Agenda Packets

A Joint Powers Authority

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA

Monday, April 19, 2021 - 1:00PM

NCTC JPA Board Meeting Virtual Zoom Board Meeting Info:

Please Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join.

Join NCTC JPA April 19, 2021,1-3pm Board of Directors Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88391786032?pwd=VDdDOUpoL1BHNCtpeVdhekxGU2UxUT09 Meeting ID: 883 9178 6032 Passcode: 909971

One tap mobile +16699009128,,88391786032#,,,,*909971# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,88391786032#,,,,*909971# US (Tacoma)

Dial by your location +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 883 9178 6032 Passcode: 909971 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kz4EWU9Zg

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 1 of 4

NCTC JPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

BOARD MEMBERS Chair, Marsha McLean, Council Member, City of Santa Clarita Jason Gibbs, Council Member City of Santa Clarita Robert Newman, Director of Public Works, City of Santa Clarita Vice Chair, Marvin Crist, Vice Mayor, City of Lancaster Kenneth Mann, Council Member, City of Lancaster Jason Caudle, City Manager, City of Lancaster Kathryn Barger, Supervisor, 5th District, County of Los Angeles Mark Pestrella, Director of Public Works, County of Los Angeles Victor Lindenheim, County of Los Angeles Austin Bishop, Council Member, City of Palmdale Laura Bettencourt, Council Member, City of Palmdale Bart Avery, City of Palmdale

EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS Macy Neshati, Antelope Valley Transit Authority Adrian Aguilar, Santa Clarita Transit

BOARD MEMBER ALTERNATES Dave Perry, County of Los Angeles Juan Carrillo, Council Member, City of Palmdale Mike Hennawy, City of Santa Clarita

NCTC JPA STAFF Executive Director: Arthur V. Sohikian, AVS Consulting, Inc. Auditor-Controller: Arlene Barrera, County of Los Angeles Legal Counsel: Warren R. Wellen, County of Los Angeles

OPEN SESSION 1. CALL TO ORDER – Marsha McLean, Chair

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, NCTC is conducting business remotely as we comply with State of California and County of Los Angeles health directives. NCTC is committed to ensuring that our public meetings are accessible to the public to observe and address the meeting and to participate by providing written and oral comment on NCTC matters. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to Executive Director Arthur Sohikian at [email protected].

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 2 of 4

Providing Public Comment a. Public comment for NCTC virtual Board meetings can be provided in several ways. i. Written Comments 1. You are welcome to submit written comments to the NCTC via email. Please send your comment to [email protected] 2. In the subject line of your email, indicate the meeting date and the topic of your comment. ii. Oral Comments 1. At the beginning of the meeting and for each agendized item at the public meeting, the NCTC Chair will ask whether there are any requests for public comment. 2. If you want to provide oral comments on a specific agenda item, you will need to “Raise your hand” https://support.zoom.us/hc/en- us/articles/205566129 during the Zoom meeting. *If calling into the meeting from a telephone, you can use “Star (*) 9” to raise/ lower your hand. 3. Once your hand is raised and it is your turn to speak, the Chair or the meeting facilitator will unmute you, announce your name, and you will be able to make your public comment to the NCTC. *Depending on how you have called in, you may also need to unmute yourself. 4. A speaker's time allotment is at the discretion of the Chair. Generally, the NCTC allows 3 minutes per speaker per topic. After your public comment, your hand will be lowered, and you will be placed back on mute.

NCTC BOARD CONSENT CALENDAR All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion. Prior to the motion to consider any action by the Board, any public comments on any of the Consent Calendar items will be heard. There will be no separate action unless members of the Board request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar.

5. MINUTES/RECAP OF PROCEEDINGS Recommended Action: Approve January 25, 2021 Minutes/Board Meeting Recap of Proceedings held via virtual zoom webinar format.

6. MEMBER AGENCY TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT PROJECT UPDATES Recommended Action: Receive and file Report & Map.

7. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL & SHERIFFS NORTH COUNTY UPDATE Recommended Action: Receive and file reports from CA CHP and LA County Sheriff’s. North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 3 of 4

8. CALTRANS HIGHWAYS PROJECT UPDATES – Osama Megalla, District 7 Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

9. METRO HIGHWAYS UPDATES – Abdollah Ansari & Isidro Panuco, Metro Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

10. METRO REGIONAL RAIL/AVL STUDY UPDATE – Jeanet Owens, Vincent Chio & Brain Balderrama, Metro Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

11. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL UPDATE – Rick Simon, CA HSR Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

12. HIGH DESERT CORRIDOR PROJECT UPDATE Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

13. METRO LEGISLATIVE UPDATES – Michael Turner & Raffi Hamparian, Metro Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

NCTC BOARD REGULAR CALENDAR At the discretion of the Board, all items appearing on this Agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board.

14. METRO NORTH COUNTY UPDATE – Metro/Metrolink Board Director Ara Najarian. Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

15. METROLINK NORTH COUNTY UPDATE – Metrolink CEO, Stephanie Wiggins Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

16. 25th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT UPDATE – US Representative Mike Garcia Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

17. NCTC JPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UPDATE – Executive Director, Arthur Sohikian Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

18. METRO TRAFFIC REDUCTION STUDY (Congestion Pricing) – Metro Staff Recommended Action: Receive and file report.

19. NCTC JPA BOARD MEMBER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

20. ADJOURNMENT. Next Board of Directors meeting: July19, 2021 at 1:00pm, Location TBD. https://northcountytransportationcoalition.org/upcoming-meetings North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 4 of 4

AGENDA REPORT – BOARD ITEM 5 North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition Date: April 19, 2021 To: Governing Board Members of the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition JPA From: Arthur V. Sohikian, Executive Director Subject: NCTC JPA Recap of Proceedings January 25, 2021 Board Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER – Chair Kathryn Barger called virtual meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Chair, Supervisor Kathryn Barger, 5th Supervisorial District, County of Los Angeles Victor Lindenheim, County of Los Angeles Austin Bishop, Council Member, City of Palmdale Laura Bettencourt, Mayor Pro Temp, City of Palmdale Bart Avery, City of Palmdale Marvin Crist, Vice Mayor, City of Lancaster Kenneth Mann, Council Member, City of Lancaster Jason Caudle, City Manager, City of Lancaster Marsha McLean, Council Member, City of Santa Clarita Robert Newman, Director of Public Works, City of Santa Clarita Dave Perry, County of Los Angeles, Alternate Member Voting at 1/25/21 Board meeting Mike Hennawy, City of Santa Clarita, Alternate Member Voting at 1/25/21Board meeting EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS Macy Neshati, Antelope Valley Transit Authority Adrian Aguilar, Santa Clarita Transit BOARD MEMBER ALTERNATES Dave Perry, County of Los Angeles Juan Carrillo, Council Member, City of Palmdale Mike Hennawy, City of Santa Clarita NCTC JPA STAFF Executive Director: Arthur V. Sohikian, AVS Consulting, Inc. Legal Counsel: Warren R. Wellen, County of Los Angeles 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Director Bettencourt VOTING LEGEND Y=YES ABS=Abstain N=NO C=Conflict A=Absent 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – No public comments were made at this time.

5. APPROVED MINUTES/MEETING OF RECAP OF PROCEEDINGS. Motion by Director Crist, Second by Director Bettencourt. October 19, 2020 Minutes/Board Meeting Recap of Proceedings held virtual and open to public KB VL AB LB BA MC KM JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 1 of 3

6. MEMBER AGENCY TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT PROJECT UPDATES 7. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL & SHERIFFS NORTH COUNTY UPDATE 8. METRO HIGHWAYS PROJECT UPDATES 9. METRO REGIONAL RAIL/AVL STUDY UPDATE 10. METROLINK UPDATE 11. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL UPDATE 12. HIGH DESERT CORRIDOR PROJECT UPDATE 13. METRO LEGISLATIVE UPDATES RECIEVED REPORTS 6 TO 13, Motion by Director Crist, Second by Director Bettencourt KB SH MP RL BA MC KN JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 14. CALTRANS HIGHWAY UPDATE/CALTRANS CITY AMBASSADOR PROGRAM – Caltrans District Director Tony Taveras, Deputy District Director Gloria Roberts, District 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS – Christopher Minsal, Pearbloosom Town Council on SR138.

15. APPROVED – MEASURE M SUBREGIONAL FUNDS; PROGRAMMING PLAN UPDATE Recommended Action: Approve Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Program (MSP) Plan & Program Year 7 Funds. Motion by Director Crist, Second by Director Lindenheim KB SH MP RL BA MC KN JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

16. RECEIVE AND FILE – NCTC 2021 WORK PLAN Recommended Action: Receive and File and Provide Direction on the 2021 Work Plan. KB SH MP RL BA MC KN JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

17. RECEIVE AND FILE – NCTC REAP PROGRAM SCAG APPLICATION UPDATE Recommended Action: Receive and File Update on SCAG REAP Application. KB SH MP RL BA MC KN JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

18. NCTC ELECTION OF BOARD OFFICERS – Recommended Action: Election of Board Officers to July 2022 meeting. Nomination of Director McLean for Chair and Director Crist for Vice Chair on Motion by Director Mann, Second by Director Bishop. KB SH MP RL BA MC KN JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 2 of 3

19. NCTC SCAG POLICY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – Recommended Action: Receive and file report/Make Appointments. Nomination of Lancaster Council Member Darrell Dorris for SCAG Policy Committee assignment. Motion by Director Crist, Second by Director Barger. KB SH MP RL BA MC KN JC MM RN DP MH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

20. NCTC BOARD MEMBER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Director McLean asked for a report on the Metro Traffic Reduction Initiative for April 19, 2021 Board of Directors Meeting.

21. PUBLIC COMMENT – Public Comments were received by Marabel. Mr. Jason Zink via virtual chat.

22. ADJOURNMENT AT 2:17 PM. Next Board of Directors meeting: April 19, 2021 at 1:00pm.

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 3 of 3

AGENDA REPORT – BOARD ITEM 6 North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition

Date: April 19, 2021 To: Governing Board Members of the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition (NCTC) JPA From: Arthur V. Sohikian, Executive Director Subject: NCTC Transportation & Transit Projects Update

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY ! ! ! !

D !

R KERN COUNTY ! P

V E H S * W AVENUE A W AVENUE A

A A H

* W W

T L C I !

H * L E T E 0 * E

T T ! 0 H ENUE B W E AV * Y R 0 W AVENUE B W 3 S S T

R W E

3 R

! D Y

0 H

T W

T A T

9 !

279 T W

G L S S

A S 1

275 O N T 0

T !( R C

MA AS E

T !

!( 6 N ER S

S H P D RD H O S R T ! T R

T R E T

D T H W AVENUE D W AVENUE D H H

S S

A W

0 H

W E 0 C

N T

T 218 ! LA T

T 0 0

W T

T T 0 W 234 !(

! 278 2 0

E AVENUE E 9

7 S

S S

!( 3 !(

T 1 0 1 !

E S 2

! 1

W AVENUE F 242 T Roosevelt

D Del Sur T H !( Hi Vista

R North S

S T !

West Antelope Valley LANCAS 0 G TER H AVENUE E E

! W AVENUE G

H 3

T T 155 T H H RD Lancaster !

0 U E

W !( 0

5 T T T 155

P 233 E 277 1 H ! W AVENUE 0

§ O I T

¨¦ N S !(

W 1 E !( 14 !( 4

C T

R T A S

Ä !

N 1 N

T 0

Y S

O H

E AVENUE I E W AVENUE I

! N

S O 5 E

R I

T D

Castaic/Lake D H G

232 155 W 188 268 E T

O S

! T

I D !( E !( !( !( 257 1 I

W AVENUE J E AVENUE J S I 0

Lake G T

! V

LANCASTER 1 A

! I 2 ( V

R Hughes

D S R

! D

G H

155 R E A

S T

E AVENUE K H

Hughes I T

!( L

! N T

T T V

50 0 71 E 2

E 4 187 !

!( E

E !(

K L

T LA D E AVENUE L T !( ! R

T 0 271 T

S E

E S

223 72

E H D H 199 5

!( S

G !

T !(

H ! 1 U ( O O Leona !( T 68 H W

E AVENUE M 230 R

250 H T

T T

N H !

I 231 T

S 0

221 !( T

!( G

A (! U S T

256 A 0

T 5

!( S

189 144 S Q (! 192 0 222

D R H

T ! 1 S S 252 !( 0 (! !( I R Valley !( 0 (! H

A C T

S N E 1 ! (! 251 N L 197 Lake Los I T

L 249 A O IZ 0 Y !( 0 A V (! R B 9 (! F N Quartz ! L 4 258 255 A AK ET E AVENUE O SAN C H 2 ! E Angeles (! ! 195 E ( 281 RD !( Palmdale

Hill T

!( Bouquet E AVENUE P E AVENUE P BERNARDINO ! S

! 67

191 Canyon !( 248 152 !( !( !( H E AVENUE Q E PALMDALE E AVENUE Q ! 282 226 280 T COUNTY

0 H E BLVD !( !( E PALMDALE BLVD

8 33 1 T

VENTURA T ! !( E AVENUE R 58 E AVENUE R 2 !( 0 196

223 S !( ! 193 PALMDALE 4 Sun Village286 !( !( (! D K E

E AVENUE S !( ! COUNTY R C T

E ! 284 A 202 96 T N !( I L

San Francisquito Canyon/ T Littlerock Y !( U Agua Dulce !( !

H S E B

S 269 B

T ! 19 W A

33 !( T Bouquet Canyon 7

!( H H B

!( S

8 ! 263 14 T 8 182 204 177 A 283

Ä 0 ! Castaic !( 32 !( !( !( PEA !( !( R RB 8 !( ESCO South 7 LOSSOM Pearblossom

N F ! !( DIDO R O 178 267 HWY H E 172 R

! C 285 203 A E N I T

Y !( O T !( !( !( N RD Antelope!( T V

S 5 265 270 E A T J ! !( 6 !( 238 O L S A D D !

1 N 8 !( N Y Valley R R R T E !( D R E 263 ! 266 221 R L 26 235 D A O

!(201 !( D W ! T (! 276 T 182 !( !( R M Llano P 221 D 181 !( E E

!( N N !( S H !( I O O R I (! E H !

Y T N V W 9 O A V

! 6 A T Y

!( Canyon Country C M G

8 M

236 0 S

D O ! N 219 !(!( 221 264 DA M 1 BIG E G (! E Y ! !( 24 !( L O 262 R 31 O 8 L PINES !( S W ! 26 37 !( Acton !( (! A

221 H 260 HWY L

! (! !( !( !( 14 262 Ä T

21 262 (! ! Val Verde 8 SANTA CLARITA 20 !( S

! (! 9 B !( 217 23 !( E !( IG !( !( R P IN !

O E

! S 247 F H Stevenson !( W

Y ! Federal Fund 261 S 239 ! 200 !( E !( 182 Ranch L !(

!( ! 274 E

! Measure M - MSP !( G

273 237 N !( ! !( 8 A ! Multiple Funding !( 2!(45 2!(87 240 D !

! !( R Road Fund

123 N 244 !( UP ! O ! P !( T E SB 1 U R Y 179 C J B ! A UN IG N ! 180 !( N G Angeles A 210 !( YO A SRD Fund C

§ N ! ¨¦ 145 194 R L ! !( !( D National E Lancaster I !

! Forest WY B S CREST H GELE A Palmdale 118 AN ! 9 G ! Ä !( M W O R N

E I U ! Santa Clarita D L N A

! S T S S B O 8 5 O N ! E T !( ¨¦§ 210 X - L Y 9

S ! ¨¦§ R !( E E RD W D GE ID !

G R R LOS ANGELES H ORA

! D

N C EN L GL

405 A

E ! § I A D ¨¦ D D T ! R R R R R B O N

Y N D N ! Ü A I U 170 N A D ! O Ä G E T O Y L N L M Miles 210 N N G U A ! 5 A B

! § ¨¦ A 2 O ¨¦§ S Ä C M 0 2.5 5 10 101 !

! ¤£ Los Angeles

210 !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¨¦§ ! COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED START OF ESTIMATED REF NO. PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING TYPE STATUS ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE

8 Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Group 14 Preventive maintenance of various bridges Federal Fund $ 1,100,000 Design Fall 2022 Late 2022

9 Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Group 22 Preventive maintenance of various bridges Federal Fund $ 400,000 Design Fall 2023 Fall 2023

19 San Francisquito Cyn Rd at San Francisquito Ck (Bridge 53C0517) Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 12,200,000 Design Spring 2024 Fall 2025

20 Soledad Cyn Rd over LACMTA & UPRR (Bridge 53C0555) Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 5,100,000 Design Late 2028 Late 2029

21 Soledad Cyn Rd over Santa Clara River (Bridge 53C0488) Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 10,600,000 Design Late 2028 Late 2029

24 The Old Road at Castaic Creek (Bridge 53C1403) Seismic retrofit Federal Fund $ 4,300,000 Design Spring 2024 Fall 2024

Bouquet Cyn Rd - 1 mile S/o Elizabeth Lake Rd to City of Santa Clarita/County Installation of horizontal alignment, advanced warning, 32 Federal Fund $ 540,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022 boundary line and curve advisory speed signs. Installation of horizontal alignment, advanced warning, 33 San Francisquito Cyn Rd and Lake Hughes Rd Signage Project Federal Fund $ 1,087,000 Design Summer 2022 Fall 2022 and curve advisory speed signs.

123 Little Tujunga Cyn Rd at MM 16.30 (2017 Jan Storm) Place rip rap (5000 ton) to protect the slope Federal Fund $ 850,000 Completed July 2020 November 2020

144 Lake Hughes Rd at 235' S/o MM 2.47 (2015 Oct Storm) Install culverts Federal Fund $ 1,600,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022

145 Little Tujunga Cyn Rd at MM 16.91, 15.82, 15.67, 15.12 (2017 Creek Fire) Replace damaged boardwall with rip rap Federal Fund $ 3,078,000 Construction October 2020 Fall 2021

177 San Francisquito Cyn Rd at San Francisquito Ck (Bridge 53C0518) Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 4,500,000 Design Spring 2024 Spring 2025

178 San Francisquito Cyn Rd at San Francisquito Ck (Bridge 53C0519) Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 4,500,000 Design Spring 2024 Spring 2025

179 Little Tujunga Rd at MM 15.57 (2019 Jan Storm) Cutting the slope and fill back with soil cement mixture Federal Fund $ 700,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022

180 Little Tujunga Rd at 200' S/o MM 15.75 (2019 Jan Storm) Tieback wall and grading Federal Fund $ 4,000,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022

181 106th St East at 4,000' N/o MM 24.15 (2019 Feb Storm) Pavement repair Federal Fund $ 10,000 Completed July 2020 August 2020

182 Avenue T at Big Rock Wash, et al. (2019 Feb Storm) Shoulder repair Federal Fund $ 10,000 Completed July 2020 August 2020

244. Little Tujunga Cyn Rd at Buck Cyn Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 4,200,000 Design Late 2022 Late 2023

245 Little Tujunga Cyn Rd at Pacoima Creek Bridge replacement Federal Fund $ 3,700,000 Design Early 2025 Early 2026

249 Lake Hughes Rd at MM 8.52 (2020 Lake Fire) Rip rap installation Federal Fund $ 2,046,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

250 Lake Hughes Rd 450' S/O MM 6.70 (2020 Lake Fire) Rip rap installation Federal Fund $ 512,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

1 Printed on: 4/7/2021 8:35 AM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED START OF ESTIMATED REF NO. PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING TYPE STATUS ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE

251 Lake Hughes Rd 370' S/O MM 5.77 (2020 Lake Fire) Rip rap installation Federal Fund $ 767,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

252 Lake Hughes Rd 760' N/O MM 5.77(2020 Lake Fire) Rip rap installation Federal Fund $ 512,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

255 Lake Hughes Rd at MM 5.05 (2020 Lake Fire) Rip rap installation Federal Fund $ 1,705,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

256 Lake Hughes Rd at MM 6.43 (2020 Lake Fire) Guardrail replacement Federal Fund $ 100,000 Design Fall 2021 Spring 2022

257. Pine Cyn Rd at Bridge #798 (2020 Lake Fire) Guardrail replacement Federal Fund $ 202,000 Design Fall 2021 Spring 2022

258 Lake Hughes Rd at Bridge #1519 (2020 Lake Fire) Guardrail replacement Federal Fund $ 150,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

262 Big Pines Hwy, et al. (2020 Bobcat Fire) Guardrail replacement Federal Fund $ 592,000 Design Summer 2022 Fall 2022

Improvements at 12 AVTA and 11 Santa Clarita Transit 221 North County Bus Stop Improvements (MSP) Measure M-MSP $ 2,855,000 Design Summer 2022 Late 2022 bus stops

222 Lake Los Angeles Pedestrian Plan Implementation Phase 1 Implement Lake Los Angeles pedestrian plan Measure M-MSP $ 3,027,000 Design Spring 2022 Spring 2023

23 The Old Rd - Henry Mayo Dr to Magic Mountain Pkwy Widening and bridge replacement Multiple Funding $ 133,000,000 Design Fall 2026 Late 2027

Install Class II bike lanes and shared-use Class III bike 223 Elizabeth Lake Rd Bikeways Multiple Funding $ 6,800,000 Design Spring 2023 Spring 2024 routes

67 175th St East - Lake Los Angeles Ave to Highacres Ave AC inverted shoulder Road Fund $ 17,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

71 Avenue K-8 at 170th St East Bus AC paveout Road Fund $ 67,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

72 Avenue K-12 at 170th St East Pave intersection approach Road Fund $ 22,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

172 Barrel Springs Rd - City Boundary to 42nd St East Shoulder widening (westbound lane) Road Fund $ 195,000 Completed June 2020 July 2020

189 50th St East - Avenue P-8 to Avenue M Pavement widening (southbound lane) Road Fund $ 388,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

26 Hasley Hills South Pavement reconstruction SB1 $ 6,964,000 Design Spring 2022 Summer 2022

31 Sierra Hwy at Vasquez Cyn Rd Traffic signal modification SB1 $ 288,000 Design Early 2022 Spring 2022

37 Sierra Hwy - Vasquez Cyn Rd to City of Santa Clarita Boundary Pavement reconstruction SB1 $ 1,445,000 Design Spring 2021 Fall 2021

50 Avenue L at 42nd St West Traffic signal installation SB1 $ 351,000 Design Spring 2021 Fall 2021

58 Palmdale Blvd at 90th St East Traffic signal upgrade SB1 $ 170,000 Design Spring 2021 Fall 2021

2 Printed on: 4/7/2021 8:35 AM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED START OF ESTIMATED REF NO. PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING TYPE STATUS ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE

68 20th St West - Avenue M to Avenue O-12 Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 815,000 Completed August 2020 September 2020

96 102nd St East, et al. Double chip seal SB1 $ 2,224,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

155 50th St, et al. Intersection improvement - Microsurfacing Type II SB1 $ 155,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

187 240th St East - Palmdale Blvd to Avenue J Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 3,500,000 Construction April 2021 Summer 2021

188 Avenue J - 150th St East to 210th St East Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 2,151,000 Completed October 2020 November 2020

191 Godde Hill Rd - Elizabeth Lake Rd to 11,345' N/o Elizabeth Lake Rd Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 1,492,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

192 Avenue N - 2,640' W/o 50th St East to 90th St East Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 2,281,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

193 Bouquet Cyn Rd - Spunky Cyn Rd to Elizabeth Lake Rd Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 2,655,000 Completed October 2020 December 2020

194 Big Tujunga Cyn Rd (PH 1) - 1,373' N/o Graveyard Truck Trail to Angeles Forest Hwy Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 6,509,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

195 30th St West - Avenue N-8 to Avenue P Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,420,000 Completed August 2020 September 2020

196 Palmdale Blvd (Phase 2) - 170th St East to 215th St East Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,335,000 Completed August 2020 August 2020

197 55th St West - Avenue M to Avenue M-8 Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 415,000 Completed August 2020 August 2020

199 Avenue L (Phase 2) - 40th St West to 52nd St West Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 585,500 Completed August 2020 September 2020

200 Stevenson Ranch Tract (Phase 1) Pavement preservation SB1 $ 1,600,000 Completed August 2020 September 2020

201 Hillcrest Parkway, et al. Pavement preservation SB1 $ 2,620,000 Completed August 2020 October 2020

202 Pearblossom Hwy - 45th St East to 53rd St East (ABO/Palmdale) Pavement reconstruction SB1 $ 2,374,000 Completed April 2020 March 2021

203 Castaic Rd at Ridge Route Rd Install new traffic signal SB1 $ 500,000 Design Fall 2021 Spring 2022

204 The Old Rd at Parker Rd Install new traffic signal SB1 $ 500,000 Design Fall 2021 Spring 2022

217 The Old Rd at Rye Cyn Rd Intersection improvement - Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 120,000 Completed September 2020 September 2020

218 Avenue E - 130th St East to 140th St East Reconstruction SB1 $ 1,500,000 Completed June 2020 September 2020

219 Del Valle Rd - Hunstock St to Hasley Cyn Rd Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 415,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022

3 Printed on: 4/7/2021 8:35 AM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED START OF ESTIMATED REF NO. PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING TYPE STATUS ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE

226 95th St East - Avenue R to Palmdale Blvd Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 299,500 Completed October 2020 October 2020

234 Sierra Hwy at W Avenue E Signing/striping modification SB1 $ 20,000 Completed November 2020 December 2020

235 Bouquet Cyn Rd at Vasquez Cyn Rd New traffic signal SB1 $ 494,000 Design Spring 2023 Summer 2023

236 Hillcrest Pkwy at Beryl Pl Install flashing beacon SB1 $ 230,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

237 Pico Cyn Rd at Stevenson Ranch Pkwy Traffic signal upgrade SB1 $ 350,000 Design Early 2022 Spring 2022

238 Escondido Cyn Rd near MM 1.65 Guardrail installation SB1 $ 113,800 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

239 Angeles Forest Hwy near MM 9.44 Guardrail installation SB1 $ 93,000 Construction February 2021 Spring 2021

240 Little Tujunga Cyn Rd near MM 9.39 Guardrail installation SB1 $ 113,000 Completed December 2020 January 2021

242 Avenue E at Sierra Hwy Guardrail installation SB1 $ 875,000 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

247 The Old Rd at Valencia Blvd Traffic signal upgrade SB1 $ 210,000 Design Spring 2022 Summer 2022

248 Elizabeth Lake Rd at Mesquite Rd Traffic signal upgrade SB1 $ 90,000 Construction February 2021 Summer 2021

260 The Old Rd – 950’ S/o Henry Mayo Dr to 1500’ S/o Rye Cyn Rd (Phase 2) Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 660,000 Completed September 2020 October 2020

261 Stevenson Ranch Tract (Phase 2) Pavement preservation SB1 $ 980,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

263 Darling Rd, et al. Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 744,000 Design Spring 2021 Spring 2021

264 Agua Dulce Cyn Rd - Burke Rd to Escondido Cyn Rd Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 997,000 Design Spring 2021 Summer 2021

265 The Old Rd - Sloan Cyn Rd to Royal Rd Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 668,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

266 Bobcat Way, et al. Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 351,000 Design Summer 2021 Fall 2021

267 Caprock Rd, et al. Pavement preservation SB1 $ 1,042,000 Design Spring 2021 Summer 2021

268 Avenue J - 210th St East to 240th St East Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,500,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

269 Pearblossom Hwy - 700' W/o Sierra Hwy to City of Palmdale Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,200,000 Completed September 2020 November 2020

4 Printed on: 4/7/2021 8:35 AM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED START OF ESTIMATED REF NO. PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING TYPE STATUS ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE

Install advance curve advisory speed signs & chevron 270 Sierra Hwy - 2100' S/o Quinn Dr to Avenue S SB1 $ 1,207,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022 warning signs.

Install advance curve advisory speed signs & chevron 271 Elizabeth Lake Rd - Lake Hughes Rd to 2095' E/o Bouquet Cyn Rd SB1 $ 628,000 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022 warning signs.

275 Ralph Ranch Rd, et al. Pavement preservation SB1 $ 1,856,000 Design Fall 2021 Fall 2021

276 Sierra Highway (Phase 2) - Vasquez Cyn Rd to Davenport Rd Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 2,755,000 Design Fall 2021 Fall 2021

277 120th St East - Avenue H to Avenue I Pavement preservation SB1 $ 133,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

278 120th St East - Avenue D to Avenue H Pavement preservation SB1 $ 390,000 Completed August 2020 September 2020

279 90th St West - Avenue A to Avenue D Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,140,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

280 Palmdale Bl (Phase 3) - 90th St East to 140th St East Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 2,970,000 Design Fall 2021 Spring 2022

281 San Francisquito Cyn Rd - Elizabeth Lake Rd to MM 4.6 Pavement rehabilitation SB1 $ 2,693,000 Design Fall 2021 Spring 2022

282 Elizabeth Lake Rd – 142' E/o Dianron Rd (City of Palmdale boundary) to 10th St West Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,498,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

283 Barrel Springs Rd - City of Palmdale boundary to Cheseboro Rd Pavement resurfacing SB1 $ 1,200,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

284 101st St East - Avenue S to Avenue T Pavement preservation SB1 $ 156,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

152 Avenue Q Tract (Phase 1) Double chip seal SRD Fund $ 900,000 Completed July 2020 August 2020

230 150th St East - 1,500' N/o Avenue O to Avenue K Shoulder paveout SRD Fund $ 326,500 Design Spring 2022 Fall 2022

231 70th St West - Mojave Rose Dr to Avenue L-12 Shoulder paveout SRD Fund $ 33,500 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

232 110th St W at Avenue I Shoulder paveout SRD Fund $ 14,400 Design Spring 2022 Summer 2022

233 Lancaster Rd - Munz Ranch Rd to 300' E/o Munz Ranch Rd Shoulder paveout SRD Fund $ 12,500 Design Fall 2022 Spring 2023

273 Pico Cyn Rd - 685' W/o Whispering Oaks Dr to Pico Cyn Service Rd Pavement resurfacing SRD Fund $ 467,000 Design Spring 2022 Spring 2022

274 Sagecrest Circle Tract Pavement preservation SRD Fund $ 369,000 Design Spring 2021 Spring 2021

285 The Old Rd - Royal Rd to Oak Valley Rd Pavement resurfacing SRD Fund $ 415,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

5 Printed on: 4/7/2021 8:35 AM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED START OF ESTIMATED REF NO. PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING TYPE STATUS ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE

286 Avenue Q Tract (Phase 2) Double chip seal SRD Fund $ 375,000 Design Summer 2021 Summer 2021

287 Wrightwood - Flume Cyn Dr, et al. Pavement resurfacing SRD Fund $ 331,900 Completed September 2020 October 2020

$ 290,717,600

6 Printed on: 4/7/2021 8:35 AM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY STREET LISTS FOR ET AL. PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

50th St East, et al. 50th St East - Avenue E to S/o Avenue I Avenue I - W/o 50th St East Avenue I - E/o 50th St East Avenue H - W/o 50th St East Avenue H - E/o 50th St East Avenue G - W/o 50th St East Avenue G - E/o 50th St East Avenue J - W/o 90th St East Longview Rd - N/o Avenue K Longview Rd - S/o Avenue J 140th St East - N/o Avenue J 140th St East - S/o Avenue H 140th St East - N/o Avenue H 140th St East S/o Avenue G 140th St East - N/o Avenue G 140th St East - S/o Avenue E to End County Maintained Rd Avenue H - W/o 140th St East Avenue G - E/o 140th St East

102nd St East, et al. 100th St East - Avenue R to Palmdale Blvd 102nd St East - Avenue R to Palmdale Blvd 105th St East - Avenue R to Palmdale Blvd Avenue Q-10 - 90th St East to 105th St East Avenue Q-12 - 90th St East to 105th St East Avenue Q-14 - 90th St East to 105th St East Avenue R - 460' E/o 90th St East to 105th St East Avenue R - 110th St East to 120th St East Avenue R-2 - 100th St East to 4,668' E/o 110th St East Avenue R-6 - 100th St East to 115th St East Avenue R-8 - 110th St East to 115th St East 105th St East - Avenue S to Avenue R 107th St East - Avenue S to Avenue R

Avenue Q Tract (Phase 1) Avenue Q - 145th St East to170th St East Avenue Q-1 - 699' w/o 152nd St East to 154th St East Avenue Q-3 - 150th St East to 151st St East Avenue Q-7 - 151st St East to 154th St East 151st St East - Avenue Q-7 to 1,802' N/o Avenue Q-7 152nd St East - Palmdale Blvd to 1,200' N/o Avenue Q-7 152nd St East - Avenue Q-1 to Avenue Q 154th St East - Avenue Q-7 to Avenue Q-1

Avenue Q Tract (Phase 2) Avenue Q-1 - 156th St East to 159th St East Avenue Q-4 - 154th St East to 156th St East Avenue Q-4 - 1,193' W/o 159th St East to 160th St East Avenue Q-7 - 156th St East to 159th St East 150th St East - Palmdale Blvd to Avenue Q 155th St East - Palmdale Blvd to Avenue Q 156th St East - Avenue Q-7 to Avenue Q-1 158th St East - Palmdale Blvd to Avenue Q-7 158th St East - Avenue Q-1 to Avenue Q 159th St East - Avenue Q-7 to Avenue Q-1 160th St East - Palmdale Blvd to Avenue Q

1 of 6 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY STREET LISTS FOR ET AL. PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

Avenue T at Big Rock Wash, et al. (2019 Feb Storm) Avenue T at Big Rock Wash Big Pines Hwy at MM6.72 Largo Vista Rd - 1/4 mi S/o Fort Tejon to Pearblossom Hwy

Big Pines Hwy, et al. (2020 Bobcat Fire) Big Pines Hwy at MM 1.22 Big Pines Hwy 700' E/o MM 1.22 106th St East 800' S/o MM 24.90 Tumbleweed Rd at MM 0.35 (Pallet Creek, BR No. 3578)

Bobcat Wy, et al. Bobcat Wy - Hipshot Dr to Sloan Cyn Rd Hipshot Dr - 221' S/o Rogue Wy to 727' N/o Bobcat Wy Chucker Ct - 173' W/o Bobcat Wy to Bobcat Wy Rogue Wy - Hipshot Dr to Sloan Cyn Rd

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Group 14 Lake Hughes Rd over Elizabeth Cyn Creek Calgrove Blvd over South Fork Santa Clara River Castaic Rd over Violin Creek North Ridge Route Rd over Violin Creek Soledad Cyn Rd over Bee Cyn Wash Commerce Center Dr over Castaic Creek & Hasley Channel Aliso Cyn Rd over Gleason Cyn Creek Avenue T over SPRR East Fork Rd over Susana Creek

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Group 22 Valyermo Rd over Big Rock Creek Camp Bonita Rd over Cattle Cyn Creek Big Tujunga Cyn Rd over Big Tujunga Cyn Romero Cyn Rd over Hasley Cyn Channel

Caprock Rd, et al. Caprock Rd - Sierra Hwy to 640' S/o Sweetcap Ln Sweetwater Dr - Caprock to 520' S/o Sweetcap Ln Bald Mountain Ct - Sweetwater Dr to 692' E/o Sweetwater Dr Euler Rd - Sweetwater Dr to 375' W/o Sweetwater Dr Sweetcap Ln - Sweetwater Dr to Caprock Rd

Darling Rd, et al. Anthony Rd - Sierra Hwy to 2,950' N/o Sierra Hwy Atler Rd - Summit Knoll Rd to Davenport Rd Darling Rd - 5,630' W/o Agua Dulce Cyn Rd to 1,478' E/o Agua Dulce Cyn Rd Haskett Rd - 1,790' E/o Davenport Rd to Davenport Rd Summit Knoll Rd - Atler Rd to Davenport Rd Wyse Rd - Sierra Hwy to 1,960' N/o Sierra Hwy Trail Rd - Davenport Rd to 1,300' W/o Davenport Rd

Elizabeth Lake Rd Bikeways Elizabeth Lake Rd - Lake Hughes Rd to Johnson Rd Elizabeth Lake Rd - Dianron Rd to 10th St West

Hasley Hills South Ashby Ct - Chelsea St to 139' E/o Chelsea St Beacon St - Concord Ave to Cambridge Ave Buckskin Dr - Rangewood Rd to 386' E/o Plymouth Rd

2 of 6 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY STREET LISTS FOR ET AL. PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

Hasley Hills South (Continued) Cambridge Ave - Quincy St to Hasley Cyn Rd Chelsea St - Quincy St to 110' N/o Ashby Ct Colt Rd - 570' S/o Hawkset St to Hawkset St Concord Ave - 650' W/o Quincy St to Quincy St Danvers Pl - 152' W/o Wakefield Rd to Wakefield Rd Diablo Pl - 574' S/o Buckskin Dr to Buckskin Dr FenWy Ct - 229' S/o Quincy St to Quincy St Hartford Ave - Wakefield Rd to 211' E/o Chelsea St Hawkset St - Remington Rd to 325' E/o Colt Rd Hidden Trail Rd - Live Oak Rd to Saddleridge Wy Highplains Ct - 341' S/o Stageline Rd to Stageline Rd Live Oak Rd - 580' W/o Hidden Trail Rd to The Old Rd Nantucket St - 182' W/o Wakefield Rd to Beacon St Newport Pl - Wakefield Rd to 162' N/o Wakefield Rd Plymouth Rd - 329' S/o Quincy St to Quincy St Plymouth Rd - Buckskin Dr to 500' N/o Buckskin Dr Quincy St - 438' W/o Stageline Rd to Live Oak Rd Rangewood Rd - 338' S/o Stageline Rd to Saddleridge Wy Remington Rd - Winchester Rd to Hawkset St Rockport Wy - Beacon St to Quincy St Romero Cyn Rd - Hasley Cyn Rd to 577' N/o Sharp Rd Saddleridge Wy - Rangewood Rd to Hidden Trail Rd Salem Ct - Chelsea St to 327' E/o Chelsea St Sharp Rd - Winchester Rd to Romero Cyn Rd Stageline Rd - 308' W/o Highplains Ct to Rangewood Rd Stowe Ln - 242' W/o Chelsea St to Chelsea St Sturbridge Dr - 441' W/o Beacon St to Beacon St Wakefield Rd - Nantucket St to 421' N/o Hartford Av Winchester Rd - 371' S/o Remington Rd to 520' N/o Remington Rd Woodstock Ave - 442' W/o Beacon St to Beacon St

Hillcrest Parkway, et al. Alder St - Lassen Rd to Rainier Rd Appalachian Dr - Hillcrest Py to 165' N/o Bonsai Ct Arroyo Ct - 370' W/o Shasta Ct to Shasta Ct Barcelona Rd - 632' S/o Capri Ct to Hillcrest Py Beryl Pl - 207' S/o Star Cyn Pl to 1011 N Ponderosa St Bettina Ct - Olympic St to 260' E/o Olympic St Bonnie Wy - Vineyard Ln to Hillcrest Py Bonsai Ct - 209' W/o Appalachian Dr to Appalachian Dr Bryce Dr - 506' W/o Shasta Ct to Yosemite Dr Cannes Pl - Hillcrest Py to 579' N/o St Tropez Pl Capallero Dr - 120' S/o Cartagena Pl to Hillcrest Py Capri Ct - Barcelona Rd to 165' E/o Barcelona Rd Carnation Ct - 391' W/o Appalachian Dr to Appalachian Dr Cartagena Pl - Capallero Dr to 616' N/o Capallero Dr Cascade Rd - 585' W/o Park Vista Dr to Polson Ln Clover Ct - 159' S/o Foothill Rd to Foothill Rd Cordoba Pl - St. Tropez Pl to 210' N/o St Tropez Pl Corsica Pl - St. Tropez Pl to 210' N/o St Tropez Pl Falls Dr - Cascade Rd to Yosemite Dr Foothill Rd - Park Vista Dr to 471' E/o Clover Ct Forst Ct - 280' W/o Polson Ln to Polson Ln Gibraltar Pl - St Tropez Pl to 344' N/o St Tropez Pl Gilman Ln - 188' S/o Cascade Rd to Cascade Rd Glacier Pl - Villa Cyn Rd to 566' E/o Villa Cyn Rd Glade Ct - Yucca Pl to 236' E/o Yucca Pl

3 of 6 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY STREET LISTS FOR ET AL. PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

Hillcrest Parkway, et al. (Continued) June Rose Ct - 1,172' S/o Cascade Rd to Cascade Rd Karen Ct - 272' W/o Whitney Dr to Whitney Dr Knoll Ct - 519' W/o Park Vista Dr to Park Vista Dr Lassen Rd - Rainier Rd to Olympic St Lupine St - 413' S/o Star Cyn Pl to Star Cyn Pl Madrid Pl - 452' W/o Mallorca Pl to Barcelona Rd Mallorca Pl - 301' S/o Madrid Pl to Hillcrest Py Marseille Pl - San Remo Pl to 640' N/o San Remo Pl Minaret Ct - Yosemite Dr to 366' E/o Yosemite Dr Monterey Ct - 764' W/o Park Vista Dr to Park Vista Dr Olympic St - 331' S/o Zion Ct to Villa Cyn Rd Pansy Ct - Ponderosa St to 146' N/o Ponderosa St Park Vista Dr - Cascade Rd to 445' N/o Knoll Ct Polson Ln - 266' S/o Cascade Rd to Hillcrest Py Ponderosa St - 582' W/o Pansy Ct to Beryl Pl Rainier Rd - Yosemite Dr to Villa Cyn Rd Redrock Ct - 133' W/o Vineyard Ln to Vineyard Ln San Remo Pl - Mallorca Pl to Barcelona Rd Sequoia Ct - Bryce Dr to 276' N/o Bryce Dr Servilla Pl - San Remo Pl to 603' N/o San Remo Pl Shasta Ct - Bryce Dr to 212' N/o Arroyo Ct Sorrento Pl - St Tropez Pl to 335' N/o St Tropez Pl St Tropez Pl - 96' W/o Sorrento Pl to Hillcrest Py Star Cyn Pl - 517' S/o Lupine St to Beryl Pl Terracina Pl - San Remo Pl to 643' N/o San Remo Pl Terraza Ct - Hillcrest Py to 169' N/o Hillcrest Py Villa Cyn Rd - 746' W/o Glacier Pl to The Old Rd Vineyard Ln - 672' S/o Redrock Ct to Beryl Pl Whitney Dr - Hillcrest Py to 106' N/o Karen Ct Yosemite Dr - Cascade Rd to 605' N/o Minaret Ct Yucca Pl - Rainier Rd to 261' N/o Glade Ct Zion Ct - 340' W/o Olympic St to Olympic St

Lake Los Angeles Pedestrian Plan Implementation Phase 1 Avenue Q - 163rd St East to 165th St East 170th St East - Avenue O to Avenue P 160th St East at Avenue Q 163rd St East at Avenue Q 170th St East at Avenue M-8 170th St East at Avenue N-4 170th St East at Avenue O 175th St East at Avenue O 180th St East at Avenue O 180th St East at Big Lake Ave 180th St East at Glenfall Ave 180th St East at Lake Los Angeles Ave Avenue O at Vista San Gabriel Elementary School Avenue Q at Lake Los Angeles Elementary School

North County Bus Stop Improvements (MSP) 50th St West & Avenue M-8 50th St West & Avenue L 50th St West & Avenue L 50th St West & Avenue M Avenue L-12 & 65th St West Avenue L & 45th St West Avenue M & 65th St West

4 of 6 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY STREET LISTS FOR ET AL. PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

North County Bus Stop Improvements (MSP) (Continued) Avenue M & 52nd St West Avenue M & 55th St West Avenue M & 60th St West Avenue M & Quartz Hill Mobile Home Park Chiquito Cyn Rd & Lincoln Ave Chiquito Cyn Rd & Marvin St Chiquito Cyn Rd & Taft Ct Chiquito Cyn Rd & Taylor St Del Valle Rd & Hasley Cyn Rd Del Valle Rd & Silver St San Martinez Rd & Neuraschel St Sierra Hwy & Vasquez Cyn Rd 29415 Bouquet Cyn Rd The Old Rd & Parker Rd LARC Ranch

Ralph Ranch Rd, et al. Ralph Ranch Rd - Gorman School Rd to Frazier Mountain Park Gorman Post Rd - 3,960' W/o Gorman School Rd to 785' W/o Lancaster Rd

San Francisquito Cyn Rd and Lake Hughes Rd Signage Project San Francisquito Cyn Rd - Elizabeth Lake Rd to City of Santa Clarita/County boundary line Lake Hughes Rd - Elizabeth Lake Rd to Ridge Route Rd

Sagecrest Circle Tract Sagecrest Circle - The Old Rd S to The Old Rd N Foxtail Ct - Sagecrest Cr to 142' N/o Sagecrest Cr Dogwood Ct - Sagecrest Cr to 463' N/o Sagecrest Cr Sargasso Ct - Sagecrest Cr to 408' N/o Sagecrest Cr Wintergreen Ct - Sagecrest Cr to 693' N/o Sagecrest Cr Coriander Ct - Sagecrest Cr to 233' N/o Sagecrest Cr Hollyhock Ct - Sagecrest Cr to 587' N/o Sagecrest Cr Chicory Ct - 348' S/o Sagecrest Cr to Sagecrest Cr Hazelcrest Ln - Laurelcrest Ln to Sagecrest Cr Laurelcrest Ln - Sagecrest Cr to Hazelcrest Ln Bracken Ln - Sagecrest Cr to Hazelcrest Ln

Stevenson Ranch Tract (Phase 1) Anderson Ln - 668' S/o Hemingway Ave to Hemingway Ave Baker Pl - Stafford Cyn Rd to 611' E/o Stafford Cyn Rd Burns Pl - Hemingway Ave to 723' E/o Hemingway Ave Clemens Ct - 504' S/o Stafford Cyn Rd to Stafford Cyn Rd Fitzgerald Ave - Hemingway Ave to Holmes Pl Frost Ln - 768' S/o Stafford Cyn Rd to Stafford Cyn Rd Hammet Cr - Wordsworth Ln - W to Wordsworth Ln - E Hardy Pl - 709' W/o Stafford Cyn Rd to 453' E/o Stafford Cyn Rd Holmes Pl - 600' W/o Fitzgerald Ave to Stevenson Ranch Py London Pl - 655' S/o Hemingway Ave to Wordsworth Ln Longfellow Pl - 237' W/o Stafford Cyn Rd to 604' E/o Stafford Cyn Rd Paine Cr - Stafford Cyn Rd to 405' E/o Stafford Cyn Rd Sandburg Pl - Hammet Cr to 406' N/o Hammet Cr Shaw Pl - 689' S/o Stafford Cyn Rd to Stafford Cyn Rd Stafford Cyn Rd - Stevenson Ranch Py to Hemingway Ave topper Ct - Hammet Cr to 267' N/o Hammet Cr Webster Pl - 729' S/o Hemingway Ave to Wordsworth Ln Wilde Ave - Hemingway Ave to Stafford Cyn Rd

5 of 6 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE NORTH COUNTY STREET LISTS FOR ET AL. PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND BEYOND

Stevenson Ranch Tract (Phase 1) (Continued) Wolfe Cr - Stafford Cyn Rd to 350' E/o Stafford Cyn Rd Wordsworth Ln - 284' W/o Hammet Cr to E/o 315' Hammet Cr E

Stevenson Ranch Tract (Phase 2) Akins Ct - Chase Ave to 162' N/o Chase Ave Blake Ct - Steinbeck Ave to 807' N/o Steinbeck Ave Bowie Ct - Carson Wy to 473' E/o Carson Wy Browning Pl - Steinbeck Ave to 809' N/o Steinbeck Ave Bryant Pl - Whitman St to 570' E/o Whitman St Carson Wy - Huston St to Crockett Ln Chase Av - Stevenson Ranch Py to Huston St Chisom Ln - Stevenson Ranch Py to Huston St Clarke St - Joyce Pl to Poe Py Coleridge Pl - Whitman St to 606' E/o Whitman St Crockett Ln - 795' S/o Huston St to Carson Wy Dickens Ct - Steinbeck Ave to 712' N/o Steinbeck Ave Dove Ln - 323' S/o Chase Ave to Chase Ave Doyle Ct - Franklin Ln to 495' N/o Franklin Ln Eliot Ct - Steinbeck Ave to 263' N/o Steinbeck Ave Emerson Ln - Steinbeck Ave to 504' N/o Steinbeck Ave Franklin Ln - Poe Py to 528' E/o Whitman St Gale Dr - Huston St to Oliver Wy Henley Wy - Huston St to 136' N/o Huston St Huston St - Stevenson Ranch Py to Oliver Wy Irving Ln - Keats Ln to Poe Py Joyce Pl - Clarke St to Poe Py Keats Ln - 272' S/o Irving Ln to Poe Py Lee Ct - Huston St to 151' E/o Huston St Oliver Wy - Gale Dr to 125' E/o Huston St Oneill Cr - Franklin Ln to 114' E/o Franklin Ln Poe Py - Hemingway Ave to Stevenson Ranch Py Steinbeck Av - Stevenson Ranch Py to The Old Rd Verne Ct - Poe Py to 331' E/o Poe Py Walker Pl - Huston St to 142' N/o Huston St Wells Ct - 170' S/o Poe Py to Poe Py Whitman St - Poe Py to Franklin Ln Winslow Ct - Chase Ave to 127' N/o Chase Ave

Wrightwood - Flume Cyn Dr, et Al. Flume Cyn Dr - Timber Line Dr to Big Pines Hwy Swallowhill Dr - 775' W/o Flume Cyn Dr to Flume Cyn Dr Swallowhill Dr - Flume Cyn Dr to 375' E/o Flume Cyn Dr Timber Line Dr - 865' W/o Flume Cyn Dr to Flume Cyn Dr Timber Line Dr - Flume Cyn Dr to Cardinal Rd Timber Line Dr - Cardinal Rd to 84' E/o Cardinal Rd Goldhill Dr - Flume Cyn Dr to 170' E/o Flume Cyn Dr Pinecreek Dr - Flume Cyn Dr to 140' E/o Flume Cyn Dr Redstart Dr - Flume Cyn Dr to 200' E/o Flume Cyn Dr Logwood Dr - 180' W/o Flume Cyn Dr to Flume Cyn Dr Rapidgrove Dr - 199' W/o Flume Cyn Dr to Flume Cyn Dr Raven Rd - 406' W/o Cardinal Rd to Cardinal Rd Cardinal Rd - 1,066' S/o Timber Line Dr to Timber Line Dr Cardinal Rd - Timber Line Dr to 125' N/o Timber Line Dr

6 of 6 NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 7 North County Transportation Coalition Board Meeting California Highway Patrol – Newhall Area January – March 2020 Statistics

Total Citations: 6,332 Citations over 100 mph: 130 Driving Under the Influence Arrests: 157 All Traffic Collisions: 634 Fatal Traffic Collisions: 3 Injury Traffic Collisions: 175 Property Damage Only Traffic Collisions: 456

January – March 2021 Statistics

Total Citations: 5,494 Citations over 100 mph: 247 Driving Under the Influence Arrests: 198 All Traffic Collisions: 570 Fatal Traffic Collisions: 3 Injury Traffic Collisions: 179 Property Damage Only Traffic Collisions: 375 Traffic Collisions Pending Completion: 13 North County Transportation Coalition Board California Highway Patrol – Newhall Area

1st Quarter 2020 – 1st Quarter 2021 comparison

Citations: - 838 Citations of 100+ MPH: + 107 DUI arrest: + 41 Traffic Collisions: - 64 Fatal Collisions: same Injury Collisions: + 4 Property Damage Collisions: - 81 NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 7 SCV Sheriff’s Update NORTH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COALITION BOARD MEETING April 12, 2021 Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station Jan – Mar 2020

Total Citations= 4714

Citations over 100 MPH= 0

Driving under the influence arrests= 69

All traffic collisions= 358

Fatal Traffic collisions= 2

Injury collisions= 140

Property damage only collisions= 216 Jan- Mar 2021

Total citations= 4458

Citations over 100 MPH= 1

Driving under the influence arrests= 41

All traffic collisions= 329

Fatal traffic collisions= 2

Injury collisions= 89

Property damage only collisions= 238

2020-2021 Comparison Citations= -256 Fatal Collisions= -1 Citations over 100 MPH= +1 Injury Collisions= -51 DUI arrests= -28 Property damage collisions= +22 Traffic collisions= -29 NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 7 PLM Sheriff’s Update NORTH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COALITION BOARD MEETING Palmdale Sheriff’s Station Jan – Mar 2020

Total Citations= 1967 Citations over 100 MPH= 1 Driving under the influence arrests= 76 All traffic collisions= 436 Fatal Traffic collisions= 4 Injury collisions= 133 Property damage only collisions= 299

Jan – Mar 2021

Total Citations= 2454 Citations over 100 MPH= 6 Driving under the influence arrests= 66 All traffic collisions= 420 Fatal Traffic collisions= 4 Injury collisions= 117 Property damage only collisions= 300

2020-2021 Comparison Citations= +487 Fatal Collisions= ±0 Citations over 100 MPH= +5 Injury Collisions= -16 DUI arrests= -10 Property damage collisions= +1 Traffic collisions= -16 NCTC April 19, 2021 Caltrans District 7 Board Report 8 The QuarterlyRoad Repair Update and – April 2021 Accountability Act

Los Angeles & Ventura Counties VISION A brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network MISSION Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment GOALS • Safety First • Cultivate Excellence • Enhance and Connect the Multimodal Transportation Network • Strengthen Stewardship and Drive Efficiency • Lead Climate Action • Advance Equity and Livability in All Communities Los Angeles & Ventura Counties Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) • A holistic framework for aligning State infrastructure investments with State climate, health, and social equity goals built on the foundation of the “fix-it first” approach established in SB 1. • A suite of proposed changes to State transportation planning, programming, and mitigation activities to align with the CAPTI framework • A balanced approach that considers the need to ensure all areas of the state can benefit from changes and acknowledges the need for a range of solutions in different contexts. • A living document that enables the CAPTI to adapt, pivot and modify approaches as needed

Los Angeles & Ventura Counties California State Agencies play a role in either scoping, recommending, or selecting projects in over $5 Billion of transportation infrastructure funding annually: •Active Transportation Program (ATP) •Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) •Local Partnership Program (LPP) •Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCCP) •State Highway Operations & Protection Program (SHOPP) •Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) •Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)

Los Angeles & Ventura Counties Maintenance North Region serving NCTC Cites • North Region Manager Dawn Kerr at (805) 573-2975 East Region

Submit Customer Service Requests: South Region https://csr.dot.ca.gov

Link to D7 Maintenance Regions Map https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=192 B2j8jFZnhk6DAx0CuTYSEvzYkCupkX&usp=sharing

Los Angeles & Ventura Counties Los Angeles & Ventura Counties 11

22,000 14

Fall 2022 30,000 15 , and 6 Spring 2023 30,000 16 22 1 Dual Roundabout 32,000 23 17 11 Spring 2024 from 0.7 mile West of 121st Summer 2024 18 St. East to Longview Rd. Drainage Improvement Summer 2025 $8,000 from 121st St. East to Spring 2023 19 Longview Rd. Modify Drainage Spring 2022 $1,750

Spring 2025 20

Spring 2025 12,500 21 (Seg. 14)

22 Summer 2023

13 23

24 24

9 15 16 17 8 5 18 19 20 21

6 Via Princessa 4 Newhall Ave2 Golden Valley Rd 7 Rd Canyon Dulce Aqua Rd 3 Placerita Cyn Rd Newhall Ave to Via Princessa 10 5 Sand Canyon Rd to Project Initiation $130,000,000 to Agua Dulce Canyon Rd Doc. Spring 2022 $160,000,000 6 Sand Canyon Rd to Soledad Canyon Rd Capacity Improvements 7 Newhall Ave to Golden Valley Rd To Be Determined TBD - 8 Puritan Mine Rd to (TBD) No Funding Pearblossom Highway 9 Escondido Canyon Rd to Pearblossom Highway

10 Summer 2025

District 7 Graphic Services 14-138 1/15/21 8 Los Angeles & Ventura Counties 9 Los Angeles & Ventura Counties 10 Los Angeles & Ventura Counties STATE ROUTE 138 - #18, 19 Pearblossom Upgrade Drainage Project: • From 0.7 miles west of 121st Street to Longview Road • Begin Project Initiation Document (PID): January 6, 2021 (Actual Date) • Percent Completed: 50% • Finish PID: June 30, 2021 (Target Date) Modify Drainage Project: • From 121st Street to Longview Road • Will work with community to prioritize locations as minor project budget limits may not cover entire project limits • Begin PA&ED and Design: January 28, 2021 (Actual Date) • Percent Completed: 30% • Finish Design and RTL: October 29, 2021 (Target Date)

11 Los Angeles & Ventura Counties STATE ROUTE 138 - #20 Segment 13 Project: • From 0.4 mile west of 190th Street East to 0.3 mile west of 213th Street East • Begin Design: May 10, 2019 (Actual Date) • Percent Completed: 55% • Finish Design and RTL: August 5, 2022 (Target Date)

12 Los Angeles & Ventura Counties STATE ROUTE 138 - #21 Segment 14 Project: • From 0.3 mile west of 213th Street East to State Route 18 Junction • Design has not started as there is no funding for the project

13 Los Angeles & Ventura Counties Helpful Links Stay Informed with Caltrans District 7

Website: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-7 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CaltransD7/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/CaltransDist7 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/CaltransD7 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/caltransdistrict7/ Flicker: https://www.flickr.com/photos/caltrans_d7 Blog Spot: http://caltransd7info.blogspot.com/ Quick Map: http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/ Small Business: [email protected]

Online: Submit General Question/Inquiries: [email protected] Online: Submit Customer Service Requests: https://csr.dot.ca.gov Caltrans Performance Report - Mile Marker: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/public-affairs/mile-marker Metro Go5.1.1: https://go511.com/

Los Angeles & Ventura Counties NCTC JPA NCTC April 19, 2021 Metro Highway Program Project Status Update April 19, 2021 Board Report 9

Project Phase Activities North County I-5 North HOV Project between SR- Construction Metro is administering the construction of the 14-mile carpool/truck lane project. Bids from prospective 14 in Santa Clarita and Parker Road Procurement contractors were received in February 2021 and Metro is currently reviewing the bids for responsiveness. in Castaic The Life of Project (LOP) budget was approved by Metro's Board in March 2021. Construction Notice-to- Proceed (NTP) is expected in April/May 2021 with construction work to begin in Summer 2021.

SR-138 Widening, E/O SR-14 Design and Metro coordinates with Caltrans to complete the remaining Segments 4,6,9,13 and 14. Construction Segment 4 between .3 mile west of Little Rock Wash and 77th Street is in design and scheduled for design completion in February 2023. Segment 6 between 87th Street and 96th Street is scheduled for completion of construction in November 2021. Segment 9 between .7 mile west of 121st Street and Longview Road construction completed in February 2021 and will now proceed with close out. Segment 13 between 185th Street and 0.3 mile west of 213th Street East is in design and scheduled for design completion in August 2022. Caltrans ROW continues to work on the remaining 13 parcels and right-of- entry permits for hazardous waste investigations. Segment 14 between 0.3 mile west of 213th Street East and SR-18 is unfunded at this time. Measure R projects on 138/14 Various Phases 9 of the planned 10 Projects along the overlap of 14 and 138 in Palmdale and Lancaster are advancing in Overlap various phases. Four of the five projects in Palmdale are in design. The fifth, Rancho Vista, is completed. Lancaster has three projects in design and two in environmental. Lancaster's Avenue J Project received approval from City Council for start of construction of Phase 1 and broke ground on March 2021. Phase 2 of Avenue J submitted 95% design to Caltrans in March 2021 and scheduled for completion of final design in July 2021. High Desert Corridor Post-Environmental Metro Board approved use of HDC funds in Aug 2020 to advance the development of an intercity rail service development plan. Metro's Regional Rail department is leading the rail component efforts in conjunction with private party. In consultation with NCTC, SBCTA, HDCJPA, FHWA and Caltrans, a no-build option has been selected for the highway component of HDC. HDC highway pursuit may be re-started in the future. However, SR-138/18 alignment is curently considered as an alternative highway connection between Palmdale and Victorville. A Task Order was issued for consultant services to develop a PSR-PDS fo the project. SR-138/SR-18 PSR Pre-Environmental SR-138/18 alignment is curently considered as an alternative to the HDC highway component for highway connection between Palmdale and Victorville. A Task Order was issued for consultant services to develop a PSR-PDS for the project. Collaboration by Metro, SBCTA and Caltrans Districts 7 and 8 to explore the possibility and feasibility of widening SR-18 for a continuous 4-lane highway between Palmdale and Victorville. Consultant has been selected through Metro's Highway On-call. Work should commence in April 2021. Other Measure M first 5-Year Programming Metro Board approved the 5-year Measure M subregional lists of Projects. Future year projects are being expenditures for Highway Projects planned. NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 10

We’re increasing Regional Rail Service on the Antelope Valley Line.

NCTC Meeting– April 19, 2021 AVL Capacity and Service Improvements Program Overview

Project Objective 1. Enable 30 minute bi- directional passenger rail service to Santa Clarita and hourly bi-directional service to Lancaster along the Antelope Valley Line corridor. Proposed Project Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvements

Lancaster Terminal Improvements

Canyon Siding Extension

Balboa Double Track Extension

Brighton to McGinley Double Track

3 Program Schedule

Environmental Study and Conceptual Engineering

2020-2021

Feasibility studies Engineering Right-of-Way Construction

Completed 2019 2022-2024 2022-2025 2024-2027 Next Steps

Antelope Valley Line Service and Capacity Improvements Project

1. Release Draft EIR release by July 2021

2. Submit Final EIR by December 2021

3. Start Final Design Projects for Balboa, Canyon and Lancaster in 2022

5 Questions?

6 Photo: Charles Freericks High Desert Corridor Intercity Rail Service Development Plan Brightline West Project Overview Las Vegas to Victor Valley 1. 170-mile corridor along I-15, no grade crossings 2. High-speed, fully electric trains up to 180 mph 3. Mostly single track, 45-minute headways each direction 4. 85-minute travel times, 25 trains each direction a day 5. Las Vegas Station on Las Vegas Boulevard, on 110 acre+ site within 10 minutes from the Strip 6. Victor Valley Station is in the town of Apple Valley on 300-acre site with a heavy maintenance facility 7. Two options to connect with Metrolink system: a. To Palmdale via the 54-mile-long HDC b. To Rancho Cucamonga via 50-mile-long I-15 corridor through Cajon Pass

Source: Brightline West High Desert Corridor Intercity Rail Service Development Plan Project Update

Brightline West corridor to Las Vegas

Palmdale Multi- Apple Valley Station Modal HSR Station

1. HDR – Planning and Engineering Consultant: Leads the development of the Service Development Plan (SDP) and 15% Preliminary Engineering Design. Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting scheduled on April 28, 2021. 2. Ernst and Young (E&Y) – Financial Advisor: Leads the development of a new Ridership and Market Study, EIFD Study, Funding Plan. E&Y is anticipated to be on board by May 2021. 3. Metro executed MOU with Brightline West in March 2021 for in-kind services and funding contribution. 4. Metro finalized Funding Agreement with LA County in April 2021 for review of previous Hydrology and Hydraulics studies. BAKERSFIELD TO PALMDALE PROJECT SECTION

PROJECT UPDATE

North County Transportation Coalition

April 19, 2021 NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 11

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being or have been carried out by the State of California pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated July 23, 2019, and executed by the Federal Railroad Administration and the State of California. Under that MOU, California High-Speed Rail Authority the Authority is the project’s lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CONNECTING CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Increase Mobility

Needed Alternative

Better Air Quality

Job Growth Phase 1 Phase 2 Stations BAKERSFIELD TO PALMDALE CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

PROJECT STATUS • Draft EIR/S circulated in early 2020 • Working on Final EIR/S • Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS released February 2021 to address recent listings of mountain lion as a state candidate species and of monarch butterfly as federal candidate species. • Final EIR/S planned to be approved at June Board meeting • NOD/ROD to follow in July/August ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

NEXT STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS

Waiting for new graphic from RC Revised Draft 2020 business plan CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

December 4, 2020 • Revised Draft Plan released on Tom Richards, Chair California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors 770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 February 9, 2021 Dear Chair Richards: I am writing to extend the statutory deadline for submission of the High-Speed Rail 2020 business plan to the Legislature from December 15, 2020 to April 15, 2021, with an updated draft provided by February 12, 2021. • 30-day public review through Given the results of the recent Presidential election, as well as the continued disruptions related to the Covid-19 pandemic, this extension will allow the March 12, 2021 Authority to fully integrate the changing context in which this project is proceeding and ensure that the final Business Plan accurately captures the current status and future direction. It will also allow the Authority to provide the most recent and accurate information available to inform the • Revised Draft Plan adopted by the Legislature’s discussions in the coming session. Thank you and I look forward to continued engagement with Authority Board on March 25, your board of directors on this critically important issue. Warmly, TONI G. ATKINS 2021 Senate President pro Tempore 39th Senate District TGA:sp • Final Business Plan to Legislature by April 15, 2021 Revised draft 2020 business plan PROGRESS – 2018 to 2020

Category 2018 2020 Construction Jobs 2,573 5,216 Created Structures Completed or in 19 56 Construction Environmental Drafts Released 5 12 and ROD's Certified Right-of-Way 1,423 1,771 Parcels Acquired Miles of 47 79 Guideways Monthly Average Expenditures on $30.47M $68.13M Design-Build Contracts BAKERSFIELD TO PALMDALE PROJECT SECTION CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Next Steps • Business Plan submitted to the Legislature April 12th and available on the Authority website • Project team will continue to refine and finalize the EIR/EIS • Final EIR/S planned to be presented to the Board for approval at June Board meeting The environmental review, consultation, and other STAY INVOLVED actions required by applicable federal environmental laws CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL for this project are being or have been carried out by the State of California pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated July 23, 2019, and executed by the Federal Railroad Administration and the State of California. Under that MOU, the Authority is the project’s lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section (866) 300-3044 [email protected]

@cahsra

Southern California Regional Office facebook.com/CaliforniaHighSpeedRail California High-Speed Rail Authority 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2050 @cahsra Los Angeles, CA 90071 www.hsr.ca.gov youtube.com/CAHighSpeedRail BOARD AGENDA REPORT 7 NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 12 The High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority Date: April 8, 2021 To: The High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors (HDC) From: Arthur V. Sohikian, Executive Director Subject: HDC Executive Director Report Recommended Action: Receive and File Executive Director Report Fiscal Impact: There is no Fiscal Impact. Items discussed in this report have future Fiscal Impact. HDC Executive Director Report: At the Jan 14, 2021 HDC meeting the Authority took major steps advancing the Highway Alternative and Rail Component. HDC Highway Alternative (SR18/SR138) Update   SBCTA allocated Measure I funds and Metro allocated Measure M HDC funds to start the focused PSR-PDS project development documents with Metro as the lead agency starting in April 2021.

 Metro, SBCTA, Caltrans Districts 7/8 focused on widening SR18/SR138 as a continuous 4-lane highway between the Antelope and Victory Valleys (Victorville/Palmdale) connecting high desert communities in San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County. (SR18/SR138 map below).

 Consistent with the 2021 Work Plan, the Authority staff submitted the SR18/SR138 Highway Project to Rep. Obernolte (CD8) and Rep. Garcia (CD25) for consideration during deliberations of the federal FY22 Transportation Appropriations Act. Staff will also submit the Highway Project for consideration in the Transportation Reauthorization Act later this Spring. Page 2 of 3 HDC Rail Component Status Update

 HDC Authority staff and Consultant Team have had positive meetings with incoming Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator and staff to seek the LPA Rail Component Record of Decision (ROD) with concurrent petition to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) for environmental jurisdiction/clearance due to the interoperability of the highspeed rail systems.

 HDC Authority staff and Consultant Team worked with CalSTA, Caltrans and SHPO (California Office of State Preservation) to successfully extend the HDC Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for one- year allowing HDC the opportunity during the Reevaluation process to assess impacts on all resources.

 April 2021, the Authority staff submitted the Reevaluation/Revalidation ROD petition to FRA and STB with the goal to receive final ROD/Notice of Determination (NOD) by end of 2021.

 Consistent with the 2021 Work Plan, the Authority staff submitted the HDC Rail Project to Rep. Obernolte (CD8) and Rep. Garcia (CD25) for consideration during deliberations of the federal FY22 Transportation Appropriations Act. Staff will also submit the HDC Rail Project for consideration in the Transportation Reauthorization Act later this Spring.

 Metro Board approved $5 million budget for HDC Intercity Rail Service Development Plan & Funding Plan including $3 million of HDC Measure M funds, $1.375 million in CalSTA 2018 Transit Intercity Rail Capital Plan State grant under the Network Integration category, and $625K from Brightline West ($250K in cash and $375K of in-kind contributions) for Metro to develop with HDC, Brightline West. Plan Kick-off is scheduled for April 2021 with an 18-month implementation schedule.

HDC Rail Component Los Angeles County-San Bernardino County

Page 3 of 3 HDC Rail Component Station Alignment Victorville/Town of Apple Valley and Palmdale

NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 15

North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition Stephanie N. Wiggins Chief Executive Officer

April 19, 2021 Safety Is Foundational At Metrolink

2 Metrolink Riders - Demographics

3 Building Healthier Communities COVID-19 Vaccination Sites at Metrolink Stations

4 Metrolink Ridership RIDERSHIP DECLINE BY METROLINK LINE -70% SINCE SAME MONTH OF MOST RECENT PRE-COVID YEAR -72% -74% -74% -75% -75% -75% -76% -76% -76% -76% AVL -77% -77% -76% 91PVL -77% -78% -78% -79% -79% -77% -78% -79% IEOC -78% -79% -80% -79% -77% -80% -79% -79% SBL -80% -79% -… -80% -80% -81% -81% -80% -83% -82% -82% -84% -83% -82% -85% -84% -85% -86% -87% -86%-87% -87% -86% -87% -88% -86% -88% -88% -89% OCL -88% -89% -89% -89% -89% VCL -89% -90% -88% -90% -90% -89% -90% -92% -89% -91% -90% -91% RVL -92% -90% -90% -90% -92% -91% -92% -91% -93% -93% -94% -94% -95% -94%

VCL AVL SBL RVL Source: Conductor counts

5 Antelope Valley Line On-Time Performance

120%

97.8% 97.4% 95.9% 100% 92.2% 94.8% 94.8% 92.5%

77.2% 80% 65.4%

60%

40%

20%

0% Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21

6 AVL Thermal Misalignment State of Good Repair

7 Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion

8 SCORE Antelope Valley Line Projects Metro Advancing Initial Phases

9 Advancing North County Priorities

10 Sustainability - Climate Action Plan

11 Essential.

Together.

Thank You

AGENDA REPORT – BOARD ITEM 17 North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition Date: April 19, 2021 To: Governing Board Members of the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition JPA From: Arthur V. Sohikian, Executive Director Subject: NCTC JPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UPDATE

Recommended Action: Receive and File.

Fiscal Impact: Items mentioned in this report may have a future fiscal impact.

The NCTC JPA April 2021 Executive Director Update will cover the following items:

1. NCTC JPA Metro Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Program Annual Update – North County Subregion. In January 2021, the NCTC approved the Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Program (MSP) for Metro review and approval. The April 14, 2021 Metro MSP report to the Metro Planning and Progamming Committee is atatched. The Metro Board is scheduled to approve the NCTC MSP on April 22, 2021.

2. NCTC JPA 2021 Work Plan – Federal FY2022 Transportation Appropriations submittals. The NCTC submitted projects for the FY2022 federal transportation appropriations process as follows:

 Santa Clarita Quick Fix Circulation and Safety Improvement Project  SR 14 Traffic Relief Projects  Lancaster Avenue M SR14 Interchange Project  Palmdale Avenue N SR14 Interchange Project  SR138 NW Safety and Enhancement Projects  The Old Road, Segment 1.

3. NCTC Website and Logo Redesign Project. The Authority Website and Logo Redesign Project was completed in April 2021 under budget.

4. Modernizing The Metro Highways Program. In December 2021, NCTC and all Member Jurisdications sent comment letters to Metro regarding the proposed revisions to the Measure R and Measure M Highway Guidelines (Attached: NCTC Letter). In March 2021, Metro approved the attached Metro Modernizing The Highway Program Draft for release and review by the Subregions with Metro Board action scheduled for June 2021.

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 1 of 2

5. Metro Fareless Intitative. The April 15, 2021 Metro Fareless Initiative Update to the Metro Executive Management Committee is atatched.

6. Metro Short Range Transportation Plan. The March 17, 2021 Metro 2021 Short Range Transportaion Plan Financial Forecast Planning Assumptions report and presentation given to the Metro Planning and Progamming Committee is atatched.

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 2 of 2

NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 17

Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Board Report Los Angeles, CA

File #: 2021-0033, File Type: Program Agenda Number: 11.

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE APRIL 14, 2021

SUBJECT: MEASURE M MULTI-YEAR SUBREGIONAL PROGRAM ANNUAL UPDATE - NORTH COUNTY SUBREGION

ACTION: APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDER:

A. APPROVING:

1. Programming of additional $2,204,941 within the capacity of Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Program (MSP) - Active Transportation Program, as shown in Attachment A;

2. Programming of additional $3,425,000 within the capacity of Measure M MSP - Transit Program, as shown in Attachment B;

B. DELEGATING the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or his designee the authority to:

1. Amend Measure M MSP funding agreements to modify the scope of work of projects and project development phases consistent with eligibility requirements;

2. Administratively extend funding agreement lapse dates for Measure M MSP funding agreements to meet environmental, design, right-of-way and construction time frames; and

C. AUTHORIZING the CEO or his designee to negotiate and execute all necessary agreements and/or amendments for approved projects.

ISSUE

Measure M MSPs are included in the Measure M Expenditure Plan. All MSP funds are limited to capital projects. The annual update approves additional eligible projects for funding and allows the North County Subregion and implementing agencies to revise scope of work and schedule, amend project budgets as well as remove projects.

This update includes changes to projects which have received Board approval and funding allocation

Metro Page 1 of 6 Printed on 4/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0033, File Type: Program Agenda Number: 11. for new projects. Funds are programmed through Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. The Board’s approval is required to program additional funds and update the project lists (Attachments A, B and C) which serve as the basis for Metro to enter into agreements and/or amendments with the respective implementing agencies.

DISCUSSION

In February 2019, the Metro Board of Directors approved North County Subregion’s first MSP Five- Year Plan and programmed funds in: 1) Measure M MSP - Active Transportation Program (expenditure line 52); 2) Measure M MSP - Transit Program (expenditure line 64); and 3) Measure M MSP - Highway Efficiency Program (expenditure line 81).

Metro staff continued working closely with the North County Transportation Coalition Joint Powers Authority (NCTC JPA) and the implementing agencies on project eligibility reviews of the proposed projects for this annual update. Metro required, during staff review, a detailed project scope of work to confirm eligibility and establish the program nexus, i.e. project location and limits, length, elements, phase(s), total expenses and funding request, and schedule, etc. This level of detail will ensure timeliness of the execution of the project Funding Agreements once the Metro Board approves the projects. For those proposed projects that will have programming of funds in FY 2022-23 and beyond, Metro accepted high level (but focused and relevant) project scope of work during the review process. Metro staff will work on the details with the NCTC JPA and the implementing agencies through a future annual update process. Those projects will receive conditional approval as part of this approval process. However, final approval of funds for those projects shall be contingent upon the implementing agency demonstrating the eligibility of each project as required in the Measure M Master Guidelines.

The changes in this annual update include deobligation of three previously approved projects, and $5,629,941 in additional programming for ten existing and three new projects.

Active Transportation (expenditure line 52)

This update includes funding adjustments to nine existing projects and three new projects as follows:

Santa Clarita

· Deobligate $648,000 from MM4501.08 - Citywide Bicycle Facilities Project. The City requested the funds to be reallocated to other priority project.

· Program an additional $42,000 and reprogram all funds to FY 24 for MM4501.09 - Santa Clara River Trail Gap Closure Project. The City has delayed implementation of the project. The funds will be used to complete the Plans Specification and Estimates (PS&E) and right-of-way (ROW) phases of the project.

· Reprogram $624,000 as follows: $51,000 in FY 19 and $573,000 in FY 21 for MM4501.10 - Sierra Highway Sidewalk Improvements Project. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E and construction phases of the project.

Metro Page 2 of 6 Printed on 4/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0033, File Type: Program Agenda Number: 11.

· Program an additional $28,000 and reprogram all funds to FY 22 for MM4501.11 - Valencia Industrial Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Phase I Project. The City has delayed implementation of the project. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E, ROW and construction phases of the project.

· Program an additional $47,700 and reprogram all funds to FY 23 for MM4501.14 - Valencia Industrial Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Phase II Project. The City has delayed implementation of the project. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E, ROW and construction phases of the project.

· Deobligate $720,000 from MM4501.15 - Railroad Avenue Class I Trail. The City no longer needs the funding for this project.

· Program $650,000 in FY 21 for MM4501.17 - Newhall Area Bicycle Facility Project. The funds will be used to complete PS&E and construction phases of the project.

· Program $666,900 in FY22 for MM4501.18 - Saugus Phase I: Bouquet Canyon Trail to Central Park Project. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E, ROW and construction phases of the project.

· Program $683,600 in FY 22 for MM4501.19 - Saugus Phase II: Bouquet Canyon Trail Central Park to Haskell Cyn Project. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E phase of the project.

Los Angeles County

· Deobligate $1,029,259 from MM4501.12 - Elizabeth Lake Road Bikeways. $20,741 remains with the project. The County requested the deobligated funds to be reallocated to other priority projects.

· Program an additional $1,600,000 in FY 24 and the funds are programmed as follows: $50,000 in FY 20, $300,000 in FY 21, $400,000 in FY 22, $1,250,000 in FY 23 and $1,600,000 in FY 24 for MM4501.13 - Lake Los Angeles Pedestrian Plan Implementation Phase 1. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E, ROW and construction phases of the project.

· Program an additional $884,000 in FY 24 and the funds are programmed as follows: $442,000 in FY 22, $884,000 in FY 23 and $884,000 in FY 24 for MM4501.16 - 30th Street West Active Transportation Improvements. The project will traverse both the City of Lancaster and Los Angeles County, but the Los Angeles County will be the lead agency for the project. The funds will be used to complete the PS&E, ROW and construction phases of the project.

Transit Program (expenditure line 64)

This update includes funding adjustments to three existing projects as follows:

Metro Page 3 of 6 Printed on 4/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0033, File Type: Program Agenda Number: 11.

Santa Clarita

· Reprogram $892,000 as follows: $80,000 in FY 22 and $812,000 in FY 23 for MM4502.02 - Valencia Industrial Center Bus Stop Improvement Project. Update the project funding phases to include PS&E, ROW and construction phases.

· Reprogram $2,180,000 as follows: $1,090,000 in FY23 and $1,090,000 in FY 24 for MM4502.03 - Vista Canyon Bus Service Expansion Project. The funds will be used to complete vehicle purchases phase of the project.

Metro/Metrolink

· Program an additional $3,425,000 in FY 24 and the funds are programmed as follows: $4,170,961 in FY 20, $2,429,039 in FY 21, $6,150,000 in FY 23 and $3,425,000 in FY 24 for MM4502.06 - Metrolink Antelope Valley Line. The funds will be used for the environmental and PS&E phases of the project that Metro and Metrolink have been tasked to lead.

Highway Efficiency Program (expenditure line 81)

This update includes funding adjustments to one existing project as follows:

North County Transportation Coalition

· Reprogram $4,700,000 as follows: $2,000,000 in FY 22, $1,350,000 in FY 23 and $1,350,000 in FY 24 for MM5504.02 - SR-14 Capacity Enhancement/ Operational Improvement. The total programmed budget remains unchanged at $4,700,000.

Equity Platform

Consistent with Metro’s Equity Platform, the MSP outreach effort recognizes and acknowledges the need to establish comprehensive, multiple forums to meaningfully engage the community to comment on the proposed projects under all Programs. The NCTC JPA along with member agencies and adjacent unincorporated area of Los Angeles County undertook an extensive outreach effort and invited the general public to a series of public workshops and meetings. Metro will continue to work with the Subregion to seek opportunities to reach out to a broader constituency of stakeholders.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

Programming of Measure M MSP funds to the North County Subregion projects will not have any adverse safety impacts on Metro’s employees or patrons.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

In FY 2020-21, $4.07 million is budgeted in Cost Center 0441 (Subsidies to Others) for the Active Transportation Program (Project #474401), $3.09 million is budgeted in Cost Center 0441 (Subsidies

Metro Page 4 of 6 Printed on 4/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0033, File Type: Program Agenda Number: 11. to Others) for the Transit Program (Project #474102) and $435,000 is budgeted in Cost Center 0442 (Highway Subsidies) for the Highway Efficiency Program (Project #475504). Upon approval of this action, staff will reallocate necessary funds to appropriate projects within Cost Centers 0441 and 0442. Since these are multi-year projects, Cost Centers 0441 and 0442 will be responsible for budgeting the cost in future years.

Impact to Budget

The source of funds for these projects are Measure M Highway Construction 17% and Measure M Transit Construction 35%. These fund sources are not eligible for Metro bus and rail operating and capital expenditures.

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

Recommendation supports the following goals of the Metro Vision 2028 Strategic Plan:

Goal 1: Provide high-quality mobility options that enable people to spend less time traveling by alleviating the current operational deficiencies and improving mobility along the projects.

Goal 4: Transform LA County through regional collaboration by partnering with the Council of Governments and the local jurisdictions to identify the needed improvements and take the lead in development and implementation of their projects.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Board could elect not to approve the additional programming of funds for the Measure M MSP projects for the North County Subregion. This is not recommended as the proposed projects were developed by the Subregion in accordance with the Measure M Ordinance, Guidelines and the Administrative Procedures.

NEXT STEPS

Metro staff will continue to work with the Subregion to identify and deliver projects. Program/Project updates will be provided to the Board on an annual basis.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Active Transportation Project List Attachment B - Transit Program Project List Attachment C - Highway Efficiency Program Project List

Prepared by: Fanny Pan, DEO, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3433 Shawn Atlow, Executive Officer, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3327 Laurie Lombardi, SEO, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3251

Metro Page 5 of 6 Printed on 4/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0033, File Type: Program Agenda Number: 11.

Reviewed by: James de la Loza, Chief Planning Officer, (213) 922-2920

Metro Page 6 of 6 Printed on 4/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ ATTACHMENT A

North County Subregion Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Plan - Active Transportation Program (Expenditure Line 52)

Alloc Prior Year Agency Project ID No. Project/Location Funding Phases Note Pror Alloc Current Alloc FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Change Prog Sierra Hwy: Avenue J to 1 Lancaster MM4501.05 Avenue L Construction $ 1,240,486 $ 1,240,486 $ 1,240,486 Avenue R Complete Street & PS&E, ROW 2 Palmdale MM4501.06 Safe Routes to School Proj Construction 2,695,140 2,695,140 1,695,140 1,000,000 Citywide Bicycle Facilities: Copper Hill Dr., Plum Canyon Santa Rd., Sierra Hwy, Lost Canyon PS&E 3 Clarita MM4501.08 Rd., Via Princessa Construction deob 648,000 (648,000) - Santa Clara River Trail Gap Santa Closure Design: Five Knolls to PS&E 4 Clarita MM4501.09 Discovery Park * ROW chg 696,000 42,000 738,000 738,000 Sierra Highway Sidewalk Santa Improvements: Scherzinger PS&E 5 Clarita MM4501.10 Lane to Skyline Ranch Road Construction chg 624,000 624,000 51,000 573,000 Valencia Industrial Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Imp. Santa Phase I: San Francisquito PS&E, ROW 6 Clarita MM4501.11 Trail to Avenue Scott E Construction chg 672,000 28,000 700,000 700,000 Valencia Industrial Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Imp. Phase II: San Francisquito Santa Trail to eastbound Avenue PS&E, ROW 7 Clarita MM4501.14 Scott Construction chg 672,000 47,700 719,700 719,700 Santa Railroad Avenue Class I Trail ROW 8 Clarita MM4501.15 (supplement to CFP #F9513) Construction deob 720,000 (720,000) - Santa PS&E 9 Clarita MM4501.17 Newhall Area Bicycle Facility Construction new - 650,000 650,000 650,000 Santa Saugus Phase I: Bouquet PS&E, ROW 10 Clarita MM4501.18 Canyon Trail to Central Park Construction new - 666,900 666,900 666,900 Saugus Phase II: Bouquet Santa Canyon Trail Central Park to 11 Clarita MM4501.19 Haskell Cyn PS&E new - 683,600 683,600 683,600 Elizabeth Lake Road PS&E 12 LA County MM4501.12 Bikeways ROW deob 1,050,000 (1,029,259) 20,741 20,741 Lake Los Angeles Pedestrian Plan Implementation Phase 1: 170th St. E, Avenue N, 165th St. E, Avenue N-8, 180th St. PS&E E, Avenue P-8, 160th St. E, ROW 13 LA County MM4501.13 Avenue Q Construction chg 2,000,000 1,600,000 3,600,000 50,000 300,000 400,000 1,250,000 1,600,000

LA County 30th Street West Active PS&E, ROW 14 (Lancaster) MM4501.16 Transportation Improvements Construction chg 1,326,000 884,000 2,210,000 442,000 $ 884,000 $ 884,000

Total Programming Amount $ 12,343,626 $ 2,204,941 $ 14,548,567 $ 71,741 $ 1,745,140 $ 3,763,486 $ 2,892,500 $ 2,853,700 $ 3,222,000

* Conditional programming approval as only high level scope of work was developed and reviewed. Future annual update process will reconfirm the programming. ATTACHMENT B

North County Subregion Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Plan - Transit Program (Expenditure Plan 64)

Funding Alloc Prior Year Agency Project ID No. Project/Location Note Pror Alloc Current Alloc FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Phases Change Prog Palmdale Transportation Center Transit and 1 Palmdale MM4502.01 Infrastructure Design Project PS&E $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 100,000 $1,025,000 $ 875,000

Santa Valencia Industrial Center Bus PS&E, ROW 2 Clarita MM4502.02 Stop Improvement Construction chg 892,000 892,000 80,000 812,000

Santa Vista Canyon Bus Service Vehicles/ 3 Clarita MM4502.03 Expansion Equipment chg 2,180,000 2,180,000 1,090,000 1,090,000

Santa Vista Canyon Transportation ROW 4 Clarita MM4502.04 Center Construction 3,216,000 3,216,000 288,000 1,440,000 1,488,000 Vista Canyon Transportation Center - Transit Capital 5 LA County MM4502.04 Jurisdictional Share Construction 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 North County Bus Stop Improvements: Santa Clarita PS&E 6 LA County MM4502.05 and Antelope Valley Construction 2,855,260 2,855,260 308,000 400,000 1,178,990 968,270

Metro/ Environmental 7 Metrolink MM4502.06 Metrolink Antelope Valley Line PS&E chg 12,750,000 3,425,000 16,175,000 4,170,961 2,429,039 6,150,000 3,425,000

Total Programming Amount $25,893,260 $3,425,000 $29,318,260 $ 596,000 $7,110,961 $7,121,029 $1,923,270 $8,052,000 $4,515,000 ATTACHMENT C

North County Subregion Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Plan - Highway Efficiency Program (Expenditure Line 81)

Funding Prior Year Agency Project ID No. Project/Location Note Pror Alloc Alloc Change Current Alloc FY2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Phases Prog

SR-138 Palmdale Blvd. SR-14 1 Palmdale MM5504.01 Ramps Construction $ 3,351,220 $ 3,351,220 $ 2,234,147 $ 1,117,073 North County SR-14 Capacity Transportation Enhancement/Operational 2 Coalition MM5504.02 Improvement ** TBD chg 4,700,000 4,700,000 2,000,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 SR-138 Avenue G Interchange Project (Measure R ROW 3 Lancaster MM5504.03 #MR330.03 shortfall) Construction 4,350,143 4,350,143 4,350,143

Total Programming Amount $ 12,401,363 $ - $ 12,401,363 $ - $ 2,234,147 $ 7,467,216 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000

** Pending identification of a specific project after initial investigations and consultation with Caltrans and Metro. Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Board Report Los Angeles, CA

File #: 2021-0008, File Type: Policy Agenda Number: 15.

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE MARCH 17, 2021

SUBJECT: MODERNIZING THE METRO HIGHWAY PROGRAM

ACTION: APPROVE THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT REVISED MEASURE R HIGHWAY PROGRAM CRITERIA AND DRAFT REVISED MEASURE M MULTI-YEAR PROGRAMS (HIGHWAY SUBFUNDS) GUIDELINES

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDER adopting the recommendations to modernize the Highway Program and approving the release for public review:

1) REVISED Measure R Highway Program Criteria - Project Eligibility for Highway Operational Improvements and Ramp/Interchange Improvements, shown in Attachment A, and

2) REVISED Measure M Guidelines, Section X - Multi-Year Programs (Highway Subfunds), shown in Attachment B.

ISSUE

In June 2020, the Metro Board directed staff to circulate the recommendations to modernize the Highway Program, including broadening its mission, expanding funding eligibility, recommitting to the previously adopted Metro Complete Streets Policy, and updating performance metrics. Staff is targeting Board adoption of the Revised Program Criteria and Guidelines at the June 2021 Board meeting.

BACKGROUND

The Project Eligibility for Highway Operational Improvement and Ramp/Interchange Improvements, of Measure R Highway Program Funding Strategy, was adopted by the Metro Board at its October 14, 2009 meeting. In May 2014, clarification on Project Eligibility was amended by the Metro Board.

The Measure M Multi-Year Program (Highway Subfunds) Guidelines were adopted by the Metro Board at its June 22, 2017 meeting, as part of the Measure M Master Guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Metro Page 1 of 3 Printed on 3/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0008, File Type: Policy Agenda Number: 15.

In fall 2020, Metro staff reached out to the Council of Governments to solicit early input/feedback to the Board-proposed revisions to the Criteria and Guidelines. Additionally, staff presented the Board- proposed revisions to the Metro Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee at their November and December 2020 meetings. At the conclusion of this early and targeted outreach, we received a total of 14 comment letters. Staff summarized those written comments in the attached summary table (Attachment C).

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

The proposed approval will not have any adverse safety impacts on employees and patrons.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Impact to Budget

Approving the recommendations will have no impact on the FY 2020-21 Budget.

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

Recommendation supports the following goals of the Metro Vision 2028 Strategic Plan:

Goal 1: Provide high-quality mobility options that enable people to spend less time traveling by alleviating the current operational deficiencies and improving mobility along the projects.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Board could elect not to approve the public release of the Revised Measure R Highway Program Criteria and Revised Measure M Highway Subfunds Guidelines. This is not recommended as the proposed revisions were the result of Board direction.

NEXT STEPS

If approved by the Board, the Draft Revised Measure R Highway Program Criteria and the Draft Revised Measure M Guidelines, Section X - Multi-Year Programs (Highway Subfunds) will be released for public review. Both Guidelines will be posted on the Metro website on April 1, 2021, and there will be a place at the same location for people to submit comments. Following public input and comment, a final revised Program Criteria and Guidelines will be presented to the Board in June 2021 for adoption.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Recommended Revisions to Measure R Highway Program Criteria

Metro Page 2 of 3 Printed on 3/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0008, File Type: Policy Agenda Number: 15.

Attachment B - Recommended Revisions to Measure M Guidelines, Section X - Multi-Year Programs (Highway Subfunds) Attachment C - Summary Table of Comment Letters

Prepared by: Fanny Pan, DEO, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3433 Isidro Panuco, Sr. Manager, Transportation Planning, (213) 922-4781 Shawn Atlow, Executive Officer, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3327 Laurie Lombardi, SEO, Countywide Planning & Development, (213) 418-3251 Abdollah Ansari, SEO, Program Management, (213) 922-4781

Reviewed by: James de la Loza, Chief Planning Officer, (213) 922-2920 Richard F Clarke, Chief Program Management Officer, (213) 922-7557

Metro Page 3 of 3 Printed on 3/12/2021 powered by Legistar™

ATTACHMENT C

Summary Table of Comment Letters

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

High Level Summary N Do not apply proposed guideline changes to Metro Palmdale, NCTC, San Gabriel Measure R and M projects are in various states of approved Measure R and M projects Valley, Lancaster, PAC, project development and environmental review. Gateway Cities COG These projects are already subject to Metro and/or Caltrans' complete streets policies. The recommendations do not establish new requirements for these projects, but do expand eligibility for some project scope elements. Metro expects that projects that have already completed environmental review or are nearing completion will see little or no change as a result of these guidelines. Y Support incorporating multi-modal improvements within a Joint ATP Coalition Letter, PAC, MetroGateway provides COG, for the incorporation of multimodal project's scope improvements into project scopes via the previously adopted Metro Complete Streets Policy. N Do not limit ability to develop capacity enhancement Palmdale, Santa Clarita, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects NCTC, County of Los Angeles, multimodal improvements without limiting eligibility for Lancaster, Gateway COG, more traditional capacity increasing projects. N Do not remove the 1 mile buffer from state highway Gateway Cities COG, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects system Palmdale, NCTC, Lancaster outside the 1-mile buffer, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Y/N Allow for projects outside the 1 mile buffer to be eligible Gateway Cities COG, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects on a case by case basis Palmdale, NCTC, Lancaster outside the 1-mile buffer, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Y/N Projects that reduce VMT should be considered on a case NCTC, Arroyo Verdugo, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for by case basis Gateway, South Bay multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion by reducing VMT, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process.

Attachment C Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT C

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

Y Support using VMT as a performance metric City of Los Angeles, Westside Metro agrees with using VMT as a planning metric Cities, Joint ATP Coalition and will be using it in countywide planning processes letter as well as when required for project-level analysis.

N Preserve the intent of the voter approved measures and Palmdale, Santa Clarita, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for their objectives of reducing congestion and traffic NCTC, County of Los Angeles, multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion Lancaster, Gateway COG, by reducing VMT. The recommendations do not PAC modify the expenditure plans of voter-approved measures. Y Support proposed guideline changes South Pasadena, Westside Metro acknowledges the comment. Cities, Joint ATP Coalition letter N Highway and Congestion relief projects and initiatives are County of Los Angeles, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for important. Do not limit ability to develop these type of Gateway COG, NCTC, multimodal improvements without limiting eligibility for improvements Palmdale, Lancaster, South more traditional capacity increasing projects. Bay N Urban and Rural needs vary and complete street County of Los Angeles, NCTC, The previously adopted Metro Complete Streets improvements might not be feasible in all locations of Palmdale, Lancaster, Gateway Policy allows for context-sensitive solutions reflecting county Cities L.A. County's diverse geography and urban, suburban, and rural contexts. It also includes an exceptions process under specified circumstances.

N Limit the eligibility of additional multi-modal improvements Gateway Cities COG, The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects to the boundaries of highway corridor projects. Palmdale, NCTC, Lancaster outside of highway corridor boundaries, but continue Implementation of multi-modal improvements at any to delegate project selection to subregions. geographic location should not be permitted. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Agency Specific Comments Do not limit ability to pursue or develop highway capacity enhancement County of Los Angeles The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects multimodal improvements without limiting eligibility for more traditional capacity increasing projects. Urban and rural geographic areas should be considered when evaluating County of Los Angeles The previously adopted Metro Complete Streets complete street infrastructure, rural corridors may not be feasible for these Policy allows for context-sensitive solutions reflecting type of improvements L.A. County's diverse geography and urban, suburban, and rural contexts. It also includes an exceptions process under specified circumstances.

Attachment C Page 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT C

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

Projects currently funded by the Measures should not be impacted by new County of Los Angeles Measure R and M projects are in various states of requirements. This may lead to additional need for studies or redesign project development and environmental review. These projects are already subject to Metro and/or Caltrans' complete streets policies. The recommendations do not establish new requirements for these projects, but do expand eligibility for some project scope elements. Metro expects that projects that have already completed environmental review or are nearing completion will see little or no change as a result of these guidelines. Add bullet that clarifies Transportation System Management projects that County of Los Angeles Improving roadway operations continues to be eligible improve roadway operations under the revised guidelines. Add freeway and arterial transportation system projects that improve roadway County of Los Angeles Improving roadway operations continues to be eligible operations. under the revised guidelines. Retain the wording within one-mile of a state highway; or farther than one mile Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects on a case by case basis to preserve the benefit to highway safety and mobility outside the 1-mile buffer, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Define what new mode and access accommodations means Gateway Cities "New mode and access accommodations" is existing language under the "Multi-Modal Connectivity" program. It is only applicable to the Arroyo Verdugo subregion. Retain the wording enhance safety by reducing conflicts. For subregions with Gateway Cities Under the revised guidelines, "safety improvements" high truck volumes this is a critical goal. would be eligible in all applicable categories. This language is broadened from the existing language, which only allowed "safety improvements that reduce incident delay." Add to guidelines, other projects could be considered on a case-by-case basis Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for as long as a nexus to highway efficiency and operational imp can be shown multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion such as a measurable reduction in VMT or safety improvements. by reducing VMT, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Under the revised guidelines, "safety improvements" would be eligible in all applicable categories.

Attachment C Page 3 of 7 ATTACHMENT C

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

Eligibility of multimodal improvements should be limited to the geographic Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects parameters or boundaries of highway corridor projects. A bus priority or active outside of highway corridor boundaries, but continue transportation corridor that is an integral part of a highway project should be to delegate project selection to subregions. eligible. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Eligible new projects elements should be limited to major corridors to provide Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects positive mobility relief and not be implemented anywhere. outside of highway corridor boundaries, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Do not remove the words, "improve traffic flow" from highway improvement Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for program. This language is part of the voter-approved ordinance and ballot multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion language is critical term. by reducing VMT. The recommendations do not modify the language or expenditure plans of voter- approved measures. Both sales tax measures were "sold" by promising to improve traffic Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for congestions. Do not dilute integrity of freeway corridor based plans with broad multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion definitions. by reducing VMT. The recommendations do not modify the language or expenditure plans of voter- approved measures. Measure R and M highway program funding is extremely important to address Gateway Cities The revised guidelines expand eligibility for severely impacted roadways (freeway and highway). Most residents still need multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion a car for basic mobility need and access. Do not diminish effectiveness of by reducing VMT. Highways and Arterials are imperative to mobility and limited alternatives are Lancaster Measure R and M projects are in various states of available to the freeway network. Do not limit ability to develop SR-138 safety project development and environmental review. roadway enhancements or SR-14 bottleneck improvements. These projects are already subject to Metro and/or Caltrans' complete streets policies. The recommendations do not establish new requirements for these projects, but do expand eligibility for some project scope elements. Metro expects that projects that have already completed environmental review or are nearing completion will see little or no change as a result of these guidelines.

Attachment C Page 4 of 7 ATTACHMENT C

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

Do not force the study of complete street concepts in areas not viable. Lancaster The previously adopted Metro Complete Streets Policy allows for context-sensitive solutions reflecting L.A. County's diverse geography and urban, suburban, and rural contexts. It also includes an exceptions process under specified circumstances.

While expanding use of highway program funds makes sense in some Lancaster The revised guidelines expand eligibility for subregions, do not make the guideline changes at the expense of North Los multimodal projects, but continue to delegate project Angeles County which relies on the scarce highway program funds. selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Do not adversely impact current approved projects in the pipeline Lancaster Measure R and M projects are in various states of project development and environmental review. These projects are already subject to Metro and/or Caltrans' complete streets policies. The recommendations do not establish new requirements for these projects, but do expand eligibility for some project scope elements. Metro expects that projects that have already completed environmental review or are nearing completion will see little or no change as a result of these guidelines. Do not reduce the strength of these programs to provide congestion relief Lancaster The revised guidelines expand eligibility for benefits to our residents. multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion by reducing VMT. Voter measures with tax increases were justified by allocating funds to improve Palmdale The revised guidelines expand eligibility for traffic. do not exclude or restrict ability to improve vehicular traffic. multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion by reducing VMT. The recommendations do not modify the language or expenditure plans of voter- approved measures. Equitably consider the needs of all jurisdictions impacted by Metro's highway Palmdale The revised guidelines expand eligibility for modernization efforts. Do not remove any eligible project opportunities multimodal improvements without limiting eligibility for more traditional capacity increasing projects. Do not remove the ability to have projects within a specific distance from a Palmdale The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects state highway and do not exclude improving vehicular traffic. outside the 1-mile buffer, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process.

Attachment C Page 5 of 7 ATTACHMENT C

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

Provide flexibility in guideline changes, but preserve the original intent of the Santa Clarita The revised guidelines expand eligibility for voter approved ballot measures. multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion by reducing VMT. The recommendations do not modify the language or expenditure plans of voter- approved measures. Do not force study of complete street concepts or limit ability to spend funds on NCTC The revised guidelines expand eligibility for highway capacity enhancements that Measure R and M intended. multimodal improvements without limiting eligibility for more traditional capacity increasing projects. Changing Measure R definition to "improve multimodal efficiency, safety, NCTC The revised guidelines expand eligibility for equity sustainability" prohibits intent of Measure R and improving vehicle flow multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion projects don’t meet intent anymore. by reducing VMT. The recommendations do not modify the language or expenditure plans of voter- approved measures. Removal of "within 1-mile of state highway" negatively impacts existing NCTC The revised guidelines expand eligibility for projects projects. outside the 1-mile buffer, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Add bike facilities, sidewalk/curb ramps, ped improvements on case-by-case NCTC Metro provides for the incorporation of multimodal basis. improvements into project scopes via the previously adopted Metro Complete Streets Policy. Allow project sponsors to use metrics and eligibility criteria appropriate to the South Bay The revised guidelines expand eligibility, but continue projects needs and benefits to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Allow highway projects to be funded that reduce delay on congested streets or South Bay The revised guidelines expand eligibility for that reduce VMT multimodal projects and projects that ease congestion by reducing VMT. Do not use VMT only performance criteria. Improvement in LOS maybe occur South Bay Metro agrees with using VMT as one of multiple without improving VMT. planning metrics and will be using it in countywide planning processes as well as when required for project-level analysis. The revised guidelines expand eligibility, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Support inclusion of complete street elements in a project South Bay Metro provides for the incorporation of multimodal improvements into project scopes via the previously adopted Metro Complete Streets Policy.

Attachment C Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT C

Yes/No to Changes Comment (Main Points) Commenting Entity Board's Response

Do not impact the scope, schedule or budgets of approved projects San Gabriel Valley Measure R and M projects are in various states of project development and environmental review. These projects are already subject to Metro and/or Caltrans' complete streets policies. The recommendations do not establish new requirements for these projects, but do expand eligibility for some project scope elements. Metro expects that projects that have already completed environmental review or are nearing completion will see little or no change as a result of these guidelines. Oppose policy changes that affect already approved projects for this subregion Arroyo Verdugo Measure R and M projects are in various states of or other subregions. project development and environmental review. These projects are already subject to Metro and/or Caltrans' complete streets policies. The recommendations do not establish new requirements for these projects, but do expand eligibility for some project scope elements. Metro expects that projects that have already completed environmental review or are nearing completion will see little or no change as a result of these guidelines. Local agencies and subregions should retain flexibility to address their local Arroyo Verdugo The revised guidelines expand eligibility, but continue needs. to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process. Allow for local agencies and subregions to retain flexibility to use other Arroyo Verdugo Metro agrees with using VMT as one of multiple performance metrics planning metrics and will be using it in countywide planning processes as well as when required for project-level analysis. The revised guidelines expand eligibility, but continue to delegate project selection to subregions. Subregions may choose to fund or not fund any individual project based on their own prioritization process.

Attachment C Page 7 of 7

December 7, 2021 NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 17 Metro Modernizing The Metro Highway Program in Measures R & M Comment Letter Submitted via email to Metro Ms. Fanny Pan at [email protected]

In June 2020, the Metro Board directed staff to circulate the recommendations by the Metro Board Staff Highway Subcommittee to amend the Measure R highway program eligibility and seek Board approval to revise the Measure M guidelines, Section X. Multi-Year Programs (Highway Subfunds) to expand/clarify eligibility for active transportation and complete streets improvements (Metro Board File # 2020-0412). In October 2020, Metro staff solicitated comments from the Subregions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Metro Modernizing The Metro Highway Program contained in Measures R & M. On behalf of the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition JPA (NCTC) member agencies Los Angeles County 5th Supervisorial District, the Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Santa Clarita located in North Los Angeles County, I am pleased to offer the NCTC JPA comments.

The NCTC believes it is imperative for Metro Directors and staff to understand the context in which the NCTC Subregion makes our comments to the Modernizing the Metro Highway Program. On July 13, 2020, NCTC made comments to the Metro Draft Long Range Transportation Plan with specific comments to the Highway Program and Equity, pages 3 and 4 are excerpted below:

Freeways Can Not Be Forgotten The Draft LRTP provides a Snapshot of the North Los Angeles County NCTC Subregion transportation network (Baseline June 2019 LRTP Metro Report pages 85/86). Major Transportation Facilities Area freeways include the Golden State Freeway (I-5) and the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14). State Route SR-126 and SR-138 also impact the region. Metrolink operates commuter rail services with stations located in the cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, and in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

For the NCTC Subregion funds in the LTRP programmed to highways and arterials is imperative. Los Angeles County relies on the freeway network to move people and goods. Is 26% highway funding for the entire Los Angeles County sufficient over a 30-year period? The NCTC Subregion has limited viable alternatives to the freeway network.

The main connection for the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita Valley to the LA Basin and beyond is the freeway system with limited regional rail connections through Metrolink. The Metrolink AVL is the only true mobility option that does not use the freeway system. Even Santa Clarita Transit and Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) use the freeway system for their transit service between the Valley’s and into the LA Basin.

Metro asks the NCTC Subregion to be patient for the regional rail alternative transit option, while spending less on the freeway system—NCTC has concerns with this long-term transportation planning approach for the north Los Angeles region.

The Draft LRTP has the expansion of the Express Lanes Strategic Network, i.e. tolling/congestion pricing proposal, for the entire County by 2045. (Page 33, Figure 13, Tier 3 Draft LRTP). North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 1 of 4

The NCTC JPA has not taken a formal position on the Metro Express Lanes Strategic Network expansion—but a majority of the NCTC Board has publicly expressed serious concerns with the Metro congestion pricing/toll lanes proposal and how it adversely impacts north Los Angeles County residents and businesses, especially those in the Equity Focus Communities (EFC). Ironic, the best map in the Draft LRTP depicting the NCTC Subregion seeks additional congestion pricing.

The NCTC Subregion believes more funds should be spent in the Draft LRTP for life-saving highway projects like the SR14 and SR138. At every NCTC JPA Board meeting, the NCTC receives public testimony from Neenach, Antelope Acres, and Oso Town Councilmembers on the NW SR 138 Corridor with powerful visuals of fatal accidents as they urge Caltrans, Metro and NCTC to approve roughly $90 million in safety related fixes detailed in the Metro approved EIR connecting the I-5 to the SR14 along the SR138 corridor. (Metro Northwest SR138 certified EIR, 2017)

Metro and Caltrans staff have heard the northwest SR138 corridor public comment and have sought traffic calming, signage, and other measures, but concerning the safety related expansion projects including passing lanes, the NCTC Subregion is told to be patient, Metro and Caltrans do not have the funding for these freeways/highway projects.

The freeway/highway arterial network is part of the NCTC Subregion transit system. For many north Los Angeles County residents, transit options have many transfers, take numerous hours, and are not available 24/7 to match their work schedules.

As the Metro Board seeks to Reimagine The Highway System, please acknowledge that the NCTC Subregion needs to improve chokepoints along the SR 14 and SR 138 which are above the CA allowable accident rate according to Caltrans (Caltrans SR14 Traffic Safety/Operational Analysis, July 2019).

Demographics in North Los Angeles County The recent Covid Pandemic highlights how all of Los Angeles County relies on the NCTC Subregions first responders and essential workers—on 24/7 shifts throughout Los Angeles County. We appreciate and are proud of our north Los Angeles County neighbors for the work they have done during the pandemic to provide essential services to keep us healthy, safe, and secure, while stocked with essential goods. Thank You!

It is understandable that city, civic and business leaders are reticent to headline Equity Focus Communities (EFC) in economic development brochures touting the benefits of their city, but US Census Bureau statistics, Metro demographic maps tell the story—NCTC Subregion needs Equity:

. One in three in the Antelope Valley live in Equity Focus Communities—yet Lancaster and Palmdale appear to have no projects listed in the Draft LRTP. . Black/African American population: Lancaster 21.8 %, Palmdale 12.5% . Asian population: Santa Clarita 11% . Hispanic or Latino: Lancaster 39.7%, Palmdale 60.2%, Santa Clarita 33.5% . Persons in Poverty: Lancaster 23.8%, Palmdale 17.3%, Santa Clarita 8.6% . School Free/Reduced Lunch Program, Lancaster K-6 eligible: 75% . Veterans average population in AV & SCV is 6.1%, above LA County 3.5% & CA 5.4% avg. . Veterans average population: Lancaster 7.5%, Palmdale 5.8%, Santa Clarita 4.9% . Persons without Health Insurance, under age 65: Lancaster 7.5%, Palmdale 10%, Santa Clarita 7.5% . Persons 65 years and over: Lancaster 9.8%, Palmdale 18.9%, Santa Clarita 11.3% North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 2 of 4

Metro Modernizing The Metro Highway Program NCTC Subregion General Comment The NCTC Subregion applauds the Metro Directors and Staff concept to broaden the Measure R & M Highway Program guidelines, but we urge that does not come at the expense of the NCTC ability to use the Highway Funds as originally intended by the voters of both Measures. The NCTC is concerned that North Los Angeles County Subregional members will be forced to study complete streets concepts in areas that are not viable or worse, be told NCTC members cannot spend funds on highway enhancements that Measure R and M were intended. While expanding the use of Highway Program funds makes sense in some Subregions, please do not make those guideline changes at the expense of North Los Angeles County who relies on the Highway Program funds.

The NCTC took a simplistic approach to our comments and offer the following for discussion:

Measure R Guideline Comments Bad – Improving traffic is no longer the intent of Measure R that approved by the voters in 2008, it’s “improve multimodal efficiency, safety, equity, and sustainability” (e.g. projects that are focused on improving vehicle flow only don’t meet the intent anymore). This is a real problem for the NCTC Subregion. How will this impact existing projects?

Bad – Removes the “within 1-mile corridor of any state highway” language, meaning projects must be on the state highway system, not near it. This is a real problem for the NCTC Subregion. How will this impact existing projects?

Bad – Explicitly states that maintenance/beautification projects are not eligible. Why?

Good – Adds bike facilities, sidewalks/curb ramps, ped safety improvements as eligible projects, and on a case-by-case basis projects that reduce VMT can be considered.

Good – Opens funding for sound walls to up to 20% of the subregion’s operational improvement funds.

Measure M Guidelines Comment Bad – Removes the 1-mile buffer area for projects to be within to be eligible. This is a real problem for the NCTC Subregion. How will this impact existing projects?

Bad – Removes widening within 1-mile of state highways. Measure R allows case-by-case consideration of such projects from being eligible. This is a real problem for the NCTC Subregion. How will this impact existing projects?

Good – Opens funding to include projects that improve “enhance multimodal efficiency, safety, equity, and sustainability… high-frequency traffic incident locations”.

Good – Adds projects on a case-by-case basis. Will VMT reducing projects may be ok?

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 3 of 4

Good – Adds bike facilities, sidewalks/curb ramps, pedestrian safety improvements as eligible projects.

Good – Adds “complete streets projects and project elements” as eligible projects.

Good – Adds new signals, signal upgrades, and signal timing as eligible projects

In closing, on behalf of the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition member agencies, I am pleased to submit these comments on the Metro Modernizing The Metro Highway Program and look forward to the continued dialogue.

Sincerely,

Arthur V. Sohikian Executive Director

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 4 of 4

Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Board Report Los Angeles, CA

File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 15, 2021

SUBJECT: FARELESS SYSTEM INITIATIVE UPDATE

ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE

RECOMMENDATION

RECEIVE AND FILE Report on Fareless System Initiative.

ISSUE At the March 25, 2021 meeting Metro's Board of Directors unanimously passed Motion 43.1, relating to the Fareless System Initiative (FSI). Motion 43.1 recognized that the time is right for Metro to consider fareless transit and recommended a report back to the Board at the April 2021 meeting with information on a number of questions regarding a possible fareless system. Included in this report are responses to each of the points raised in the Motion.

BACKGROUND The purpose of the Fareless System Initiative is to determine how Metro can provide financial relief to riders and bring back ridership on the LA Metro system. On September 1, 2020, Metro initiated the Fareless System Initiative (FSI) Task Force to study and identify facts, challenges, opportunities, and recommendations related to eliminating fares on Metro buses and trains. As a result of the past seven months of study and extensive discussions, the Task Force has identified an 18-month pilot, beginning with K through 12 in August 2022 and subsequently expanded to low-income LA County residents, with additional consideration given to expanding to Community Colleges, as the preferred approach. Additional consideration to include Community College students is also being explored. A primary reason for this pilot approach is to learn how customers of Metro respond to this equity- based initiative. The pilot allows Metro to observe increases in ridership and gauge resource demands to more accurately forecast the cost and benefits of a fully fareless system. The scope and scale of FSI remain unprecedented in Los Angeles County and the nation, and the impacts of COVID -19 pandemic on future travel patterns remain unknown. Following in-depth research by the Task Force and assumptions derived from the expertise of a broad range of transportation professionals, a pilot offers the opportunity for a detailed and empirical assessment of our forecasted assumptions. Only through implementation of a pilot program can definitive answers be generated. At the Federal level, new legislation has been introduced to provide funding for fareless initiatives (see Attachment B). It will take time and legislative debate before there is clarity on whether and how much money might be available for a permanent program through this potential new source of

Metro Page 1 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

Federal assistance. Similarly, funds generated through a future congestion pricing program could be available to permanently invest in a fareless system, per the direction of the Metro Board of Directors. At this point in time, it is clear that a fareless program pilot in the nation's most diverse County will ideally position LA Metro to seek and justify additional funding from federal and other competitive and formula funding programs. It is the intent of the pilot to examine the feasibility of a fareless system, including the financial viability of moving towards a fully fareless system. In responding to the questions outlined in Motion 43.1, (see Attachment A) focus is directed to the pilot initiative, with additional information of a long-term fareless initiative provided as the pilot moves forward.

DISCUSSION

1. Report back at the April 2021 Board Meeting on the following regarding a possible FSI:

a. How Metro is including municipal operators in the planning process, including what it would cost to fully include them and how many of their riders would qualify;

In October 2020, the FSI Ad Hoc Committee was convened. The committee is comprised of thirteen self-selected agencies representing the Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association and the Local Transit Systems Subcommittee as well as Access Services. The FSI Task Force recognizes that the FSI Ad Hoc Committee’s expertise, perspectives, and collaboration are vital to this initiative. To date, the FSI Ad Hoc Committee has held eleven meetings and will continue to convene indefinitely. As a result of Motion 43.1, the FSI Task Force and the the FSI Ad Hoc Committee are working to develop the pilot participation cost estimation methodology. The Task Force will collect and present the findings to the Metro Board of Directors at the May 2021 meeting.

b. All the subsidies Metro, Municipal Operators, and Cities already offer, including LIFE and U-Pass, and how those programs play a role in and inform a fareless initiative;

Metro’s Existing Reduced Fare Programs Metro currently offers reduced fare rates to the rider groups listed below:

Pass Type Qualifier Cost /Discount Participants Low-Income (LIFE)* $39,450 or less/yr. Countywide Discounts 79,000 ranging from $8-$24/mo. Seniors 62+ years of age Cost is $20/mo. 241,858 Disabled/Veteran Proof of disability Cost is $20/mo. 239,075 K-12 Student Proof of enrollment Cost is $24/mo. or $1 57,224 per boarding College/Vocational Proof of enrollment Cost is $43/mo. 10,289

Metro Page 2 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

*Complete listing of Countywide LIFE discounts here: (under Transit Agencies +Discounts)

Metro also offers the following discounted Marketing Program, which are partnerships with schools and businesses designed to increase ridership:

Pass Type Qualifier Cost /Discount Participants U-Pass Partner School Cost ranges from $16- 19,653 $43/mo.* E-Pass Partner Business Cost ranges from* $34- 4,826 $80/mo. Small Employer Partner Business (less $34/mo. with 50% of 10,199 Pass than 250 employees) employees participating *Equivalent monthly costs of U-Pass and E-Pass based on actual boardings used by participants at partner organization each term/business quarter.

Metro has requested the information on discounts offered by all other transit agencies and cities in LA County and is compiling a complete list of Countywide discounts.

Existing discount programs that meet the qualifying factors of the FSI pilot program will be used to streamline distribution of the FSI pilot passes by autoloading passes to existing TAP cards without the need for an additional application process.

c. How fareless will impact the Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP), state and federal grants, and ACCESS Services;

The pilot will not change existing policy or legislation and will provide both a basis and opportunities to reevaluate current approaches to policies and statutes.

Metro’s Subsidy Funding Programs use established formulas to distribute regional transit operations funds to Metro and to Eligible and Included Operators in Los Angeles County. Through the FAP and Measure R Methodology, regional transit operations funding is allocated based on 50 percent Vehicle Service Miles and 50 percent Fare Units (total fare revenue collected, divided by the base fare). Since 2007, Fare Units have been frozen at 2006 levels per Metro’s current Funding Stability Policy (adopted in 2007). Pursuant to the 2007 Board motion, there should not be a reduction in Part 2 of the Formula should Metro go fareless. The policy states · If an Operator lowers their base fare anytime from July 1, 2006 forward, their fare units will be frozen at that Operator's fare unit level during the last full fiscal year of the old higher fare.

Because fare revenues are a major part of existing allocation methods, these formulas can be reassessed by the region if Metro permanently eliminates fares. Regional consensus is

Metro Page 3 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

desired. Proposed amendments to the FAP require three-fourths approval by the Metro Board of Directors. Although the FAP was decided upon locally, the formula is also codified in state law. Thus, any changes to the FAP would also need to be reflected in state law.

At this time, there is one agency in LA County that has a specific FAP formula exception that addresses the fact that they do not collect fares (the City of Commerce). Since the agency does not collect fares, a zero base for Fare Units is used for City of Commerce in annual transit fund allocations.

Since Metro will maintain its $1.75 base fare for non-pilot participants, Access Services’ fare structure would remain. Based on current regulations, Access Services cannot charge more than double of Metro’s base fare. As such, if Metro were to go fully fareless, a legal review would be required to determine the direction of Access Services’ fares.

d. What Metro’s customer surveys tell us about fareless and other priorities.

The FSI Task Force distributed an external, county-wide survey in October 2020 to current and future Metro customers to uncover the public’s feedback and potential concerns, and to determine the level of support of a fully fareless system. Input was evaluated from 46,308 completed surveys. The audience was the general public with targeted advertising to Metro customers and non-customers, including the seven Los Angeles County subregions, and speakers of the following eight languages: English, Spanish, Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Vietnamese. Across all demographic groups, the survey responses indicated that 86 percent of Metro riders and 80 percent of non-Metro customers support Metro going fareless. Survey respondents expressed concerns, with the top concern relating to service, quality, and frequency: i. Impacts to the quality of service, including adequate service, crowding, safety and security, cleanliness, and the presence of persons experiencing homelessness (PEH). ii.Cuts to system expansion, service levels, salaries, system upkeep, security, and cleaning. e. Potential cost savings and implications for what can be realized through a fareless program for all residents through elimination of TAP infrastructure, administration of pass and subsidy programs, etc.

The current estimate of long-term fare collection function savings is $74.4m annually and is identified in the table below.

Metro Page 4 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

The elimination of fare collection infrastructure involves several variables: removal of fare collection property assets (fare boxes, ticket vending machines, etc.); elimination of fare collection-related vendor contracts; labor; and identification of viable alternatives to fare collection where necessary to maintain revenue collection for other TAP-reliant clients, products, and services (regional transit operators using the fare collection system, Metro Micro, Metro Parking and Metro Bike Share). During the FSI pilot period alternatives to TAP for these services would need to be identified, studied and implemented prior to the full elimination of fare collection infrastructure.

Fare Collection Property Assets (fare boxes, ticket vending machines, etc.) The removal of fare collection property assets will result in costs to Metro of approximately $2.2 million. Once removed, these assets have no resale value. Minimal labor costs savings resulting from removal of these assets is anticipated because personnel that maintain these assets can be reassigned to perform other maintenance related work that is already in their current job descriptions. There is no intention to layoff affected employees.

Fare Collection-related Vendor Contracts As of September 2020 there are approximately 24 active contracts that were identified as related to revenue collection, with a total contract value of $647 million and a remaining commitment of $294 million. Metro’s contract with Cubic Transportation System Inc., the revenue management platform that drives Metro’s fare collection system, is the largest

Metro Page 5 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0023, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number: 18.

Metro Page 6 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2021 powered by Legistar™ Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Board Report Los Angeles, CA

File #: 2021-0157, File Type: Motion / Motion Response Agenda Number: 43.1.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING MARCH 25, 2021

Motion by:

DIRECTORS HAHN, GARCETTI, SOLIS, NAJARIAN, MITCHELL, AND SANDOVAL

Related to Item 43: Fareless System Initiative

The time is right for Metro to consider fareless transit. We can get there, but we need more and better information and a clearer path forward.

Fareless transit must be applied equitably across Los Angeles County, focused on the communities most in need of free transit. And a fareless transit system must maintain our current efforts to create a fast, reliable, and dignified experience for all riders, especially riders who rely on transit as a lifeline.

A Fareless System Initiative (FSI) must be feasible and sustainable and take into account other strategic priorities, including Metro’s Long and Short Range Transportation Plans, the NextGen Bus Plan, 28 x ’28 Pillar Projects, Zero Emission Bus 2030, the Customer Experience Plan, and Traffic Reduction Study. We must also be accountable to our constituents who have placed their faith in Metro to deliver a major transit operations and construction program.

While fare revenues are not the sole revenue for Metro’s transit operations, they pay directly for transit operations and maintenance. They factor into the allocations of local transit sales taxes and the availability of state and federal grants. Eliminating fares could have major impacts to ongoing transit operations, including NextGen, post-pandemic service restoration, and future service improvements.

Metro and municipal agencies have worked hard to establish subsidies based on things like income, age, disability, school enrollment, transit provider, and City of residency. As the Board considers an FSI pilot, it is important to fully understand what discounts are already offered to better inform the benefit FSI will have to riders.

While Metro is the largest transit provider in LA County, municipal operators serve a quarter of our region’s riders. Riders who rely on municipal operators must be part of a fareless initiative.

Metro’s work to pursue a fareless transit initiative pilot is timely, urgent, and important. Yet, many questions remain unanswered. We need more information to ensure the success of a fareless initiative in the long term.

Metro Page 1 of 2 Printed on 3/19/2021 powered by Legistar™

Attachment C Funding Source Details

Alt Alt (A) Funding Need ($ in million) FY22 FY23 Notes for Alternative

Board Directed 7 million RSH, by 9/2021. Projected increased FSI $ pilot ridership is absorbed in 7m RSH. Will monitor & report Transit Service Increase* - service need monthly throughout the piloting period

Communications, Data Infrastructure, and Eligibility Processing 3.6 3.0 Communications and eligibility processing costs should increase

Defease General Purpose Bond 80.0 -

P&I Payment (12.0) (12.0) Total bond expenses under review Assumes gradual return to ridership, with 60% of low-income Fare Loss 16.3 134.4 riders participating in FY22, and increasing to 75% by FY23 Funding Need Total $ 88 $ 125 *Every 1% bus service increase will require funding of $12 to $14 million. Will monitor closely.

Potential (B) Budget Prioritization Preliminary Budget Savings Opportunities FY22 FY23 FY22 FY23 Notes Due to new buses, newer Rail Lines, there is potential to reduce bus unit cost from OT, Parts and Facility *Efficiency Savings on Bus and Rail cleaning contracts accounts. Recommend starting Operating and Maintenance (O&M) $ 2,038.9 $ 2,230.8 $ (40.8) $ (44.6) with 2% reduction per year Consider more gradual expansion to 9 zone until *MicroTransit Pilot Evaluation 39.6 40.7 (7.3) (7.4) assessment of pilot Align cashflow requirement based on actual expenditure rate of SGR, with no reduction to SGR *Assessment of SGR Cashflow Needs 452.3 462.7 (37.6) (37.0) projects *5% Agency Overhead, Adm and Support Department Cost Reduction 131.9 134.9 (6.6) (6.7)

Continue VSIP program (5.0) (10.0) 1/2 year for FY22 and full year for FY23

Reallocate LIFE to Pilot Pass 13.0 13.3 (8.4) (8.4) Metro portion only Potential Saving $(106) $ (114) *Ongoing discussions between Operations, FSI Task Force, OMB, and OCEO Additional Funding Strategies • Incremental advertising revenues from naming right and corporate sponsorship $23.8 FY21 budget • Discussions forthcoming with LA Unified School District to partner on funding K-12 Note • Preliminary budgets include all transit operations eligible resources, including Board adopted and anticipated CRSSAA and APRA distributions. • These options follow Board motion to maintain 7 million RSH, maintaining high quality customer experience, and no impact to SGR program.

Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Board Report Los Angeles, CA

File #: 2021-0023, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number: 18.

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE MARCH 17, 2021

SUBJECT: 2021 SHORT RANGE TRANSPORATION PLAN FINANCIAL FORECAST PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE

RECOMMENDATION

RECEIVE AND FILE the 2021 Short Range Transportation Plan Financial Forecast Planning Assumptions.

ISSUE

The Financial Forecast identifies the near-term projects and programs that Metro can fund in its Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP). The forecast is dependent on many planning assumptions and these are being presented to the Board for review and input so that an updated Financial Forecast can be submitted for adoption as part of the SRTP.

BACKGROUND The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was adopted by the Board in September 2020 and details how Metro will plan, build, operate, and maintain the Los Angeles County transportation system in the next 30 years. Metro must adopt a financially constrained LRTP to remain eligible for federal and state funding. The SRTP will be an action plan for the LRTP that recommends near-term implementation steps over a fifteen-year timeframe (FY22 to FY36) and reflects needed recalibrations due to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

The Financial Forecast identifies what can be funded in the SRTP and will determine how Metro programs its funding to specific uses. Metro takes action to pursue the funding based on the programming in the Financial Forecast, last adopted as part of the 2020 LRTP. Board input on the planning assumptions, particularly in the areas that the Board can influence, will identify the Board’s policy direction and allow staff to complete the Financial Forecast.

DISCUSSION

The following are key planning assumptions to be included in the SRTP update, and the impact these have on the Financial Forecast. The Metro Board will adopt the key planning assumptions, including

Metro Page 1 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

the Metro Board of Directors will decide whether to implement a traffic reduction pilot program in partnership with one or more cities. Should the Metro Board of Directors so choose, funds generated through a future congestion pricing program could be available to invest in a fareless system to make it easier for everyone to travel. The current anticipated program pilot launch is 2025.

b. A plan to decide how to evaluate the success of the program, including permanent funding sources and what would trigger an end to or continuation of the program;

Upon approval of an FSI Pilot, an evaluation plan will be developed and brought back to the Metro Board of Directors for consideration. The FSI Ad Hoc Committee has expressed deep interest in this topic and has volunteered to co-create evaluation metrics. This evaluation plan shall be adopted before commencement of the FSI Pilot and shall include performance criteria as well as thresholds for continuation of discontinuation of the FSI Program. Potential performance criteria will include financial sustainability, program participation, ridership increases, successful reallocation and training of Metro staff in support of the FSI pilot, and an acceptable level of service and safety on system. Performance criteria will be further detailed with the development of the evaluation plan. FSI Pilot performance monitoring will enable Metro to generate qualitative and quantitative data and understanding. Successful performance indications will be instrumental in justifying and seeking permanent funding. A lack of permanent funding will trigger the discontinuation of the program.

Sample Draft Pilot Performance Criteria Metrics (currently in Development)

Criteria Effectiveness Sustainability Efficiency Impact financial sustainability pilot program participation increased boarding by pilot participants level of service quality of service increased trip by low-income riders employee safety rider safety system security additional criteria additional criteria

c. A commitment to not cut service, state of good repair, or customer experience priorities;

Metro recognizes that the quality of public transit affects people’s economic and social

Metro Page 7 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

opportunities and the FSI pilot is intended to complement other Metro programs and initiatives which seek to provide quality transit. As Metro returns to pre-pandemic ridership and moves to enhance service and the customer experience, the FSI pilot will ensure our most vulnerable riders have access to free transportation. Any necessary adjustments to service or change in the agency’s priorities would require Board approval. There is a strong staff commitment to preserve and maintain the Board approved 7 million Revenue Service Hours standard and maintain all assets in a state of good repair. In addition to advancing the 7 million RSH, during the pilot Metro staff is planning for annual State of Good Repair commitments of $452 million in FY22 and $463 million in FY23, and an additional commitment of $208 million in FY22 for the Better Bus Initiative.

d. If a FSI pilot is approved, regular reports back to the Board on how the initiative is impacting ridership, equity, Metro’s finances, and the customer experience.

If a FSI pilot is approved, Metro staff will provide regular reports to the Metro Board including updates on how the pilot initiative is impacting ridership, equity, Metro’s finances, operations, security, and the customer experience.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact as a result of this receive and file report at this time.

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS This recommendation supports the following strategic plan goals identified in Vision 2028. Goal 3 - Enhance communities and lives through mobility and access to opportunity; Goal 4 - Metro will work with partners to build trust and make decisions that support the goals of the Vision 2028 Plan; and Goal 5 - Provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization. NEXT STEPS

Staff will bring final recommendations to the Metro Board of Directors for consideration in May 2021.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Motion 43.1 Attachment B - Pressley Markey Legislation News Clip Attachment C - Funding Source Details

Prepared by: doreen Morrissey, co-lead Fareless System Initiative, Principal Transportation Planner, (213) 418- 3421 Dennis Tucker, co-lead Fareless System Initiative, Director, (213) 418-3160 Fareless System Initiative Task Force

Reviewed by:

Metro Page 8 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

Metro Page 9 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0209, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number:

active contract with a total remaining contract value of $268 million. The Cubic contract expires in 2024. The leading concept identified for a proposed FSI pilot relies on the existing TAP system and the existing TAP related vendor contracts would remain in effect throughout the proposed pilot. The proposed pilot extends through June 2023.

Fare Collection Personnel There are approximately 409 positions identified as working directly with providing fare collection support services and maintaining fare collection infrastructure for a total of approximately $49 million in annual costs. Metro’s needs would be evaluated during the FSI pilot.

Other TAP Reliant products and services Metro’s TAP system provides fare media for Municipal Operators, Access Services, Metro Micro, Metro Bike Share, and Metro Parking. Alternatives to TAP for these services would need to be identified and studied during the FSI pilot period and implemented prior to the full elimination of TAP infrastructure.

Boarding Data (unlinked passenger trips) is required for federal and state reporting purposes. In 2019, TAP supplied 51% of all boarding data information, while the remaining 49% of boardings was collected through a combination of manual reporting by bus operators, field observations, and APC data. Since TAP data does not capture 49% of all boardings, manual and APC data collection practices will continue to be utilized to provide comprehensive boarding data. Demographic data reporting is required by the FTA in order to determine the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of programs receiving Federal financial assistance. Since cash boardings do not yield demographic data, and 88% of TAP cards are purchased anonymously from vendors and vending machines and therefore lack demographic data, Metro will continue to conduct passenger surveys to fulfill FTA demographic data reporting requirements. Linked and Unlinked Trip Data collected via TAP supports trip planning and travel demand modeling. 2. As part of any recommendation to implement a fareless initiative, provide the following: a. Funding Source detail, including what those funds could go to if not fareless transit;

The anticipated cost of the 18-month pilot is $213million : $88million during the 6-months of FY22 and another $125 million for FY23. Included in the FY22 number is a net amount of $68M to front-end/fully defease the General Purpose Bonds; County Counsel directed that this payment be included during the year in which the pilot begins, namely FY22. Please refer to Attachment C, which includes explanatory notes relating to funding.

Metro’s Traffic Reduction Study is currently studying how to traffic can be reduced by managing roadway demand through congestion pricing and providing more high-quality transportation options. Upon completion of the study, which is anticipated in Spring 2022,

Metro Page 6 of 9 Printed on 4/12/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0023, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number: 18. fares, tolls, project prioritization, discretionary new projects, and service levels as part of the SRTP adoption.

1. Sales tax forecast: The sales tax revenue projections use the FY22 budget amount then a forecast from UCLA Anderson School. The estimated FY22 budget amount of $865 million for each of the four Metro sales taxes is 6 percent less than assumed in the LRTP. The UCLA forecast has annual growth in the subsequent three years of 5 to 10 percent. But this will likely change in the next forecast available in July 2021, as the significantly lower short-term economic activity predicted in the forecast did not occur. The forecast determines the amount of capital, transit operations subsidy, and state of good repair that can be funded. Due to the lower estimated sales tax in comparison to the LRTP, reductions in capital and operating expenditures are needed, which could involve the delay of major capital projects and state-of- good-repair, and or fewer bus service hours.

2. State grants: The State transportation funding created from Senate Bill 1 (SB1) is based on a statewide estimate from the State Department of Finance. Future SB1 funding for Metro is lower in comparison to the LRTP for programs funded from fuel consumption (e.g., State Transit Assistance) but relatively unchanged for those that are fixed and adjusted for inflation. The Financial Forecast assumes Metro receives a percentage of the statewide estimate of discretionary and formula grants. The amount Metro receives from the longstanding State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and other State grant programs is based on historical awards. No new grant programs are assumed. The grants fund approximately 5 to 10 percent of Metro’s total capital program, operating subsidy, and state of good repair. For individual projects, SB1 grants fund up to 30 percent.

3. Federal grants: Federal grant amounts are assumed to be the same, in real dollars, as provided under the previous multiyear reauthorization bill, the FAST Act. No new grant programs are assumed. The grants fund about 10 percent of Metro’s total capital program, operating subsidy, and state of good repair. For individual projects, New Starts and other federal grants fund up to 50 percent. The projects that receive future New Starts funding are unchanged from the LRTP and Measure M Expenditure Plan and there is no assumed additional funding to Metro from other federal Capital Investment Grants (e.g., Expedited Project Delivery, Core Capacity, Small Starts). This could change if the Board takes action to fund specific projects prior to the completion of the SRTP Financial Forecast later in 2021. Should new or increased grant funding be made available through future federal legislation or other action, Metro will aggressively pursue this funding, as demonstrated by our prior success obtaining the most New Starts funding nationwide. Since 2015, Metro has received approximately $9 billion in competitive federal, State, and TIFIA grants

4. Fares: Fare revenue assumed is equal to the FY22 budget amount, which is significantly down from prior years because of lower transit ridership, then recurring increases that attain a 30% farebox recovery in 30 years. The farebox recovery assumption is consistent with the 2020 LRTP, 2009 LRTP, and financial plans submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in support of transit projects funded by Measure R and Measure M sales tax ordinances. Fares pay approximately 20 percent of transit operations. A lower fare assumption would require offsetting decreases in costs from service reductions or lower per unit costs, or alternative

Metro Page 2 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0023, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number: 18.

sources of revenue. A credible approach to lower unit costs or the generation of a stable, alternative source of operating revenue has not yet been identified. New or strategic projects and the resulting impact on fares are not included. Strategic projects like the Fareless System Initiative will be added subject to future Board approval.

5. Toll revenues: Revenues assumed are lower for the existing I-10 and I-110 segments due to reduced traffic flows. Future revenues are expected to recover and equal the amount estimated pre-COVID. The tolls fund the expansion of the ExpressLanes network. The assumed timing of each segment is based on financial feasibility as the previously completed segments fund future segments. The estimated net tolls after paying the costs of the network are not currently sufficient to fund other Metro capital projects or local projects adjacent to the network.

6. Capital project costs: Project costs assumed are equal to those in the adopted LRTP, or from separate Board actions (e.g., contract awards, “life of project” budgets) taken after the LRTP. The project costs are generally the same as the Measure R and M Expenditure Plans. Potentially higher project costs, which may have been determined as part of engineering, feasibility, environmental, or other studies, but where the Board has not yet formally recognized or approved the costs are not in the Financial Forecast. In the event the Board recognizes a higher project cost, a separate funding plan will be developed for Board approval and incorporated into the Financial Forecast. This could require tradeoffs, including the deferral, reduction, or elimination of other SRTP projects, or the inclusion of a new revenue source.

7. Capital project schedule: Major capital projects are assumed to be completed on the same schedules as the LRTP, and these are generally the same as the earliest Start Date in the Measure M Expenditure Plan. However, the planned completion of future capital projects, not already under construction, could be delayed for lack of available revenue, including the capacity to issue debt within existing Board policy. Measure M projects may be delayed up to 3 years after the earliest Start Date because of limited financial capacity. The first project to be delayed will be the first project that cannot be funded. The funding of projects will be reassessed each year when the Financial Forecast is updated and could change depending on overall Metro spending and revised revenue estimates.

8. New projects: If not in the LRTP, projects have been added only if the Board subsequently approved them or are otherwise mandated or supported by Board action, and these include NextGen changes to bus operations, the conversion to zero-emission buses, and an ExpressLanes network.

9. Strategic projects: No other new projects are included, except for any planning, environmental, pre-engineering, design, or other work that the Board has approved. The cost to construct or otherwise fund and implement projects including LINK US Phase 2, NextGen capital investments, Expanded ESOC, Centinela Grade Separation, Accelerated Measure M Projects, Rail-to-River, Congestion Pricing, Better Bus, Customer Experience, and the Fareless System are not in the Financial Forecast and no funding has been identified or programmed for these projects. In the event the Board pursues any of these projects, a separate funding plan will be

Metro Page 3 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0023, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number: 18.

developed for Board approval and incorporated into the Financial Forecast. This could require tradeoffs, including the deferral, reduction, or elimination of other SRTP projects, or addition of a new revenue source.

10.Bus service level: Bus service could be modified in comparison to the LRTP because of lower ridership since the start of the global pandemic. In February 2021, the Board directed full restoration of bus service hours in September 2021. In the future, Metro could consider a recommendation to adjust annual bus service hours from 7.0 million in FY20 (as adopted in the 2020 LRTP) to 6.2 million in FY23 and 6.5 million through FY36, based on the presumption that bus ridership does not return to pre-COVID levels and the amount of bus service that Metro can provide is financially constrained because of lower fare revenue and sales tax operating subsidy. We are seeking Board input on any targeted level of bus service hours given the actual and expected drop in ridership, fare revenue, and sales tax operating subsidy in comparison to the LRTP.

11.Rail service level: Rail service is consistent with the Metro budget, and the federally required Fleet Management Plan. The startup dates are tied to the SRTP schedule and reflect any assumed project delays. Most future rail service is unchanged from the LRTP.

Preliminary Results

The financial impact to Metro from the global pandemic and resulting restrictions on business and other activities is still being assessed. Metro sales tax revenue in FY20 and FY21 (estimated) is lower than the LRTP, but the magnitude of the loss is much less than initially projected in 2020. However, the forecast of sales tax is still lower due to COVID and requires additional debt financing to keep priority projects on schedule. Future projects may need to be deferred, in concept, because of a shortage of local funding, but this can be reevaluated each year. State funding is down slightly in comparison to the LRTP, and federal funding is about the same, in real dollars. No new grants or other funding are assumed that are not already in the LRTP.

The SRTP includes new projects that are mandated or Board-supported. But potential cost increases and other new projects that the Board has not approved are not included in the Financial Forecast and would need to be evaluated and added going forward, case-by-case.

The amount of transit fares and assumed level of bus service in the Financial Forecast is based on expected ridership and financial capacity. The funding for transit operations is dependent on costs, which are driven by the level of service, and revenue from the sales tax subsidy and farebox. The amount of sales tax eligible for operations is fixed by the ordinance, and both the sales tax and fare revenue have substantially declined due to COVID. The decline in revenue has been offset by ad hoc federal stimulus funding, but this is not an ongoing or recurring source. The falloff in transit revenue and ridership is expected to continue at least in the short term, and some form of cost reduction or new recurring revenue stream is needed to address the imbalance.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

The 2021 Short Range Transportation Plan Financial Forecast Planning Assumptions will have no

Metro Page 4 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0157, File Type: Motion / Motion Response Agenda Number: 43.1.

SUBJECT: FARELESS SYSTEM INITIATIVE

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE Motion by Directors Hahn, Garcetti, Solis, Najarian, Mitchell, and Sandoval that the Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to:

1. Report back at the April 2021 Board Meeting on the following regarding a possible FSI:

a. How Metro is including municipal operators in the planning process, including what it would cost to fully include them and how many of their riders would qualify;

b. All the subsidies Metro, Municipal Operators, and Cities already offer, including LIFE and U-Pass, and how those programs play a role in and inform a fareless initiative;

c. How fareless will impact the Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP), state and federal grants, and ACCESS Services; and,

d. What Metro’s customer surveys tell us about fareless and other priorities.

e. Potential cost savings and implications for what can be realized through a fareless program for all residents through elimination of TAP infrastructure, administration of pass and subsidy programs, etc.

2. As part of any recommendation to implement a fareless initiative, provide the following:

a. Funding source details, including what those funds could go to if not fareless transit;

b. A plan to decide how to evaluate the success of the program, including permanent funding sources and what would trigger an end to or continuation of the program;

c. A commitment to not cut service, state of good repair, or customer experience priorities; and,

d. If a FSI pilot is approved, regular reports back to the Board on how the initiative is impacting ridership, equity, Metro’s finances, and the customer experience.

Metro Page 2 of 2 Printed on 3/19/2021 powered by Legistar™ File #: 2021-0023, File Type: Informational Report Agenda Number: 18. impact on safety. The projects, programs, and other infrastructure improvements funded in the Financial Forecast could improve safety for both users and non-users of transit.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact related to this receive and file.

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

The Financial Forecast will support the SRTP, which is the implementation plan for the 2020 LRTP. The LRTP advances all five goals of Vision 2028, and the LRTP and SRTP will “operationalize” the Strategic Plan initiatives. The LRTP and SRTP advance the Strategic Plan performance outcome of increasing all non-solo driving mode share.

This item also supports the Strategic Plan Goal #5, which seeks to “Provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization.” The SRTP Financial Forecast helps ensure fiscal responsibility in how fund assignments are made and transparency in the agency’s investment decisions.

NEXT STEPS

Board input is needed to complete the Financial Forecast and will allow staff to identify and obtain the funding to continue the delivery of capital projects and help assess the key risks to the forecast, including sales tax volatility, project cost increases, new projects, and the ongoing funding of transit operations.

Over the next several months, staff will incorporate any Board actions regarding project costs and any new projects to be included, the FY22 budget, the July 2021 sales tax forecast, and any changes to the prioritization of approved projects, assumed transit service level, and fare assumptions. The completed SRTP Financial Forecast will be presented to the Board in the fall of 2021.

The other components of the SRTP will be prepared after the completion of the Financial Forecast.

Prepared by: Craig Hoshijima, DEO, Countywide Planning and Development, (213) 418-3384 Kalieh Honish, EO, Countywide Planning and Development, (213) 922-7109 Laurie Lombardi, SEO, Countywide Planning and Development, (213) 418-3251

Reviewed by: James de la Loza, Chief Planning Officer, (213) 922-2920

Metro Page 5 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2021 powered by Legistar™ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

2021 Short Range Transportation Plan Financial Forecast Planning Assumptions

March 2021 Background

• 2020 LRTP approved in September, next steps are: – Strategic project list, Financial forecast update, Prioritized actions, Implementation roadmap • The Short Range Financial Forecast (SRFF): – is dependent on key assumptions of future revenues, costs, and transit service levels

2 Key Assumptions

Revenues Costs • UCLA Anderson sales tax forecast • Board-approved • FY21 State DOF forecast • Inflation-adjusted • Extension of FAST Act • Tied to service levels • LRTP farebox recovery • No congestion pricing • No new value capture • Adhere to Metro Debt Policy New Projects Service Levels • Bus electrification • Bus service hours post-COVID • Next Gen service changes • Rail service per LRTP, fleet plan • Express Lanes network • Express Lanes pre-COVID

3 Cost Increases and New Projects

• Updated costs will be disclosed at key milestones – e.g., environmental report, life-of-project budget • Cost increases are guided by Metro policy

4 Preliminary Results

• Revenue and ridership down significantly • Future projects are assessed annually as they go through project development • Potential cost increases and other new projects are not included but will need to be addressed • Funding transit operations is dependent on level of service and available funds

5 Next Steps

• Metro staff and Board to confirm: – Budget and updated sales tax forecast – Transit service level – Fare assumptions updated per Board direction • Staff to present results to Board by end of 2021

AGENDA REPORT – BOARD ITEM 18 North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition Date: April 19, 2021 To: Governing Board Members of the North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition JPA From: Arthur V. Sohikian, Executive Director Subject: METRO TRAFFIC REDUTION STUDY (Congestion Pricing)

Recommended Action: Receive and File.

Fiscal Impact: Items mentioned in this report may have a future fiscal impact.

On February 18, 2021, the attached Metro Traffic Reduciton Study udpate, formerely called Congestion Pricing Study, was presented to the Metro Executive Management Committee and on February 25, 2021 the Study update was also presented to the Board of Directors.

On February 19 2021, the attached City of Santa Clarita letter was sent to Metro CEO Phil Washington.

North County Transportation Coalition JPA www.northcountytransportationcoalition.org 44933 N. Fern Avenue, c/o City of Lancaster, Lancaster CA 93534 Page 1 of 1

NCTC April 19, 2021 Board Report 18 Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Board Report Los Angeles, CA

File #: 2020-0913, File Type: Oral Report / Presentation Agenda Number: 44.

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 18, 2021

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC REDUCTION STUDY

ACTION: ORAL REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

RECEIVE oral report on Traffic Reduction Study.

Prepared by: Tham Nguyen, Senior Director, Office of Extraordinary Innovation, (213) 926-2724 Emma Huang, Principal Transportation Planner, Office of Extraordinary Innovation, (213) 660-9115

Reviewed by: Joshua Schank, Chief Innovation Officer, (213) 418-3345

Metro Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/10/2021 powered by Legistar™ February 2021 !"#$$%&'()*+&,%-.'/%0-,'/"-1"#2'3"#2)4-"5

!"#$%&"'&#&()$"*&(+",+#-

! !"#$%"&'()**+%&',(-$.,&%-/."0'+-/&1(+%+/.2&)/# ! 3(-4+#"&5-("&,+.,67$)8+'9&-1'+-/0&*-(&."''+/.&)(-$/#

./0+/&%*+)1)2,&'"+&*3/%/,)*)"2#$&("%)*)1/&"5*6"-/%7

:51(-4"&1$=8+%& ;$11-('& :51(-4"&',"& !"6+/4"0'&/"'& ,")8',&)/#&0)*"'9 "/4+(-/5"/')8&)/#& "%-/-59 ("4"/$"0&+/& "%-/-5+%&<$0'+%" %-55$/+'+"0& 0"(4"#>)**"%'"#

! Identify concepts for analysis

• Ability to respond to substantial congestion • Traffic reduction benefits easily described • Potential interested jurisdictions • Potential for rich transit and mobility options before pilot implementation • Potential to anticipate and minimize spillover traffic • Use natural or human-made structures as boundaries to greatest extent possible • Focus on commercial locations • Avoid bisecting neighborhoods

3 Opportunity for Significant Traffic Reduction

4 Concept Consideration Areas 1A & 1B

1A: Santa Monica Mountains (Corridor)

1B: US-101 & I-5 (Corridor)

5 Concept Consideration Areas 2 & 3

2: Downtown LA Freeways (Corridor)

3: Downtown LA (Cordon)

6 Concept Consideration Area 4: I-10 West of Downtown LA (Corridor)

7 !"#$%$&'#()*+%,()-.(

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