documentation provided by Caltrans did not always allow SEC to determine whether the increased funding was related to additional work and projects or just added more resources for the same projects. However, even without detailed written justification, some Caltrans amendments still appeared reasonable such as adding another vernal pool location on an initial task order to maintain vernal pool habitats.

Change Orders Average 16.5 Percent of Contract Value, but Are Reasonable Additionally, over the three-year audit period, SANDAG and Caltrans awarded 49 construction contracts for projects worth more than $827 million using TransNet funds. Of those, nearly 990 change orders worth $57.8 million were issued for 19 projects completed and selected for review. For these completed projects, SANDAG’s 221 change orders averaged 13 percent of the original contract bid value; while Caltrans’ 767 change orders averaged 17.4 percent of the original contract bid value as shown in Table 7.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 24 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

30

Table 7: Change Orders Performance Percentages for Completed TransNet Construction Contracts Contract Change Orders % Paid No. CO % of Segment/ Project Contract Contract Total Total CO over of Contract No. Bid/Value Payment Value Value COs Bid/Value SANDAG’s Construction Contracts at 100% Completion Tecolote & Washington 5001573 $6,107,283 $6,128,774 0% 10 $21,491 0.4% Crossovers & Signals Sorrento to Miramar 5001827 $24,747,777 $26,409,221 7% 40 $1,950,443 7.9% Double Track, Phase 1 Santa Fe Drive Pedestrian 5001828 $3,077,888 $3,460,350 12% 16 $382,462 12.4% Underpass San Luis Rey Transit Center 5001829 $1,802,368 $2,981,827 65% 21 $1,581,539 87.7% A Orange Line Station Platform Modifications 5001840 $12,782,513 $15,137,793 18% 59 $2,544,448 19.9% Rebid Coastal Rail Trail Phase 2B 5001916 $1,179,404 $1,561,253 32% 19 $645,521 54.7% B Orange Line Substation 5001932 $1,744,652 $1,808,663 4% 3 $69,011 4.0% Rehab I-15 Ultimate BRT Stations (Rancho Bernardo & Del 5001935 $2,594,002 $2,741,524 6% 15 $280,205 10.8% Lago) Sabre Springs/Penasquitos Transit Station Parking 5001600 $11,231,850 $11,984,989 7% 38 $811,360 7.2% Structure & Station Reconfiguration SANDAG Sub-Total: $65,267,737 $72,214,394 221 $8,286,480 13%

Caltrans’s Construction Contracts at 100% Completion 805 HOV Lanes South 11-2T1814 $29,181,080 $32,326,640 11% 106 $4,192,420 14.4% Segment 805 HOV Lanes North 11-2T1804 $14,246,086 $17,675,665 24% 47 $4,227,267 29.7% C Segment Nordahl Bridge 11-259804 $9,271,985 $9,559,443 3% 38 $512,355 5.5% Replacement SR-78 WB Aux Lane 11-293104 $2,230,238 $2,433,607 9% 12 $224,951 10.1% 905 Phase 1B 11-288804 $57,095,736 $64,006,458 12% 134 $8,211,754 14.4% SR-76 Middle 11-080104 $61,023,992 $72,454,989 19% 124 $13,040,599 21.4% I-15 ML Middle – Unit 2 11-260724 $1,223,761 $1,225,407 0.1% 11 $139,433 11.4% Landscape I-15 ML North – Unit 1 11-2T0814 $46,599,284 $50,213,372 8% 117 $3,840,398 8.2% I-15 ML South – Unit 2 11-2T0924 $60,545,000 $71,812,555 19% 168 $14,878,360 24.6% I-15 ML Middle – Unit 1 11-260714 $2,446,027 $2,350,207 N/A 10 $219,761 9.0% Landscape Caltrans Sub-Total: $283,863,189 $324,058,343 767 $49,487,298 17.4%

Grand Total: $349,130,926 $396,272,737 988 $57,773,778 16.5%

Source: Caltrans and SANDAG Contracts staff, Caltrans data as of December 2014, SANDAG Data as of January 2015

SJOBERGEVASHENK 25 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

31

Table Footnotes and Explanations A = According to SANDAG, a new building had to be added to the project to allow for adequate security personnel and proper indoor space necessary for system equipment for electronic security and surveillance in a climate controlled environment. B = Budget increases were due to unforeseen conditions related to contaminated soil identified during the construction excavation, resulting in additional time and costs for the removal and disposal of the contaminated soil. C = According to Caltrans, an adjacent I-805 Carroll Canyon project had an unforeseen utility relocation and geotechnical issue requiring redesign of a wall that caused delays and required adjustments to the I-805 HOV lane project.

Typically, Caltrans estimates a 10 percent contingency for roadway construction projects consistent with targets set by peers; although the 17.4 percent range is higher than that target total. Yet, in the end, contractors were only paid 14 percent more than the initial contract bid amount. While the change order percentages appear somewhat higher than benchmarks, it is not as significant when put in perspective with the overall payment amounts. In addition, these results are only slightly higher than the 13 to 14 percent range noted in the first TransNet Performance Audit.

To understand the circumstances surrounding the contracts with higher change order percentages, SEC reviewed a sample of 15 change orders from five contracts managed by Caltrans and three contracts managed by SANDAG. Results of Caltrans change orders reveal compliance with its review and approval process that now delegates authority for change order approval to Corridor Directors; further, this changed approval process appears reasonable and has the necessary controls in place. Moreover, all change orders were mainly for unforeseen conditions or added scope due to changing requirements that seemed reasonable. Similarly, the SANDAG managed change orders, appeared to comply with its change order process and were for reasonably unforeseen conditions or changing requirements as well.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 26 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

32

Chapter 3: Local Street and Road Performance

CHAPTER SUMMARY Relieve congestion by constructing, expanding, rehabilitating, and maintaining local roadways. -TransNet Ordinance - Local Street & Road Program Local Street & Road Program Performance With nearly $378 million in TransNet funds spent on local streets and roads through June 30, 2014, the Local Street and Road program is the second largest TransNet category after major corridor capital projects. Six years into the program, limited performance data is available to inform the San Diego taxpayer on the impact of their sales tax investment on local streets and roads.

Audit Results Highlights . Local Street and Road Program performance still cannot be assessed: o Lack of local traffic detectors and inconsistent use of before and after studies to measure traffic speed and travel time prohibit a performance analysis of how local street and road projects are affecting congestion or impacting traffic flow. o Annual reports submitted by local jurisdictions have data such as outputs and pavement condition that should be summarized for reporting on performance. . Deteriorating local streets and roads may warrant a reexamination of congestion relief and maintenance definitions. o Pavement in the San Diego region has deteriorated from a “good” to “at risk” grade between 2008 and 2014. . Local jurisdictions continue to deliver local street and road projects following standard industry practices

Recommendations . Consider implementing one of the options from the Regional Arterial Detection System Development Plan and or develop and implement other alternative mechanisms to measure performance outcomes. . Expand on existing available local street and road performance output data to summarize improvements made to the network. . Revisit the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan provisions pertaining to 70 percent congestion relief and the 30 percent maintenance categories to determine whether definitions are still relevant.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 27 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

33

Local Street and Road Program Performance Still Cannot Be Assessed As required by the Ordinance, SANDAG allocates 29.1 percent of TransNet net annual revenues to the Local Street and Road Program, which makes it the second largest TransNet funded category after major corridor capital projects to relieve congestion by constructing, expanding, rehabilitating, and maintaining local roadways.

While the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan shows that local jurisdictions have used TransNet funds for numerous projects on the arterial and local street network over the past six years, demonstrating how those projects actually help relieve congestion seems to still pose a challenge to SANDAG and its local TransNet partners.

Challenges still Exist for Measuring Congestion Relief Local street and road performance in terms of congestion relief can be measured with metrics such as travel times, delays, or peak congestion. However, as described in the last TransNet performance audit in 2011, there is no system in place that allows SANDAG to capture these types of performance outcome measures. Challenges such as a lack of local or regional traffic detectors and inconsistent use of before and after studies at the local level to measure traffic volumes, speed, and travel time may prohibit region-wide determination of how TransNet funded local street and road projects help relieve congestion or impact traffic flow.

While SANDAG has looked into an arterial traffic detection infrastructure, it may require significant investment from SANDAG or the local jurisdictions to install more data collection tools that provide the ability to measure and monitor congestion relief performance of the local streets and roads network. Specifically, in 2012, a SANDAG consultant prepared a Regional Arterial Detection System Development Plan that suggested three different collection and monitoring options to capture data related to travel times, speeds, delays, and level of service. Options range from less expensive vehicle probe technology for $500,000 to more costly permanent detection stations in the $43 to $48 million range.

While there are varying benefits, impacts, and limitations with each option, SANDAG should consider implementing one of the deployment options or derive some other method that would allow it to measure and report on street and road performance. According to SANDAG, a detection system would be implemented only as local agency priorities dictate and based on the funding availability. If arterial detection is not the desired option, SANDAG should still develop and implement some alternate system that would measure outcomes such as travel times and delays for the local street and road program.

Some Performance Output Data is Available from Local Jurisdictions While performance outcome measures such as increased mobility (travel time, speed, or delays) or safety (accidents or fatalities) are difficult to obtain at this point, several other output measures are already available as discussed. These output measures should not pose a significant burden on local jurisdictions to provide, nor on SANDAG to compile for reporting the Local Street and Road program’s performance to the public.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 28 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

34

Specifically, in response to the last performance audit, SANDAG worked with representation from the local jurisdictions via the Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee to develop an “Annual Report” highlighting accomplishments on local streets and roads. The first annual report was finalized in May 2014 containing information for all 19 local jurisdictions. Although a Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee working group put considerable effort into gathering feedback from all local jurisdictions on available and consistent data for the report, SEC finds that the report in its current format could be improved with more concrete performance output data. While additional reporting requirements come at an additional cost and effort to the local jurisdictions and SANDAG, a few minor changes to the existing annual report could provide greater transparency over the accomplishments in the Local Street and Road Program—effort SEC believes worthwhile given that an assessment of local performance is still not possible.

In fact, the data SEC proposes for an updated annual report is mostly already available and, thus, should not add significant extra burden on local jurisdictions or SANDAG. Local Street and Road Program achievements would be easier to identify and understand if SANDAG built upon and expanded data existing in the annual report into a concise and summarized document. While local jurisdictions still provide the underlying data, SANDAG should consolidate the information into a single “report card” synopsis of outcome statistics for all jurisdictions. Such a report card could provide quick “at-a-glance” information on select statistics such as miles paved, feet of sidewalk installed or number of traffic signals upgraded. An example report card is shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Example Summary Annual Report Card for the Local Street and Road Program TransNet Annual Local Street & Road Program Performance Report Card City 1 City 2 Region-Wide

Total TransNet $ Received $2M $8 $10M Total TransNet $ Spent $1.8M $7 $8.8M Total Local Street and Road Network (miles) 185 250 435 Pavement Rehab & Repair No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost 1) Miles Paved 10 $500 0 $ - 10 $ 500 2) Number of Potholes Repaired 250 $100 300 $150 550 $ 250 3) PCI (latest available) 66 70 68

Pedestrian Improvements No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost 1) Feet of Sidewalk Installed/Repaired 500 $ 50 600 $ 70 1100 $ 120 2) Number of Pedestrian Ramp Upgrades 0 $ - 25 $200 25 $ 200

Traffic Operations No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost 1) Number of New Traffic Signals 30 $ 10 80 $ 30 110 $ 40 2) Number of New Light Bulbs 50 $ 2 120 $ 5 170 $ 7 Source: Auditor-Generated

SJOBERGEVASHENK 29 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

35

Pavement Condition Could be Captured and Reported In addition to measures such as miles paved or potholes repaired, another measure of the health of roadways is the condition of payment using a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) captured in categories ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 100 as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Thresholds

Source: California Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment 2014

For example, the City of Vista indicated in its Annual Report that its PCI registered at-risk at 61 about 10 years ago, but now pavement conditions has significantly improved to a 76.2 for arterials and 70.1 for local streets. This type of information could be used to demonstrate how TransNet funds helped improve the condition of local roads. As such, local jurisdictions should report on their PCI, where available, each time a survey is conducted measuring condition.

Once a PCI baseline year or “Year 1” has been established, SANDAG could summarize the data and provide general region-wide information such as “region-wide, the PCI was 66 in 2014 but with TransNet contributions, the PCI has improved to 70.” The baseline year does not have to be the same for all jurisdictions, but having several years of data available will allow for the tracking of pavement improvement or deterioration in correlation to maintenance or rehabilitation investments—and serve as a performance measure for the Local Street and Road Program.

Deteriorating Local Streets and Roads May Warrant a Reexamination of Congestion Relief and Maintenance Category Definitions Since 2008, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has administered the contract for a biennial statewide local street and road needs assessment studies. In the most recent 2014 report, the California Metropolitan Transportation Commission found that the average pavement condition for California streets and roads has deteriorated from 2008 when the statewide average PCI was 68 to the current rating of 66 in 2014—which is classified as “at risk.” This trend is also being felt in the San Diego region.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 30 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

36

With PCIs ranging from a low 33 for Amador County to a high 77 for Orange County, San Diego’s PCI of 66 is in line with statewide averages. However, over the past six years, the region’s road conditions have deteriorated from a “good/excellent” condition of 74 to an “at risk” condition as shown in Table 9—yet, neighboring counties were able to maintain their roads in good condition.

Table 9: PCI Data for San Diego and Comparable Counties, 2008 through 2014 Center Lane Area Average PCI County Line Miles Miles (square yards) 2008 2010 2012 2014 San Diego 7,814 18,596 170,696,012 74 69 67 66 Riverside 7,561 16,835 149,403,177 71 72 70 70 Orange 6,601 16,808 150,276,239 78 76 77 77 Source: California Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment 2014

The overall declining condition of the region’s pavement suggests that, while the roads were in good in condition in 2008, they were not sufficiently maintained and pavement has started to deteriorate. While multiple reasons may have contributed towards this decline, SEC believes SANDAG could revisit definitions for allocating funds between congestion relief and maintenance projects to help local jurisdictions in their efforts to improve driving conditions on local roads. Specifically, one requirement of the TransNet Ordinance with regard to the Local Street and Road Program relates to the allocation of at least 70 percent of TransNet funds on congestion relief projects and no more than 30 percent to maintenance projects—commonly referred to as the “70/30 Split Rule.” Building new or widening roads, rehabilitating roadways and bridges, or overlaying pavement at greater than 1-inch thickness are typical congestion relief projects. Conversely, pothole repairs, less than 1-inch pavement overlay, existing median landscaping, or light bulb replacements are examples of projects considered maintenance. As such, pavement funds can be considered congestion relief or maintenance depending on the thickness of the overlay. Compliance with the 70/30 Split Rule is determined annually by the TransNet financial audit and not assessed by this review; however, Board Policy No. 31: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules provides a mechanism for local agencies to request an exemption to the 30 percent maintenance limitation by providing justification.

Within the 70 percent congestion relief and 30 percent maintenance categories, local jurisdictions have discretion over the types of projects to fund using TransNet dollars. Thus, a local jurisdiction can opt to spend all TransNet maintenance monies on pavement maintenance or share the pool amongst pavement, landscaping, or traffic calming. For the five sample local jurisdictions SEC reviewed during the current audit, pavement projects appear to be the most common maintenance projects completed or planned for completion. The five sample local jurisdictions have allocated 98 percent of total maintenance expenses, on average, to pavement projects for the Fiscal Year 2012-13 to Fiscal Year 2016-17 period as shown in Figure 8. For example, the City of San Diego listed one Regional Transportation Improvement Program maintenance project worth $60.5 million—all of which is going towards pavement repairs. By contrast, La Mesa chose to divide its maintenance funds amongst four projects, one of which relates to pavement maintenance that represents approximately 42 percent of total maintenance costs.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 31 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

37

Figure 8: Planned Pavement Maintenance Allocations as a Percent of Total Maintenance Allocations, FY 2012-2013 to FY 2016-2017

Source: 2012 RTIP, Amendment 18 Notes: (A) For the County of San Diego, the 2014 RTIP (Amendment 0) shows $7 million in TransNet Funds allocated towards pavement maintenance between FY 2015-2016 and FY 2018-2019, which represents 100% of the costs the County allocated towards the TransNet maintenance category.

Additionally, over the last three years, total pavement spending for the five local jurisdictions reviewed has increased regardless of overlay thickness and categorization as congestion relief or maintenance. Of this amount, funds spent on pavement maintenance were three times greater than pavement congestion relief costs as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: TransNet Pavement Spending for 5 Sample Local Jurisdictions FY 2008-2009 to FY 2013-2014

Source: ProjectTrak TransNet Payment Reports FY 2008-2009 to FY 2013-2014

Most noticeably, the City of San Diego’s pavement spending increased from $6.4 million to more than $52 million between the FYs 2008-2011 period and the FYs 2011-2014 period. While a city may have additional pavement needs, the jurisdiction may be limited on the types of

SJOBERGEVASHENK 32 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

38

pavement projects funded with TransNet money to remain compliant with the 70/30 Split Rule outlined in the TransNet Ordinance.

With the majority of maintenance funds spent on pavement repairs, the five sample local jurisdictions in the San Diego region align with national discussions that suggests spending on thin maintenance overlays rather than thick congestion relief overlays is a better use of limited funding. For instance, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission study suggests that seals including slurry, chip, or cape seals are good options since durability for these types of treatments has improved in recent years. Moreover, these types of seals cost significantly less than congestion relief overlays as shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Cost and Durability for Different Pavement Rehabilitation Types TransNet TransNet Congestion Relief (70%) Maintenance (30%) Preventative Thin AC Overlay Thick AC Overlay Reconstruction Maintenance Major $4.85 $18.82 $29.73 $68.48 Roads/Arterials 3-7 years 5-10 years 10-15 years 20+ years Local Roads $4.61 $18.04 $28.44 $60.31 Source: California Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment 2014; Caltrans Maintenance Technical Advisory Guide-Flexible Pavement Preservation; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Notes: Costs are $ per square yard.

Yet, while pavement maintenance spending shows growth, the region’s pavement conditions are deteriorating. To help local jurisdictions best determine which projects are needed to best meet their pavement needs without unnecessarily restricting their options, SANDAG should revisit and possibly revise its 70/30 percent categorical definitions between congestion relief and maintenance. A revision to the definition of projects eligible under the 70 or 30 percent categories may grant local jurisdictions more flexibility on how to spend their TransNet monies, especially for pavement maintenance projects. Without actually changing the split, SANDAG could consider modifying the requirement for pavement overlay congestion relief thickness from currently 1 inch to for example ½ inch. This would mean that seal projects such as chip and cape seals which range from ¾ - ½ inch in thickness could be paid from the congestion relief pool— while slurry seals averaging ¼ inch would still remain in the maintenance category.

Local Jurisdictions Continue to Deliver Local Street and Road Projects Following Standard Industry Practices Since the start of the program in 2008, the 18 local cities and the County have expended nearly $378 million in funds towards improving local streets and roads through a wide-range of projects including, but not limited to building new roads, bridges, sidewalks, correcting roadway drainage issues, repairing potholes, and rehabilitating pavement. While SANDAG is responsible for calculating each local jurisdiction’s share of the sales tax formula, the decision on which projects to prioritize and fund with TransNet local street and road monies is vetted at the local level and captured in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 33 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

39

SEC’s high-level review of local project management and delivery processes as well as select project files did not reveal any significant deviations from what is common practice in public construction. Local project managers follow purchasing procedures to competitively procure contractors, carefully review contractor invoices and progress reports, track milestones, deliverables, and change order requests. Delays and cost increases for sample local projects reviewed, were due to reasonably unforeseen circumstances such as environmental conditions, third party actions, and policy changes.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 34 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

40

Chapter 4: Environmental Mitigation Efforts

CHAPTER SUMMARY Fund habitat-related environmental mitigation activities related to major highway, transit and regional arterial and local street and road improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. - TransNet Ordinance – Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation Program

Program Performance More than $153 million in TransNet funds have been spent on environmental mitigation efforts as of June 30, 2014. Key activities include:  Land acquisitions, which are nearly complete with more than 3,300 acres.  Habitat conservation activities, which to date, $20.5 million (out of an expected $200 million) has been spent. However, it is still too early to measure results of overall mitigation efforts as restoration and land management activities Note: Amounts include EMP Grant funds. have just begun.

Audit Results Highlights . Land acquisitions are nearly complete with more than 3,300 acres purchased . Program continues to run well as it transitions from acquisition to restoration . Almost all of the $200 million local mitigation funds are still available . Strategic plans implemented, so focus should shift to performance monitoring . Developed process to define economic benefit and distribution method, but need approach to define and compare against actual achievements

Recommendations . Continue efforts to market local mitigation program with money available for locals. . Begin focus on measuring results of mitigation efforts, such as restoration and management, against goals. . Create methodology to quantify how much economic benefit has actually been achieved to compare against what was released to identify funding deficits or surpluses.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 35 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

41

Land Acquisitions are Nearly Complete as Focus Shifts to Restoration and Conservation In general, the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) efforts are focused in two major areas—(1) the mitigation of direct environmental impacts caused by the regional and local transportation projects, and (2) the conservation and monitoring of habitats and endangered species. Most of the effort over the last six years has focused on acquiring land to be restored and conserved. Figure 10 below illustrates estimated budgets for key EMP activities.

Figure 10: Estimated Budgets for Key EMP Activities

Note: (1) Figures may not sum to total due to rounding. (2) Funding released through achieving economic benefits associated with transportation mitigation.

Transportation Project Mitigation The TransNet Extension Ordinance set aside $650 million over the 40-year period to mitigate the impacts of transportation projects, activities include land acquisition, habitat restoration, and parcel-specific land management of uplands, freshwater wetlands, and coastal wetlands. Once land is acquired, restoration efforts, if necessary, are commenced after significant preliminary work is complete, including developing design plans and obtaining construction permits. After restoration activities are complete, long-term management is established with the regulatory agencies indicating which entities will own and manage the site.

As of June 30, 2014, the SANDAG EMP has expended nearly $127 million to fund key EMP activities as shown in Table 11.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 36 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

42

Table 11: Spending by EMP Activity as of June 30, 2014 (Amounts in Millions) EMP Activity Budget Actual Costs Regional Mitigation Admin Support $21.5 $4.2 Regional Mitigation Land Acquisitions $188.1 $108 Regional Mitigation Habitat Restoration $225.2 $11 Regional Mitigation Habitat Management $15.2 $1.4 Local Transportation Mitigation $200 $1.9 A Total Amounts $650 $126.5 Source: TransNet Extension Ordinance, One Solution Reports, Project Management Tracking Reports A = Approximately $7.9 million has been earmarked for local project mitigation, of which $1.9 million has been utilized.

Land Acquisition Activities Since the inception of the program, the vast majority of expenditures relate to land acquisitions purchased to mitigate the regional transportation project impacts. As of June 30, 2014, the EMP program has acquired more than 3,300 acres of land in total and is nearing completion of the expected acquisitions. While in 2002 per acre acquisition cost estimates totaled approximately $209.9 million, SANDAG has only spent approximately $108 million to secure the land—a significant savings. According to SANDAG, the savings is largely the result of favorable land prices due to the economic recession.

As described in the 2011 audit, SANDAG had struggled to acquire sufficient coastal wetlands for regional transportation project mitigation to comply with needs outlined in the TransNet Ordinance due to the lack of large-scale opportunities for coastal wetland creation that meet the requirements of the regulatory agencies. As of June 30, 2014, SANDAG had acquired about 24 percent of the Ordinance’s estimated required coastal wetlands as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Percent of Land Acquired for Mitigation as of June 30, 2014 Habitat Types (Post Mitigation) Coastal Freshwater Habitat Acres Uplands Total wetlands wetlands Estimated Required Acres 225 495 1598 2318 Total Habitat Acres Acquired 54.89 339.18 2,940.54 3,334.61 Less Acres Acquired to 80.34 A 80.34 Complete SR 76 “Net Benefit” Acres Acquired Available for 54.89 339.18 2,860.20 3,265.99 Regional Mitigation Percent of Land Acquired 24 percent 69 percent 179 percent 141 percent Source: 2002 TransNet Ordinance, EMP Project Management Files Note: (A) 80.34 acres of uplands does not go towards mitigation; rather, these areas are related to the Jeffries Ranch purchase for meeting the “net-benefit” obligation for SR 76.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 37 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

43

To address this situation, SANDAG and Caltrans worked with the regulatory agencies as part of the overall coastal wetland strategy to prepare a package that meets the regulatory requirement of “no-net-loss” where the nearly 55 acres of coastal wetland already acquired will complete the mitigation of coastal wetland impacts. The regulatory agencies accepted the package and the strategy was incorporated in a strategic plan approved by the California Coastal Commission in August 2014.

Conversely, SANDAG has been able to purchase an abundance of uplands for mitigation purposes. As shown in Table 12, as of June 30, 2014, SANDAG has purchased 179 percent of the upland acres required by the TransNet Ordinance. According to SANDAG, the additional land has allowed SANDAG to create a buffer of upland acres available for future mitigation needs, including mitigation for local transportation projects if needed.

Habitat Restoration Activities As the land acquisition phase of the EMP is nearing completion, SANDAG and Caltrans are shifting focus and effort to restoration activities of wetlands, particularly related to the North Coast Corridor. However, because the EMP has just recently begun to concentrate on these activities, it is still too early to gauge the effectiveness of either the EMP’s habitat restoration efforts.

Of the $450 million earmarked to mitigate the regional transportation improvement projects, the TransNet Extension Ordinance estimated $225.3 million would be required for all land restoration of approximately 2,300 acres throughout the 40-year program. To date, the EMP has only spent a fraction of these estimates on restoration activities as much of the early focus of the EMP has been on land acquisitions. As of June 30, 2014, the EMP program has spent $11 million, or about 5 percent of the 2002 restoration estimate, on restoration activities. According to SANDAG, restoration costs will go up dramatically as the focus of the EMP begins to shift from land acquisition efforts to restoration, particularly related to the upcoming restoration efforts associated with the North Coast Corridor projected to cost approximately $160 million over the next five years as well as restoration activities associated with the acquired properties.

Land Management Activities A final step of the TransNet mitigation effort is the habitat management and monitoring of parcel-specific land that has been acquired and restored. While these activities are used to maintain the environmental integrity of the acquired land through actions such as installing fencing and signage as well as removing debris and invasive vegetation, this management and monitoring occurs after the land is restored. As of June 30, 2014, only $1.4 million, or about 9 percent of the 2002 estimate, has been spent on land management activities since the inception of the EMP program. However, land management costs are expected to increase once restoration of the acquired mitigation land is completed and management responsibilities are turned over to local jurisdictions.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 38 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

44

Local Mitigation Activities In addition to the $450 million allocated for regional projects, the TransNet Extension Ordinance also earmarked another $200 million for mitigation activities associated with the impact from portions of six local projects. However, as of June 30, 2014, the EMP program has only utilized $1.9 million of the $200 million, or 1 percent, on local mitigation related to a small 12-acre piece of property in the San Marcos Redevelopment area. Portions of six properties (approximately 327 acres in total) purchased through regional efforts have been set aside in a local mitigation bank that are worth approximately $7.9 million.

According to SANDAG, there has not been much interest or demand in these funds earmarked for local mitigation because local entities have not focused on projects due to the economic recession and extra funding available for mandated developer environmental fees. SANDAG indicated that an increased marketing effort will be undertaken, including reaching out to public works and planning directors in the region, to educate and encourage the local jurisdictions to take advantage of this available funding source.

Habitat Conservation The second major component of the EMP relates to $200 million set aside for habitat management, monitoring, and coordination activities necessary to implement regional conservation plans. As part of conservation efforts, SANDAG must work with local jurisdictions to coordinate with the local habitat and species conservation plans.

Of the $200 million set aside for the 40-year period, the Board allocated $40 million over ten years ($4 million per year) for habitat conservation efforts such as invasive plant and animal species management, vegetation mapping, wildlife corridor linkages monitoring, open space enforcement, and rare plant and invertebrate monitoring and recovery. SANDAG administers these activities through direct contracts as well as through 70 individual competitive land management grants. Recently, another $20 million was set aside for land acquisition grants. The remaining funding is for other management or biological monitoring activities needed for conservation efforts. Through the end of October 2014, nearly $20.5 million—or 10 percent of expected habitat conservation funds—has been spent.

With EMP Strategic Plans in Place, Focus Should Shift to Performance Monitoring Since the 2011, SANDAG has worked with its partners to develop strategic plans focused on mitigation associated with major highway projects as well as focused on regional habitat conservation efforts as activities shift between phases from land acquisition to restoration activities. There are two main plans—the Public Works Plan and the Management Strategic Plan for Conserved Lands. Because the strategic plans have only recently been developed and are in the initial stages of implementation, it is too soon to measure performance and accomplishments. However, over the next three years, staff should have data to compare results against plan goals as well as be able to demonstrate monitoring efforts once the monitoring plan component is developed and implemented.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 39 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

45

Public Works Plan for Regional Mitigation Jointly developed by SANDAG and Caltrans, the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation Resource Enhancement Program is a single comprehensive regulatory document providing a blueprint for all rail, highway, environmental, and coastal access improvements along the North Coast Corridor previously contained in separately adopted regional and city plans. For example, part of this plan includes a mitigation component related to natural resource establishment, restoration, and preservation/enhancement opportunities to mitigate impacts of the North Coast Corridor transportation and community enhancement projects. Approximately $166 million in funding is allocated to regionally significant lagoon restoration opportunities and long-term resource maintenance activities including:  Creation of new coastal wetlands;  Large scale lagoon enhancements of existing wetlands;  Upland preservation; and  Endowments for lagoon management. In August 2014, the California Coastal Commission approved the plan, allowing SANDAG and its partners to proceed with implementation. If the EMP fulfills the related plan actions, all transportation impact mitigation requirements will be accomplished for the three projects.

Management Strategic Plan for Conserved Lands In addition to the mitigation strategic plan for coastal wetlands, the EMP program also created a technical Management Strategic Plan for Conserved Lands in Western San Diego County that focused on habitat conservation with goals to promote key sensitive species, native vegetation communities, and regional collaboration in addition to improve wildlife movement. The plan also includes high priority areas of emphasis and near-term achievement milestones. In September 2014, these goals and milestones were tied to the EMP’s conservation funding plan for the first time. Results will be published in EMP status reports published annually each January.

Additionally, a Monitoring Plan component is planned for inclusion in the overall conservation strategic plan; however, development has been postponed until September 2015 due to the severe drought in Southern California restricting scientists’ ability to test techniques that will be incorporated within the plan.

EMP Economic Benefit is Defined, but More Will Need to be Done A critical aspect of funding the $200 million of habitat conservation efforts centers on an “economic benefit” concept. In theory, economic benefits are derived from cost savings associated with the regional and local transportation improvement projects. Established in the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the EMP Principles state that this habitat conservation funding stream is allocated upon the achievement of “economic benefits” associated with transportation projects by encouraging the purchase of land to meet mitigation requirements in advance of the start of a project—and, hopefully, taking advantage of lower land costs. To release the estimated

SJOBERGEVASHENK 40 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

46

$200 million, transportation projects must achieve and demonstrate these “economic benefits,” or cost savings, as determined by the SANDAG Board.

As recommended in the 2011 TransNet audit, SANDAG recently developed a process to define economic benefit, methodology to distribute and allocate economic benefit among transportation projects, and procedure to release economic benefit for habitat conservation efforts. In August 2014, the Board approved $60 million in economic benefit to be allocated through grants—land management and land acquisition—as follows:  $40 million authorized for regional management and monitoring activities—$4 million per year over a 10-year period between 2008 and 2018.  $20 million authorized in land acquisition grants. As of the end of October 2014, none of the $20 million had been budgeted or expended as the initial grant process is still underway.

Now that economic benefit has been defined and estimated savings released for activities, the next step is to create and define an approach for quantifying how much economic benefit was actually achieved to compare against what was released and identify funding deficits or surpluses. The creation of such an approach is required by the Memorandum of Agreement signed by SANDAG, Caltrans, and the wildlife agencies which states that a review of actual expenditures to estimates could take place in conjunction with the 10-year TransNet comprehensive review.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 41 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

47

Chapter 5: Transit Service Performance

CHAPTER SUMMARY Provide ongoing support for the reduced-price monthly transit programs for seniors, persons with disabilities, and students and for the continuation and expansion of rail, express bus, local bus, community shuttles, and dial-a-ride services, including specialized services for seniors and persons with disabilities, and related capital improvements. - TransNet Ordinance – Transit System Service Improvements and Related Programs Program Performance Nearly $225 million in TransNet funds have been spent on transit services and new transit operations as of June 30, 2014.  Annual transit ridership has grown since the prior audit to 107.6 million riders.  Most NCTD route categories meet or exceed target on-time performance, with on-time performance ranging from 88 percent to 99 percent in 2014.  Similarly, almost half of MTS route categories met on-time performance targets in 2014, with actual on-time performance ranging from 81 percent to 91 percent.  San Diego bus and rail services continue to outperform peers in on-time performance, farebox

recovery ratio, and operating expense per mile. Note: Amounts include $72.8M for Senior Mini-Grants. Audit Results Highlights . Operators have solid on-time performance and improved reliability o For instance, significant improvements in miles between mechanical loss were made by NCTD light rail and MTS directly operated bus services improving the reliability of the transit system. . San Diego transit still outperforms peers for fixed route bus and all rail modes o System-wide Fixed Route farebox recovery ratios of nearly 34 percent in 2012 outpaced the peer average of 22 percent. o Light rail operating cost per revenue mile ranged from $7.87 in 2010 to $8.39 in 2012, which were significantly less than the peer averages of $14.05 and $13.50 over the same period. o The newly categorized Hybrid Rail reported significantly lower operating costs per boarding, with operating costs per boarding of $5.71 in 2012 compared to the $16.09 peer average. o Commuter rail farebox recovery ratio was greater than peer averages in both 2010 and 2012, at roughly 40 percent both years. Recommendations . Continue development of Transit Performance Dashboards on each agency’s respective website and provide a link to the Dashboard on SANDAGs website once complete.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 42 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

48

TransNet Funds Only a Small Portion of Transit Operations As part of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, a sizable portion of sales tax revenues is dedicated to transit programs shared between the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD). Using these monies and other leveraged funds, the main services operated by these two entities include:  Fixed route, rapid transit, express, and circulator bus  COASTER Commuter Rail  Paratransit/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  SPRINTER Hybrid Rail services  FLEX Rides by Reservation  Blue, Orange, and Green Line Light Rail From the TransNet program, 16.5 percent of the annual net revenues are available for transit services with the majority spent on operational costs, minor capital expenses, passes, and subsidies. A small portion of the 16.5 percent funds is designated for senior and ADA services (2.5 percent) and the Senior Mini-Grant program managed by SANDAG (3.25 percent). Additionally, another 8.1 percent of TransNet monies is reserved for the operation of new or expanded TransNet services in San Diego County. Although a significant share of the sales tax revenue is available, these TransNet funds represent a small fraction of the transit operators’ Fiscal Year 2013 total revenue at 10 percent for MTS and 12 percent for NCTD.

Transit Operators Show Strong Performance Transit performance is generally not captured by specific funding source, but rather tracked for the system as a whole, by route category, and/or individual routes—although performance indicators for routes funded by the 8.1 percent TransNet New Major Corridor Operations funds will be tracked and separately reported in the future. Performance is tracked and reported through a variety of mechanisms including annual performance reports to each agencies respective Boards, Quarterly Performance Monitoring Reports submitted to SANDAG, and annual reporting to the National Transit Database among others. Results within these documents may vary due to the self-reported nature of performance elements and the data collection methods used, as well as the time period of data being captured and reported. Yet, regardless of reporting source, San Diego continues to experience strong ridership levels, on-time performance, and reliability.

For instance, ridership is up from 2005 levels and has increased from the prior audit period to more than 107.6 million riders as of Fiscal Year 2014. MTS data shows growth from nearly 85 million in 2011 to more than 95 million in 2014, realizing an approximate 12 percent increase. Most of the growth was related to MTS’ light rail services. Similarly, NCTD data shows ridership grew from 11.5 million in Fiscal Year 2011 to its highest ever reported ridership of 12.6 million in Fiscal Year 2014—a nearly 10 percent growth.

In terms of on-time performance, both San Diego transit operators continue to realize strong rates of timely service. NCTD’s performance has held steady or improved in certain modes with services provided between 94 and 99 percent on-time as shown in Table 13. Since 2008, the COASTER has increased its timeliness from 96 to 97 percent in 2014. Moreover, the

SJOBERGEVASHENK 43 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

49

SPRINTER service improved from 97 to more than 99 percent of trips completed on time between 2008 and 2014. NCTD’s fixed route service, the BREEZE, experienced a decline in timely performance with levels declining from 97 percent in 2012 to 88 percent in 2014. The drop in performance is the result of more accurate reporting when NCTD changed from less reliable manual counts to computerized counts using its new Automatic Vehicle Location system.

Table 13: NCTD On-Time Performance by Route Category FY 2008 to FY 2014 Route Category FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Goal Fixed Route – BREEZE 96.5% 95.5% 95.9% 95.1% 96.8% 85.0% 88.3% 86% Commuter Rail – COASTER 95.7% 97.0% 96.3% 95.8% 95.6% 97.9% 96.8% 95% Hybrid Rail – SPRINTER 97.3% 99.7% 99.3% 98.6% 99.2% 98.5% 99.3% 98% ADA/Paratransit – LIFT 94.0% 94.0% 94.2% 94.7% 91.6% 92.3% 93.8% 95% Source: NCTD Fiscal Year 2007-2009 Transportation Development Act Audit Report & NCTD On-Time Performance Reports

Similarly, MTS also realized solid on-time performance rates system-wide with increased timeliness from 83 percent to 85 percent between 2012 and 2014, as shown in Table 14. For instance, between 2012 and 2014, the Express Bus service has increased performance from 73 percent to 83 percent of stops completed on-time. With targets set at 90 percent on-time service for most of its routes and 85 percent on-time service for urban frequent routes, almost half of its eight route categories in 2014 met targets as shown in the table. According to MTS, on-time performance for its Light Rail was impacted by Blue Line Trolley Renewal construction; while performance of its urban frequent bus routes carrying the greatest number of passengers were heavily impacted by construction and traffic in the high density corridors serviced. Moreover, many route categories have increased on-time performance over the three-year period.

Table 14: MTS On-Time Performance by Route Category FY 2012 to FY 2014 Route Category Jun-12 Jun-13 Jun-14 Goal Premium Express 1 99.5% 98.8% - 90.0% Rapid Express (Routes 280, 290) - - 85.7% 90.0% Rapid (SuperLoop) 95.2% 90.0% 90.8% 85.0% Express 73.4% 81.8% 83.3% 90.0% Light Rail 86.4% 95.2% 88.0% 90.0% Urban Frequent 81.7% 79.6% 81.2% 85.0% Urban Standard 80.7% 83.1% 86.1% 90.0% Circulator 95.5% 91.6% 90.5% 90.0% System On-Time Performance 83.4% 84.1% 85.0% Source: MTS Policy 42 Performance Monitoring Report Fiscal Years 2013 & 2014 Note: (1) Premium service was replaced by Rapid Express

Another indicator of system reliability is miles between mechanical loss which measures service quality calculated by capturing the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each mechanical breakdown that result in a loss of service to the public. As illustrated in Table 15, half of the route categories experienced improvement in the number of miles between

SJOBERGEVASHENK 44 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

50

mechanical loss such as MTS directly operated bus which improved its miles between mechanical failures by nearly 28 percent—likely due to the purchase of new buses.

Conversely, NCTD’s fixed route average miles between mechanical loss declined by 37 percent. According to NCTD, this decrease is due to a combination of its aging fleet and contractor performance. NCTD states it is actively working with the contractor to identify trends and failures in order to improve fleet maintenance. Similarly, NCTD SPRINTER service improved its miles between mechanical loss by 257 percent with recent enhancements to its maintenance program, while MTS light rail miles between mechanical loss declined by nearly 10 percent. As both agencies replace older vehicles, the miles between mechanical loss will continue to improve the reliability of the San Diego transit system.

Table 15: Miles between Mechanical Loss, FY 2012 to FY 2014 Fiscal Year

2012 2013 2014 % Change 2012 - 2014 NCTD BREEZE Fixed Route 26,733 17,774 16,760 -37% NCTD SPRINTER Light Rail 12,224 24,877 43,651 257% NCTD COASTER Commuter Rail 22,804 19,146 24,252 6% MTS Directly Operated Bus 9,706 11,167 12,405 28% MTS Contract Services 10,908 10,190 9,265 -15% MTS Light Rail 476,369 325,354 430,189 -10% Source: MTS Policy 42 Performance Monitoring Report Fiscal Years 2013 & 2014; NCTD Monthly Performance Reports

Finally, although San Diego system-wide operating costs increased from 2009 to 2012, from $282.5 million to $294.7 million, this is a modest increase of roughly 4 percent when compared to the nearly 6 percent increase in the consumer price index over the same period.

MTS and NCTD Continue to Improve Performance Tracking Both operators report performance data through a variety of mechanisms that help ensure management and the public are informed of transit performance. For instance, MTS has developed a robust performance reporting system with established targets to measure performance. Metrics captured include service availability, in-service hours, route headway, and accidents per 100,000 miles. Similarly, NCTD tracks and provides performance information on their website for several recent fiscal years and provides monthly performance reports to their Board of Directors. NCTD also establishes annual performance goals to track performance. Performance data reported includes ridership, on-time performance, miles between mechanical losses, accidents per 100,000 miles, valid complaints, compliments, and farebox recovery.

Both entities also indicated that they were creating Transit Operations Performance dashboards; however, these dashboards are not expected to be completed until 2015. While current information provided by both transit operators allows customers and the general public to obtain a snapshot of the systems performance and generates some historical data for comparison,

SJOBERGEVASHENK 45 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

51

providing the data in an easily accessible location for comparison purposes would be beneficial. As such, NCTD and MTS should continue efforts to create dashboards that provide transit operation performance in a convenient location for taxpayers to assess performance over time.

Further, as part of the Coordinated Plan developed by SANDAG that guides the implementation of public transit and social service transportation concepts, the transit operators have worked with SANDAG to outline performance guidelines and targets for performance and track actual results against metrics such as access to transit services, the number of trips completed, average percent of seats occupied, and farebox recovery, as well as many others illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Examples of 2014 - 2018 Coordinated Plan Transit Performance Measures

San Diego Transit Service Still Outperforms Peers Using standard industry performance metrics such as farebox recovery ratios and operating cost per boarding, SEC’s review revealed that MTS and NCTD’s fixed route and rail systems outperformed peer systems throughout the nation including Los Angeles, Orange County, Denver, and Dallas over the most recent three-year period—a positive trend continuing from the prior audit. Specifically, SEC compared San Diego County performance as reported in the National Transit Database against peers identified based on area size, services provided, geographical characteristics, and boardings for fixed route, light rail, commuter rail, and hybrid rail. It is important to note, the data reported in the National Transit Database is self-reported by operators; as a result, there is an inherent risk that data reported may not be accurate. However, this is the best comparable data widely available. While the following sections summarize the performance comparisons, details on individual peer performance can be found in Appendix B.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 46 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

52

Fixed Route Performs Better than its Peers As illustrated in Table 16, San Diego County’s system-wide fixed route—MTS (including Chula Vista Transit) and NCTD—generally performs better than ten of its national peers over the most recent three-year period where data are available between Fiscal Year 2010 and 2012. For example, the San Diego system-wide farebox recovery ratio was approximately 33.7 percent, or 11.3 percent higher than the 22.4 percent ten peer average—meaning San Diego offset 33.7 percent of its operating costs through fare revenues. In another instance, San Diego’s average operating cost per revenue mile was $8.06 and $2.35 less than the $10.41 peer average. Further, although San Diego’s farebox recovery ratios has declined slightly between 2010 and 2012, most of the other performance indicators are showing positive changes. These results are similar to trends noted in the prior audit.

Table 16: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Fixed Route Performance with 10 National Peers

Operating Operating Cost Passenger Farebox Subsidy per Agency 1 Cost Per 3 per Revenue Trips Per Recovery Ratio 2 Boarding 4 5 Boarding Mile Revenue Mile 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 San Diego 33.8% 33.7% $3.02 $2.86 $2.00 $1.90 $7.67 $8.06 2.5 2.8 (System-wide) 10 Peer Average 21.3% 22.4% $4.48 $4.56 $3.59 $3.61 $9.52 $10.41 2.3 2.5

Source: NTD 2010 & 2012 Transit Profiles Note: 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses 2 Operating Cost Per Boarding= Operating Expenses/Total Boardings 3 Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/ Total Boardings 4 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles 5 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile = Total Revenue Miles/Passenger Trips

Similarly, MTS’ Light Rail Outperforms Peers SEC compared MTS’ light rail performance against nine national peers based on performance information reported in the 2010 and 2012 National Transit Database Reports, and found MTS’ Light Rail 55.6 percent farebox recovery ratio was the highest amongst its peers and more than 24.3 percent higher than the nine peer average of 31.3 percent as shown in Table 17. In addition, MTS’s $1.94 operating cost per boarding was the lowest amongst its peers—at $1.50 less than the $3.44 nine peer average. MTS trends between 2010 and 2012 show positive results with higher farebox recovery and lower operating costs per boarding. Additionally, one difference to note when analyzing the trend between the 2010 and 2012 National Transit Database reporting years is that NCTD services were reclassified from Light Rail to Hybrid Rail as guided by the National Transit Database to account for differences between the operating characteristics of the diesel multiple unit vehicles versus traditional light rail vehicles; thus, that performance is analyzed separately.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 47 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

53

Table 17: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Light Rail Performance with 9 National Peers

Operating Cost Passenger Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per Agency 1 2 3 per Revenue Trips Per Recovery Ratio Per Boarding Boarding 4 5 Mile Revenue Mile 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 San Diego (MTS) 54.3% 55.6% $2.00 $1.94 $0.91 $0.86 $7.87 $8.39 3.9 4.3 9 Peer Average 27.5% 31.3% $3.58 $3.44 $2.71 $2.49 $14.05 $13.50 4.1 4.1

Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD Note: See Notes from Table 16.

NCTD’s Newly Categorized Hybrid Rail Generally Outperforms Peers With the reclassification of its Light Rail services to Hybrid Rail, NCTD joins only three other entities nationwide providing Hybrid Rail services. As illustrated in Table 18, NCTD farebox recovery ratio was the second highest at 19.2 percent and higher than the 11.5 percent peer average between 2011 and 2012. Additionally, NCTD’s operating cost per revenue mile was the lowest amongst its peers at $20.72, compared to the $38.29 three-peer average. This indicates NCTD is able to provide its Hybrid Rail operations at a lower cost per revenue mile than its peers. Moreover, trends over the two-year period shown strong positive performance in lowering operating costs and subsidies while increasing recovery rates.

Table 18: Comparison of San Diego 2011 & 2012 Hybrid Rail Performance with 3 National Peers Operating Cost Passenger Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per Agency 1 2 3 per Revenue Trips Per Recovery Ratio Per Boarding Boarding 4 5 Mile Revenue Mile 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 San Diego 18.3% 19.2% $5.87 $5.71 $4.79 $4.61 $24.07 $20.72 4.1 3.6 (NCTD) 3 Peer 8.4% 11.5% $17.35 $16.09 $15.86 $14.02 $40.26 $38.29 2.3 2.4 Average Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD Note: See Notes from Table 16.

Commuter Rail Performs Better than Most Peers Like the other transit modes, San Diego Commuter Rail COASTER system also appears to generally operate better than six identified peers reported in the National Transit Database. For instance, not only was NCTD Commuter Rail’s 39.5 percent farebox recovery ratio higher than the peer average of 33 percent, but also it was among the highest of its peers in 2012. In addition, NCTD $10.84 operating cost per boarding was one of the lowest amongst its peers and $2.75 less than the $13.59 six peer average as shown in Table 19.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 48 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

54

Table 19: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Commuter Rail Performance with 6 National Peers

Operating Cost Passenger Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per Agency 1 2 3 per Revenue Trips Per Recovery Ratio Per Boarding Boarding 4 5 Mile Revenue Mile 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 San Diego 40.0% 39.5% $12.10 $10.84 $7.26 $6.56 $12.50 $12.57 1.0 1.2 (NCTD) 6 Peer 31.2% 33.0% $14.33 $13.59 $10.26 $9.52 $16.82 $18.39 1.3 1.4 Average Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD Note: See Notes from Table 16.

Audit Results Indicate Strong and Compliant Operations Transit operational efficiency and performance effectiveness is heavily audited and reviewed by external oversight groups looking at administration, management, planning, and regional coordination, among other areas. These audits determine compliance with laws and regulations, evaluate performance monitoring systems, and analyze system-wide and functional area performance trends. Recent audits of the San Diego transit agencies and SANDAG for Fiscal Years 2010-2012 found that all entities were compliant with state regulations.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 49 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

55

Chapter 6: Grant Activities

CHAPTER SUMMARY

EMP Grants: Fund regional land management and monitoring activities. Senior-Mini: Provide specialized transportation services for seniors. Smart Growth Grants: Provide funding for a broad array of transportation-related infrastructure improvements that will assist local agencies in better integrating transportation and land use. Active Transportation Grants: Provide funding for bikeway facilities and connectivity improvements, pedestrian and walkable community projects...safety projects and programs, and traffic calming projects. - TransNet Ordinance Various Programs

Grant Performance Nearly $57 million in TransNet funds have been . Active Transportation Grants: 2% of Gross Annual awarded with half of the monies spent on the TransNet Revenues grant programs as of June 30, 2014. . Smart Growth Incentive Grants: 2.1% of Net Annual  Performance data is not available for the TransNet Revenues Active Transportation Grant and Smart . Senior Mini-Grants: 3.25% of 16.5% of Transit Services Growth Incentive programs, but SANDAG Net Annual TransNet Revenues has recently implemented processes to gather data for capital projects. . Environmental Mitigation Land Management Grants: Part of the 6.2% of Net Annual TransNet Revenues  For the EMP and Senior Mini-Grant programs, available performance data

indicates that individual grantees are making progress toward their grant objectives. Audit Results Highlights . Limited data is captured to measure grant performance, except for the Senior Mini-Grant Program. . Grant practices were enhanced, including strengthened performance monitoring. . Small adjustments could be made to monitoring tools and processes. . Average grant processing timelines have decreased by several months on average.

Recommendations . Capture, monitor, and validate grant performance data once available. . Make minor improvements to grant monitoring tools. . Date stamp grant applications to allow for confirmation that grantees meet required timeframe.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 50 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

56

Limited Data is Captured to Measure Grant Performance While grant activities are diligently monitored by SANDAG staff, there is limited performance data captured to summarize what has been achieved toward overall program goals and objectives through the grant activities. Because many changes to SANDAG’s grant monitoring processes have only been recently implemented with the latest call for projects, data is not yet available to measure grant results for most of the grant programs. However, there have been nearly 200 grants awarded totaling nearly $57 million—with 50 percent of funds spent as of June 30, 2014 as shown in Table 20.

Table 20: TransNet Grant Program Awards and Spending as of June 30, 2014 Total # of Total Grant Total Amount Purpose Grants Amount Programs Awarded Awarded Spent EMP Land Habitat management and monitoring 70 $11.3 million $9.5 million 1 Management through land management Habitat management and monitoring EMP Land N/A N/A N/A Acquisition 2 through land acquisitions Fund transportation related Smart Growth infrastructure improvements to assist 27 3 $19 million 3 $8.4 million Incentive locals in integrating transportation and land use Improve bike facilities and Active connectivity, pedestrian projects and 56 3 $17.4 million 3 $4.7 million Transportation safety Improve mobility for persons age 60 Senior-Mini 42 $8.9 million $5.7 million and older Total 195 $56.6 million $28.3 million Source: SANDAG IFAS Reports, various Call for Projects, and SANDAG Board meeting minutes. Note: 1 Total amount spent through October 28, 2014. 2 As of September 2014, the new EMP Land Acquisition program had not awarded any grants. 3 Includes two Active Transportation and three Smart Growth Incentive Program Grants that were withdrawn and/or transferred to the Regional Bike Early Action Program totally close to $2 million.

Individual grant program efforts toward capturing performance results are detailed below.

EMP Land Management and Land Acquisition Grants Grants awarded under this program are for widely varied functions such as database design for tracking conservation efforts, erecting fences to protect habitats, restoring degraded habitats, and controlling invasive non-native plant species, among others. While all these activities make strides toward fulfilling the goals of the EMP, until restoration and conservation efforts are implemented, it is challenging to measure how well this area has performed in relation to overall habitat conservation goals. As discussed in Chapter 4, performance data will begin to be captured over the next three-year audit period.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 51 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

57

Smart Growth Incentive Program While the Smart Growth Incentive Program has goals and detailed project scopes of work included in each grant agreement with measurable objectives, there has not been an established method for assessing whether the grant performed as expected to meet desired goals. However, SANDAG has recently required that a portion of funds for construction projects be used to gather data that will become a baseline for performance measurement once grants are completed. Baseline data is still being gathered and comparison data will not be available until the next triennial audit when projects are completed and impact on surrounding areas can be assessed. When available, SANDAG plans to compare and analyze before and after data collected to fully assess project performance in meeting goals.

Active Transportation Grant Program With program objectives such as increasing community support for bicycling, encouraging the development of a cohesive network of complete streets, and creating safe environments through traffic calming, SANDAG will start to track baseline performance data for its capital grant projects as mentioned above. Baseline data will be gathered for bicycle and pedestrian projects that can be compared against actual results and the objectives of the Active Transportation Grant Program.

Senior Mini-Grant Program To provide an indication of what was received for the TransNet investment in the Senior Mini- Grant Program, performance data is available for the Senior Mini-Grant program such as number of senior trips provided, operating cost per trip, and number of clients educated. For instance, between 2011 and 2013, rides for seniors grew 72 percent from 64,000 rides to 110,000 using grant funds. Other output data—such as passenger seat utilization and operation cost per vehicle service hour—is provided by grantees on quarterly progress reports where applicable, but is not currently tracked or verified. With several changes made to strengthen monitoring and performance tracking across all of the various TransNet grant programs, additional performance results should be available by the next ITOC triennial audit cycle to compare actual results against expected results over time. Thus, SANDAG staff should continue to capture results by monitoring the submission of performance data, validating information, analyzing results, and communicating with decision makers.

Many Grant Practices Were Strengthened During the Audit Period; However, Other Improvements Would Enhance Performance Monitoring Processes All grant program practices are governed by Board Policy No. 035: Competitive Grant Program Procedures updated in November 2014 which outlines administrative procedures. While goals and objectives of each grant program may be different, this policy standardizes many processes across all grant programs. As found in recent years, SANDAG continues to use leading practices over its solicitation, award, and implementation grant activities. Moreover, several improvements have been implemented to enhance consistency in the administration and management of TransNet grant

SJOBERGEVASHENK 52 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

58

programs. Specifically, SANDAG has standardized several practices into a grant guidelines document and made board reports consistent. Other improvements to strengthen grant management and monitoring practices include more regular on-site reviews, identification of performance measures for grant monitoring, quarterly progress and status reporting, and “watch list” to track grantees at risk of failing to meet grant requirements, as illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Tools Used to Manage Grants While these improvements to grant practices are commendable, SANDAG can improve its grant monitoring practices by implementing minor enhancements related to grantee progress reports, site visits, and monitoring checklists. For instance, because individual grant scopes of work widely vary for EMP Land Management grants, the progress reports submitted by grantees provide varied results that are hard to analyze and summarize. As such, staff could implement a basic progress reporting template containing desired information including challenges, setbacks, and plans for resolution. Similarly, for the Senior-Mini Grant progress reports reviewed, SEC found some grantees do not provide complete information as requested by SANDAG. Thus, staff should work with grantees to ensure information provided is accurate and complete especially related to performance data such as cost per passenger trip and passenger seat utilization, where applicable.

Additionally, SEC found that while site visit processes employed by the EMP and Senior Mini- Grant staff are effective tools for monitoring grant progress, certain enhancements are needed to ensure performance is adequately reviewed. For example, while EMP Land Management grant site visit reports noted if required grant tasks were being accomplished, none of the reports reviewed discussed the budget or schedule status, or contained an overall analysis or conclusions on the project being examined. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the activities complied with grant requirements and deliverables. In addition, none of the reports or other documentation available explained why the grantee was chosen for a site visit under the risk- based selection approach. Further, site visit reports should identify how the grantee was selected for visit using the risk-based approach as well as conclude whether the grantee is on track for meeting expectations, deliverables, budget, and schedule. Having this information in the report would provide helpful context on what grant areas have experienced challenges and should be monitored more closely.

Similarly, for Senior Mini-Grant program, the site visit monitoring checklist template could include standard information such as grantee name, date of site visit, and staff that performed the site visit. Additionally, when staff identified an issue during a site visit, in most cases additional information, explanation, or plans for resolution were not provided making it difficult to know the extent of any issues. Thus, SANDAG should expand its checklist to include this useful information.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 53 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

59

Grant Processing Timelines have Improved since Last Audit When reviewing timelines between the receipt of a grant application and execution of a grant agreement for 8 grants selected for review, SEC found that it took between 7 months and 26 months to process the awards as shown in Table 21. Half of the 8 grants tested required approximately 7 months for processing, with others taking longer than one year—although two Senior Mini-Grants had to be delayed until the grantees’ prior grants expired. The longest delays commonly occurred between the Board of Directors’ approval of the individual grant awards and execution of the resulting grant agreements.

Table 21: Total Processing Time for Sampled Grants FY 2011 to FY 2014 DURATION (in months) Grant Grant Project Reviews & Grant Total Grantee Name Fiscal Grant Project Name Number Scoring Approvals Agreement Processing Year (1) (2) (3) Time ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANTS Coastal Rail Trail – 5001732 Carlsbad 2012 1.5 1.0 4.6 7.1 A Reach 1 San Diego 5001744 2012 Linda Vista CATS 1.5 1.0 4.9 7.3 A (City) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION GRANTS Conservation South County Grasslands, 5001760 2013 1.0 2.9 3.3 7.2 B Biology Inst. Phase 2 5001970 Chula Vista 2011 Salt Creek Canyon 0.5 4.7 5.5 10.7 B SENIOR MINI-GRANTS 5001693 ElderHelp 2012 Seniors A-Go-Go 1.0 2.5 10.3 13.8 C 5001695 FACT 2012 MedRide 1.0 2.5 22.5 26.0 C SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM GRANTS Downtown-Westside 5004283 National City 2013 1.1 4.2 1.6 7.0 D Community Connections Palm Avenue Mixed-Use 5004293 Imperial Beach 2013 & Commercial Corridor 1.1 4.2 7.0 12.4 D Master Plan Source: Auditor-generated using grant file documentation and meeting minutes. Note: (1) Project Scoring = Application Due to Scoring Completion (2) Reviews & Approvals = Scoring Completion to Board Approval (3) Grant Agreement = Board Approval to Grant Execution Table Explanations: A = Decisions were made to postpone execution of grants while Technical Services Department conducted an independent review of application scoring data when errors noted; process changed to prevent future errors. B = According to SANDAG, the 2011 EMP Land Management Grant timelines were not outside the normal contract processes; however, for the 2013 grant cycle, changes were made to have draft documents ready once Board approved. C = Execution of grant agreements intentionally delayed for Senior Mini-Grants until previously awarded grant terms terminated in order to avoid overlaps in funding. Additionally, 2012 grant agreements were delayed after the Board approval to include measurable performance indicators and recovery plan requirements. D = According to SANDAG, Smart Growth Incentive grants were affected by needed Regional Transportation Improvement Program amendments that took longer than expected.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 54 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

60

Moreover, these timelines are improved from those noted in the prior triennial audit. As shown in Table 22, SANDAG has reduced its typical processing time for grant awards since the prior audit despite adding additional steps in the process for a Quality Control Review and second presentation to Policy Advisory Committees starting with Fiscal Year 2013 grants.

Table 22: Changes in Total Processing Time for Sampled Grants FY 2011 to FY 2014 (in months) FY 2011 Audit1 FY 2014 Audit2 Decrease Since Last Audit (A) (B) (A)-(B) Average 11.6 9.9 1.7 Median 11.6 9.0 2.6 Note: All amounts are in months. (1) Sample size = 22 grants. (2)Sample size = 8 grants

However, one process improvement needed is that SANDAG cannot identify the date on which any given grantee submitted its grant application because there is no date stamp on the grant applications or other evidence demonstrating when the application was received. As a result, SANDAG cannot confirm that all grant applications were submitted by the deadline specified in an individual call for projects.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 55 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

61

Chapter 7: Active Transportation Capital Projects

CHAPTER SUMMARY Provide funding to expand the regional bicycle network to make it easier for people to ride to school, work, transit centers, and other destinations. - TransNet Ordinance and SANDAG Board of Director 9/13/13 meeting Program Performance Nearly $13.7 million in TransNet funds have been spent on the Active Transportation program as of September 19, 2014.

 Two of the 19 approved and funded early action projects have been completed to date.  Performance cannot be assessed without having metrics and tracking processes in place.

Note: 1Includes TransNet and State Transportation Development Act Funding Audit Results Highlights . Project schedule and costs have been incorporated into Dashboard. . Dashboard results show several projects with schedule delays. . Emerging project management practices can be improved. . Too early in program to have performance outcome results, but specific plans should be made to capture data.

Recommendations . Use Dashboard as a tool to monitor schedule and cost. . Develop project delivery and management practices consistent with other TransNet capital projects that include: o Using automated tools to monitor cost and schedule milestones; o Conducting and documenting regular project development team meetings; o Managing task order amendments and change orders; o Timely reporting of status and issues to decision makers; and o Retaining appropriate project documentation. . Set performance indicators and capture performance data.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 56 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

62

Part of TransNet funds are earmarked for bikeway facilities and connectivity improvements, pedestrian and walkable community projects, bicycle and pedestrian safety projects, and traffic calming projects. These efforts were consolidated into an Active Transportation Program to encourage the increased use of active modes of transportation such as biking and walking. In 2014, SANDAG reorganized its activities to separate out Early Action Program (EAP) capital projects related to Active Transportation from the grant activities related to Active Transportation as previously discussed. Although SANDAG’s first bike plan was adopted in May 2010, it did not identify individual active transportation improvement projects. Projects were not identified and approved until the fall 2013 when approximately $200 million was designated for specific Active Transportation Program EAP projects over a 10-year time span through a combination of TransNet, State, and local monies. This funding is expected to add roughly 77 miles of new bikeways throughout the region. Currently, there are 79 EAP and 24 non-EAP ranked projects included in the Regional Bike Plan Network.

Schedule and Cost Performance is Being Tracked in Dashboard Like other regional construction projects, the TransNet Dashboard is being used track schedule, budget, and expenditure information for the regional bikeway program against original baselines and budgets. Currently, there are 19 individual bike segments from the Regional Bikeway Plan tracked in the Dashboard as shown in Table 24. To date, two small early action projects have been completed—the Palomar Street and H Street section of the Bayshore Bikeway was completed in March 2012, while the Coastal Rail Trail Phase 2B, Oceanside Blvd to Wisconsin was completed in April 2014. For the remaining 17 projects, the majority indicate a caution or critical schedule status.

To review project performance, SEC reviewed one of the two completed projects—namely, the Coastal Rail Trail Phase 2B from Oceanside Boulevard to Wisconsin that is part of a planned 44- mile bike trail from the City of Oceanside to the City of San Diego. As illustrated in Table 23, the project experienced both budget increases from $2 million to nearly $2.5 million and schedule delays where the project was completed April 2014 instead of October 2013—seven months after expected completion.

Table 23: Oceanside Rail Trail Phase 2B Initial Revised Expenditures Initial Open to Revised Open Actual Date Budget Budget as of 10/27/14 Public Date to Public Date Open to Public $2,054 $2,448 $2,227 October 2013 February 2014 April 2014 Note: Amounts reflected in thousands.

However, SEC’s high-level review found the variances were reasonable and that staff appropriately communicated the project delay and additional costs to the SANDAG Board of Directors. The project delays and budget increases were due to unforeseen conditions related to contaminated soil identified during the construction excavation that was not identified during the environmental phase, resulting in additional time and costs for the removal and disposal of the contaminated soil.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 57 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

63

Table 24: Regional Bikeway Program Corridor Segment Schedules, As of September 2014 CURRENT BASELINE CURRENT REGIONAL BIKEWAY BASELINE PLAN REPORTED # START PLAN END SEGMENTS END DATE START STATUS DATE DATE DATE Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main 1 07/01/2012 03/30/2016 07/01/2012 06/30/2018 Street to Palomar Bayshore Bikeway: Segments 4 2 07/01/2010 07/31/2014 07/01/2010 12/05/2017 & 5 Bayshore Bikeway: Segments 7 3 04/01/2010 06/30/2015 04/01/2010 06/30/2015 & 8A Sweetwater Bikeway: Plaza 4 07/01/2011 06/30/2015 07/01/2011 01/29/2016 Bonita Segment 5 SR 15 Commuter Bike Facility 07/01/2011 10/14/2014 07/01/2011 04/30/2015

Coastal Rail Trail San Diego:

6 07/01/2011 07/31/2016 07/01/2011 05/31/2016 Rose Creek Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas: E

7 07/01/2011 06/30/2016 07/01/2011 05/31/2016 Street to Chesterfield Drive Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas: 8 Chesterfield Drive to Solana Data Not Available at Time of Analysis

Beach Bicycle Facilities: La Mesa to 9 07/01/2012 01/31/2014 07/01/2012 09/30/2015 North Park (1223020) Bicycle Facilities: Old Town to 10 07/01/2011 04/30/2015 07/01/2011 03/31/2015 San Diego 11 Inland Rail Trail 07/01/2011 12/31/2017 07/01/2011 06/29/2018

Coastal Rail Trail: Phase 2B - 12 07/01/2011 06/30/2014 07/01/2011 12/31/2014 Oceanside San Diego River Trail: 13 07/01/2014 12/31/2014 07/01/2014 12/31/2015 Qualcomm Stadium Segment San Diego River Trail: Carlton 14 07/01/2014 12/31/2014 07/01/2014 12/30/2016 Oaks Segment SR 15 Bike Path: Adams Ave to 15 07/01/2014 06/30/2015 07/01/2014 10/30/2015 Landis Street 16 Bayshore Bikeway: Barrio Logan 07/01/2014 06/30/2016 07/01/2014 06/30/2016

San Ysidro to Imperial Beach

17 07/01/2014 12/31/2016 07/01/2014 12/30/2016 Parkway North Park to Downtown/

18 05/01/2016 12/31/2016 07/01/2014 12/30/2016 Balboa Park Bikeway Southeast to Downtown 19 07/01/2014 03/31/2017 07/01/2014 03/31/2017 Bikeway Source: TransNet Dashboard as of September 2014

SJOBERGEVASHENK 58 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

64

Emerging Project Management Practices Can be Improved To manage and oversee the EAP projects, SANDAG hired three new project managers who will be responsible for implementing the projects from design through construction. While SANDAG has not established formal policies and protocols for managing Active Transportation projects, SANDAG indicated it is in the process of developing a formal monitoring and management plan for overseeing and managing Active Transportation EAP projects—the plan is expected to be completed in 2015. Given that SANDAG project managers will be responsible for managing complex project issues, including land acquisition, right-of-way, and community concerns, SANDAG should work to develop guidelines and policies to help ensure projects are managed consistently and appropriate documentation supporting key project milestones, schedule, budget, and management decisions is retained.

Additionally, these guidelines should align with other SANDAG capital project practices such as using automated industry standard tools to monitor cost and schedule milestones, conducting regular project development team meetings, managing task order amendments and change orders, and reporting status and issues to decision makers. Moreover, while the financial and schedule information are tracked in the Dashboard, Active Transportation staff are not currently using the functionality since most projects are early in the preliminary engineering or design phase.

Future Consideration Should be Given to Capturing Performance Data SANDAG should also consider establishing and reporting performance metrics for its Active Transportation EAPs. Performance output metrics captured could include measurements such as miles of bikeways funded with TransNet funds completed with actual results compared to the regional bikeway plan goals to report progress. For instance, to improve connectivity and quality of the regional bicycle network, the 2050 Bike Plan describes several measures that SANDAG could consider for monitoring and evaluating progress such as increasing “the proportion of arterial streets with bicycle facilities…[by] 25 percent by 2017.” The Plan also recommends developing an annual regional progress report to conclude on what progress has been made toward the implementation of bicycle facilities and program implementation. However, at this point, SANDAG is not tracking that information— although metrics for miles of newly constructed bike paths completed would demonstrate progress towards the 2050 goals.

Other entities track that type of performance as part of their bicycle plan. For instance, the City of Rockville, Maryland measures number of miles of bikeways for progress toward total miles proposed as well as number of bicycle spaces added on city streets. In another example, the City of Portland, Oregon established a performance measure in its Bicycle Plan for 2030 to track percent reduction in rate of serious or fatal of bicycle crashes. Further, as part of a 2011 conference on performance measures for transportation and livable communities, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program suggested quantifying and tracking level of service for bikeways in the Highway Capacity Manual1. This measure, along with others, are reiterated in a Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in August 2011 as well.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 59 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

65

SANDAG is currently developing performance measures for bicycling and walking in the region as well as identifying corridors to track bicyclist and pedestrian activity over time. According to SANDAG, work on quantifying bicycle and pedestrian travel trends is expected to be incorporated into the State of the Commute report in 2016. Moreover, as projects are completed and bike facilities are operable, SANDAG should consider other tracking and reporting on some or all of the items described above including the condition of the bikeways and number of accidents on the bike paths.

Additionally, similar to delivery of Major Corridor capital projects, internal performance and efficiency of delivering the EAP projects should be measured as well. Goals can be established to track performance and to make adjustments to practices as warranted. As such, SEC would recommend that staff use Dashboard data or other vehicles and consider metrics such as:  Percent of projects delivered on schedule and ready for construction;  Percent of project awards not exceeding more than 10 percent of estimates;  Percentage of support costs and a percent of budget; and/or  Percent of projects delivered on budget.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 60 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

66

Chapter 8: ITOC Practices

CHAPTER SUMMARY Provide an enhanced level of accountability for expenditure made under the Expenditure Plan[,] help ensure that all voter mandates are carried out as required [and] develop recommendations for improvements to the financial integrity and performance of the program. - TransNet Ordinance – Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee

ITOC Performance Just over $1 million in TransNet funds have been spent on the Total 40-Year Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) as of June Sales Tax Receipts 30, 2014. SEC found:  Members possess the requisite skills and experience to carry out ITOC's responsibilities as outlined in the TransNet $10 Million Ordinance. ($250,000/Year)  Committee continues to provide a valuable and ITOC Activities constructive role in ongoing program improvement and

enhancement.  TransNet partners treat ITOC as value-added step in process.

Audit Results Highlights . ITOC continues to comply with the ordinance and function effectively. o The Committee fulfills its responsibilities. o Members possess requisite expertise. o Conflict of interest provisions followed. o Meeting frequency adheres to Ordinance, although some meetings were cancelled. o Attendance is steady at monthly meetings. o ITOC uses leading practices.

Recommendations . Revisit the method used to alternate the ending terms for members so that no more than two terms end in any given year—thus, maintaining the strong level of historical knowledge among the committee members.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 61 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

67

ITOC Continues to Comply with Ordinance and Function Effectively One of the key safeguards established by the 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance is the creation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) providing an increased level of accountability over the TransNet revenues. Several documents guide the function of the committee including a “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the ITOC for the TransNet program,” ITOC Bylaws, and Implementation Procedures in addition to the Ordinance itself. Combined, these documents provide the framework for the member experience and resumes, meeting protocols and function, and member conduct and responsibilities to help ensure voter mandates are carried out.

Members Possess Required Expertise Per ITOC bylaws, there are seven voting members representing seven areas of expertise with two ex-officio members—the SANDAG Executive Director and the San Diego County Auditor. These two ex-officio members are bound by the requirements of the bylaws, but do not have voting authority. Overall, SEC found the ITOC members possess the requisite skills and experience to carry out ITOC's responsibilities as outlined in the TransNet Ordinance, and continue to provide a valuable and constructive role in the ongoing improvement and enhancement of the TransNet program.

Terms of Service are Staggered Currently, ITOC members serve staggered four-year terms and are chosen through an application process by a selection committee panel of city mayors and county supervisors. Alternating service terms is a good practice to ensure continuity of processes and practices. However, SEC noticed that the current staggering of membership terms will result in four seats—more than half of the full seven committee seats—ending at the same time in 2015. Thus, the ITOC, the technical screening committee, and the selection committee may want to consider using a method to alternate the ending terms so that no more than two terms end in any given year— thus, maintaining the strong level of historical knowledge among the committee members.

Members Follow Diligent Conflict of Interest Protocols As part of its “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee for the TransNet Program,” members must complete a statewide Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) and a SANDAG required Declaration Concerning Conflicts to disclose any potential conflicts between ITOC activities and member’s non- committee activities. SEC found that these conflict forms were completed by the members as required. Moreover, the review found documentation of members appropriately recusing themselves when a potential conflict of interest existed on a particular voting matter.

Meetings are Regularly Scheduled and Attended With regularly scheduled ITOC meetings on the second Wednesday of every month, there were 36 possible meetings during the 3-year audit period. Of the 36 meetings, 10 of them, or approximately 28 percent were cancelled. This cancellation rate is higher than the 19.5 percent cancellation rate noted during the last Triennial Audit. However, the cancelled meetings did not

SJOBERGEVASHENK 62 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

68

appear to have any detrimental effect on TransNet activities and did not affect schedule or cost of the program. It appeared that cancellations occurred when there was no critical business items to bring forward to the ITOC for discussion.

Additionally, SEC found that meetings are regularly attended by the ITOC members. Attendance for individual ITOC members ranged from 70 to 100 percent, with a group average attendance rate of nearly 84 percent over the 3-year period with various members. These results comply with ITOC bylaws.

Committee Responsibilities are Fulfilled Under the provisions of the TransNet Ordinance, ITOC has several responsibilities that SEC found members appropriately and diligently fulfilled as shown in Table 25.

Table 25: Comparison of ITOC Responsibilities with Actions Taken Responsibilities Per TransNet Ordinance Actions Taken Hired an independent audit firm to review local Conduct Annual Fiscal and Compliance jurisdictional adherence to Ordinance, Board policies, and Audits maintenance of effort requirements. Developed and issued annual reports that include Prepare Annual Reports to SANDAG Board TransNet program projects’ progress and status and of Directors summary of revenues and expenditures. Hired an independent auditor to review performance and look for opportunities for increased efficiency and Conduct Triennial Performance Audits of effectiveness. The first audit was issued in 2009; the TransNet Funded Projects second audit was issued in 2012; the third audit is in progress. Make Recommendations on Proposed Analyzed and made recommendations on amendments Amendments to TransNet Ordinance to the TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Provide Recommendations in 10-year Not applicable until FY 2019 when the 10-year timeframe Review of TransNet Program has occurred for the TransNet Program. Participate in Ongoing Refinement of Received and reviewed a variety of documentation in this Project Evaluation Criteria and Project area. Prioritization in the RTP and RTIP Provide Independent Analysis of Analyzed annual State of the Commute Reports as part of Information in State of the Commute its standard meeting process as well as through its own Report Annual ITOC reporting process. Review and Comment on the Programming Reviewed, discussed, and made recommendations on of TransNet Revenues in the RTIP programming and changes made to the program. Assessed debt service ratios and financing proposals to Review Proposed Debt Financing monitor SANDAG’s ability to pay for TransNet Program debt as well as the Plan of Finance on a regular basis. Analyzed a variety of quarterly reports provided by Quarterly Review of Major Congestion SANDAG and its partners on status, progress, and Relief Projects Identified in the Ordinance performance.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 63 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

69

Peer Comparisons Indicate ITOC follows Leading Practices Similar to prior audits, SEC finds that San Diego’s ITOC subscribes to many of the best practices employed by similar taxpayer or transportation oversight committees throughout the nation. Specifically, ITOC members must possess a wider breadth of experience than its peers, adhere to more formal operating protocols and attendance requirements, and follow stringent conflict of interest requirements. Review of meeting minutes also demonstrates that ITOC appears to be highly valued by decision makers with the type of information provided to ITOC and that members diligently review, question, and vet the data that comes before them. Only one peer committee in Orange County had a more stringent responsibility than San Diego’s ITOC whereby any amendments to its local measure’s expenditure plan had to be approved by its taxpayer oversight committee.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 64 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

70

Chapter 9: Conclusion and Recommendations

During the three-year audit period, SANDAG and its partners have continued to propel the TransNet program through challenges creating a well-run comprehensive transportation, transit, and environmental program. All parties involved with TransNet activities demonstrate the necessary commitment, expertise, and focus to ensure the program is transparent in its efforts to accomplish the goals set forth in the Ordinance.

Even though only six years of the 40-year TransNet program have elapsed, good practices built into the foundation of the program continue to exist over program development and delivery, environmental mitigation, cost and schedule control, grant activities, and general management and oversight.

To improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to the taxpayers of the San Diego region, ITOC should have SANDAG and its TransNet partners consider the following series of recommendations. SEC believes these recommendations could be implemented without significant use of resources, and that no significant barriers exist to impede that implementation.

Report Recommendation Priority Reference

To better enhance project management and performance practices over the Major Corridor Capital Improvement Program, the ITOC should have SANDAG work with its partners to: 1. Utilizing data already captured, summarize TransNet Chapter 1, performance results in a comprehensive report card type format. Low pages 9-11

2. Improve SANDAG transit capital project management practices Chapter 2, by finalizing SANDAG’s Construction Management Manual. High pages 18-19

3. Closely monitor the risks associated with the implementation of the CM/GC approach being used on Major Corridor highway and transit projects and consider implementing leading practices, including:  Establishing performance goals and measuring results by comparing “traditional” project delivery time and original Chapter 2, High cost estimates to CM/GC model actuals; and determining pages 19-21 the value-added and cost savings attributed to CM/GC value engineering and recommendations;  Employing risk management practices to identify and manage risk through formal tools such as risk registries;  Ensuring the same cost development criteria and

SJOBERGEVASHENK 65 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

71

Report Recommendation Priority Reference

methodology is utilized for the Independent Cost Estimate, Engineer Estimate, and Contractor estimate; and  Implementing strong communication practices during both the pre-construction and construction phase. 4. Begin to capture data and measure project delivery of transit capital projects on schedule and budget using metrics such as:  Percent of projects delivered on schedule and ready for Chapter 2, Medium construction; page 22  Percent of change orders against original contract amount; and  Percent of projects delivered on budget. To improve Local Street and Road Program performance data and better assist local jurisdictions with managing future needs for roadway maintenance, the ITOC should have SANDAG work collaboratively with the local agencies to: 5. Consider implementing one of the deployment options of the Chapter 3, Regional Arterial Detection System Development Plan, or High develop and implement other alternative mechanisms to page 28 measure local street and road performance outcomes. 6. Expand on existing available local street and road performance Chapter 3, output data to report and summarize on improvements made to High the local streets and roads network. pages 28-30

7. Revisit the TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan’s Chapter 3, provisions definitions between congestion relief and Medium maintenance categories to allow local jurisdictions the ability to pages 30-33 better program projects to meet local street and road needs. To continue strengthening the EMP to ensure TransNet funding is utilized in the most effective manner, the ITOC should have SANDAG: 8. Continue efforts to market local mitigation program with money Chapter 4, available for locals. Medium page 39

9. Begin focusing on formally measuring results of mitigation efforts to implement the Resource Enhancement and Mitigation Chapter 4, Program under the Public Works Plan and the results of efforts High to implement the strategic goals and objective of the regional pages 39-40 monitoring and management under the Management Strategic Plan and any other EMP efforts.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 66 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

72

Report Recommendation Priority Reference

10. Create methodology to quantify how much economic benefits have actually been achieved to compare against what was Chapter 4, High released to identify funding deficits or surpluses as part of the pages 40-41 10-year Comprehensive Review required by the TransNet Extension Ordinance. To build upon the successful Transit Program and better communicate transit performance, the ITOC should have SANDAG work collaboratively with its transit partners to: 11. Continue efforts to build user-friendly transit operations performance dashboards that report, MTS and NCTD transit Chapter 5, performance data and results. Once MTS and NCTD dashboards Low are developed, SANDAG should provide a link to each agency’s pages 45-46 transit operations performance Dashboard in the transit portion of SANDAG’s Dashboard. To continue efforts assessing whether Grant Programs are administered efficiently and effectively and whether grant activities are meeting stated goals and requirements, the ITOC should have SANDAG: 12. Track and report grant performance data to identify whether grants are achieving program goals, including:  For Active Transportation and Smart Growth Incentive grant programs, implement processes to gather and analyze Chapter 6, baseline performance data against actual results to fully Medium assess project performance in meeting goals. pages 51-52  For Senior Mini-Grant Program, capture and report on all other performance metrics captured in the quarterly progress reports, where applicable, and show performance over time. 13. Make minor changes to enhance grant site visits and reporting processes, including:  For EMP: o Expand site visit reports to include compliance with why grantee selected for review, budget and schedule, any issues identified and steps to resolve, and whether the Chapter 6, Low grantee is on track to meet expectations and pages 52-53 deliverables. o Implement a basic grantee progress reporting template to capture information such as a description of challenges and the grantee’s corresponding plans for resolution.  For Senior Mini-Grant Program:

SJOBERGEVASHENK 67 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

73

Report Recommendation Priority Reference

o Expand monitoring checklist to include name, grant number, dates of site visit occurred, name of the SANDAG staff reviewer and the grantee. o Continue to work with grantees to consistently provide accurate and complete performance data such as number of units of service provided, cost per passenger trip, or vehicle service hour, and number of clients educated on transit usage, where applicable. 14. Date stamp all grant applications to identify and demonstrate Chapter 6, Low whether applications were received by stated deadlines. pages 54-55

To increase the effectiveness of the Active Transportation capital project delivery and management practices and improve performance monitoring and reporting, ITOC should have SANDAG: 15. Continue efforts to develop formal project delivery and Chapter 7, management plans and ensure practices employed are High consistent with other TransNet capital projects. pages 59-60

16. Utilize project management tools used by other SANDAG capital Chapter 7, project programs to monitor project schedules and costs. Also, High validate data reported in the Dashboard for accuracy. page 59

17. Set performance indicators and capture data, such as:  Percent of projects delivered on schedule and ready for construction;  Percent of project awards not exceeding more than 10 percent of estimates; Chapter 7, Medium  Percentage of support costs and a percent of budget; pages 59-60  Percent of projects delivered on budget;  Miles of bike paths paved compared to total planned; or  Rate of serious or fatal bike crashes in areas where bike paths and lanes have been created. To improve the effectiveness of ITOC in fulfilling its responsibilities, ITOC should consider:

18. Adopting a method to alternate the ending terms of ITOC Chapter 8, members so that no more than two terms end in any given year. High page 62

SJOBERGEVASHENK 68 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

74

Appendix A: Detailed Audit Methodology

The TransNet Extension Ordinance established a requirement that ITOC conduct triennial performance audits of the agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects. In June 2014, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. was selected by the ITOC to conduct the third in a long series of triennial performance audits of TransNet-funded programs. The period covered by this audit was July 2011 through June 2014, except where SEC needed to obtain contextual or underlying support data from periods prior to 2011 or more recent information to fully analyze project activities and practices.

The main audit objectives were to: 1. Evaluate the status of implementation of recommendations from the first triennial performance audit and effectiveness of these prior recommendations. 2. Determine whether the organizational structure and operational processes allow for effective and efficient project delivery, cost control, and schedule adherence. 3. Identify process changes in contracting, construction, permitting, and other procedures that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TransNet program. 4. Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of ITOC, including adherence to its bylaws. 5. Identify and evaluate any potential barriers to and opportunities for proposed changes.

To understand changes made to the TransNet program since the prior audit, SEC reviewed federal, state, local code, and Ordinance updates and amendments in addition to prior year audit status of corrective action, annual budgets, fact sheets, and online data, including:  TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, and amendments;  Regional Comprehensive Plan of 2004;  Regional Comprehensive Plan Biennial Performance Monitoring Report for 2012-2013;  Regional Transportation Improvement Program of 2012 and 2014;  2050 Regional Transportation Plan;  State of the Commute Reports for 2011, 2012, and 2013;  TransNet Quarterly Reports from July 1, 2011 through June 20, 2014  Prior Year Audit Recommendations Status Matrix; and  SANDAG’s Capital Improvement Program and Overall Work Program for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2014.

To analyze and consider the full complement of challenges and successes surrounding the organizational and operational procedures in the implementation of the TransNet program, SEC researched similar programs and current best practices, as well as conducted a wide-range of interviews to ascertain perspectives, insights, challenges, and recommendations on the implementation of the TransNet program. Specifically, SEC met with more than100 executives, officials, managers, staff, consultants, and stakeholders in areas related to transportation and transit planning, capital construction, environmental mitigation, grant and program management,

SJOBERGEVASHENK 69 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

75

finance and economics, transit operations, local public works and engineering, and program oversight. SEC focused our efforts on understanding any changes made to processes or practices since the second triennial audit, including performed process walk-throughs (where needed), reviewed policies and practices, assessed documentation in project files, tested grant files and records, reviewed available performance metrics, and studied Dashboard data.

To follow-up on the status of prior year audit recommendations, SEC assessed SANDAG’s and its TransNet partners status of actions to implement the recommendations by reviewing documentation and interviewing staff to determine the actual status of implementing the recommendations as of November 2014.

To analyze the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of practices and processes over the Local Street and Road program, SEC:  Reviewed any changes to SANDAG’s management and administration of the program including obtaining applicable policies, rules, and audits associated with the program since the last performance audit. Also, SEC reviewed annual financial and compliance audits conducted by external audit firms that assess local agency compliance with Board Policy No. 31: TransNet Ordinance Expenditure Plan Rules—Rule 17.  Selected a representative sample of local jurisdictions to conduct a more detailed review based on geographical location, size, type of local street and road projects, and dollar value of projects. With the exception of the City and County of San Diego, ensured selection of local agencies did not overlap with jurisdictions reviewed during the prior performance audit.  Through interviews and review of project files for a sample of local jurisdictions, determined whether adequate processes were in place to control cost and schedule, ensure appropriate contracting and construction practices, and use effective delivery methods. Interviewed local engineering, public works, finance, and department management staff to gain an overall understanding of local processes and procedures related to project selection, design, right-of-way, environmental, construction, close-out, and contractor/consultant procurement.  Using data from the 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Amendment 18) and SANDAG’s ProjectTrak system, compiled a universe of projects funded by TransNet Extension Ordinance monies to select a sample of 15 projects from the City and County of San Diego, cities of La Mesa, Oceanside, and San Marcos for further examination. For each of the projects, SEC interviewed project management staff and conducted high-level evaluations of project file documentation including schedules, budgets, progress payments, progress reports, and change orders.  Based on delays and setbacks noted during the interviews and project file review, chose 3 projects from Oceanside, City of San Diego, and San Marcos for detailed review. Interviewed project management as well as identified, gathered, and reviewed available project documentation, such as capital improvement project data; ProjectTrak project reports; relevant Regional Transportation Improvement Plans, consultant and contractor contracts, amendments, and change orders; staff reports to city councils; and various

SJOBERGEVASHENK 70 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

76

secondary sources to determine whether TransNet monies were spent efficiently and in a timely manner, and whether adequate project delivery processes were in place to control cost and schedule and ensure appropriate contracting and construction practices.  Assessed availability of performance output and outcome measures at the local level as well as region-wide and reviewed current performance reporting vehicles such as the new Annual Local Street and Road Program Report.  Reviewed the 2014 California Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and identified pavement best practices and statistics relevant to the TransNet Local Street and Road Program. As part of our evaluation of the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), SEC performed the following activities:  Reviewed various pertinent reports and documents, including TransNet Extension Ordinance, updated EMP Memorandum of Agreement between SANDAG and wildlife agencies, EMP policies and guidelines, strategic plans and objectives, EMP status reports, discussion memos to decision makers, and SANDAG Board decisions.  Interviewed SANDAG staff involved in the EMP as well as pertinent stakeholders including the EMP Working Group Chairperson, EMP consultants, and EMP external academic experts.  Analyzed financial data, including budgeted allocations and actual program expenditures related to acquisitions, restoration, management, and administration activities as well as projected program expenditures.  Reviewed EMP funding strategies and approaches for major highway and transit project mitigation and regional habitat conservation efforts and activities.  Compared actual land acquisitions acres and costs against estimated budget allocations and assessed the status and transition from land acquisition to restoration activities.  Determined the methodology used for releasing economic benefit and how SANDAG and its partners will determine the amount of economic benefit actually achieved. To assess the processes, controls, project management, and delivery of the Major Corridor Capital Construction Program, SEC performed the following:  Used budget and schedule data available in the Dashboard to assess current project status. Specifically, SEC reviewed data at the program, corridor, or project segment level to assess cash flow, schedule, trends, and budget history. Additionally, SEC reviewed performance metrics and project status as indicated by red, green, or yellow icons to identify acceptable, cautious, or critical project conditions. For areas of noted delays or budget increases, SEC drilled down on select projects to identify circumstances surrounding the delays.  Selected one transit capital improvement project to conduct a high-level assessment of project management budget tools and to assess available policies and protocols guiding project delivery.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 71 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

77

 Reviewed the new CM/GC project delivery method being employed by SANDAG and Caltrans for two TransNet capital construction projects to identify best practices related to project management and delivery that each agency should consider as they move forward with this new model.  Interviewed SANDAG and Caltrans Corridor Directors and project managers as well as reviewed project documentation to understand changes in project management practices since the second triennial audit. To review processes, controls, and oversight exercised over the remaining TransNet programs funded during the period of our review, SEC performed the following:  Assessed performance of transit services for fixed route and all modes of rail by analyzing common performance metrics used in industry such as farebox recover ratios, operating costs per boarding, and total boardings that are captured in the National Transit Database. These metrics were compared and assessed with other peer entities in terms of size and operations including Los Angeles, Orange County, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sacramento, and other cities in California as well as entities in Arizona, Oregon, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, and Texas for National Transit Database Reporting Years 2010 and 2012. Additionally, SEC obtained and reviewed independent Transportation Development Act audits conducted at MTS, NCTD, and SANDAG as well as budgets and performance reports prepared by the entities. SEC assessed San Diego transit system-wide and route category performance over a period of time for various performance indicators, including operating costs, passengers per service mile, on-time performance, ridership, miles between mechanical failures, and average fare.  Reviewed grant programs including Land Management, Smart Growth, Senior-Mini, and Active Transportation by analyzing available strategic plans and goals, call for project documentation, ProjectTrak system data, grant evaluation criteria, scoring matrices and scoring sheets, grant applications, quarterly performance reports, site visit documentation, and Board and committee meeting minutes. Further, using non-statistical methods SEC selected a sample of 8 grants—two EMP Land Management, two Smart Growth, two Senior-Mini, and two Active Transportation grants—for detailed testing on timeliness of the grant award process and also assessed Senior Mini and EMP Land Management grants performance monitoring activities.  Identified performance of the Active Transportation EAP projects managed by SANDAG by selecting one of the two completed projects for review. SEC compared initial and revised budgets and interviewed staff to identify project management and delivery processes. Finally, SEC performed the following:  Evaluated changes made to the overall program and project team structure, including roles and responsibilities, collaboration, and cooperation between TransNet partners exists since the prior audit to assess the appropriateness of governance and oversight.  Assessed the reasonableness of the Plan of Finance and debt structure model to ensure adequate funding is available to finish Early Action Program projects by reviewing changes to the Plan of Finance and debt model; evaluated revenue forecast and cost

SJOBERGEVASHENK 72 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

78

projection methodologies, and reviewed the analysis developed by SANDAG’s external, independent financial experts related to the availability of TransNet funding for EAP projects.  Assessed ITOC’s compliance and effectiveness in fulfilling its obligations, by reviewing the “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the ITOC for the TransNet Program,” conflict of interest forms, Statements of Economic Interests, and ITOC member resumes in addition to ITOC bylaws and implementation procedures developed in concert with SANDAG. SEC reviewed ITOC meeting agendas and minutes for the months of July 2011 through June 2014, including attendance lists, annual ITOC reports, presentations of information, discussions and recommendations, and special meetings to select new members. Further, SEC compared ITOC experience requirements, activities, and practices with peers in Arizona and other regions within California.

The audit findings and conclusions were presented and discussed with representatives of SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, NCTD, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and other local agencies within the county in addition to the ITOC prior to completion of the audit. Management views and comments were considered and incorporated into the audit report as appropriate.

SEC conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that SEC plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. SEC believes that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 73 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

79

Appendix B: Transit Performance Peer Analysis Detail

Using National Transit Database information, SEC selected peers for MTS and NCTD based on size of service area, type of services provided, boardings, and geographical characteristics for fixed route, light rail, commuter rail, and hybrid rail. Performance was analyzed against several industry metrics including farebox recovery ratios and operating cost per boarding for the period between 2010 and 2012. Results are summarized in Chapter 5, while detail for each peer is provided in the following sections.

Fixed Route Performs Better than its Peers Although farebox recovery ratios and operating costs have declined slightly, San Diego’s performance far exceed 10 identified peers as shown in Table 26.

Table 26: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Fixed Route Performance with 10 National Peers

Operating Cost Passenger Agency Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per per Revenue Trips Per Recovery Ratio 1 Per Boarding 2 Boarding 3 Mile 4 Revenue Mile 5 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 San Diego 33.8% 33.7% $3.02 $2.86 $2.00 $1.90 $7.67 $8.06 2.5 2.8 (System-wide) Dallas (DART) 11.5% 13.4% $6.52 $6.32 $5.77 $5.47 $9.00 $8.94 1.4 1.4 Denver (RTD) 26.6% 27.4% $3.71 $3.93 $2.72 $2.85 $7.43 $9.00 2.0 2.3 Los Angeles 26.5% 30.2% $2.58 $2.56 $1.90 $1.79 $10.86 $12.06 4.2 4.7 (LACMTA) Minneapolis 31.0% 31.6% $3.59 $3.56 $2.48 $2.43 $10.53 $10.94 2.9 3.1 (Metro Transit) Orange (OCTA) 24.1% 24.4% $3.62 $3.57 $2.75 $2.70 $9.38 $9.82 2.6 2.8 Phoenix (RPTA) 16.9% 19.9% $5.35 $4.45 $4.45 $3.56 $6.35 $6.37 1.2 1.4 Portland (TriMet) 22.8% 24.4% $3.95 $3.88 $3.05 $2.93 $11.28 $12.04 2.9 3.1 Sacramento (RT) 21.9% 21.0% $4.27 $5.23 $3.34 $4.13 $10.68 $12.25 2.5 2.3 Salt Lake (UTA) 17.7% 18.1% $4.89 $5.30 $4.02 $4.34 $6.46 $7.68 1.3 1.5 Santa Clara (VTA) 13.9% 13.1% $6.29 $6.75 $5.41 $5.87 $13.22 $14.98 2.1 2.2 10 Peer Average 21.3% 22.4% $4.48 $4.56 $3.59 $3.61 $9.52 $10.41 2.3 2.5

Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses 2 Operating Cost Per Boarding= Operating Expenses/Total Boardings 3 Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/ Total Boardings 4 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles 5 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile = Total Revenue Miles/Passenger Trips

SJOBERGEVASHENK 74 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

80

Similarly, MTS’ Light Rail Outperforms Peers MTS’ Light Rail continues to outperform its peers as shown in Table 27. One difference when analyzing the trend between the 2010 and 2012 National Transit Database reporting years is that NCTD services were reclassified from Light Rail to Hybrid Rail as guided by National Transit Database.

Table 27: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Light Rail Performance with 9 National Peers

Operating Cost Passenger Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per per Revenue Trips Per Recovery Ratio 1 Per Boarding 2 Boarding 3 Mile 4 Revenue Mile 5 Agency 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 San Diego (MTS) 54.3% 55.6% $2.00 $1.94 $0.91 $0.86 $7.87 $8.39 3.9 4.3 San Diego 16.2% - $6.03 - $5.05 - $25.62 - 4.3 - (NCTD) Dallas (DART) 12.6% 12.9% $6.29 $4.92 $5.50 $4.28 $22.66 $17.98 3.6 3.7 Denver (RTD) 31.1% 41.9% $3.56 $3.32 $2.45 $1.93 $8.96 $8.10 2.5 2.4 Los Angeles 18.3% 18.8% $3.62 $3.75 $2.96 $3.05 $17.41 $18.07 4.8 4.8 (LACMTA) Minneapolis 40.3% 36.9% $2.46 $2.66 $1.47 $1.68 $12.78 $13.56 5.2 5.1 (Metro Transit) Sacramento(RT) 34.7% 31.9% $2.51 $3.45 $1.64 $2.35 $13.06 $11.91 3.8 3.5 Santa Clara 30.2% 14.9% $3.12 $5.95 $2.18 $5.06 $11.75 $20.00 3.2 3.4 (VTA) Phoenix (Valley 15.2% 41.1% $5.81 $2.13 $4.93 $1.25 $18.77 $11.87 4.6 5.6 Metro Rail) Portland 28.1% 43.2% $2.72 $2.36 $1.96 $1.34 $12.43 $12.88 5.2 5.5 (TriMet) Salt Lake (UTA) 37.2% 39.8% $2.09 $2.42 $1.31 $1.46 $8.62 $7.11 4.1 2.9 9 Peer Average 27.5% 31.3% $3.58 $3.44 $2.71 $2.49 $14.05 $13.50 4.1 4.1

Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses 2 Operating Cost Per Boarding= Operating Expenses/Total Boardings 3 Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/ Total Boardings 4 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles 5 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile = Total Revenue Miles/Passenger Trips

SJOBERGEVASHENK 75 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

81

Commuter Rail Performs Better than Most Peers Additionally, San Diego Commuter Rail system also generally operates better than six identified peers reported in the National Transit Database as shown in Table 28.

Table 28: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Commuter Rail Performance with 6 National Peers Operating Cost Passenger Trips Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per per Revenue Per Revenue Recovery Ratio1 Per Boarding 2 Boarding 3 Mile 4 Mile 5 Agency 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 San Diego 40.0% 39.5% 12.10 $10.84 $7.26 $6.56 12.50 $12.57 1.0 1.2 (NCTD) Dallas (DART) 37.6% 31.7% $10.44 $11.49 $6.51 $7.85 $20.49 $23.31 2.0 2.0 Los Angeles 42.4% 46.6% 13.63 $13.04 $7.85 $6.96 $15.62 $14.65 1.1 1.1 (MetroLink) Minneapolis 15.8% 15.6% $21.95 $23.45 $18.49 $19.79 $26.27 $31.84 1.2 1.4 (Metro Transit) Salt Lake (UTA) 10.5% 13.5% $14.27 $10.52 $12.78 $9.10 $9.61 $10.18 0.7 1.0 San Carlos 47.0% 56.5% 8.04 $7.50 $4.26 $3.26 $12.82 $15.20 1.6 2.0 (Caltrain) Stockton (Altamont 34.0% 34.4% 17.66 $15.51 $11.65 $10.17 $16.10 $15.16 1.0 1.0 Commuter) 6 Peer Average 31.2% 33.0% $14.33 $13.59 $10.26 $9.52 $16.82 $18.39 1.3 1.4

Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses 2 Operating Cost Per Boarding= Operating Expenses/Total Boardings 3 Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/ Total Boardings 4 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles 5 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile = Total Revenue Miles/Passenger Trips

SJOBERGEVASHENK 76 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

82

Hybrid Rail Performs Better than Most Peers Finally, as shown in Table 29, San Diego Hybrid Rail system also appears to generally operate better than the only other three entities operating hybrid rail systems as reported in the National Transit Database.

Table 29: Comparison of San Diego 2010 & 2012 Hybrid Rail Performance with 3 National Peers Operating Cost Passenger Trips Farebox Operating Cost Subsidy per 1 2 3 per Revenue Per Revenue Agency Recovery Ratio Per Boarding Boarding 4 5 Mile Mile 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 San Diego 18.3% 19.2% $5.87 $5.71 $4.79 $4.61 $24.07 $20.72 4.1 3.6 (NCTD) Capital Metropolitan 10.2% 20.0% $24.86 $21.54 $22.32 $17.24 $53.28 $47.90 2.1 2.2 Transportation Authority New Jersey Transit 8.7% 7.7% $10.34 $11.23 $9.44 $10.37 $23.75 $27.27 2.3 2.4 Corporation Portland 6.2% 6.9% $16.86 $15.51 $15.82 $14.44 $43.74 $39.70 2.6 2.6 (TriMet) 3 Peer Average 8.3% 11.5% $17.35 $16.09 $15.86 $14.02 $40.26 $38.29 2.3 2.4

Source: NTD 2010 and 2012 transit profiles and Florida Transit Information System data extracted from NTD 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses 2 Operating Cost Per Boarding= Operating Expenses/Total Boardings 3 Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/ Total Boardings 4 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles 5 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile = Total Revenue Miles/Passenger Trips

SJOBERGEVASHENK 77 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

83

Appendix C: Auditee Response

SJOBERGEVASHENK 78 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

84

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

To better enhance project management and performance practices over the Major Corridor Capital Improvement Program, the ITOC should have SANDAG work with its partners to: 1. Utilizing data already captured, SANDAG staff will develop a summarize TransNet performance public Dashboard portal for results in a comprehensive report reporting delivery card type format. performance on projects Chapter 1, Low scheduled to advertise or pages 9-11 open-to-public in the upcoming fiscal year. Lead staff: Richard Chavez 2. Improve SANDAG transit capital The final draft Construction project management practices by Management Manual is finalizing SANDAG’s Construction Chapter 2, scheduled for completion by High Management Manual. pages 18-19 fall 2015. Lead staff: Ramon Ruelas 3. Closely monitor the risks associated A formal risk management with the implementation of the program, that includes many CM/GC approach being used on standard industry best Major Corridor highway and transit practices such as risk registers, projects and consider implementing design change control leading practices, including: processes, cost estimate  Establishing performance goals development consistency, and measuring results by lessons learned and strong comparing “traditional” project communication practices, delivery time and original cost among others, already is part estimates to CM/GC model of both the Mid-Coast Corridor Chapter 2, Tran actuals; and determining the High sit Project and the North pages 19 -21 value-added and cost savings Coast Corridor Program. attributed to CM/GC value SANDAG staff will continue engineering and monitoring the risks recommendations; associated with implementing the CM/GC approach for  Employing risk management Major Corridor projects and practices to identify and manage will consider implementing risk through formal tools such as additional leading practices, as risk registries; appropriate.  Ensuring the same cost Lead staff: development criteria and John Haggerty/ methodology is utilized for the

SJOBERGEVASHENK 79 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

85

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

Independent Cost Estimate, Allan Kosup Engineer Estimate, and Contractor estimate; and  Implementing strong communication practices during both the pre-construction and construction phase. 4. Begin to capture data and measure SANDAG staff will develop a project delivery of transit capital public Dashboard portal for projects on schedule and budget reporting delivery using metrics such as: performance on projects  Percent of projects delivered on scheduled to advertise or schedule and ready for open-to-public in the construction; upcoming fiscal year. In addition, SANDAG staff will  Percent of change orders begin capturing data on transit against original contract construction and right-of-way amount; and status similar to data currently Chapter 2,  Percent of projects delivered on Medium captured on highway projects. budget. page 22 This information includes risk and budgetary information used to assess project health during the right-of-way acquisition and construction phases. This will not be a public report as it contains confidential information. Lead staff: Dave Schumacher/ Richard Chavez To improve Local Street and Road Program performance data and better assist local jurisdictions with managing future needs for roadway maintenance, the ITOC should have SANDAG work collaboratively with the local agencies to: 5. Consider implementing one of the Arterial detection would have deployment options of the Regional limited benefit in measuring Arterial Detection System performance of projects Chapter 3, Development Plan, or develop other High currently being built in the alternative mechanisms to measure page 28 Local Streets and Roads local street and road performance Program. However, arterial outcomes. detection remains an Agency priority and will be installed as

SJOBERGEVASHENK 80 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

86

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

funds become available as a stand-alone or part of another capital project. Lead staff: Alex Estrella 6. Expand on existing available local Staff has continued working street and road performance output with the ITOC and the data to report and summarize on Cities/County Transportation improvements made to the local Advisory Committee to streets and roads network. enhance the existing RTIP reporting software Chapter 3, (ProjectTrak) to capture High pages 28-30 output data. This effort will be complete by late 2015 with full reporting by the local agencies scheduled to commence in 2016. Lead staff: Alex Estrella/ Michelle Smith 7. Revisit the TransNet Ordinance and Staff will discuss this Expenditure Plan’s provisions recommendation with the definitions between congestion relief ITOC and Cities/County and maintenance categories to allow Transportation Advisory local jurisdictions the ability to better Committee to determine program projects to meet local street Chapter 3, potential changes to the Local Medium and road needs. pages 30-33 Street and Road Program TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Implementation Guidelines. Lead staff: Alex Estrella To continue strengthening the EMP to ensure TransNet funding is utilized in the most effective manner, the ITOC should have SANDAG: 8. Continue efforts to market local SANDAG staff will continue its mitigation program with money outreach efforts to local available for locals. jurisdictions on the Chapter 4, Medium opportunities available under page 39 the TransNet EMP. Staff is currently working with two cities on specific mitigation needs. In addition, a

SJOBERGEVASHENK 81 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

87

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

presentation was made on January 8, 2015, to the SANDAG Technical Working Group to inform them of the program. A similar presentation will be made to the CTAC. Additional direct marketing will be explored, as necessary. Lead staff: Keith Greer 9. Begin focusing on formally measuring Both the Resource results of mitigation efforts to Enhancement and Mitigation implement the Resource Program (better known as the Enhancement and Mitigation Management Strategic Plan) Program under the Public Works Plan and the Public Works Plan and the results of efforts to have specific objectives and implement the strategic goals and milestones. Staff will track Chapter 4, objective of the regional monitoring High progress of the plan’s and management under the pages 39-40 implementation and Management Strategic Plan and any incorporate into existing other EMP efforts. reporting requirements for annual funding requests and status reports. Lead staff: Keith Greer 10. Create methodology to quantify how Pursuant to the existing much economic benefits have SANDAG Memorandum of actually been achieved to compare Agreement to implement the against what was released to identify EMP, the determination of the funding deficits or surpluses as part of true economic benefit (actual the 10-year Comprehensive Review costs to estimated costs) is to required by the TransNet Extension Chapter 4, occur prior to 2018 and along High Ordinance. pages 40-41 with the TransNet 10- year Comprehensive Review. Staff will work on the proposed methodology; however, it will still be a few years in order to gather a larger pool of completed projects necessary to make a valid assessment.

SJOBERGEVASHENK 82 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

88

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

Lead staff: Keith Greer/ Marney Cox To build upon the successful Transit Program and better communicate transit performance, the ITOC should have SANDAG work collaboratively with its transit partners to: 11. Continue efforts to build user-friendly SANDAG staff will provide the transit operations performance link to each agency’s transit dashboards that report, MTS and operations performance NCTD transit performance data and Dashboard in the transit results. Once MTS and NCTD Chapter 5, portion of the SANDAG Low dashboards are developed, SANDAG pages 45-46 Dashboard once both the MTS should provide a link to each agency’s and NCTD dashboards are transit operations performance developed. Dashboard in the transit portion of Lead staff: SANDAG’s Dashboard. Brian Lane To continue efforts assessing whether Grant Programs are administered efficiently and effectively and whether grant activities are meeting stated goals and requirements, the ITOC should have SANDAG: 12. Track and report grant performance For Active Transportation and data to identify whether grants are Smart Growth Incentive achieving program goals, including: Programs, as of the second  For Active Transportation and cycle of funding for both Smart Growth Incentive grant programs, grant recipients are programs, implement processes required to collect baseline to gather and analyze baseline data, which consists of performance data against actual pedestrian and bicycle counts, results to fully assess project observation data, and performance in meeting goals. intercept surveys, for capital projects. SANDAG staff will  For Senior Mini-Grant Program, Chapter 6, continue to require baseline capture and report on all other Medium pages 51-52 data for capital projects. As performance metrics captured in projects are completed, the quarterly progress reports, SANDAG will obtain post- where applicable, and show construction data and develop performance over time. a procedure for analyzing and reporting baseline performance against actual results. Lead staff: Christine Eary/ Suchi Mukherjee

SJOBERGEVASHENK 83 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

89

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

For the Senior Mini-Grant Program, SANDAG will work to determine which grantees can report on cost/vehicle service hour and passenger load to ensure these grantees begin accurately reporting this information with each invoice. SANDAG also will develop a separate data form for projects where these indicators are not applicable. Lead staff: Danielle Kochman 13. Make minor changes to enhance For the EMP, staff will include grant site visits and reporting these items into progress processes, including: audits. A standard template  For EMP: will be developed to be used accordingly. o Expand site visit reports to include compliance with why Lead staff: grantee selected for review, Keith Greer budget and schedule, any issues identified and steps to For the Senior Mini-Grant resolve, and whether the Program, updates to the grantee is on track to meet monitoring checklist will be expectations and Chapter 6, incorporated by July 1, 2015. Low deliverables. pages 52-53 SANDAG also will continue o Implement a basic grantee working with grantees to progress reporting template consistently provide accurate to capture information such performance data. For as a description of challenges cost/passenger trip data, and the grantee’s SANDAG will ensure that corresponding plans for grantees that can report this resolution. information do so, as applicable. SANDAG also will  For Senior Mini-Grant Program: develop a separate data o Expand monitoring checklist form for projects where to include name, grant these indicators are not number, dates of site visit

SJOBERGEVASHENK 84 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

90

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference occurred, name of the applicable. SANDAG staff reviewer and Lead staff: the grantee. Danielle Kochman o Continue to work with grantees to consistently provide accurate and complete performance data such as number of units of service provided, cost per passenger trip, or vehicle service hour, and number of clients educated on transit usage, where applicable. 14. Date stamp all grant applications to For the third cycle of Smart identify and demonstrate whether Growth Incentive and Active applications were received by stated Transportation Grant Program deadlines. funding, staff is developing an electronic submittal process for applications. This process will track the date and time that an application is received by SANDAG. Lead staff: Carolina Gregor

For EMP, this is not applicable. Chapter 6, Low EMP grant applications are pages 54-55 already date stamped. Lead staff: Keith Greer

For Senior Mini-Grant Program, all submitted grant applications will be date stamped upon receipt during the next call for projects in 2016. Lead staff: Danielle Kochman

SJOBERGEVASHENK 85 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

91

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

To increase the effectiveness of the Active Transportation capital project delivery and management practices and improve performance monitoring and reporting, ITOC should have SANDAG: 15. Continue efforts to develop formal SANDAG will develop a project project delivery and management management plan for the Chapter 7, plans and ensure practices employed High Active Transportation Capital pages 59-60 are consistent with other TransNet Improvement Program. capital projects. Lead staff: Linda Culp 16. Utilize project management tools SANDAG will build upon the used by other SANDAG capital project financial reporting work programs to monitor project initiated in FY 2015 in the schedules and costs. Also, validate Dashboard and validate data. data reported in the Dashboard for SANDAG will develop project accuracy. Chapter 7, management tools through High page 59 the program management plan (Recommendation No. 15). Lead staff: Linda Culp/ Richard Chavez 17. Set performance indicators and SANDAG staff will develop a capture data, such as: public Dashboard portal for  Percent of projects delivered on reporting delivery schedule and ready for performance on bikeway construction; projects scheduled to advertise or open-to-public in  Percent of project awards not the upcoming fiscal year. The exceeding more than 10 percent report will include information of estimates; on project award amount  Percentage of support costs and related to the engineer’s Chapter 7, estimate and miles of bike a percent of budget; Medium pages 59-60  Percent of projects delivered on path constructed related to budget; total planned. SANDAG staff will assess the availability of  Miles of bike paths paved accident and fatal bike crash compared to total planned; or information and investigate  Rate of serious or fatal bike options for reporting bikeway crashes in areas where bike system safety. paths and lanes have been Lead staff: created. Linda Culp/ Richard Chavez

SJOBERGEVASHENK 86 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

92

Report Recommendation Priority SANDAG Initial Response Reference

To improve the effectiveness of ITOC in fulfilling its responsibilities, ITOC should consider:

18. Adopting a method to alternate the SANDAG staff will review this ending terms of ITOC members so recommendation with the that no more than two terms end in ITOC to determine potential Chapter 8, any given year. High changes to ITOC member page 62 ending terms. Lead staff: Ariana zur Nieden

SJOBERGEVASHENK 87 Triennial TransNet Audit-2014

93 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-9 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION

SANDAG PARTICIPATION IN THE File Number 3311800 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONNECTED VEHICLE MODEL DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Introduction

“Connected vehicles” are vehicles that communicate wirelessly with other vehicles and the roadway to operate cooperatively reducing congestion, fuel usage and increasing safety.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) released a Request for Proposals for the Connected Vehicle Model Deployment Program through which the federal government desires to move this technology into a real-world operating environment.

Discussion

SANDAG has been asked to join a state-wide consortium which is being led by Caltrans, to apply for funding from this pilot program to plan, design, and build a connected vehicle model deployment in the San Diego region. The consortium includes Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). Locally, SANDAG has been working with partners including the City of San Diego, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and Caltrans District 11.

The federal program is divided into three phases, with Phase I for the planning and system engineering; Phase II will develop and implement the proposed system; and Phase III will operate the model deployment for a period of up to 18 months.

Phase I is targeted to begin in September 2015 and conclude by September 2016. Phase II would be awarded in September 2017 with a 20-month construction window. Phase III would conclude in calendar year 2020.

Projects selected to enter Phase I will receive federal funds; no local matching funds are required. Only Phase I grantees are eligible to compete for Phase II or Phase III funding, with each later phase requiring a 20 percent local match. The current estimate for the state-wide, three phase project is $27 million, with the federal share of $20 million to be equally shared by the three regions.

Working with our local partners, SANDAG staff considered several candidate corridors that could best represent the challenges that our region faces in our major freeway corridors. The Interstate 8 (I-8) corridor appears to be the ideal candidate for this program due to several factors including:

• Multi-modal corridor • Freeway • Parallel Arterials • Transit Circulator Routes • Freight Delivery • Bicycle Facilities • Freeway weave and merge issues • Older Highway Design Standards • Applicability of Technology to Resolve Transportation Issues

The I-8 corridor will give the region the opportunity to test several innovative connected vehicle applications including:

• Dynamic Speed Harmonization • An Active Traffic and Demand Management Strategy • Curve Over Speed Warning • Transit Signal Priority • Automated Work Zone Alerting • End-of-Queue Warning

Next Steps

SANDAG staff working with local and state-wide partners are preparing to submit a proposal to U.S. DOT by March 27, 2015, for Phase I planning for a connected vehicle model deployment. If successful, SANDAG staff will return to the Transportation Committee with regular updates on the project.

RAY TRAYNOR Director of Operations

Key Staff Contact: James Dreisbach-Towle, (619) 699-1914, [email protected]

2 Gilman Drive Bridge Project March 20, 2015 ‐ Transportation Committee

1

Location of Projects

North

2

1 Portfolio of Projects

3

Challenges

4

2 Challenges

Voigt Drive Station ‐ Aerial View of Transit Plaza

Challenges

Voigt Drive Transit Station

3 Solution

7

Master Agreement

8

4 Benefits

• Provide public access for future DAR • Provide right‐of‐way for future I‐5 widening • Reduced time frame of construction • Improved construction staging area for contractor of Mid‐Coast and Voigt Drive overcrossing • Reduced overall construction cost • Reduced disruption to UCSD and Scripps Hospital

9

Project Status Update • Gilman Drive Bridge – Finalized environmental document – Finalized design plans – Construction, maintenance, and right of way agreement are being finalized • Mid‐Coast trolley – Begin construction in 2016 • Voigt Drive realignment and bridge replacement – 30 percent design is complete • I‐5/Genesee Avenue interchange – Construction is underway

10

5 Next Steps

• Finalize master agreement • Finalize project‐specific agreements • Advertise Gilman project in the fall of 2015 • Break ground in the first quarter of 2016

11

Recommendation The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve an amendment to the FY 2015 Program Budget to add a new capital project for I‐5/Gilman Drive Bridge (CIP 1200508) for $15 million in substantially the same form as Attachment 2.

12

6 Fiscal Year 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Draft Results

Presented by Catherine Brady Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc.

to the Transportation Committee March 20, 2015

Introduction

 Appreciation of ITOC, Audit Subcommittee, and Project Manager  Received utmost levels of cooperation from SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, NCTD & Locals  Unfettered access to records  Requests for data generally met on a timely basis

2

1 “No Surprises” Approach

 Formal Briefings with all Auditees as well as ITOC Audit Subcommittee  Written task deliverables provided to and approved by ITOC Project Manager  Followed Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards throughout Audit

3

Audit Scope & Objectives

 Covered Fiscal Years 2011/12 through 2013/14  Status of recommendations from second audit  Organizational structure and operational processes related to project delivery, cost control, and schedule adherence  Process changes in contracting, construction, permitting, and other areas  Examined ITOC and its operations  Potential barriers and opportunities for change

4

2 Major Areas of Focus

 Major Highway & Transit Capital Construction  Local Street and Road Program  Environmental Mitigation Program  Land Management, Smart Growth Incentive, Senior Mini, and Active Transportation Grants  Active Transportation EAP Projects  Transit Operator Services  Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Performance

5

Report Organization

Provides recommendations for consideration with detail to form basis for conclusions and recommendations:  Executive Summary  Introduction & Background  Scope and Methodology  Chapter 1 – Processes and Changes Since Prior Audit  Chapter 2 – Freeway & Transit Capital Construction Projects  Chapter 3 – Local Street & Road Performance  Chapter 4 – Environmental Mitigation Program Efforts  Chapter 5 – Transit Service Performance  Chapter 6 – Grant Activities  Chapter 7 – Active Transportation Capital Projects  Chapter 8 – ITOC Practices  Chapter 9 – Conclusion and Recommendations  Appendices A - C

6

3 Executive Summary

 Strong practices still in place over many areas  SANDAG and partners focused on collaborative relationships, goals and accomplishments, and continual improvement  Made many enhancements in areas such as capital projects, environmental mitigation, and grants  Additional improvements will enhance programs and practices as described in the following slides

7

Ch 1: Progress Since Prior Audit

 All prior audit recommendations have been addressed resulting in better performance information and more efficient practices (such as grant processing).  Continued effort is needed to track performance outcomes for Local Street and Road Program as well as Grant Programs.

8

4 Ch 2: Major Corridor Capital Improvements  Projects are getting completed, although 58% show schedule delays. Circumstances for small sample of projects seem reasonable.  Corridor budgets have increased 57%, but many new projects and phases were added.  Nearly 30 percent of EAP are open to traffic.  Solid project delivery exists, although need to finalize project management manual and continue to monitor new CM/GC approach.  Internal project efficiency should be measured.  Change orders as % of contracts averaged between 13 and 17 percent, but seem reasonable.

9

Ch 3: Local Street and Road Performance

 Limited performance outcome information is available to measure congestion relief such as traffic speed, travel time, and/or accidents.  Annual reports from local jurisdictions need to be expanded, complete, and summarized to track performance outputs such as pavement condition, potholes repaired, miles paved, etc.  Deteriorating local streets and roads pavement condition from “good” to “at risk” between 2008 and 2014 may warrant reexamination of project types within the 70/30 congestion relief/maintenance categories.  Local agencies reviewed continue to follow industry best practices.

10

5 Ch 4: Environmental Mitigation Efforts  Land acquisitions are nearly complete.  Program continues to run well as it transitions from acquisition to restoration.  Development of strategic plans and process to define economic benefit and distribution methods marked significant accomplishments.  Still too early to measure overall mitigation efforts as restoration and land management have just begun—although SANDAG should now shift focus to performance monitoring.  Also now need approach to quantify actual economic benefit achieved to compared against amounts released.

11

Ch 5: Transit Service Performance

 Operators have solid on-time performance and improved reliability:  Various NCTD route categories on-time performance range from 88 to 99 percent in 2014.  Similarly, MTS route categories ranged from 81 to 91 percent in 2014.  San Diego still outperforms peers for fixed route and all rail modes (light rail, hybrid rail, and commuter rail) in farebox recovery ratio and operating expense per mile.  Operators should continue working toward development of transit performance dashboards.

12

6 Ch 6: Grant Activities

 Reviewed Active Transportation, Smart Growth Incentive, Senior Mini, and Environmental Mitigation Land Management Grants.  Limited data is captured to measure performance, except for Senior Mini-Grant.  Grant practices were enhanced and performance monitoring strengthened.  Minor adjustments would improve monitoring tools.  Average grant processing timelines have decreased.

13

Ch 7: Active Transportation Capital Projects

 Project schedule and costs are in Dashboard, so managers should use for monitoring purposes.  Data shows several projects with schedule delays, although 2 of the 19 approved projects have been completed.  Project delivery and management practices need to be developed and consistent with other capital projects such as:  Conducting and documenting regular PDT meetings  Managing task order amendments and change orders  Retaining project documentation  Too early in program to have performance outcomes, but plans should be made to capture data.

14

7 Ch 8: ITOC Practices

ITOC continues to comply with Ordinance and function effectively including:  Members possess requisite experience.  Conflict of interest provisions followed.  Committee performing all responsibilities.  Meeting frequency adheres to Ordinance and are regularly attended with between 70 and 100 percent member attendance.  Committee uses leading practices.

15

Next Steps

 Transportation Committee review period is at least 60 days  ITOC acceptance of Final Audit Report scheduled for June 10, 2015  Presentation of 2015 ITOC Annual Report, including Final Performance Audit results to SANDAG Board on June 26, 2015

16

8 Questions

9 Connecting with Our Region

What is Connected Vehicle

2

1 Federal Connected Vehicle Pilot: Program Goals

• Accelerate early deployment of Connected Vehicle technology • Understand and estimate benefits associated with deployment • Identify and solve key issues related to technical and institutional barriers

3 3

Local Opportunity to Address

• Heavy traffic congestion • Transit vehicle reliability • Commercial vehicle reliability • Wasted fuel from traffic congestion • Work zone safety

Image courtesy of Kapsch TrafficCom

4

2 Model Location Evaluation

• Primary Criteria – Multi-modal corridor – Clearly defined challenge – Addressed regional needs

• Secondary Criteria – Application readiness – Public owned fleet exist – Capital costs

• Candidate Locations – Airport/Downtown – Interstate 15 – Region wide – Interstate 8

5

Pilot Deployment Submission Site: Interstate 8

6

3 One California Statewide Proposal

7

Next Steps

• March 27th………Proposal due • Sept. 2015………Award – phase one planning

8

4 Thank you

9 Real-Time Simulation

5