Members Jim Desmond, Chair Mayor, City of San Marcos (Representing North County Inland) Bill Sandke, Vice Chair Councilmember, City of Coronado (Representing South County) Georgette Gomez Councilmember, City of San Diego Ron Roberts TRANSPORTATION Supervisor, County of San Diego Bill Baber Councilmember, City of La Mesa COMMITTEE (Representing East County) Catherine Blakespear Mayor, City of Encinitas (Representing North County Coastal) AGENDA David Arambula Metropolitan Transit System Friday, April 20, 2018 John Aguilera Vice Chair, North County Transit District 9 a.m. to 12 noon April Boling SANDAG Board Room Director, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 401 B Street, 7th Floor Garry Bonelli San Diego Vice Chair, San Diego Unified Port District
Alternates Judy Ritter AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Mayor, City of Vista (Representing North County Inland) Mary Salas • DRAFT FY 2018 TransNet TRIENNIAL Mayor, City of Chula Vista (Representing South County) PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT AND RESPONSES Mark Kersey TO RECOMMENDATIONS Councilmember, City of San Diego Bill Horn Supervisor, County of San Diego • SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE 2019-2050 Greg Cox REGIONAL PLAN – DEVELOPMENT OF Supervisor, County of San Diego TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS Jennifer Mendoza Councilmember, City of Lemon Grove (Representing East County) • SANDAG CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET: Jewel Edson Councilmember, City of Solana Beach ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN WORK (Representing North County Coastal) SET-ASIDE Lorie Bragg Metropolitan Transit System Bill Horn / Mark Packard North County Transit District PLEASE SILENCE ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES DURING THE MEETING Vacant San Diego County Regional Airport Authority YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Michael Zucchet MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEBSITE AT SANDAG.ORG Commissioner, San Diego Unified Port District
Advisory Members MISSION STATEMENT Tim Gubbins / Ann Fox The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional Caltrans District 11 decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; Erica Pinto, Jamul Allen Lawson, San Pasqual plans, engineers, and builds public transit; and provides information on a broad range of topics Southern California Tribal pertinent to the region’s quality of life. Chairmen’s Association
Kim Kawada San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Chief Deputy Executive Director, SANDAG (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ sandag.org
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee (Committee) on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Request to Comment form, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the form to the Committee Clerk seated at the front table. Members of the public may address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
Both agenda and non-agenda comments should be sent to SANDAG via [email protected]. Please include the committee name and meeting date, agenda item, your name, and your organization. Any comments, handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the Committee meeting should be received by the Clerk of the Board no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting. All public comments and materials received by the deadline become part of the official project record, will be provided to the members for their review at the meeting, and will be posted to the agenda file as a part of the handouts following each meeting.
In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at www.sandag.org/meetings. Additionally, interested persons can sign up for e-notifications via our e-distribution list either at the SANDAG website or by sending an email request to [email protected].
SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints, and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to the SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900 or (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request, call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión.
如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.
请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求. SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or visit 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices.
2 012418 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, April 20, 2018
ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
The Transportation Committee is asked to review and approve the minutes from its April 6, 2018, meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Transportation Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to Committee members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
CONSENT
+3. STATE CAP AND TRADE URBAN GREENING PROGRAM: BALBOA ADOPT PARK PERSHING BIKEWAY/GREENWAY PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION (Chris Carterette)
The Transportation Committee is asked to adopt Resolution No. 2018-16, approving the submission of the Balboa Park Pershing Bikeway/Greenway Project grant application to the California Climate Investments Urban Greening Program.
+4. SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: PROPOSED 2018 ADOPT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN (Jack Christensen)
The Transportation Committee is asked to adopt the proposed 2018 Program Management Plan.
+5. SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: QUARTERLY INFORMATION STATUS UPDATE (Jack Christensen)
This report provides an update on the progress made by Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) and TransNet Senior Mini-Grant grant recipients.
3 REPORTS
+6. DRAFT FY 2018 TransNet TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT DISCUSSION AND RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS (Dustin Fuller, Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Chair; Ariana zur Nieden; and Cathy Brady, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc.)
The Transportation Committee is asked to discuss the draft FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit report, including staff responses to recommendations.
+7. CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVE QUALITY ACT EXEMPTION (Chris Carterette)
The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the California Environmental Quality Act exemption for the Central Avenue Bikeway.
+8. FY 2019 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Kim Monasi) RECOMMEND
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the submittal of Federal Transit Administration grant applications for the San Diego region; and (2) adopt Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Resolution No. RTC-2018-03, approving Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
+9. 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. 12 (Sue Alpert)
The 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (2016 RTIP) is the multi-year program of proposed major transportation projects in the San Diego region covering the period FY 2017 to FY 2021. The Transportation Committee is asked to adopt Resolution No. 2018-17, approving Amendment No. 12 to the 2016 RTIP.
+10. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE 2019-2050 REGIONAL PLAN – DISCUSSION DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS (Charles "Muggs" Stoll)
The Transportation Committee is asked to provide feedback on the proposed process to develop transportation network scenarios for San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan.
+11. SANDAG CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET: ENVIRONMENTAL AND DISCUSSION DESIGN WORK SET-ASIDE (José Nuncio)
The Transportation Committee is asked to provide feedback on potential options to include a set-aside dedicated to environmental and design work in the FY 2019 Program Budget.
4 12. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
If the five-speaker limit for public comments was exceeded at the beginning of this agenda, other public comments will be taken at this time. Subjects of previous agenda items may not again be addressed under public comment.
13. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, May 4, 2018, at 9 a.m.
14. ADJOURNMENT
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-1 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: APPROVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS APRIL 6, 2018
The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Jim Desmond (North County Inland) at 9 a.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (APPROVE)
Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Bill Baber (East County), and a second by Vice Chair Bill Sandke (South County), the Transportation Committee approved the meeting minutes of March 16, 2018. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Councilmember Baber, Mayor Catherine Blakespear (North County Coastal), Councilmember David Arambula (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), Vice Chair John Aguilera (North County Transit District [NCTD]), Ms. April Boling (San Diego County Airport Authority [SDCRAA]), and Commissioner Garry Bonelli (San Diego Unified Port District [SDUPD]). No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego and County of San Diego.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
John Wotzka, a member of the public, submitted written comments and spoke about various transportation matters.
Clive Richard, a member of the public, spoke positively about his recent transit experiences.
REPORTS
3. MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT
3A. STATUS UPDATE (INFORMATION)
John Haggerty, Division Director of Rail, provided an update on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.
3B. PROPOSED FY 2018 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: PEPPER CANYON STATION (RECOMMEND)
Carrie Schneider, San Diego Canyonlands, submitted written comments in opposition of the item.
Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Roberts, and a second by NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Executive Committee: (1) approve an amendment to the FY 2018 Program Budget to create a new Capital Improvement Program Project for the construction of betterments at Pepper Canyon Station; (2) accept $3.03 million from UC San Diego to fully fund the project; and (3) authorize the Executive Director to execute an amendment to the Construction Cooperation Agreement with UC San Diego related to the betterments. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Councilmember Georgette Gomez (City of San Diego), Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego), Councilmember Baber, Mayor Blakespear, Councilmember Arambula, NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, Ms. Boling, and Commissioner Bonelli. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
4. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE 2019-2050 REGIONAL PLAN – TRANSPORTATION NETWORK THEMES (DISCUSSION)
Elisa Arias, Principal Regional Planner, introduced the item.
Phil Trom, Senior Regional Planner, and Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning, provided an overview of potential transportation network themes for San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan.
Duncan McFetridge, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, submitted written comments.
Maya Rosas, Circulate San Diego, asked SANDAG to develop two transit advancing scenarios, one that amends TransNet and one that does not.
Sophie Wolfram, Climate Action Campaign, advocated for an outcome driven development process which addresses climate, clean air, and equity, and spoke about the public outreach goals at the upcoming workshops.
Action: This item was presented for discussion.
5. SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROGRAMS STATUS UPDATE (INFORMATION)
Susan Freedman, Senior Regional Planner, and Anna Lowe, Associate Regional Planner, presented an update on the promotion of electric vehicle and charging infrastructure programs in the San Diego region.
Action: This item was presented for information.
6. REGIONAL TRANSIT FARE STUDY UPDATE (INFORMATION)
Brian Lane, Senior Regional Planner, Sharon Cooney, MTS, and Damon Blythe, NCTD, provided an update on the Regional Transit Fare Study and potential changes to regional transit fares that MTS, NCTD, and SANDAG are considering to simplify the fare structure and keep pace with rising operational costs.
2
Ms. Rosas spoke in support of fare simplification efforts, and asked transit agencies to consider free or reduced transfers, especially for non-monthly pass holders.
Action: This item was presented for information.
7. UPDATE ON SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (INFORMATION)
Ms. Boling and Ted Anasis, SDCRAA, presented the item.
Action: This item was presented for information.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no continued public comments.
9. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, April 20, 2018.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Desmond adjourned the meeting at 12 p.m.
3 Meeting Start Time: 9 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 12 p.m. CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 6, 2018
JURISDICTION NAME MEMBER / ALTERNATE ATTENDING
Catherine Blakespear Member Yes North County Coastal Jewel Edson Alternate Yes
Jim Desmond (Chair) Member Yes North County Inland Judy Ritter Alternate Yes
Bill Baber Member Yes East County Jennifer Mendoza Alternate Yes
Bill Sandke (Vice chair) Member Yes South County Mary Salas Alternate No
Georgette Gomez Member Yes City of San Diego Mark Kersey Alternate No
Ron Roberts Member Yes
County of San Diego Bill Horn Alternate No
Greg Cox Alternate No
David Arambula Member Yes Metropolitan Transit System Lorie Bragg Alternate Yes
John Aguilera Member Yes
North County Transit District Bill Horn Alternate No
Mark Packard Alternate No
San Diego County Regional Airport April Boling Member Yes Authority VACANT Alternate --
Garry Bonelli Member Yes San Diego Unified Port District Michael Zucchet Alternate No
ADVISORY MEMBERS
Tim Gubbins Member Yes Caltrans Ann Fox Alternate No
Erica Pinto Member Yes SCTCA Allen Lawson Member No
Kristina Svensk NCTD Yes Other Attendees Paul Jablonski MTS Yes
Ex Officio Steve Vaus SANDAG Board Vice Chair Yes
4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-3 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: ADOPT
STATE CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM URBAN File Number 1223057 GREENING PROGRAM: BALBOA PARK PERSHING BIKEWAY/ GREENWAY PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION
Introduction Recommendation
The Urban Greening Program is a state cap and trade The Transportation Committee is asked to program administered by the California Natural adopt Resolution No. 2018-16, approving Resources Agency (CNRA) that funds projects that the submission of the Balboa Park Pershing reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, Bikeway/Greenway project grant decreasing energy consumption, and reducing vehicle application to the California Climate miles traveled, while also transforming the built Investments Urban Greening Program, in environment into places that are more sustainable, substantially the same form as enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and Attachment 2. vibrant communities. The CNRA recently announced a call for projects, providing $25 million in competitive grant funding statewide.
Based on the eligibility criteria for projects under this grant program, SANDAG staff recommends the submission of a joint application with the Balboa Park Conservancy for the Pershing Bikeway/ Greenway Project.
Proposed Project Submittal
The Pershing Bikeway/Greenway Project is a component of the Pershing Bikeway, one of the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (EAP) projects. This project builds 2.6 miles of bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic calming improvements largely along Pershing Drive, connecting downtown San Diego with the North Park Community. It provides a key north-south connection to additional bikeways currently under design, including the City of San Diego’s Downtown Mobility Plan and segments of the SANDAG North Park Mid-City Bikeways (Attachment 1). Given the project’s proximity to Balboa Park and the urban greening elements it can incorporate, staff has determined this project would prove competitive at the statewide level.
The project would include planting more than 180 trees, and the necessary irrigation, along the project area, and stormwater treatments. These components total approximately $1.8 million. This grant would enhance the project budget and make it possible for these additional elements to be included. The project application has broad support from City of San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Council District 3 Member Chris Ward, State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins, State Assemblymember Todd Gloria, and local advocacy organizations. As with other Regional Bikeway EAP projects, SANDAG would construct these improvements and the local jurisdiction (City of San Diego) would operate and maintain. Proposed Resolution
One of the requirements of the grant submittal is an authorizing resolution from SANDAG (Attachment 2). The grant application was submitted by the April 11, 2018, deadline with a draft resolution, which was permittable along with the anticipated date of the approved resolution. The provisions in Attachment 2 reflect the requirements of the CNRA.
Next Steps
Pending adoption by the Transportation Committee, the executed resolution will be submitted to the CNRA to complete the grant application.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Map – Pershing Bikeway 2. Resolution No. 2018-16: Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for California Climate Investments Urban Greening Program
Key Staff Contact: Chris Carterette, (619) 699-7319, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
LANDIS
8TH
7TH
NORTH PARK 30TH
UTAH
HERBERT CAPPS
ALBERT
RICHMOND
VILLA
CRESTWOOD GEORGIA FLORDIA ALABAMA PARK INDIANA WILSHIRE
ARNOLD
RAY
TEXAS
28 TH
29TH
GRIM
ARIZONA
7TH LOUISIANA MYRTLE UPAS UPAS
MORLEY FIELD JACARANDA
JACARANDA THORN
6TH
30TH ZOO PERSHING REDWOOD BIKEWAY
29TH
SAN DIEGO ZOO 28TH PALM
BALBOA BALBOA PARK NUTMEG VILLAGE
FLORIDA MAPLE R ZOO D G IN
PARK H 163 S R PE
JUNIPER
IVY NAVAL HAWTHORN
30TH
08TH AVENUE MEDICAL CENTER BALBOA PARK 28TH GRAPE SAN DIEGO GOLF COURSE FIR
ELM
DATE
CEDAR R CEDAR D G SAN DIEGO IN BEECH H BEECH
S GROVE HIGH SCHOOL 5 R E P ASH ASH & SAN DIEGO CITY COLLEGE
B ST B ST
C ST C ST
27TH
28TH
26TH 29TH
30TH
8TH
7TH
10TH 11TH BROADWAY BROADWAY
E E
E ST TREAT 20TH
22ND 23TH 24TH 25TH 21ST
PARK F F 94
17TH 15TH
16TH
14TH
13TH MARKET 5 NORTH DOWNTOWN No scale
0 0.25 0.5MILES May 2017 3 3547 Attachment 2
401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR CALIFORNIA CLIMATE INVESTMENTS URBAN GREENING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the program shown above; and
WHEREAS, the California Natural Resources Agency has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of this grant program, establishing necessary procedures; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Natural Resources Agency require a resolution certifying the approval of application(s) by the Applicants governing board before submission of said application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the Project; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the San Diego Association of Governments:
1. Approves the filing of an application for the Balboa Park Pershing Bikeway/Greenway Project;
2. Certifies that applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application, and
3. Certifies that applicant or title holder will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project consistent with the land tenure requirements; or will secure the resources to do so, and
4. Certifies that it will comply with the provisions of Section 1771.5 of the State Labor Code, and
5. If applicable, certifies that the project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, disabled access laws, environmental laws and, that prior to commencement of construction, all applicable permits will have been obtained, and
6. Certifies that applicant will work towards the Governor’s State Planning Priorities intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety as included in Government Code Section 65041.1, and
4 7. Appoints the (designate position, not person occupying position) ______, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project(s).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th of April 2018.
ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico.
5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: ADOPT
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: File Number 3320100 PROPOSED 2018 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction Recommendation
As the designated recipient of the Federal Transit The Transportation Committee is asked Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility to adopt the proposed 2018 Program for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program Management Plan. funds for the region, SANDAG is required to maintain a Program Management Plan (PMP) to describe the policies and procedures for administering the Specialized Transportation Grant Program. The Transportation Committee opened a 15-day public comment period on March 16, 2018. During this time, staff notified stakeholders of this comment period to solicit feedback and no feedback requiring edits to the PMP was received.
Discussion
The PMP describes SANDAG policies and procedures for administering its Specialized Transportation Grant Program, which includes the FTA Section 5310 and TransNet Senior Mini-Grant programs.
Federal guidance for Section 5310 (FTA Circular 9070.1G) requires that SANDAG develop a PMP to facilitate grant management and FTA oversight over the program. This PMP is designed to ensure that all applicable SANDAG policies and federal, state, and local statutes and regulations are fulfilled. Specifically, the purpose of this PMP is to:
1. Provide guidance to local project applicants, subrecipients of federal funds, and TransNet grantees;
2. Provide public information on the administration of SANDAG’s Specialized Transportation Grant Program; and
3. Serve as the basis for FTA to perform management reviews of SANDAG administration of Section 5310.
The intent of this plan is to ensure that the maximum possible benefit is enjoyed by the community through a fair and equitable distribution of available funds and the effective administration and monitoring of the specialized transportation grant program. Staff made various changes to the PMP since its last update in 2015. Most changes were related to adjustments to staff roles and responsibilities, including the addition of the Grants Administrator position and duties, updates to oversight procedures, and revisions to various forms. Several notable changes include: adding non-cost related performance indicators to maximize oversight and compliance; streamlining vehicle procurement procedures; updating Title VI, Americans with Disabilities Act, and service quality standards; making federal regulation references current; and providing clarifications on flow-down requirements to third-party contractors.
Federal guidance required SANDAG to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to review the PMP when multiple revisions are made to the existing plan.
During the 15-day public comment period, staff presented the PMP to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council and solicited feedback from grantees and other stakeholders. SANDAG staff did not receive any feedback that would require any edits to the draft PMP.
Next Steps
Pending adoption by the Transportation Committee, SANDAG staff will post the 2018 Program Management Plan to the website and notify stakeholders of adoption, and submit it to the FTA.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachment: 1. Draft 2018 Specialized Transportation Program Management Plan
Key Staff Contact: Jack Christensen, (619) 699-6995, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
Agenda Item No. 4 — Attachment 1: Draft 2018 Specialized Transportation Program Management Plan
The full document in electronic format can be downloaded at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_553_23453.pdf
A reference copy will be available at the meeting. For a hard copy, please contact the Public Information Office at (619) 699-1950 or [email protected].
3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-5 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: INFORMATION
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: File Number 3320200 QUARTERLY STATUS UPDATE
Introduction
This report provides an update on the Specialized Transportation Grant Program (STGP) through the quarter ending December 31, 2017. This program is funded by two sources that SANDAG manages for specialized transportation projects and services in the San Diego region: The Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) Program, and the Senior Mini-Grant Program. The Section 5310 Program is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Senior Mini-Grant Program is funded through the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
Both programs require that SANDAG conduct a competitive selection process every two years to distribute the funds. The competitive process is guided by Board Policy No. 035: Competitive Grant Program Procedures, for both TransNet Senior Mini-Grant and Section 5310 funding sources.
Discussion
Grant Programs Status Update
Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, SANDAG was designated to administer the FTA Section 5310 Program. The purpose of the Section 5310 Program is to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities by removing barriers to transportation services and expanding transportation mobility options. Eligible projects include both traditional capital investment and nontraditional investment beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service. Since the Section 5310 Program began in 2015, 31 projects have been awarded funding in the San Diego region, totaling almost $8 million.
The Senior Mini-Grant Program funds specialized transportation services for seniors whose special needs cannot be met by conventional transit or paratransit service. Since the Senior Mini-Grant Program began in 2009, 69 projects have been awarded funding, totaling $14.6 million. Grant Oversight
SANDAG staff provides ongoing oversight of the STGP grantees through review of progress reports and project performance submitted with each invoice. Grantees must maintain documentation of the services provided and are inspected by SANDAG at regular monitoring visits to ensure compliance with grant agreement and service delivery requirements and Board Policy No. 035. This information is used to provide regular status updates to the Transportation Committee. The last report was presented at the July 21, 2017, meeting. Staff also provides annual updates to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council on all STGP and to the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) on the Senior Mini-Grant Program.
Service Delivery Costs
Attachment 1 includes a “cost-efficiency watch list,” which compares the grantees’ actual cost-per-unit of service delivery to the original proposal. Grant agreements for these programs executed after January 1, 2012, include a performance threshold provision where a grantee must fall within 130 percent of its proposed cost-per-unit by the end of the sixth month of the project or trigger a requirement for the grantee to complete a recovery plan. By the end of the first year, if the grantee is still unable to achieve the 130 percent threshold, the grant agreement could be terminated. The cost-efficiency watch list identifies grantees that may be required to complete a recovery plan or are in danger of contract termination because performance is not in line with the level of service delivery included in the original proposal, per the contract requirements. There is currently one grantee on the cost-efficiency watch list:
• City of Coronado: The ITOC recommended and the Transportation Committee approved a project schedule and scope of work amendment in February and March 2018, respectively, to the City of Coronado's Out and About Volunteer Driver Program. This request lowered the number of one-way passenger trips from 16,560 to 4,231 and increased the cost per trip from $6.64 to $26. The amendment is pending execution. The project no longer will be on the cost efficiency watch list once the amendment is executed.
Service Delivery Schedule
Attachment 1 also includes a “schedule watch list,” which identifies the grantees that appear in jeopardy of not being able to fully draw down on funds without approval of an extension. Board Policy No. 035 sets forth the process to extend project completion deadlines. In accordance with Board Policy No. 035, schedule extensions of up to six months can be approved administratively by the SANDAG Executive Director. The grantee must request the extension in writing and document previous efforts undertaken to maintain the project schedule, explain the reasons for the delay, explain why the delay is unavoidable, and demonstrate an ability to succeed in the extended time frame the grantee proposes. Extensions longer than six months require approval by the Transportation Committee. There are two projects on the schedule watch list:
• City of Coronado: The ITOC recommended and the Transportation Committee approved a project schedule and scope of work amendment in February and March 2018, respectively, to the City of Coronado's Out and About Volunteer Driver Program. This request lowered the number of one-way passenger trips from 16,560 to 4,231 and increased the cost per trip from $6.64 to $26. The amendment is pending execution. The project no longer will be on the schedule watch list once the amendment is executed.
2 • The City of La Mesa’s volunteer driver and shuttle project (5004693 and 500702) would require a nine-month extension at its current draw-down rate. The grant is not set to expire until June 29, 2018. Staff is working with the grantee on strategies to get back on the project schedule. An additional schedule assessment will be conducted at the end of May 2018.
Pending Grants
Due to the operating nature of specialized transportation grants, when a new grant is awarded to continue a project that already has an existing grant, the start date of that new grant would begin upon termination of the existing grant for that same project. Staff tracks anticipated start dates for each new grant. Attachment 1 indicates which projects have pending grants and the anticipated start date of each new grant. Several grantees have pending grants that were awarded by the Board of Directors on March 24, 2017. Of those approved awards, start dates for those projects began July 1, 2017, and future pending grants will begin on a rolling basis as active grants terminate.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to monitor all grantee progress relative to the grant agreements and Board Policy No. 035. The next report will be presented to the Transportation Committee in July 2018.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Status of Active and Pending Senior Mini-Grant Projects - Reporting Period through December 31, 2017 2. Status of Active and Pending 5310 Grant Projects - Reporting Period through December 31, 2017
Key Staff Contact: Jack Christensen, (619) 699-6995, [email protected]
3 Status of Active and Pending Senior Mini‐Grant Projects Reporting period through December 31, 2017 Attachment 1
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual ElderHelp — 5004701 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $22.08 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $109,831.25 $116,647.50 $178,432.14 06/30/2016 – 06/29/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $18.02 $17.60 This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progressing in a timely Trips 13,335 12,048 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Cost/Trip** $16.98 $14.81 78.79% Pending Grant? NO 40.65% 35.17% performance threshold.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual City of Vista — 5004705 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $15.06 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $132,713.75 $132,653.83 08/01/2016 – 10/31/2017 Cost Efficiency NO $68.94 $33.63 Trips 11,454 9,565 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization This volunteer driver, shuttle, and taxi script project is complete. Cost/Trip** $11.59 $13.87 99.95% Pending Grant? NO 98.30% 57.00%
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual City of La Mesa — 5004702 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $32.83 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $301,098.94 06/30/2016 – 06/29/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $39.52 $7.36 This volunteer driver and shuttle project is operating at a level of cost efficiency within the performance threshold, but would require a Trips 19,800 19,973 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule YES Seat Utilization nine‐month extension to draw down on all remaining funding. Staff is Cost/Trip** $25.25 $15.08 60.22% Pending Grant? YES 59.93% 42.17% wokring closely with the grantee on strategies to get back on the
Facilitating Access to Coordinated Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Actual*** Grant Term Comments Transportation (FACT) RideFACT — 5004707 Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $14.77 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $442,498.00 10/01/2016 – 03/30/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $137.36 $39.71 This subsidized senior and disabled transportation project is progressing in a timley manner and operating at a level of cost Trips 44,000 48,151 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization efficiency within the performance threshold. A six‐month extension Cost/Trip** $11.36 $9.19 88.50% Pending Grant? YES 41.67% 37.59% was executed in August 2017.
Mountain Health and Community Services — Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Actual*** Grant Term Comments 5004708 Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $36.18 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour
Project Cost* $66,018.75 $66,902.50 $116,996.91 07/01/2015 – 7/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $50.41 $29.44 This volunteer driver project is progressing in a timley manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the performance Trips 4,776 3,537 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization threshold. A six‐month extension was executed in April 2017. In addition, the ITOC recommended and the Transportation Committee Cost/Trip** $27.83 $33.08 88.02% Pending Grant? NO 138.19% 51.48% approved a seven‐month extension to the project.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Comments City of Coronado — 5004696 Actual*** Grant Term Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $8.63 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour The ITOC recommended and the Transportation Committee approved a project schedule and performance indicator amendment in March Project Cost* $59,972.50 $50,027.50 $40,273.03 07/01/2016 – 06/30/2018 Cost Efficiency YES $33.21 $76.86 2018 to the City of Coronado's volunteer driver program. The Trips 16,560 1,026 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule YES Seat Utilization amendment is pending execution. The project will no longer be on the schedule or cost‐efficiency watch list once the amendment is Cost/Trip** $6.64 $39.25 36.61% Pending Grant? NO 66.67% 34.58% executed.
4
* Project cost includes the Senior Mini‐Grant amount and the required match amount ** Cost per trip based on first year figures *** Cumulative to date **** 130% of proposed first year cost/trip Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Peninsula Shepherd Senior Center — 5004700 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $17.41 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $60,000.00 $65,000.00 $124,999.85 02/01/2016 – 01/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $9.18 $12.02 Trips 9,334 10,698 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization This volunteer driver and shuttle project is complete. Cost/Trip** $13.39 $11.68 100.00% Pending Grant? YES 73.80% 83.40%
Jewish Family Service Eastern San Diego — Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Actual*** Grant Term Comments 5004699 Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $20.50 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $178,648.75 $184,006.25 $310,904.14 02/01/2016 – 07/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $24.04 $24.47 This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progressing in a timley manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Trips 23,000 20,731 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization performance threshold. A six‐month administrative extension was Cost/Trip** $15.77 $15.00 85.73% Pending Grant? YES 38.99% 33.44% executed in January 2018.
Jewish Family Service North County Inland San Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Actual*** Grant Term Comments Diego — 5004698 Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $15.04 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $173,828.75 $179,043.75 $289,215.04 02/01/2016 – 07/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO $15.11 $15.21 This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progressing in a timley manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Trips 30,500 18,479 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization performance threshold. A six‐month administrative extension was Cost/Trip** $11.57 $15.65 81.96% Pending Grant? YES 33.01% 33.40% executed in January 2018.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Traveler's Aid — 5005197 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $9.88 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $244,418.75 $250,000.00 $142,231.55 07/01/2017 – 06/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO $24.48 $7.55 This vounteer driver and subsidized transportation project is Trips 65,560 41,219 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization progressing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost Cost/Trip** $7.60 $3.45 28.77% Pending Grant? NO 59.28% 71.02% efficiency within the performance threshold.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual City of Oceanside — 5005198 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $20.44 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $117,941.24 07/01/2017 – 06/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO $25.64 $24.00 This volunteer driver & shuttle project is progressing in a timely Trips 31,800 8,637 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Cost/Trip** $15.72 $13.66 23.59% Pending Grant? YES 40.03% 38.91% performance threshold.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual FACT Mobility Management — 5005195 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $11.13 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $80,836.75 07/01/2017 – 06/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO N/A N/A This mobility management project is progressing in a timely manner Units 58,400 24,832 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the performance Cost/Unit** $8.56 $3.26 16.17% Pending Grant? NO N/A N/A threshold.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Renewing Life — 5005200 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $21.67 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $44,445.81 07/01/2017 – 06/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO $13.72 $110.56 This volunteer driver & shulttle project is progressing in a timely Units 12,000 3,016 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Cost/Unit** $16.67 $14.74 22.22% Pending Grant? YES 58.54% 10.57% performance threshold.
FACT Consolidated Transportationn Services Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Actual*** Grant Term Comments Agency — 5005194 Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $7.50 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $42,734.38 07/01/2017 – 06/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO N/A N/A This regional coordination project is progressing in a timely manner Units 43,350 24,832 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the performance Cost/Unit** $5.77 $1.72 17.09% Pending Grant? YES N/A N/A threshold.
Contract Watch List Proposed Actual Jewish Family Service North San Diego ‐ 5005191 Actual*** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold**** $20.10 Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Project Cost* $197,420.00 $204,601.25 $36,710.08 10/1/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO $19.63 $23.78 This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progressing in a timley Units 26,000 2,782 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO Seat Utilization manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Cost/Unit** $15.46 $13.20 9.13% Pending Grant? YES 33% 35% performance threshold.
5 * Project cost includes the Senior Mini‐Grant amount and the required match amount ** Cost per trip based on first year figures *** Cumulative to date **** 130% of proposed first year cost/trip Status of Active and Pending 5310 Grant Projects Attachment 2 Reporting period through December 31, 2017
Contract Watch List FACT RideFACT ‐ 5004689 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $21.27 Project Cost* $360,000.00 $360,000.00 $637,260.90 10/01/2015 ‐ 3/30/2018 Cost Efficiency NO This subsidized senior and disabled transportation project is progressing in a timely manner and operating at a level of Trips 44,000 47,868 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO cost efficiency within the performance threshold. Cost/Trip $16.36 $13.31 88.51% Pending Grant? NO
Contract Watch List JFS North County Inland 5004685 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $16.04 Project Cost* $185,416.00 $190,982.00 $308,552.74 2/01/2016 ‐ 7/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progressing in a timley manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency Units 30,500 18,492 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO within the performance threshold. A six‐month administrative extension was executed in January 2018. Cost/Unit $12.34 $16.69 81.98% Pending Grant? YES
Contract Watch List JFS Eastern San Diego 5004686 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $21.86 Project Cost* $190,558.00 $196,278.00 $330,986.64 2/01/2016 ‐ 7/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progressing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency Trips 23,000 20,731 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO within the performance threshold. A six‐month administrative extension was executed in January 2018. Cost/Trip $16.82 $15.97 85.56% Pending Grant? YES
Contract Watch List St. Madeleine Sophie's Center 5004694 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $1.97 Project Cost* $383,854.00 $383,854.00 $749,542.38 10/01/2015 ‐ 3/31/2018 Cost Efficiency NO This shuttle project is progressing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the performance Trips 507,027 516,658 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO threshold. In September 2017, a six‐month time exension was executed to ensure the grantee can draw down on all Cost/Trip $1.51 $1.45 97.63% Pending Grant? YES remaining funding.
Contract Watch List City of La Mesa 5004693 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $19.70 Project Cost* $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $179,124.14 6/30/2016 ‐ 6/29/2018 Cost Efficiency NO This volunteer driver and shuttle project is operating at a level of cost efficiency within the performance threshold, but would require a nine‐month extension to draw down on all remaining funding. Staff is wokring closely with the grantee Trips 19,800 19,979 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule YES on strategies to get back on the project schedule. An additional schedule assessment will be made at the end of May Cost/Trip $15.15 $8.97 59.71% Pending Grant? YES 2018.
Contract Watch List JFS Northern San Diego 5005181 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $20.10 Project Cost* $197,420.00 $204,601.25 $24,473.36 10/01/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO This volunteer driver and shuttle project is progessing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency Trips 26,000 2,782 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO within the performance threshold. Cost/Trip $15.46 $8.80 6.09% Pending Grant? NO
Contract Watch List FACT CTSA Mobility Management 5005184 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $7.50 Project Cost* $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $24,473.36 10/01/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO This mobility management project is progessing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Units 43,350 2,782 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO performance threshold. Cost/Trip $5.77 $8.80 9.79% Pending Grant? NO
Contract Watch List FACT RideFACT Brokerage 5005185 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $11.13 Project Cost* $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $81,585.88 10/01/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO This brokerage model project is progessing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Units 58,400 13,157 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO performance threshold. Cost/Trip $8.56 $6.20 16.32% Pending Grant? NO
Travelers Aid RideFinder Mobility Management Contract Watch List Actual** Grant Term Comments 5005186 Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $16.90 Project Cost* $47,125.00 $47,125.00 $14,262.78 10/01/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO This mobility management project is progessing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within the Units 7,250 1,182 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO performance threshold. Cost/Trip $13.00 $12.07 15.13% Pending Grant? NO
Contract Watch List Travelers Aid RideEasy 5005187 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $10.03 Project Cost* $68,075.00 $70,797.50 $15,287.76 10/01/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO This taxi voucher, volunteer driver, and on‐demand operating project is progessing in a timely manner and operating at Units 18,000 364 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO a level of cost efficiency above the performance threshold, but the contract allows six months from the start date to bring down cumulative cost. The data reflected is three months from the project's start date. Cost/Trip $7.72 $42.00 11.01% Pending Grant? NO
Contract Watch List Noah Homes Resident Transportation 5005188 Actual** Grant Term Comments Year 1 Year 2 Performance Threshold*** $4.56 Project Cost* $251,432.00 $256,318.00 $65,753.96 10/01/2017 ‐ 9/30/2019 Cost Efficiency NO This resident transportation project is progessing in a timely manner and operating at a level of cost efficiency within Units 144,768 11,979 Percent of Funding Expended Schedule NO the performance threshold. Cost/Trip $3.51 $5.49 12.95% Pending Grant? NO
* Project cost includes the grant amount and the required match amount 6 ** Cumulative to date ***130% of proposed first year cost/trip AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-6 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: DISCUSSION
DRAFT FY 2018 TransNet TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE File Number 1500200 AUDIT REPORT AND RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, one of the responsibilities of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is to conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs to review project delivery, cost control, schedule adherence, and related activities. The ITOC conducted the FY 2018 Triennial Performance Audit (fourth performance audit), covering the three-year period FY 2015 through FY 2017, with the assistance of an independent auditor in accordance with the requirements of the TransNet Extension Ordinance. ITOC Chair Dustin Fuller and staff from the audit firm of Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., will present the draft audit report for discussion by the Transportation Committee.
Discussion
The ITOC selected Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. to conduct the FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit on its behalf. Changes to operational processes and overall performance of programs since the third audit (FY 2015 performance audit) were examined, along with recommendations to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TransNet Program.
Key audit results reveal that SANDAG and its partner agencies have made significant progress towards accomplishing many TransNet goals. The audit also found that while solid practices over areas such as capital construction of projects, Environmental Mitigation Program activities, and transit services are in place, SANDAG should continue implementing a formal performance framework to track accomplishments against the TransNet Extension Ordinance goals.
The ITOC reviewed the draft report at its April 11, 2018, meeting, including the audit recommendations for program improvements, and SANDAG staff prepared responses to the audit recommendations, which are included in Appendix H (Auditee Response) of the draft report (pp. 163 to 168 of Attachment 1).
In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the ITOC must make available its draft audit report and recommendations to the Transportation Committee 60 days prior to final adoption by the ITOC to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues. Next Steps
The ITOC is scheduled to adopt the final report for the FY 2018 Triennial Performance Audit at its July 11, 2018, meeting. Pending adoption by the ITOC, the final performance audit results are scheduled for presentation at the July 27, 2018, Board of Directors meeting as part of the broader 2018 ITOC Annual Report presentation.
JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director
Attachment: 1. Draft FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Report and SANDAG Staff Initial Responses
Key Staff Contact: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected]
2 Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
TransNet Triennial Performance Audit - 2018
Task 6: Draft Report
April 2018
455 Capitol Mall • Suite 700 • Sacramento, California • 95814 • Tel 916.443.1300 • www.secteam.com
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
Summary of Recommendations...... 7
Glossary of Terms ...... 13
Introduction and Background ...... 15
Scope and Methodology ...... 19
Chapter 1: TransNet Financing ...... 21
Chapter 2: Performance Framework ...... 45
Chapter 3: Major Corridor Capital Construction ...... 57
Chapter 4: Local Street and Road ...... 73
Chapter 5: Transit Services ...... 79
Chapter 6: Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation ...... 93
Chapter 7 : Environmental Mitigation Program ...... 99
Chapter 8: Information and Transparency ...... 109
Chapter 9: Conclusions and Summary of Agency Response to Recommendations ...... 117
Appendix A: TransNet Project Status ...... 127
Appendix B: Detailed Audit Methodology ...... 135
Appendix C: CMGC Project Delivery Leading Practices ...... 141
Appendix D: Systemwide Transit Performance Metrics ...... 145
Appendix E: Status of Prior Performance Audit Recommendations ...... 153
Appendix F: Assessment of ITOC’s Performance ...... 155
Appendix G: List of Auditees and Stakeholder Interviewers ...... 157
Appendix H: Auditee Response ...... 161
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | i
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2017, the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) selected Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. (SEC), to conduct the required triennial performance audit of the TransNet Program for the three-year period between Fiscal Years 2015 and 2017. Because the audit was conducted simultaneously with the TransNet 10-Year Look-Back Review required by the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, relevant data since the start of the TransNet was incorporated, as appropriate.
Mostly, we found that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and its TransNet partners were on track towards meeting the primary goals of TransNet as outlined for voters at the 10-year mark of the 40-year program—with the exception of mixed results for relieving congestion and improving safety. Since the start of the TransNet Extension Ordinance 61 percent of major corridor projects were either completed or in-process and significant progress was made toward many of the TransNet goals.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING ORDINANCE GOALS OVER THE LAST DECADE TransNet Goal Progress To Date Goal Met? Commutes of less than 30 minutes decreased from 67% percent to 65%—although San Diego was Mixed Results 1 Relieve Congestion less delayed than comparable areas reviewed. Thus Far Use of alternate modes as a percent of total commute decreased from 18% to 16%. Highway and Roadways injuries decreased by 9% and fatalities decreased by 19%. Mixed Results 2 Improve Safety Bike and Pedestrian injuries and fatalities increased by 21% and 18%, respectively. Thus Far Match State and Federal Major corridor funds was leveraged at $1.89 to $1.00. 3 Yes Funds Local Street and Road planned leveraging was $1.10 to $1.00. 1 Expanded freeways; for example, projects were completed on the I-15, I-805, SR 52, and SR 76. 4 Expand Freeways Yes 61% of capital construction projects were completed or in-progress. 5 Maintain and Improve Roads At least 136 projects completed and approximately $714 million dedicated for local streets and roads. Yes Increase Transit for Seniors Ridership for seniors and persons with disabilities appeared to have increased by 7% since the start 6 Yes and Persons with Disabilities of the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Expand Commuter Express Expanded transit services; for example, 3 new Rapid Bus Services Routes were put into service. 7 Bus, Trolley, and COASTER Yes Services 94 vehicles (including 65 light-rail trolley vehicles) were purchased. Note: 1 Local Street and Road leveraging was based on project funding planned per the Regional Transportation Improvement Program data and not actual local funds expended.
Like other entities across the nation, SANDAG faces continued challenges funding the TransNet Program and balancing less than expected sales tax revenues with often increasing project costs. We found the assumptions and strategies used in the latest TransNet Plan of Finance aligned with others and incorporated leading practices including increased transparency over the uncertainty of revenue sources. Yet, if needed funds do not materialize to cover major capital construction, SANDAG may need to assess options and make critical decisions such as delaying projects, reducing scope, or eliminating projects.
Further, while solid practices were in place over areas such as capital construction projects, Environmental Mitigation Program activities, and transit service, we noted areas where SANDAG and its TransNet partners could further strengthen and improve efficiency and effectiveness of TransNet Program oversight and delivery. This includes continuous rigorous monitoring of economic conditions that may impact sales tax revenues and project costs in addition to the development of a formal performance framework to analyze TransNet progress against Ordinance goals among other enhancements that can be made.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 1 Finance Many of the fiscal challenges since the start of TransNet were also experienced at other similar organizations such as lower than forecasted sales tax collections and balancing project costs with reduced revenues. Yet, $$ we found financing practices were reasonable, given the process changes made to recent revenue estimation processes, and aligned with industry practices including leveraging of sales tax funds and the use of debt. However, because construction costs increased at a faster pace than TransNet revenues, it may become more difficult to complete major corridor projects within the 2048 horizon year without historic leveraged rates of additional funding sources.
FINANCING STRATEGY DEBT SERVICE Use of Plan of Finance followed leading practices and met While debt financing was reasonable, transition to TransNet leveraging goals. pay-as-you-go could impact pace of project Revised Plan of Finance used leading practices and funds were completion. leveraged as intended. Debt financing allowed SANDAG to accelerate early Recent Plan of Finance reflected SANDAG’s efforts to increase action program projects. transparency of revenue uncertainty. SANDAG’s use of debt versus pay-as-you-go Funds leveraged met intent of TransNet with SANDAG securing financing compared with similar agencies’ practices. $1.89 in state and federal funds for every $1 of TransNet funds. Major corridor debt service and related revenue growth must be closely monitored to assess impact
REVENUES on other TransNet areas. Annual TransNet revenues are projected to exceed TransNet collections were lower than forecasted, but not unlike similar organizations. debt service, but periods of higher risk exist. Updated forecasts show a decline in future revenues that could potentially impact future projects. CAPACITY FOR FUTURE Positive changes were made to help reduce any future revenue Capacity for future projects must be closely forecasting errors. managed to complete major corridor projects. Given current revenue projections, SANDAG needs
COSTS to effectively leverage other funds to deliver major corridor projects by 2048. Initial project cost assumptions were reasonable, but transparency of cost updates could be improved. Future mix of projects needed may change and affect funding needs. Initial cost estimate assumptions were conservative and reasonable. TRANSIT OPERATIONS PLAN Construction costs since 2005 increased at a faster rate than revenues. As additional Rapid routes begin service, changes to the Transit Operations Plan may be needed. Regular updates and better communication of reasons for project cost changes are needed. Assumptions used in Transit Operations Plan were generally reasonable, but future shortfalls exist.
“Annual TransNet revenue growth needs to be approximately 2.9%, on average, to cover increased debt service by FY 2026.” 8.0% 7.2% 7.0% Moving Average for Prior 10-Year Period 6.7% Consensus Forecast Growth, 2018 to 2026 (3.9%) 7.0% 6.2% 6.1% 5.7% Average Growth, 1990 to 2017 (3.6%) 6.0% 5.4% Required Growth (2.9%) 5.0% 4.4% 3.7% 4.0% 3.9% 3.6% 3.0% 2.9% 1.9% 1.7% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.0% 1.8% 1.4% 1.5% 1.0% 0.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 2 Performance Key elements of a performance framework were not established at the start of the Ordinance to measure output and performance against the goals of TransNet. Even though certain performance data was available through a variety of sources, it was not consistently summarized and reported regionally at the SANDAG level. While TransNet established goals, performance targets were ELEMENTS OF A PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK not established; yet, government best practices recommend Establish using targets as part of a comprehensive performance plan. Goals
Performance not measured for all TransNet areas, and Adjust additional data is needed to assess performance in certain Goals & Set Targets modes. Targets Significant performance data is still needed for Local Street and Road Program. Collect & Report Measure Detailed performance analysis and more reporting are needed. Results Data
Story map tracked some outputs and accomplishments, Validate & although more is needed. Analyze Data
Major Corridor Capital Construction Like others in the nation, highways continue to be congested and injuries and fatalities have recently increased after a declining trend since the start of TransNet. However, since the beginning of TransNet, 61 percent of projects were completed or started. Solid project management practices were in place, including innovative project delivery methods that appear to be realizing benefits and cost savings.
CONGESTION PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE CONDITION Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) slightly increased as has commute time Highway pavement quality increased, and less than 30 minutes. fewer bridges were in distressed condition. Hours of delay per capita increased. INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL SAFETY CONTRACTOR (CMGC) PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD REPORTS ADVANTAGES Injuries and fatalities on highways and roadways recently increased after a declining trend over the last decade. CMGC relatively new to transportation industry. TOTAL COLLISIONS PER 100 MILLION VMT
140 Caltrans considered CMGC leading 4) - San Francisco San Diego Alameda Riverside San Bernardino practices and developed a framework to 120 measure success. 100 Although premature to fully assess, I-5 80 North Coast Corridor (Build NCC) partners already report synergies from CMGC. 60 46 49 52 Collisions (Severity 1 (Severity Collisions Mid-Coast Corridor partners also reports 40 early benefits of CMGC although data to 20 capture performance of CMGC is not yet available. 0 2013 2014 2015
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 3 Local Street and Road Absent performance outcome data, resulting performance of local street and road improvements was limited to pavement condition as a measure of road quality. Additionally, both the Ordinance and SANDAG Board of Directors (Board) policy requirements pertaining to local jurisdictions’ 70/30 fund split for congestion relief and maintenance compliance and compliance with bicycle (bike) and pedestrian accommodations need to be reevaluated.
Pavement condition declined, but recent efforts 72 San Bernardino may reverse trend as survey results show 71 Riverside improving conditions. 70 69 70/30 congestion relief and maintenance project Alameda 68 split needs revisiting to provide more flexibility for 67 San Francisco locals to meet infrastructure needs. 66 66 65 San Diego 65 Continued effort is needed to demonstrate Index Condition Pavement compliance with bike and pedestrian 64 accommodations under SANDAG Board Policy 63 No. 031, Rule 21. 62 2014 2016
Transit Services With $344 million allocated to transit operators since the start of TransNet, the Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District served over 100 million riders annually—an increase since the start of TransNet, although ridership has recently declined. Systemwide, the transit network generally demonstrated strong performance as compared to peers with results mostly meeting targets. TransNet-only funded Rapid services also showed positive performance.
Ridership declined 3 percent, but Rapid route ridership TransNet goal of increased services for seniors and funded solely by TransNet grew 31 percent. those with disabilities was met with increases between 1.6 and 7 percent. RAPID TRANSIT WEEKDAY BOARDINGS BY ROUTE 25,000 SAN DIEGO SYSTEMWIDE PARATRANSIT RIDERSHIP 22,518 Rapid 237 900,000 18,738 Rapid 235 815,706 792,872 20,000 17,228 800,000 713,395 721,830
Rapid 215 700,000 Ridership 15,000 SuperLoop 600,000 Total 500,000 10,000 400,000 300,000 5,000 200,000 0 100,000 2014 2015 2016 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 On-time performance fluctuated by mode, but Rapid on- time performance was consistently higher than 82 percent. Transit pass subsidy disparity may impact funds Rapid passengers per hour increased 7 percent, and available for other transit services. farebox recovery increased as well. TransNet limitations on operating cost increases may be too restrictive.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle (bike) and pedestrian modes of transportation increased since the start of TransNet, but have fluctuated over the past three years with a downward trend between 2014 and 2016 for both bike ridership and bike commute share.
3% Bike ridership and its share of commute increased PERCENT OF COMMUTE BY BIKE since the start of TransNet, but decreased from 2014 to 2016. 2% Total commutes increased 4 percent across all 1% 0.88% modes, yet bike ridership decreased 13 percent. This 0.70% 0.74% is not unlike trends observed across the nation. In contrast, average annual bike commuters increased 0% by 35 percent since the start of TransNet. 2014 2015 2016 San Francisco--Oakland, CA Urbanized Area Seattle, WA Urbanized Area Limited data exists to establish ridership baselines Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL Urbanized Area San Diego, CA Urbanized Area for bike and pedestrian performance. Las Vegas--Henderson, NV Urbanized Area Riverside--San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area Bike and pedestrian safety was better over last three 25 years, but worse since start of TransNet. BIKE RIDERS INJURED OR KILLED PER 100 MILLION VMT 20 Regional bike early action program project management methods align with leading practices. 15 10 EAP activities recently ramped up, but some projects 3.74 showed delays. 5 3.44 3.38 0 2013 2014 2015 Alameda Riverside San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco
Environmental Mitigation With nearly $222 million spent to-date on TransNet’s Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), much has been accomplished—more than half of the mitigation projects outlined in the Ordinance have mitigation activities underway or are being restored. However, more work needs to be done to communicate performance toward environmental goals.
EMP processes and agreements were successful and significant EMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING CYCLE progress was made—although much work remains as efforts shift towards restoration efforts. Update Two Priorities of Year Work MSP Restoration costs are expected to exceed estimates mostly Program because the program is restoring more wetlands that were acquired as agreed by the California Coastal Commission for the North Coast Corridor. Update Funds collected and land acquired for local street and road MSP Goals, Annual mitigation were underutilized by local entities. Objectives Allocation and of Funding Habitat conservation performance structure was in place, but priorities communicating complex results to the public remains a challenge. Contract for Actions and Too early in program lifecycle for significant land management provide to activities. SDMMP
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 5 Information and Transparency While TransNet represents a significant portion of the region’s transportation improvements, progress toward TransNet goals was not tracked. To increase visibility of the TransNet Program and its contribution for the region, more can be accomplished through SANDAG and its TransNet partners’ websites and social media features.
SANDAG did not specifically track or report Decision makers and public would benefit from succinct summarized progress against Ordinance goals such as insights from SANDAG staff to navigate voluminous information congestion relief, safety, and increased presented. services to seniors and persons with EXAMPLE STAFF SUMMARY REPORT FOR AGENDA ITEM disabilities. Public surveys reveal mixed results on transportation services. TransNet Program promotion could be strengthened. Visibility of TransNet for the public could be enhanced. Dashboard is innovative tool, but projects were not always easily linked with Ordinance, and initial budgets were not included to allow public to get full snapshot of activities.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 6 Summary of Recommendations
To improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to the taxpayers of the San Diego region, ITOC should request that the SANDAG Board direct its staff and TransNet partners to consider and implement recommendations summarized in the table that follows. Priority classifications and significance of recommendations were categorized into 4 rankings based on the impact on TransNet Program goals and functions, SANDAG’s responsibilities, and critical path activities. Priority categories are: Critical Priority: Substantial risk to achievement of TransNet goals or is fundamental to TransNet’s success and critical path activities. Immediate attention is warranted. High Priority: Significant risk to achievement of TransNet goals or is fundamental to TransNet’s success or program activities. Prompt attention is warranted. Medium Priority: Some risk to achievement of TransNet goals or is important to TransNet’s success or program activities. Moderate attention is warranted. Low Priority: Opportunity for improvement, but not vital to TransNet’s success or program activities. Routine attention is warranted.
Three recommendations classified as “Critical Priority” are highlighted below, with the full set of recommendations presented in the table beginning on page 8 of this report.
1. Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and its 7-point Data Accuracy and Modeling Work Plan are implemented to reduce the potential for data errors and develop formal procedures covering version control, periodic archival of dynamic or continuously updated data and documents, data validation and accuracy, and release and reporting of data. The status of the implementation of the 7-point plan and new procedures for data authentication should be documented and reported back to decision makers. – Chapter 1, Recommendation No. 2, Report pages 27-28.
2. Establish a comprehensive performance framework by implementing the following: Setting targets to measure TransNet performance against the TransNet Extension Ordinance goals in-line with federally mandated deadlines or at a faster pace. At a minimum, some narrative could accompany performance reporting to help others understand whether data and results were favorable or unfavorable. Capturing performance outcome data related to safety metrics, pavement condition, and bridge condition for highways, local roadways, and bicycle (bike) and pedestrian modes. – Chapter 2, Recommendation No. 5, Report pages 46-50.
3. Modify staff reports for SANDAG Board and other oversight committees to summarize elements related to public input, pros and cons on recommended actions, and implications or impacts of those recommended actions. Ensure that staff reports are summarized to one or two pages. – Chapter 8, Recommendation No. 24, Report pages 111-112.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 7 FULL AUDIT RECOMMENDATION MATRIX
Report Audit Recommendation Priority Page Chapter 1: TransNet Financing Enhance the Plan of Finance (POF) process and information provided to decision makers by implementing the following: 1. a. Leveraging historical data and previous POFs to provide additional information regarding 21 – 24 High estimates of future revenue sources, by comparing projections against historical data as well as comparing estimates from previous POFs against actual funding secured. b. Continuing efforts to increase the transparency of sales tax revenue forecasts by showing a range of possible values based on a true confidence interval. SANDAG staff should work with the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) and the SANDAG Board to 29 – 33 High select a confidence level or levels that best communicates the range of possible values projected by the forecast including best case, worse case, or reasonably expected scenarios. c. Developing a process or policy for more frequent reporting—such as quarterly—to oversight committees on cost increases and include factors used to estimate costs, project stage or 29 – 33 High milestone used as basis for cost, and reasons for cost increase such as inflation, materials spike, or scope changes using Dashboard data and other reliable data sources. Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and its 7-point Data Accuracy and Modeling Work Plan are implemented to reduce the potential for data errors and develop formal procedures covering version control, periodic archival of dynamic or continuously updated data and documents, data 2. 27 – 28 Critical validation and accuracy, and release and reporting of data. The status of the implementation of the 7-point plan and new procedures for data authentication should be documented and reported back to decision makers. Regularly track and report on the TransNet Program’s financial capacity to complete projects and programs by implementing the following: a. Establishing a formal structured protocol to review funding sources and uses occurring in the last 10 to 20 years of the TransNet Extension Program to identify potential capacity and 3. revenue constraints that would impact the ability to complete the major corridor projects by 35 – 36 High 2048 and assess options such as delaying projects, eliminating projects, or reducing scope as warranted. This capacity assessment should be formally revisited on a regular basis, so that decision makers are aware of periods in which the agency may have to consider delaying projects or reducing project scope as needed. b. Monitoring TransNet revenues and debt service obligations against needed growth projections to better ensure that revenues are sufficient to meet debt service, as well as regularly reporting on results and options to oversight committees that could include 37 – 40 High restructuring, refinancing, or retiring existing debt or delaying the transition to a pay-as-you- go approach for financing capital projects. c. Identifying methods to assess options, if needed, to delay, eliminate, or reduce scope of projects and whether the method would follow the same priority process used in the San 40 – 41 High Diego Forward: The Regional Plan or a different process would be used. d. Monitoring and reporting on the impacts of changing transportation technologies on the transportation network and future TransNet projects as part of long-term planning to avoid 40 – 41 Medium building expensive infrastructure that could be rendered obsolete. Continue to work closely with the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) to monitor the Transit Operations Plan by comparing actual TransNet 4. 41 – 43 High revenues and operating costs against the Transit Operations Plan projections as additional services begin operations to highlight and mitigate the impact to the local operators, how to absorb
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 8 Report Audit Recommendation Priority Page any discrepancies through other funding sources, or potential scenarios for reductions in service if warranted. Communicate status, recommended actions, and any mitigation activities. Chapter 2: Performance Framework Establish a comprehensive performance framework by implementing the following: a. Setting targets to measure TransNet performance against the TransNet Extension 5. Ordinance goals in-line with federally mandated deadlines or at a faster pace. At a 46 – 50 Critical minimum, some narrative could accompany performance reporting to help others understand whether data and results were favorable or unfavorable. b. Capturing performance outcome data related to safety metrics, pavement condition, and bridge condition for highways, local roadways, and bicycle (bike) and pedestrian modes. 1. Use the California Highway Patrols’ Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to measure and monitor safety statistics—both for motorized and non- motorized fatalities and serious injuries—especially against the new safety targets developed by Caltrans and adopted by SANDAG. 2. Track and report highway pavement and bridge condition available from Caltrans on the SANDAG website or provide a hyperlink to where that information is available for taxpayers. Additionally, work with Caltrans to determine if bridge and pavement data 51 – 53 Critical can be isolated for San Diego County from the Imperial County data contained within the Caltrans District 11 reported data. 3. Track and report on local jurisdiction pavement condition by requiring local jurisdictions to provide pavement condition index data as soon as pavement condition surveys are performed and results become available. 4. Obtain and use private sector data to analyze congestion and delay on local streets and roads or evaluate status of Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System (PeMS) to capture road performance including level of coverage of detection.
c. Conducting more robust analysis of cause and effect for all performance metrics to provide meaning to results or help determine if different strategies or projects should be employed to get a better result. For instance, consider using heat maps to identify where the majority 51 – 53 High or significant severity accidents occur and work with Caltrans and local jurisdictions to inform solutions and future projects. d. Providing regular performance monitoring reports that consider past performance in relation to TransNet goals through quarterly updates to the SANDAG Board and committees, 51 – 53 High annual public reports on the status of TransNet, and website postings. e. Considering allocating funding for additional performance monitoring activities given that SANDAG will likely require more data sources, tools, and resources to track, validate, 51 – 53 High analyze, ensure quality, and report performance. Explore and study public-private partnerships with entities such as Google, Waze, Scoop, 6. TomTom, or others to integrate and summarize performance results as well as provide information 51 – 53 Medium on a real-time basis to travelers identifying different commute times and options. Enhance the Story Map tool, TransNet project status listing (shown in Appendix A), or develop a different tool to capture project output details and track TransNet accomplishments over time by implementing the following: 7. 53 – 54 High a. Developing a comprehensive universe of TransNet projects completed, underway, and planned. Reconcile universe back to TransNet Extension Ordinance and what was expected to be delivered. Once universe is reconciled for historic projects, update universe as new
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 9 Report Audit Recommendation Priority Page projects are started and continue reconciliation of those new projects to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. b. Building upon planned output data currently captured through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program’s automated ProjectTrak database and reported in the Annual Output and Outcome report by reconciling those planned outputs with actual accomplishments. Consider requiring local jurisdictions to provide a closeout report with updated, actual data as projects are completed. Chapter 3: Major Corridor Capital Construction Update and refine the project listing started in the 10-Year Look-Back Review to ensure all major corridor projects are tracked back to those in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Regularly report 8. on project and financial status using the project listing developed in 10-Year Look-Back Review as 58 – 64 Medium a foundation or develop an alternate tool to accomplish the goal of tracking against the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Begin gathering data on whether the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method used on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project is delivering on expectations for cost savings, efficiencies, better quality, or collaboration to solve problems rather than using a typical silo- approach between design, construction, contractors, and owners by implementing the following:
9. a. Comparing SANDAG’s proposed metrics for assessing Mid-Coast Corridor project 65 – 71 Medium performance to the performance metrics and practices used by Caltrans’ to determine whether there are any additional practices SANDAG may want to include or adopt, such as the Caltrans innovations log, to help formally track benefits, successes, and challenges. b. Addressing recent survey comments related to possible schedule impacts from project activities in addition to the perceived higher value of change orders. Gather and store documents to support “benefit” statistics tracked for the North Coast Corridor and the Mid-Coast Corridor whether using the innovations log utilized by Caltrans or another method 10. 69 – 71 Medium used by SANDAG. Maintain supporting documentation, such as cost comparisons, in a centralized repository that is linked or reconciled with the log or summary statistics. Chapter 4: Local Street and Road Revisit the TransNet Extension Ordinance congestion relief and maintenance split to be more relevant with local needs as the TransNet lifecycle matures by considering elimination of the 70/30 11. 75 – 76 Medium split, change to the percentage limitations, or modification of the categorical definitions within the TransNet Extension Ordinance limitations. Continue to monitor compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21, until otherwise amended, by implementing the following: a. Following-up on the results from the SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21 evaluation conducted by SANDAG in 2014: 1. Use results from SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, local Rule 21 review to make identified changes to the Ordinance definitions and follow-up on areas of 12. 78 – 79 High noncompliance noted during the review. 2. Work with locals to determine a method to demonstrate compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21. 3. Amend or establish a SANDAG Board Policy to require local jurisdictions to track and report on the number of bike and pedestrian facilities implemented using TransNet funds. b. Conducting another review of local projects and considering whether any adjustments are 78 – 79 High warranted in light of SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 10 Report Audit Recommendation Priority Page Chapter 5: Transit Services Continue to analyze major transit commute routes and services and report on whether commute 13. 87 – 88 Low times have improved or should be improved. Regularly track and report on TransNet goals to increase services to seniors and persons with 14. 88 – 89 High disabilities. Work together with the region’s transit operators to analyze options offsetting the impact subsidy disparities have on available funds for expanding transit services, such as funding the pass subsidy disparity for seniors and persons with disabilities from other TransNet areas—as allowed 15. 89 – 91 Medium by the TransNet Extension Ordinance—adjusting the discount offered for senior/disabled and youth riders, determining whether disparities can be funded through other sources, or maintaining existing funding and process. Collaborate with the operators to revisit the operating cost ceiling tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index as specified in the TransNet Extension Ordinance so that operators have some flexibility with reasonable cost increases while still maintaining the intent of TransNet to provide some assurance of the reasonableness of those cost increases. This could include allowing for a 16. 91 - 92 Medium wider variance in cost increases, setting a threshold for a not-to-exceed limit, expanding the target by a specified percent in years when changes to the Consumer Price Index decline, or allowing cost exclusions that can be supported, or modify TransNet Extension Ordinance language to apply the cost thresholds at the operator level rather than by individual mode. Chapter 6: Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation Continue efforts to establish baseline data for bike and pedestrian volume to identify trends and 17. 95 – 96 Medium set targets. Improve project management practices and project delivery for the Bike Early Action Program 18. projects by implementing the following: 96 – 98 Medium a. Finalizing and implementing the in-progress Regional Bikeway Program Management Plan. b. Using Dashboard data that currently tracks frequent causes of delays during the design and environmental phases of bike projects, to summarize lessons learned, identify and mitigate 97 – 98 High future preventable occurrences, and improve scheduled delivery of the remaining projects. Chapter 7: Environmental Mitigation Program Continue efforts to establish a new Memorandum of Agreement with Caltrans, California 19. Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to replace current one 100 High expiring before funding expires in June 2018. Enhance the financing and use of TransNet funding for the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) by implementing the following: 102 – 20. High a. Reviewing and updating EMP cost estimates in light of higher costs than anticipated 103 associated with restoring coastal wetlands. b. Considering the most efficient use of available funding and possible adjustments, as allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance, to focus on higher priority activities and 100 – High projects such as restoring coastal wetlands, given updated revenue forecast information 102 and cost estimates.
c. Revisiting the established economic benefit methodology to ensure the calculation 103 – High accurately represents the cost savings that have been achieved. 104 Make changes, as appropriate, to marketing efforts for the local streets and road mitigation bank 21. 104 High funding available for local projects, consider revising eligibility criteria for public entities, or
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 11 Report Audit Recommendation Priority Page consider whether those monies could be better utilized within other EMP priority actions, as allowed under the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Measure progress in meeting specific and detailed EMP goals, objectives, and action items for regional monitoring and management under the Management Strategic Plan. Specifically, develop 22. metrics using the abundance of data to holistically understand the status and trend of the overall 105 Medium health of the preserve against the baselines established in regional conservation plans and formalize a system to communicate complex performance results to the public. Chapter 8: Information and Transparency Regularly report on implementation of TransNet Extension Ordinance goals by annually publishing 23. 110 High progress on SANDAG’s website, annual report, or other easily visible reporting tool. Modify staff reports for SANDAG Board and other oversight committees to summarize elements 111 – 24. related to public input, pros and cons on recommended actions, and implications or impacts of Critical 112 those recommended actions. Ensure that staff reports are summarized to one or two pages. Better link TransNet funding to project and program activities for general public awareness by implementing the following: 113 – 25. Low a. More prominently featuring the TransNet logo on SANDAG and TransNet partner websites 114 as well as through other media such as Facebook and Twitter. b. Revamping SANDAG website to capture documents pertinent to TransNet in a centralized 114 – area for each TransNet Extension Ordinance component. This includes linking Dashboard Low 115 projects with those listed in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Ensure data on completed projects is maintained in the Dashboard—even if under an archived 115 – 26. location still accessible to the public—and separate past and future expenditures between the Medium 116 original TransNet amounts and the TransNet Extension Ordinance amounts.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 12 Glossary of Terms
Caltrans Caltrans is the statewide transportation department responsible by statutes for highway capital project planning, construction, and maintenance. CMGC Construction Manager/General Contractor is a relatively new project delivery model where the contractor is involved at each stage of the project acting as consultant to the owner in the development and design phases and as a general contractor during the construction phase. This differs from traditional approaches where separate consultants and contractors are used for design and construction phases. Environmental Building new freeways or expanding existing roadways may impact natural habitats in close Mitigation proximity to those improvements. Environmental mitigation efforts include activities such as purchasing land and restoring it for habitats disrupted by transportation improvement projects. Farebox Recovery Farebox recovery ratio is a standard transit performance metric. It represents the percent of Ratio operating expenses covered by fare revenue. A higher farebox recovery ratio indicates a greater percent of the operating costs are covered by fare revenue. ITOC Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee established by the Ordinance and tasked with representing taxpayer interests and monitoring of TransNet financial integrity and performance. MAP-21 and FAST The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act of 2012 as continued under the Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 provide long-term federal funding for surface transportation, but also established national performance goal areas and required target setting to be incorporated into performance-based transportation planning. MTS Metropolitan Transit System is responsible for service planning, scheduling, and performance monitoring of transit operations across San Diego County. NCTD The North County Transit District is responsible for service planning, scheduling, and performance monitoring of transportation in Northern San Diego County. Nominal and Real Nominal dollars include the effects of inflation over time, while real dollars remove the effect of Dollars inflation to provide a comparison across two points in time. Performance Measured against progress towards meeting a program’s goals, performance outcomes and Outcome and outputs represent the impact made possible through government actions. Examples of performance Output outcomes include longer/shorter commute times, more/fewer crashes, or better/worse pavement conditions. Examples of performance outputs include number of projects completed, number of grants awarded, or number of rides provided to seniors. POF The Plan of Finance is a SANDAG Board adopted, continually updated financial planning tool, used to project revenues and expenditures over the 40-year life of TransNet with a particular focus on funding sources and uses over the next 5 to 7 years. It illustrates SANDAG’s financing strategies and cash flow considerations to deliver the projects approved by voters. Revenue Miles Revenue miles is a standard transit performance metric. It represents service effectiveness in terms of transit service miles traveled when in service and available to carry passengers. SANDAG The San Diego Association of Governments is the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the regional decision-making body consisting of 18 cities and the county. In its role as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, it is charged with administering, planning, implementing, and funding regional transportation programs funded by TransNet. VMT Vehicle miles of travel is a widely-known industry measure of the number of miles traveled by vehicles in a region over a period of time. VMT is determined by either actual odometer readings or by estimated modeling calculations.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 13
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 14 Introduction and Background
To provide congestion relief, improve safety, and expand highways, streets, and transit in the San Diego region, voters passed Proposition A in November 2004 calling for a continuation of an existing TransNet half-cent sales tax for an additional 40-year period from 2008 through 2048. This proposition paved the way for dedicated local funds to be leveraged through state and federal matching dollars for improving regional systems as part of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance) as approved by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors (Board). SANDAG is ultimately responsible for administering the TransNet Program and projects funded through the TransNet Extension Ordinance in coordination with several TransNet partner entities.
TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Recognizing the continued need for transportation improvement projects in the region and the importance of minimizing their environmental impacts, the SANDAG Board prepared and authorized the TransNet Extension Ordinance to expand upon the foundation and projects completed under the original TransNet Program approved by voters. In 2004, San Diego County voters approved the extension of the existing TransNet half-cent sales tax for an additional 40-year period from 2008 through 2048. The SANDAG Board, as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, has the responsibility to implement the tax measure through the TransNet Extension Ordinance through transportation improvements that were anticipated to do the following: Relieve congestion Improve safety Match state and federal funds Expand freeways Maintain and improve roads Increase transit for seniors and persons with disabilities Expand commuter express bus, Trolley, and COASTER services
Under provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, funds generated must be allocated to each TransNet Program area using a specified percentage or amount, as shown in Exhibit 1, to improve transportation facilities and services countywide in a manner consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.1 Nearly 83 percent of TransNet funds are dedicated to major corridor capital projects for highway and transit in addition to an Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) and local street and road projects. The remaining 17 percent is allocated specifically for alternate modes of transportation such as transit operations, bike and pedestrian projects, neighborhood safety projects, and grants for specialized transportation activities.
1 At its May 25, 2012, meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the integration of the Regional Comprehensive Plan update with the development of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The integrated plan (San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan) was adopted October 9, 2015.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 15 EXHIBIT 1. TRANSNET FOCUS AREAS AND REQUIRED PERCENT OF ALLOCATION
Source: SANDAG and the 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.
TransNet Projects To relieve traffic congestion and improve safety, the TransNet Extension Ordinance identified 48 specific capital projects along 15 major highway and transit corridors scheduled for completion by 2048. In addition to these highway and transit capital projects, there are approximately 40 proposed bike construction projects and hundreds of local street and road capital projects identified on a biennial basis as part of each local jurisdiction’s transportation improvement plans. Other TransNet Program areas scheduled individual projects on an annual basis through environmental mitigation needs, transit service analysis, or SANDAG grants targeted for activities surrounding active transportation, Smart Growth, and services to seniors.
TransNet Funding From the beginning, TransNet was envisioned to be only one of several funding mechanisms used to pay for the projects identified in the TransNet Extension Ordinance n. In fact, TransNet monies were leveraged with a variety of state, federal, and local funds—such as state Transportation Development Act funding, local street funding, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration funding. To date, as shown in Exhibit 2, TransNet disbursed $4.24 billion to various entities and programs and helped implement numerous transportation improvement projects as envisioned by the Ordinance.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 16 EXHIBIT 2. TRANSNET COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY, AS OF JUNE 30, 2017
Funds Expected Funds Received and Funds Disbursed TransNet Area Per Ordinance Allocated to Date (year of expenditure (2002 dollars) 1 (nominal dollars) 2 dollars) 3 SANDAG Admin $140M $22M $22M ITOC $10M $2M $2M Bike and Ped $280M $48M $46M Major Corridor $5,150M $752M $2,721M 4 EMP-Major Corridor $600M $112M $356M 4 EMP-Local Project $250M $40M $8M Smart Growth $280M $46M $20M Local Street and Road $3,950M $714M $667M Transit Services 5 $2,167M $344M $343M Transit Senior Mini-Grant $73M $12M $11M New Major Corridor Transit Operations $1,100M $180M $46M 6 Total: $14 Billion $2.27 Billion $4.24 Billion Source: TransNet Extension Quarterly Report to ITOC, October 2017; TransNet 2004 Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Note: 1 Funds Anticipated are over the 40-year term of the 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance. 2 Funds Received and Allocated are from program inception through June 30, 2017 (unaudited). 3 Funds Disbursed are inclusive of debt service payments. 4 Funds Disbursed are higher due to debt financing of major corridor projects including EMP. 5 Transit Services amount is inclusive of specialized services for seniors and disabled persons (2.5% of total) and transit pass subsidies and operations (94.25% of total). 6 Funds Disbursed are lower because funds are reserved for future Rapid and Light Rail transit services to operate on planned transit construction corridors.
TransNet Early Action Program Although collections from the TransNet Extension Ordinance did not start until 2008, the SANDAG Board made a strategic decision in 2005 to launch an “Early Action Program” (EAP) that accelerated 19 major corridor capital construction project segments through long-term bonding activity based on future tax revenues and shorter-term commercial paper to leverage state and federal funds. Specifically, the SANDAG Board intended to jump-start these segments “to help minimize disruption to the traveling public and give full utility to the corridor within a condensed timeframe, as opposed to phasing the improvements in smaller stages over a greater number of years.”2 Another critical factor considered to better ensure success of the EAP was advancement of the EMP. From the early stages, the intent was to advance project mitigation packages to facilitate and expedite EAP project delivery. This involved discussions, collaboration, and agreements with external resource agencies and permit holders. Since 2005, the SANDAG Board approved additional project segments consistent with the TransNet Extension Ordinance for a total of 78 budgeted EAP project segments as shown in Appendix A.
In addition to the EAP major corridor project segments, the SANDAG Board also launched a Regional Bike Plan EAP in 2013—a $200 million initiative to expand the bike network countywide and finish high-priority
2 SANDAG Board Agenda, December 2004 and January 2005. Board approved an initial list of 22 project segments, but three segments were subsequently merged into other project segments for a total of 19 EAP project segments.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 17 projects within a decade. This initiative involved approximately 40 projects totaling 77 miles of new bikeways.
Roles of Key TransNet Partners While SANDAG is the primary entity responsible for the TransNet Program, other entities cooperatively share responsibilities for managing and implementing projects and programs funded through TransNet. As shown in Exhibit 3, key TransNet partners include Caltrans, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and 19 local jurisdictions—although there are a multitude of grantees, non-profits, conservancy groups, and other federal and state agencies that assist the TransNet Program.
EXHIBIT 3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY TRANSNET PARTNERS
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC)
•Independent committee established by the TransNet Extension Ordinance representing taxpayer interests which monitors the financial integrity and performance of the TransNet Program.
San Diego Association of Caltrans Local City Jurisdictions Governments (SANDAG)
•Regional decision-making body •Statewide government •Governed by individual city consisting of 18 cities and the department overseen by a State councils, the local jurisdictions county government. Transportation Agency and are responsible for overseeing organized into 12 Districts. and delivering transportation •Charged with administering, improvement projects to city planning, implementing, and •District 11 encompasses the San residents. funding regional transportation Diego region and Imperial programs funded by TransNet. County. •18 cities involved with TransNet include: Carlsbad, Chula Vista, •Responsible for TransNet transit •Responsible by statutes for Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, capital construction, active highway capital project Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial transportation, environmental planning, construction, and Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, mitigation, and grant programs. maintenance--including National City, Oceanside, TransNet projects. Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista.
Metropolitan Transit System North County Transit District County of San Diego (MTS) (NCTD)
•Governed by a Board of •Responsible for service •Responsible for service Supervisors, the County planning, scheduling, and planning, scheduling, and
oversees and provides performance monitoring of performance monitoring of transportation improvement transit operations. transportation in Northern San projects to residents outside of Diego County. city incorporated areas. •MTS is represented by the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, •NCTD is represented by El Cajon, Imperial Beach, Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Escondido, Oceanside, National City, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and and Santee as well as the Vista as well as the County of County of San Diego. San Diego.
Source: Agency websites, fact sheets, and prior Triennial TransNet Performance Audits.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 18 Scope and Methodology
In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance (Ordinance), the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) has the responsibility for conducting triennial performance audits of the agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs.
Audit Scope Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. (Sjoberg Evashenk), was contracted by ITOC to conduct the fourth performance audit for the three-year period covering Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017. Because the audit was conducted simultaneously with the TransNet 10-Year Look-Back Review required by the Ordinance, relevant data and performance since the start of the TransNet was incorporated, as appropriate.
Specifically, ITOC asked Sjoberg Evashenk to examine the performance of SANDAG, Caltrans, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and a representative sample of the other cities of the region that have been involved in TransNet-funded projects. This included, but was not limited to, a review of the degree to which the projects completed achieved the goals set out in the Ordinance, financial management, project delivery, oversight, and monitoring as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of TransNet projects and program areas.
Audit Objectives The primary objectives identified for this performance audit were as follows: 1. Review of goals consistent with TransNet Extension Ordinance Section 4. Expenditure Plan Purposes 2. Identify key metrics to which outcomes will be measured consistent with the Regional Plan 3. Identify outcomes achieved in the implementation of facilities and services under TransNet 4. Evaluate the status of implementation of recommendations from the third triennial performance audit and effectiveness of these prior recommendations 5. Determine whether the organizational structure and operational process continue to allow for effective and efficient project delivery, cost control, and schedule adherence 6. Identify process changes in contracting, construction, permitting, and other procedures that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TransNet Program 7. Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of ITOC, including adherence to its bylaws 8. Identify and evaluate any potential barriers to and opportunities for proposed changes Audit Methodology To fulfill these objectives, we conducted a series of audit tasks involving data mining and analysis, documentary examinations, peer comparisons, source data verification, and interviews. Appendix B provides the detailed methodology employed on this audit. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 19
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 20 Chapter 1: TransNet Financing
Funding a 40-year regional capital improvement program is a complex activity involving many factors that cannot be foreseen with certainty. To assist with and define planning efforts, SANDAG developed and regularly updated a Plan of Finance (POF) document that evaluated economic conditions that may impact sales tax collections and the program’s ability to deliver projects promised to voters.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
Many of the fiscal challenges since the start of TransNet Leverage historical data and previous POFs to provide were also experienced at other similar organizations additional information regarding estimates of future such as lower than forecasted sales tax collections and revenue sources, by comparing projections against balancing project costs with reduced revenues. historical data as well as comparing estimates from Nonetheless, in-line with TransNet Extension Ordinance previous POFs against actual funding secured. goals, SANDAG leveraged TransNet dollars with state Continue efforts to increase the transparency of sales and federal funds at a rate of 1.89:1—meaning that for tax revenue forecasts by showing a range of possible every $1 of TransNet funds spent on major corridor values based on a true confidence interval. SANDAG projects, SANDAG secured $1.89 in funding from other staff should work with the Independent Taxpayers sources. This leverage rate was more than the 1:1 Oversight Committee (ITOC) and the SANDAG Board to leveraging expected in the Ordinance. select a confidence level or levels that best communicates the range of possible values projected by SANDAG increased transparency surrounding the presentation of revenue estimates with its 2016-2017 Plan the forecast including best case, worse case, or of Finance which categorized estimated revenues reasonably expected scenarios. available by level of certainty. Develop a process or policy for more frequent reporting—such as quarterly—to oversight committees Actual sales tax collections to date averaged 22 percent less than forecasts presented to voters, with that variance on cost increases and include factors used to estimate continuing to be significant over the last three years. costs, project stage or milestone used as basis for cost, Recent forecasts showed this decline in total expected and reasons for cost increase such as inflation, sales tax revenue over the life of the Ordinance from $36 materials spike, or scope changes using Dashboard billion to $19.2 billion (in nominal dollars). data and other reliable data sources. Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and its 7-point modeling While cost assumptions were reasonable, construction costs since 2005 increased at a faster rate than TransNet plan are implemented to reduce the potential for data revenues. In fact, costs grew between 34.6 and errors and develop formal procedures covering version 43.5 percent depending on which cost index was used, control, periodic archival of dynamic or continuously while revenues only grew by 20.5 percent. updated data and documents, data validation and accuracy, and release and reporting of data. By using debt, SANDAG took advantage of a favorable cost environment during the Great Recession to Establish a formal structured protocol to review funding accelerate projects. These financing practices and use of sources and uses occurring in the last 10 to 20 years of debt align with similar organizations, but the transition to the TransNet Extension Program to identify potential pay-go financing may impact the pace of project capacity and revenue constraints that would impact the completion. ability to complete the major corridor projects by 2048 and assess options such as delaying projects, While annual TransNet revenues are projected to cover eliminating projects, or reducing scope as warranted. debt service, major corridor projects and other TransNet areas could be negatively affected if revenue growth is Identify methods to assess options, if needed, to delay, lower than expected. We calculated that annual TransNet eliminate, or reduce scope of projects and whether the revenue growth would need to be approximately method would follow the same priority process used in 2.93 percent, on average, to cover increased debt service the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan or a different by FY 2026. process would be used.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 21
Chapter Introduction Funding a long-term regional capital improvement program is a much different and more complex activity than funding an annual operating need or even a short-term capital project as cradle to grave project development and implementation phases may stretch from 5 to more than 20 years for corridor capital improvement projects.3 As the San Diego region continues to evolve and change, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is challenged to ensure that capital projects both meet current needs and also achieve the vision outlined in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. As such, SANDAG, as well as those in the industry, must leverage a variety of funding sources to maximize the number of projects possible for its capital project portfolio.
To support the TransNet capital improvement program, SANDAG regularly adopts a Plan of Finance (POF)—a continually updated document focused primarily on the next 5 to 7 years, although it includes revenue and cost assumptions through the end of the current TransNet Extension Ordinance in 2048. Initially established by the SANDAG Board of Directors (Board) in December 2005, the POF was regularly updated since the start of TransNet, with the last update presented in October 2017 to reflect the most current cash flow, budget, and revenue assumptions for the program as shown in Exhibit 4. The POF is an evolving, living plan that is continuously monitored and reviewed to balance costs and revenues and leverage sales tax revenues over the 40-year span of the program.
EXHIBIT 4. TIMELINE OF TRANSNET RELATED FINANCIAL EVENTS
Voters approve Initial Ordinance Latest Plan of 2002 2004 TransNet Extension 2005 First Plan of Finance 2017 Forecast (with updated amounts) Finance Ordinance (2016-2017)
Source: Auditor-generated based on 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance and various Plans of Finance.
Revised Plan of Finance Used Leading Practices, and Funds Were Leveraged as Intended SANDAG’s primary financial planning tool is the POF, which projects revenues and expenditures over the entire 40-year life of TransNet with a particular focus on funding sources and uses for the next 5 to 7 years. The plan illustrates SANDAG’s financing strategies and cash flow considerations as the organization works with its TransNet partners to deliver the projects approved by voters. The strategies and assumptions were similar to those used by others in industry and actual fund leveraging was at higher levels than expected in the initial 2002 Ordinance forecast. We found SANDAG's POF to be an effective short-range planning tool for managing financial capacity for projects. At the same time, we recommend that SANDAG begin to place additional focus on the last 10 to 20 years of TransNet financing, between FYs 2028 and 2048—as the agency moves towards a pay-as-you-go (pay-go) approach for capital projects.
3 Project timeline from cradle to grave provided by SANDAG.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 22 Recent POF reflected SANDAG’s efforts to increase transparency of revenue uncertainty While financing long-term capital construction programs is inherently uncertain, SANDAG followed leading practices by regularly updating its TransNet Program projections. During the audit period, SANDAG issued one POF update for 2016-2017. In the 2016-2017 update, SANDAG added more clarity and transparency by using ranges to communicate revenue and cost estimates rather than single point estimates—as aligned with leading economic practices. SANDAG also implemented positive changes using a color-coding scheme to classify potential funding sources by level of certainty in an effort to increase transparency in the planning and forecasting process. Exhibit 5 shows the estimated revenues available to SANDAG, color- coded by the agency’s level of certainty over receiving the funding.
EXHIBIT 5. 2016-2017 POF SANDAG PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES
2015 2016 POF 2016-2017 REVENUES POF Estimate POF
1. TransNet Funds (2018-2048) ($5.9B to $6.5B) $7.5B $6.3B $6.2B 2. Programmed Grants, State and Federal Formula Funds; Anticipated Debt Financing $4.1B $4.0B $3.6B Proceeds; TIFIA Loan ($3.5B to $3.7B)
3. Additional funds from formula funds, including RSTP, CMAQ, STIP ($4.2B to $5.2B) $4.7B 4. Additional funds from competitive sources including SB1 Congested Corridors, SB1 $5.4B Trade Programs, Federal INFRA and others ($4.3B to $6.5B)*
$10.4B $17.5B 5. Additional funds from future legislation similar to Road Repair and Accountability $4.2B Act in 2017 ($3.3B to $5.0B)*
6. Additional funds from future legislation to address changes in technology, and other $3.8B initiatives ($3.0B to $4.6B)* *Additional Revenues Subtotal ($14.8B to $21.3B) $18.1B Total Revenues ($24.2B to $31.5B) $22B $27.8B $27.9B
Level of Certainty
Lower Higher Source: Plan of Finances for 2015, 2016, and 2016-2017.
Explanations for certainty levels of revenue assumptions were as follows: TransNet: Amount of collections are uncertain, but sales tax collections are certain to occur through 2048. Programmed Grants: Reasonably certain because grants have already been secured. Formula Funds: Slightly less certain because total funding amounts available from grantor vary from year to year—although SANDAG’s allocations can be reasonably estimated in the near term and were provided to the region for many past decades. Competitive Funds: Far less certain, given the requirements of specific grants, applications submitted by SANDAG, and number and nature of competitors. For instance, in the recent past,
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 23 SANDAG successfully competed for federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) funding worth $34.2 million. Future Legislative Funds: Most uncertain because no legislation has yet been introduced or passed—although, historically, such legislation was enacted that provided additional transportation funds.
While future legislative funds are most uncertain, it is reasonable that SANDAG could receive revenues from a future funding source similar in size and scope to prior legislation based on historic activity over the years from sources such as the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act (Proposition 108) of 1990; the Traffic Congestion Relief Act (Proposition 42) of 2000; the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act (Proposition 1B) of 2006; the California High-Speed Rail Act (Proposition 1A) of 2008; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1); and various other programs such as state Cap-and-Trade and federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants.
While the color-coding of revenues by level of certainty and showing ranges rather than point estimates were positive steps towards increased transparency, the POF process continued to be solely forward- looking and did not involve comparisons of projected revenues from prior plans to actual revenues. SANDAG could improve its process by also considering its historical performance in securing past revenues. Given the initial TransNet Program began in 1987, SANDAG now has more than 30 years of historical data to draw on when estimating future revenues. Thus, SANDAG should compare its past accuracy between expected and actual funding sources and amounts and communicate this historical data to help decision makers better understand the levels of certainty in receiving the future funds and evaluate the financing of TransNet.
On the expense side, staff estimated costs for projects not yet started in two ways in the most recent 2016-2017 POF —first, cost estimates from the 2004 Ordinance were escalated to the year of construction. Second, estimates were taken from 2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan and escalated to the year of construction. SANDAG then took the higher of the two estimates to conservatively identify the maximum amount of funding capacity needed to complete the major corridor projects. In the 2016-2017 POF, SANDAG staff also noted for the first time how costs changed in response to anticipated long-term construction cost inflation which rose from 2.69 percent to 2.77 percent per year. Despite this relatively small change, estimated costs increased between $400 and $500 million dollars based on inflation growth.
Funds leveraged met intent of TransNet One of the key goals of TransNet was to leverage state and federal funds. As shown in Exhibit 6, when comparing funding sources as identified in the 2005 POF to actual major corridor expenditures through the end of 2017, we found the initial 2005 POF estimated 61.5 percent of funding would come from TransNet revenues and proceeds for financing activities and the remaining 38.5 percent of funds would derive from a mix of federal, state, and other local sources. However actual leveraging results were reversed—with TransNet revenues and proceeds from financing accounting for 34.6 percent of major corridor expenditures to date and federal, state, and other sources accounting for 65.4 percent.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 24 EXHIBIT 6. COMPARISON OF PLANNED FUNDING SOURCES WITH ACTUAL SOURCES EXPENDED THROUGH 6/30/2017
2005 POF Expected Actual Expenditures by Source Funding Source Mix Funding Source TransNet and Financing Proceeds $3,169,019,566 61.5% $1,517,731,839 34.6% TransNet Revenues $1,601,751,560 31.1%
Bond Proceeds $1,031,210,445 20.0% Commercial Paper Proceeds $492,350,041 9.6% Other Financing Proceeds $43,707,520 0.8% Other Revenues $1,984,506,033 38.5% $2,872,939,120 65.4% Federal Capital Funds $947,929,959 18.4% $983,664,476 22.4% State Capital Funds $287,617,000 5.6% $1,613,315,828 36.7% Other Local $50,156,000 1.0% $275,958,816 6.3% Other Potential Revenues (STP, CMAQ, etc.) 4 $668,557,285 13.0% - - Interest / Fund Proceeds $30,245,789 0.6% - - Total $5,153,525,599 100.0% $4,390,670,959 100.0% Source: 2005 Plan of Finance and TransNet Dashboard.
In fact, TransNet funds expended on major corridors were leveraged at a rate of 1.89:1—meaning that for every $1 dollar of TransNet funds expended on major corridor projects, SANDAG secured $1.89 in additional funding from federal, state, and other local sources. While the ratio is higher than what was envisioned in the initial 2005 POF, it still may not be sufficient to complete the major corridor projects given reduced TransNet revenues and rapidly rising costs as discussed later in this Chapter.
TransNet Collections were Lower than Forecasted, but not Unlike Similar Organizations While revenue can be reasonably forecasted over the short term, forecasting models cannot completely capture the complicated changes in macroeconomics and consumer behavior that occur over long time periods. As a result, the accuracy of a forecast decreases the farther it is extrapolated from actual data. When forecasting 40 years into the future, even relatively small changes to models produce large variations in forecasts during the final years.
Actual TransNet collections were significantly less than Ordinance forecasts Before the TransNet Ordinance passed, SANDAG estimated it would generate $14 billion in sales tax revenue over its 40-year life as measured in 2002 dollars—or approximately $36 billion in nominal (year of collection) dollars. Over the first eight years of the TransNet Program, actual collections were significantly lower than the Ordinance forecast presented to voters. Exhibit 7 shows actual collections through 2016 compared against estimates presented to voters and found a 22.6 percent variance.
4 Other potential revenues will be categorized as federal or state fund sources once received and available to spend.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 25 EXHIBIT 7. ACTUAL AND FORECASTED TRANSNET COLLECTIONS, 2009 TO 2016 (IN NOMINAL DOLLARS)
Fiscal Ordinance Actual Percent Difference Year Forecast Collections Difference
2009 $258,770,831 $221,991,360 ($36,779,471) -14.2% 2010 $273,052,156 $204,191,747 ($68,860,409) -25.2% 2011 $282,676,207 $221,304,015 ($61,372,192) -21.7% 2012 $299,446,544 $236,947,112 ($62,499,432) -20.9% 2013 $316,569,168 $247,221,161 ($69,348,007) -21.9% 2014 $336,031,020 $260,114,931 ($75,916,089) -22.6% 2015 $356,769,930 $268,840,550 ($87,929,380) -24.6% 2016 $379,187,588 $275,500,023 ($103,687,565) -27.3% Total $2,502,503,443 $1,936,110,899 ($566,392,544) -22.6% Source: Forecast data obtained from SANDAG’s 2002 Preliminary Series 10 model. Collections obtained from TransNet Quarterly Reports. Note: Sales tax revenues projections have been regularly updated since the initial figures presented to voters.
Updated forecasts show a decline in future revenues potentially impacting future projects In 2016, a significant data aggregation error was discovered in SANDAG’s forecasting process that had caused several TransNet revenue forecasts to be overstated.5 Specifically, an external investigation conducted on behalf of the SANDAG Board of Directors in response to public inquiries found that SANDAG staff had made a data aggregation error in 2004 and, as a result, subsequent forecasts for TransNet revenues were overstated. 6
After the error was discovered, SANDAG produced a new forecast based on data from leading financial firms including Moody’s, Woods and Poole, and IHS Markit. The 2016 consensus forecast produced by SANDAG in the aftermath of the forecasting error projected that TransNet would collect $19.2 billion in year of collection dollars, or $8.9 billion in real 2002 dollars.7 These figures represented a $16.8 billion decline from the initial forecast in year of collection dollars, or $5 billion in real 2002 dollars.8 While previous year forecasts suggested TransNet might collect less than initially forecasted, those forecasts included the data aggregation error and may still have understated the funding difference. Exhibit 8 compares the initial TransNet Extension Ordinance forecast made in 2002 to the most recent 2016 forecast produced by SANDAG.
5 The initial forecasts were based on projections of taxable retail sales and income from SANDAG’s Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM), a forecasting program the agency used from the late 1970s until 2016. A data aggregation error on one of the forecasting spreadsheets resulted in growth forecasts for one industry cluster to be significantly overstated. 6 The error was not present in the TransNet Extension Ordinance forecast placed before voters in 2004, but it did impact forecasts made between 2005 and 2016. The 2016 consensus forecast did not rely on the mis-aggregated data. 7 Sales tax revenue figures for the 2016 consensus forecast include actual collections from FY 2009 through FY 2016. 8 Nominal dollars include the effects of inflation over time, while real dollars remove the effect of inflation to provide a comparison across two points in time.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 26
EXHIBIT 8. ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL TRANSNET REVENUES (IN NOMINAL DOLLARS)
$2,500 $36.0 Billion
$2,000
$1,500
Collections in Millions in Millions Collections (nominal dollars) (nominal
$1,000 $19.2 Billion TransNet $500
$0
2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048
Actual Collections Ordinance Forecast (2002) Most Recent Forecast (2016)
Source: Forecast data provided by SANDAG.
Proportionally, most of the difference between the initial and most recent 2016 forecast occurred in the final 20 years of the TransNet Program where the impact of reduced revenues could affect the remaining projects unless other revenue sources are realized.
Positive changes were made to help reduce any future revenue forecasting errors While the forecast errors and decline in sales tax revenues raised concerns for SANDAG, oversight committees, and stakeholders, it resulted in positive changes to the revenue projection model. For instance, in response to the forecasting error, SANDAG developed a “Plan of Excellence” that included a seven-point plan to strengthen its modeling practices and ensure similar errors are not made in the future. If fully implemented, the plan would provide additional controls that would reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, the possibility of a similar error in the future. Some of the steps that follow were already implemented by SANDAG: 1. Conduct Detailed Review of the error in SANDAG’s Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM) which produced the input data used to estimate sales tax revenues, including the root cause. 2. Conduct Dependency Analysis to identify key SANDAG reports and deliverables that used data from SANDAG’s forecasting models—especially those used to forecast TransNet sales tax collections—to evaluate the significance of the impacts from any potential forecasting errors in addition to the potential effects on findings and policy recommendations. 3. Map Modeling Process Flow for future forecasts from source data through databases, models, and outputs to provide transparency and identify areas for improved quality assurance processes. 4. Improve Data Governance between SANDAG staff and the SANDAG Technical Services Department to develop a data warehouse, standardize data extraction routines, and ensure consistency of data.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 27 5. Review and Provide Oversight to validate the new SANDAG population, housing, and economic forecasting model using an independent expert review committee, including convening a panel of experts in economics, demographics, and land use to review the methods, data sources, and assumptions of the new SANDAG forecasting model. 6. Enhance Transparency by developing methods to ensure data and analytic transparency, including establishing checking points where full disclosure and analysis are provided to ensure that others can see how models were developed, how data was processed, and what assumptions were made along the way. 7. Develop and Formalize Processes to understand how staff roles, work flows, and technology contribute to producing key agency deliverables. This information will be used to realign the Technical Services Department, as well as add professional quality assurance staff and a dedicated database administrator.
Previously, SANDAG chose to provide a single point estimate for TransNet revenue projections. Given that forecasting revenues for a 40-year program is inherently difficult, SANDAG realized that providing a single point estimate for a 40-year forecast did not adequately communicate the underlying uncertainty and could overstate predictions. In the 2016 consensus forecast and the 2016-2017 POF, SANDAG showed a range of possible values with that range constructed by adding or subtracting 5 percent to the midpoint forecast. While these changes were positive, we recommend SANDAG enhances its model by using confidence intervals to better calculate the range of possible or likely values and communicate the uncertainty associated with forecasted revenues. Also, we encountered certain challenges with version control and data consistency in relation to supporting data available for the initial forecast of TransNet sales tax revenue. Given the volume of data generated by SANDAG, it is important that the agency establishes and procedures governing the storage, reporting, and release of data.
Reduced sales tax forecasts were similar to others SANDAG’s experience with sales tax forecast reductions was like those of the other transportation agencies we reviewed, although SANDAG was the only agency with a 40-year sales tax measure. As depicted in Exhibit 9, we compared SANDAG to three other transportation agencies that (1) had a similar half-cent sales tax measures used to fund transportation, (2) enacted or renewed a sales tax measure between 2003 and 2005, (3) forecasted sales tax revenue before collections began, and (4) revised revenue forecasts between 2013 and 2016.
Over the first 20 years of TransNet, the difference between the initial and most recent forecast was 32.3 percent, which was similar to the decreases observed in the 20-year forecasts for the Maricopa Association of Governments (39.9 percent) and Pima Association of Governments/Regional Transportation Authority (32 percent). Similarly, when looking at the first 30 years of TransNet collections, the decrease between SANDAG’s forecasts was 39.7 percent, less than the 41.6 percent reduction between forecasts made by the Orange County Transportation Authority for its 30-year sales tax collections.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 28 EXHIBIT 9. SALES TAX FORECAST COMPARISONS, SANDAG AND OTHER COMPARABLE AGENCIES Sales Tax Initial Initial Current Forecast Organization Collection Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance Updated Period Year (YOE $) (YOE $) 1 2009 - 2028 SANDAG (20-year) 2 2003 2016 $9.1 Billion $6.2 Billion -32.3% (20 Years) Maricopa Association of 2006-2026 2004 2014 $14.3 Billion $8.6 Billion -39.9% Governments (20 Years) Pima Association of 2007-2026 Governments/Regional 2005 2013 $2.5 Billion $1.7 Billion -32.0% (20 Years) Transportation Authority 2010 - 2038 SANDAG (30-Year) 2 2003 2016 19.0 Billion $11.4 billion -39.7% (30 Years) Orange County Transportation 2011-2041 2005 2016 $24.3 Billion $14.2 Billion -41.6% Authority (30 Years) 2009 - 2048 SANDAG (40-year) 2003 2016 $39.0 Billion $19.2 Billion -46.7% (40 Years) Source: Data provided by SANDAG, Maricopa Association of Governments, and Pima Association of Governments/Regional Transportation Authority, and Orange County Transportation Authority. Note: 1 Current forecasts include actual collections through the year in which the forecast was updated. 2 Auditors examined SANDAG forecasts over the first 20 and 30 years, respectively, of the 40-year TransNet Extension Ordinance to provide comparisons to the 20 and 30-year collection periods for peer agencies shown in the table.
Initial Project Cost Assumptions were Reasonable, but Transparency of Cost Updates Could be Improved Estimating the cost of large-scale capital construction projects, many of which will not begin construction for several years, is a challenge for all entities. At SANDAG, initial TransNet cost estimates were made before all project scopes had been defined, but were escalated to future year dollars based on assumptions about inflation in construction costs. As projects moved from initiation to final design, assumptions made during the initial estimate were refined and adjusted in subsequent POFs.
Initial cost estimate assumptions were conservative and reasonable As part of the 2005 POF, SANDAG commissioned a study to determine the appropriate rate to escalate current construction cost estimates to year of expenditure dollars and found that SANDAG should adopt a cost escalation rate for planning purposes of 7.25 percent over three years and 3.6 percent long-term thereafter. The SANDAG cost escalation methodology was reasonable and compared favorably to actual construction cost increases, as captured by the Caltrans Construction Cost Index (CCI) and the Engineering News Record Index (ENR). As shown in Exhibit 10, SANDAG’s cost assumptions fell in between the actual cumulative cost increases since 2002 captured by the two indices—SANDAG was higher than the ENR index, but much lower than the Caltrans index that saw significant increases over the past three to four years.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 29 EXHIBIT 10. COMPARISON OF SANDAG COST ESCALATION AND CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASES, 2002 TO 2016
2.750 2.65 2.500 2.250 2.000 1.83 1.750 1.500 1.250 1.51 1.000 0.750 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Caltrans CCI ENR Index SANDAG 2005 Escalation
Source: 2005 Plan of Finance and data provided by SANDAG.
Further, SANDAG took a conservative approach in its initial 2005 POF and 2016-2017 POF update where project costs were estimated in two ways—first, by escalating the original cost estimates to year-of- expenditure dollars and, second, by estimating project costs based on expected scope. SANDAG used the higher of the two estimates for planning purposes.
Construction costs since 2005 increased at a faster rate than revenues While SANDAG’s cost assumptions were reasonable, recent trends show that construction costs increased at a faster rate than TransNet revenues as shown in Exhibit 11. Specifically, construction cost indices grew between 34.6 and 43.4 percent. At the same time, TransNet revenues grew by only 20.5 percent. TransNet project cost increases were both the result of increases in actual construction costs and the result of more refined cost estimates as projects moved from preliminary design and engineering phases into construction. Initial cost estimates were based on project scopes that were approximated with the limited information known at the time. As a result, project costs may continue to escalate as project scopes continue to be more refined. As costs grow faster than revenues, SANDAG is challenged with identifying additional funding sources to cover the gap. Should this trend continue, it may become increasingly difficult to complete the portfolio of major corridor highway and transit projects within the 2048 horizon year without historic leveraged rates of additional funding sources.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 30 EXHIBIT 11. CUMULATIVE CHANGE IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND TRANSNET REVENUES, 2005 TO 2016 50% 43.5% 40% 30% 34.6% 20% 20.5% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ENR Index Caltrans CCI TransNet Revenue
Source: Revenue and cost data provided by SANDAG.
Regular updates and better communication of reasons for project cost changes are needed While SANDAG and its TransNet partners regularly updated and managed costs on their capital projects, communication of that information to oversight bodies did not always differentiate between cost increases due to scope changes and cost increases resulting from changes in construction costs—making it difficult to understand why the cost to complete the major corridor projects continued to rise. However, in its 2016-2017 POF, SANDAG provided more clarity about cost changes by noting changes in the ten-year moving average of construction costs. At that time, staff also asked the SANDAG Board for guidance through a cost estimation policy that would establish specific project milestones where estimates would be updated and communicated to the SANDAG Board.
To understand how project costs changed over time, we selected five major corridor projects for review.9 When costs were initially estimated at the start of TransNet in the 2005 POF, these projects were in various stages of development—three of the five projects had completed the final environmental impact document, while the remaining two projects had not yet started the preliminary environmental stage. For most projects, budgets and costs increased during the design and environmental stages but decreased during construction. However, the five projects reviewed began construction around the time of the Great Recession of 2008 when a favorable competitive bid environment led to lower costs than engineer’s estimates suggested just a year or two prior to construction.
For example, when costs for the SR 52 Extension project were estimated in the 2005 Plan of Finance, the project had completed the final environmental document and remaining costs were estimated at approximately $288 million (in 2005 dollars) as shown in Exhibit 12. In FY 2007, the $288 million in project costs were updated to $471 million (in year of expenditure dollars). As the project was designed and began construction in FY 2008, the budget increased to $600 million. By the time the SR 52 extension opened to the public in March 2011, the budget was reduced from $600 million to $521 million—largely due to construction costs being lower than the final engineer’s estimate. The project is expected to close-out in
9 Projects selected for review were 1201503 (I-15 Express Lanes North Segment), 1201504 (I-15 FasTrak®), 1205203 (SR 52 Extension), 1207602 (SR 76 Middle), and 1207606 (SR 76 East).
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 31 FY 2019 with a current budget of $461 million and actual expenditures through FY 2017 of $456 million.
EXHIBIT 12. PROJECT COST HISTORY FOR THE SR 52 EXTENSION
1205203: SR 52 Extension Expenditures: $456,148,000 $600 $549 $600 $529 $600 $579 $471 $489 $475 $464 $464 $500 $521 $461
$400 Budget (in Millions)
$300 $288
$200
$100
Environmental Environmental
Document
Final
Advertise Project Advertise Open to Public to Open $0 Construction Begin 2005 POF FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
Source: Project Budget and Expenditure History from TransNet Dashboard.
The exhibit example shows that project budgets fluctuate as projects move from the initial design and environmental impact phases into construction.
While SANDAG staff provided regular project cost updates to the SANDAG Board, previous reporting did not help decision makers understand the reasons behind cost fluctuations such as by identifying changes due to scope modifications from those changes related to construction cost factors or other factors. Practices also did not connect incremental cost changes at the project level to the total cost to complete the major corridors projects.
With project costs and concerns increasing, a more comprehensive cost update process must be developed to increase transparency and provide decision makers with meaningful information. Specifically, a new cost update policy and practice should be implemented that accomplishes the following: Updates project costs at particular project milestones; Establishes thresholds at which project cost updates, including explanations for changes, are presented to the SANDAG Board and ITOC; Differentiates cost increases due to changes in project scopes from cost increases due to changes in the cost of construction inputs; Connects changes in individual project costs to the overall cost to complete for major corridor projects; and Develops a consistent reporting template that connects individual project cost changes to the overall cost to complete allowing for a cleaner comparison of costs over the life of TransNet. The project listing shown in Appendix A could be used as a guide in developing this reporting template.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 32 Implementing these recommendations would both help decision makers better understand the reasons behind project cost changes and provide more regular cost updates to help manage awareness and expectations.
While Debt Financing was Reasonable, Transition to Pay-Go could Impact Pace of Project Completion Prior to the start of sales tax collections under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, SANDAG was faced with a decision—either use debt-financing to provide immediate funding for major corridor capital projects or adopt a pay-as-you-go (pay-go) approach saving sales tax revenues to spend on large capital projects. While both approaches have advantages and benefits over the other method as shown in Exhibit 13, SANDAG made the choice to use debt-financing for the first 10 years of the TransNet Program.
EXHIBIT 13. BENEFITS OF TWO PRIMARY METHODS USED TO FINANCE CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Debt Financing Pay-Go Greater control over cash-flow Avoids cost of funds associated with borrowing (debt service) Repayment in “cheaper” dollars No excessive debt burden or risk of default due to economic Shorter lead time and projects completed as needed downturns Increased flexibility in future years due to no long-term debt service Intergeneration equity 10 Source: Industry research and financing practices.
Studies show that debt is a sound practice for financing infrastructure, because larger infrastructure projects entail significant upfront project costs.11 Borrowing enables acceleration of projects and the spreading out of costs—both to current taxpayers who can see the benefit sooner and future taxpayers who will continue to use a transportation improvement and help pay for it. In this way, debt-financing is considered more equitable than using current and available funds with projects taking longer and current residents who may not enjoy the future improvement. SANDAG’s bonded debt payback period ran from 31 years for bonds issued in 2017 to 40 years for bonds issued in 2008—all less than the typical useful life of capital construction projects of 45 years.12 Ultimately, SANDAG issued debt to advance projects, although it expects to transition to a pay-go approach by 2022 to limit the amount of accumulated debt.
Debt financing allowed SANDAG to accelerate early action program projects In 2005, the SANDAG Board authorized the use of debt financing to accelerate the start of 19 major corridor capital construction project segments through design and environmental permit stages. This use of debt financing allowed SANDAG to raise significant capital funds while maintaining a reasonable debt service schedule that appeared to be consistent with sound financial management practices. In fact,
10 Capital transportation projects typically have a useful life of approximately 45 years; while future residents will enjoy the benefits of these projects, they would not have contributed to their completion under a pay-go system. Under debt financing, debt is repaid over a time period that is close to the useful life of the asset. As such, those who benefit from the project also pay the cost. 11 The Municipal Research and Services Center, Financing Public Infrastructure: Generational Equity and Municipal Debt by Jenifer C. Merkel, September 1, 2012 and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, It’s Time for States to Invest in Infrastructure by Elizabeth McNichol, August 10, 2017. 12 According to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, highway assets should be depreciated over a useful life of 45 years.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 33 SANDAG used a variety of debt financing mechanisms, including bonds, commercial paper, and interest rate swap agreements to fund TransNet and its major corridors in particular.
As of the end of 2017, five variable and fixed-rate bond series were issued generating more than $2.2 billion over the last decade—$1.8 billion of which provided cash flow to capital projects—and a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan totaling $537 million was secured for future use on the Mid-Coast project. This debt structure was reviewed by external consultants who provided advice related to decreasing risk through other financing vehicles or activities as necessary. Also, SANDAG staff regularly monitored debt service costs to keep debt service at a manageable level without jeopardizing the long-term health of program. Debt service coverage ratios were and are projected to remain above the 2.0 ratio required by SANDAG Board policy—although coverage ratios decreased over time as SANDAG’s increased debt grew closer to its capacity limit. Further, the SANDAG Board and ITOC receive quarterly updates on SANDAG’s debt service obligations and investment strategies.
Moreover, accelerating these projects likely helped SANDAG take advantage of unexpected funding streams and a favorable cost environment that emerged throughout the past decade such as state Proposition 1B in 2006 and the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 because projects were in a “shovel ready” state when funding became available. Recent forecasts suggested SANDAG should be able to meet its existing debt obligations without sacrificing the ability to allocate TransNet dollars to capital projects.
SANDAG’s use of debt compared with others Peer transportation agencies with similar sales tax measures—including Orange County Transportation Authority in California, the Pima County Regional Transportation Authority in Pima County, Arizona, and Valley Metro in Phoenix, Arizona—all issued debt to fund similar transportation projects. The Pima County Regional Transportation Authority, for example, issued $267 million in bonds under their current ordinance, with current sales tax collections of roughly $75 million and annual debt service obligations of $28 million.13 SANDAG, by comparison, issued more than $2.2 billion in bonds, with current sales tax collections of $290 million and annual debt service of $105 million.14 Although the agencies differed significantly in size and scope, both have annual debt service obligations equal to roughly one-third of current sales tax collections.
Transition to pay-go financing may impact pace of project completion To ensure debt service remains manageable as the TransNet Program reaches the end of its debt- financing strategy, SANDAG is expected to transition to a pay- -go approach to fund major corridor capital construction projects by 2022. Specifically, SANDAG is nearing its near-term debt capacity level, and the move will limit repayment to the end of the current TransNet Extension in 2048.
13 Sales tax collections were for 2016 and were provided by the Pima Association of Governments/Regional Transportation Authority. Debt service and bond amounts were taken from the most recent bond issuance notice from May 2014. 14 A portion of funds from recent bond issuances have been used to refund prior bond issuances. The $2.2 billion figure represents gross bond funds issued. SANDAG amounts are for fiscal year 2015-2016.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 34 While pay-go has benefits such as the advantage of avoiding the costs of debt financing as discussed earlier in Exhibit 13, changes to project scopes and cost increases could have a greater impact on SANDAG’s ability to complete the major corridor capital construction projects by 2048. Under pay-go, SANDAG will have to “save up” funding from TransNet sales tax collections while securing federal, state, and local grant and matching funds before expending the funds on capital projects.
However, the pay-go approach could require stretching out projects over a longer time until adequate funding is saved or separating projects into manageable segments to complete as funding becomes available. According to SANDAG, this might involve a “staggered, or accordion approach, where work is accelerated or slowed down depending on funding availability.” While debt financing may be unavailable, there would still be regular formula funds coming into the region from state and federal sources to augment the TransNet collections. Moreover, there will still be options to advance projects through short-term financing mechanisms, like grant anticipation notes and bond anticipation notes, to stay competitive for future opportunities for money from state or federal programs that may be developed in the future.
Major Corridor Debt Service and Related Revenue Growth must be Closely Monitored to Assess Impact on TransNet Program Allocations Under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, 38 percent of net TransNet collections are allocated to major corridor capital projects. However, the various bond series and the TIFIA loan were secured against all TransNet revenues. Thus, if debt service were to exceed TransNet collections allocated for the major corridor projects, TransNet funds that were designated for other TransNet programs might instead be used to meet SANDAG’s debt service obligations. If TransNet revenue growth is lower than expected or needed to complete projects, major corridor projects could be delayed or other TransNet Program areas outside of the major corridor projects could be affected. To assess the potential impact, we evaluated SANDAG’s ability to meet debt service obligations (1) while still maintaining a positive cash flow for major corridor projects and (2) without having to use TransNet funds destined for other TransNet programs. Results are discussed in the sections that follow.
Annual TransNet revenues are projected to exceed debt service, but periods of higher risk exist The 2016 consensus forecast produced by SANDAG estimated total TransNet collections of $17.3 billion (in year of collection dollars) from 2018 until the end of the current TransNet extension in FY 2048—with 38 percent of these net collections allocated to major corridors totaling $6.4 billion in TransNet sales tax funds. Current debt obligations for the major corridors projects total $4.2 billion (including the TIFIA loan which is not expected to be drawn until 2021). Given the current forecast, SANDAG will cumulatively accumulate $2.2 billion in TransNet funds for major corridor projects after debt obligations are met.
While current TransNet allocations for major corridors are cumulatively projected to be greater than debt service, there are periods where nearly all TransNet revenues will be used to pay debt service as illustrated in Exhibit 14. For instance, in FY 2017, TransNet collections for major corridors was $104.1 million and debt service was approximately $97 million—leaving approximately $7 million for major corridor projects. Similarly, in FY 2018, that debt service will rise to roughly $105 million per year and remain at that level
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 35 through 2025. Despite the anticipated revenue growth, nearly all major corridors funds will go to pay debt service between FY 2017 and FY 2020.
EXHIBIT 14. TRANSNET FORECASTED COLLECTIONS, DEBT SERVICE, AND NET FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MAJOR CORRIDOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, FY 2017 TO FY 2048
$400 FY 2048 Revenues: $350 $234M
$300
$250 $105 Million Annual $200 Debt Service $150
$100 $157M $50 $97M $105M
Year of Collection Millions) (in Dollars Collection of Year $0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 Combined Annual Debt Service Net Major Corridors Funds
Source: SANDAG Quarterly Financial Reports and 2016 Consensus Forecast.
Yet, while forecasted major corridor sales tax allocations are greater than debt service obligations each year through 2048, there is another period where the amount of estimated revenues will be very similar to the amount debt service. Specifically, in FY 2026, debt service spikes to $135 million and slowly increases each year through 2045—at which point, debt service will be $157 million.
Lower than expected TransNet revenue growth could impact other TransNet Program Areas Since debt is backed by all TransNet revenues, any debt shortfall in the major corridor projects would impact other TransNet areas. Thus, revenue growth has to meet projections or those impacts could be realized.
We conducted a sensitivity analysis using actual TransNet revenues between 1990 and 2017, the 2016 consensus forecast, and current debt service obligations to determine the rate of growth in sales tax revenues needed to meet major corridor project debt service obligations—while still maintaining a positive annual cash flow between FY 2018 through FY 2026. To cover the increased debt service by FY 2026, TransNet revenues would need to grow 29.4 percent, or roughly 2.93 percent annually. The most recent 2016 forecast predicted revenues will increase 3.9 percent annually between FY 2017 and FY 2026— suggesting the revenue growth will be sufficient to meet debt service. Moreover, TransNet revenues have historically grown 3.6 percent, on average, between FY 1990 and FY 2017, lending additional support that the expected revenue growth should be sufficient to cover debt service when obligations increase in FY 2026.
However, when compared to a 10-year moving average, the results were not as clear. Specifically, using actual collection data between FY 1990 and FY 2017, we calculated the historic 10-year moving average for TransNet sales tax revenue growth to compare against the reasonableness of future revenue growth
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 36 expectations and ability to cover debt service.15 Results showed the historic 10-year moving average for TransNet exceeded the 2.93 growth rate forecasted in the consensus forecast each year between FY 2001 and FY 2009, but fell below that rate between FY 2010 and FY 2017 as shown in Exhibit 15.
EXHIBIT 15. TRANSNET REVENUES 10-YEAR MOVING AVERAGE GROWTH RATES, 2001 TO 2017
8.0% 7.2% 7.0% 6.7% 7.0% 6.2% 6.1% 5.7% 6.0% 5.4% 5.0% 4.4% 3.7% 4.0% 3.9% 3.6% 3.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.8% 2.0% 1.4% 1.5% 1.0% 0.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Moving Average for Prior 10-Year Period Consensus Forecast Growth, 2018 to 2026 (3.9%) Average Growth, 1990 to 2017 (3.6%) Required Growth (2.9%)
Source: SANDAG Quarterly Financial Reports, 2016 consensus forecast, and historical sales tax data. Note: The 2016 consensus forecast growth rate is shown for illustrative purpose only.
If there were to be another period of significant economic recession or stagnation, revenues could fail to grow at a rate which would allow SANDAG to meet debt obligations for the major corridors while maintaining a positive annual cash flow. Therefore, SANDAG staff must closely and frequently monitor TransNet revenues and debt service obligations over the next 10 years to ensure that major corridor project revenues are sufficient to meet debt service obligations and allow SANDAG to transition to a pay-go approach without delaying major corridor projects. If revenues stagnate over the next triennial audit period, SANDAG and ITOC should explore options including restructuring, refinancing, in addition to other solutions for allocating funds for these projects.
Capacity for Future Projects must be closely Managed to complete Major Corridor Projects While much was accomplished with the TransNet Program since 2005, the program is still in the early phases of its lifecycle with another 30 years of tax collections and transportation improvements planned. Knowing with certainty whether sufficient resources will be available over the next 30 years is a challenging endeavor as many unknowns exist and the industry will change in ways that are difficult to predict at this stage in the TransNet Program life cycle. Capital financiers must continuously refine capital costs, program delivery, revenue and borrowing assumptions, and explore opportunities to obtain additional federal and state funding. As such, long-term transportation planning must be focused on reasonable expectations to deliver intended results.
15 The ten-year moving average provides a comparison between the growth rate in TransNet revenues required to meet debt service over the next 10 years of TransNet and the actual growth rates observed over historic ten-year periods.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 37 Over the past three years, SANDAG was faced with three factors that complicated completing the TransNet Program—first, TransNet revenues were lower than expected between 2014 and 2016 and future revenue projections were revised downward. Second, construction costs continued to increase. Finally, as SANDAG transitions to a pay-go approach for financing capital projects, the ability to efficiently save and spend could be significantly impacted if revenue growth stagnates. Together, these factors present challenges to completing the major corridor projects by the 2048 horizon year of the TransNet Program.
Given current revenue projections, SANDAG needs to effectively leverage other funds to deliver major corridor projects by 2048 With TransNet sales tax revenues for major corridor projects estimated to be $6.2 billion, the 2016-2017 Plan of Finance noted that SANDAG would need to leverage each TransNet dollar with an additional $3.40 from other funding sources. Although SANDAG historically had a program-wide leveraging ratio of more than $3 to $1, the leveraging ratio for major corridor projects since the start of the accelerated TransNet Extension Ordinance in 2005 was only $1.89 to $1—below the ratio need to complete the major corridor projects without additional funding.
Specifically, the 2016-2017 Plan of Finance estimated $23.1 billion would be needed to complete the major corridor projects. As of June 30, 2017, there were 30 project segments in-progress as shown in Exhibit 16. Based on SANDAG TransNet Dashboard data, the current 30 project segments in-progress have a remaining budget of approximately $2.75 billion and are scheduled to be completed by 2027.
EXHIBIT 16. TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE PROJECTS IN-PROGRESS, AS OF 6/30/2017 1
Ordinance # CIP # Project Name Remaining Budget 2 #
1 45 1201507 SR 15 BRT: Mid-City Centerline Stations $29,629,000
2 7, 45 1201514 Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility $44,411,000
3 7, 8 1201518 I-15 Mira Mesa Transit Station Parking Structure $14,202,000
4 14 1280504 South Bay BRT $85,733,400
5 5, 6 1280508 SR 94 Express Lanes I-805 to Downtown (Environmental) $1,369,000
6 14 1280513 I-805/SR 94 Bus on Shoulder Demonstration Project $30,398,885
7 3, 16 1280514 I-805/SR 15 Interchange $1,466,394
8 9 1280515 I-805 South Soundwalls $25,890,000
9 21 1200506 I-5/Genesee Interchange and Widening $48,514,061
10 21 1200507 I-5/Voigt Drive Improvements $8,337,000
11 21 1200508 I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge $20,451,196
12 23 1257001 Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT) $1,584,723,719
13 29 1200503 I-5/SR 56 Interchange $6,510,396
14 26, 27 1200504 I-5 HOV Birmingham to Palomar $377,793,000
15 31 1239803 Oceanside Station Pass-Through Track $22,806,570
16 31 1239805 Poinsettia Station Improvements $25,459,283
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 38 Ordinance # CIP # Project Name Remaining Budget 2 #
17 31 1239806 San Elijo Lagoon Double Track $61,511,000
18 31 1239809 Eastbrook to Shell Double Track (Design) $1,079,185
19 31 1239810 Carlsbad Village Double Track (Design) $1,195,291
20 31 1239811 Elvira to Morena Double Track $146,030,043
21 31 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 (Design) $3,606,319
22 31 1239813 San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Platform (Design) $1,744,931
23 31 1239814 COASTER Preliminary Engineering (Design) $179,554
24 31 1239815 San Diego River Bridge $82,046,427
25 31 1239816 Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track $47,135,406
26 31 1239817 Chesterfield Drive Crossing Improvements $6,129,047
27 32 1205201 SR 52 2ML: I-15 to SR 125 (Environmental) $5,122,000
28 34 1212501 SR 94/SR 125 South to East Connector (Design) $972,000
29 39 - SR 67 Intersection Improvements at Dye Rd Not applicable. 3
30 47, 48 1390505 SR 905/125/11 Southbound Connectors $67,927,644
30 Projects, Total: $2,752,373,751 Source: TransNet Dashboard (TransNettrip.com) and SANDAG data. Note: 1 Segment in-progress could be at different project phases such as environmental, design, or construction and is part of a larger corridor. 2 Budget is in 2017 dollars. 3 Project did not use TransNet major corridor funds; rather $14 million of County of San Diego TransNet funds and $2 million of State Highway Operation and Protection Program funds were programmed for this project.
Moreover, an additional $17.6 billion in projects outlined in the Ordinance have not yet started as shown in Exhibit 17. Those projects are planned to be completed by 2048 or within the current timeframe of the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.16 Additionally, another $2.7 billion relates to future efforts on the major corridors that have not yet been allocated to specific project segments. With debt service obligations of $4.8 billion, the total price tag for major corridor projects would be approximately $28 billion.
EXHIBIT 17. TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED, AS OF 6/30/2017
Ordinance Estimated Cost Summary Description # to Complete 1
I-805 Corridor $7,473M
I-805: Mission Valley Viaduct 11
SR 52: I-15 to I-805 17
HOV Connector: I-805 / SR 52 Interchange 18
I-5 South Corridor $4,236M
I-5: SR 905 to SR 54 19
16 While the 2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan listed these projects as scheduled for completion by 2050, the TransNet Extension Ordinance sunsets by 2048.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 39 Ordinance Estimated Cost Summary Description # to Complete 1
I-5: SR 54 to I-8 20
I-5 North Corridor $3,273M
HOV Connector: I-5 / I-805 Interchange 28
FWY Connector: I-5 / SR 78 Interchange 30
SR 94 / SR 125 $1,873M
SR 94: SR 125 to Steele Canyon Rd 35
SR 94 / SR 125: I-805 to I-8 36
SR 54 / SR 125 $383M
SR 54 / SR 125: I-805 to SR 94 38
I-8 Corridor $80M
I-8: Second St to Los Coches Rd 40
SR 56 $273M
SR 56: I-5 to I-15 44
Coronado Tunnel Not applicable SR 75 / SR 282 (Coronado Tunnel): Glorietta Blvd to 46 Not applicable Alameda Blvd 2
Total Estimated Cost to Complete: $17,591M Source: TransNet Dashboard (TransNettrip.com) and the 2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Note: 1 Estimated Cost is in 2017 dollars. 2 Coronado residents voted against the Coronado Tunnel project in June 2010. The project is no longer in the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
If revenues are insufficient to deliver the major corridor projects by 2048, SANDAG may have to reexamine project priorities and make decisions on whether to delay projects beyond 2048, reduce project scope, or eliminate projects. SANDAG has detailed project funding criteria on which they can draw and expand; however, SANDAG should consider supplementing that criteria with historic performance data collected since the beginning of TransNet. In addition to the existing funding criteria, performance data would help inform the prioritization process, allowing SANDAG to focus on projects that best address congestion relief or other TransNet goals while delaying or cutting scope for others.
Moreover, a structure should be developed to analyze funding sources and uses needed for the final 10 to 20 years of TransNet to identify potential capacity and revenue constraints that would impact the agency’s ability to complete the major corridor projects by 2048 and consider options such as delaying projects, eliminating projects, or reducing scope. This type of capacity assessment should be formally revisited on a regular basis—such as during regional plan updates—so decision makers are aware of periods in which the agency may have to make critical project decisions.
Future mix of projects needed may change and affect funding needs Given how technology changed the transportation landscape over the last decade, SANDAG must continually reevaluate whether the portfolio of projects remaining to be completed are the best mix for
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 40 achieving congestion relief and other goals of the TransNet Program. For instance, different types of projects may be needed to retrofit existing infrastructure to support technological advancements such as designated lanes to accommodate autonomous vehicles or charging stations for electric vehicles. With 30 years remaining in the TransNet measure, the mix of projects needed could change as identified through various regional planning cycles and should be formally considered more frequently than just at the 10-year review milestones outlined in the TransNet Ordinance.
For instance, over the most recent five years, there were extensive studies, research, and information concerning autonomous vehicles and how transportation planning agencies should react. Benefits cited include reduced traffic, parking needs, accidents, and emissions in addition to calling for a potential change in the mix and usage of public transportation.17 However, there is still great uncertainty and wide ranges of probability on how soon these vehicles will become commonplace and how they affect roadway design and construction and public transit demand. Some predict a tiered roll-out of autonomous vehicles, while others predict that autonomous vehicles will not become mainstream until 2040 or later.
Thus, SANDAG must continue to vigilantly monitor and report on this trend as part of long-term planning to understand impacts to the transportation network and be diligent in its TransNet decisions to avoid building expensive infrastructure that could be rendered obsolete.
As Additional Rapid Routes begin Service, Changes to the Transit Operations Plan may be Needed In addition to a Plan of Finance (POF) for major corridor projects, SANDAG worked with the local transit operators to develop a Transit Operations Plan for operating transit services on the new capital construction transit projects. Transit operations costs and revenues were recently discussed with the SANDAG Transportation Committee as well. While TransNet allocates 8.1 percent of sales tax revenues to fund these operations, the latest Transit Operations Plan showed some cash flow deficits with the first annual shortfall in 2022 and the cumulative shortfall starting in 2043. Thus, SANDAG must work closely with the Metropolitan Transit System (MTD) and North County Transit District (NCTD) to mitigate the impact to the local operators who would have to assume any losses through other funding sources or reductions in service.
Only Rapid transit services are funded through the Operations Plan Although MTS and NCTD operate a combined fleet of transit vehicles, revenue and cost projections in the Transit Operations Plan were solely TransNet-focused on financing the new Rapid routes in operation over the last three years as well as planned funding for future routes on Mid-Coast, Blue Line, SPRINTER, and COASTER operations. Specifically, new major corridor transit services supported by TransNet are shown in Exhibit 18.
17 Deloitte Insights: The Future of Mobility, 9/24/2015.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 41 EXHIBIT 18. NEW MAJOR CORRIDOR TRANSIT SERVICES
No. Service Service Status 1. SuperLoop Rapid In-Service (2009) 2. Mid-City Rapid 215 In-Service (2014) 3. I-15 Rapid 235 In-Service (2014) 4. I-15 Rapid 237 In-Service (2014) 5. South Bay Rapid Committed (Opens in 2019) 6. Mid-Coast Trolley Committed (Opens in 2021) 7. South Bay Rapid Express Planned (Opens by 2035) 8. Blue Line Trolley Planned (Service Increased by 2035) 9. COASTER Planned (Service increased by 2020 and 2035) 10. SPRINTER Planned (Service increased by 2020 and 2035) Source: 2016 Transit Operations Plan. Note: In its December 2017 presentation to the SANDAG Transportation Committee, the COASTER was presented as “committed” since a number of dollars was spent on double-tracking this corridor to facilitate the service increases.
Assumptions used in the Transit Operations Plan were generally reasonable, although future shortfalls exist In general, the assumptions regarding ridership, farebox recovery, and operating costs were consistent with actual Transit performance data for MTS and NCTD operated transit services. On the revenue side, SANDAG used reasonable methods to estimate fare revenues by multiplying the average fare for each service type by the estimated number of riders. An activity-based model forecasted transportation demand by modeling how and where people travel on a daily basis. For existing services, actual ridership figures were also used to project the fare revenues.
On the cost side, the Transit Operations Plan model calculated the net cost (total operating and maintenance costs less fare revenue) of each service through 2048 in year of expenditure dollars. Costs were reasonably estimated in two ways—for existing Rapid routes (Routes 215, 235, and 237 and SuperLoop), costs were known from negotiated rates as part of a memorandum of understanding with MTS. For future planned services, SANDAG used costs for similar services and routes and escalated those amounts for future years to account for inflation. Operations and maintenance costs were included in the rates charged by MTS and NCTD, but SANDAG also included estimates of additional costs for items such as parking structures. These practices align with other similar entities.
While the model factors were reasonable and aligned with industry practices, the 2016 Transit Operations Plan showed a cumulative shortfall of $82 million over the remaining 30-year life of the plan. Of particular note, two periods show annual shortfalls—one running from FY 2022 through FY 2028 and the second spanning FY 2035 through FY 2048 as shown in Exhibit 19. Cumulatively, transit operations estimates showed a surplus from FY 2009 through FY 2042, before cash flow goes negative in FY 2043. In fact, total costs are estimated at $3.2 billion (year of expenditure) for operating these services with TransNet revenue estimated at $1.7 billion and fare revenues estimated at roughly $1.4 billion. Farebox recovery—the amount of total costs covered by fare revenues—totals 43 percent. System wide, farebox recovery ranged between
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 42 33 percent and 37 percent over the past three fiscal years, while farebox recovery in FY 2016 for existing Rapid routes ranged from 16 percent to 35 percent. Given this historic farebox recovery performance, the farebox recovery rate included in the Transit Operations Plan appears overly optimistic. Overall, the plan estimated that revenues will be 4.6 percent lower than net operating costs.
EXHIBIT 19. TRANSIT OPERATIONS PLAN SURPLUS OR SHORTFALL, FY 2009 THROUGH FY 2048
$20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 ($5,000) ($10,000) ($15,000) ($20,000) ($25,000) 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048
Annual Surplus or Shortfall Source: 2016 Transit Operations Plan.
While the funding shortfall raises some concern, the gap between projected revenues and costs was relatively small at less than 5 percent. Yet, SANDAG and the operators should closely monitor the Transit Operations Plan over the next three years by comparing actual TransNet revenues and operating costs against the Transit Operations Plan projections as two additional Rapid services are slated to begin operations (South Bay Rapid and Mid-Coast Trolley). Although the program appears to have sufficient funding through 2042, that may change as new services are implemented. Decision makers will want to act ahead of any cash flow and funding challenges, especially to prevent service reductions if revenues cannot keep pace with costs for new services as well as existing services. Moreover, SANDAG is currently conducting a fare study—if fares are adjusted, this could also affect projected shortfalls.
Recommendations: To better ensure plans of finance are reasonable to guide decision makers in completing the long-range projects in the TransNet Program, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 1. Enhance the POF process and information provided to decision makers by implementing the following: a. Leveraging historical data and previous POFs to provide additional information regarding estimates of future revenue sources, by comparing projections against historical data as well as comparing estimates from previous POFs against actual funding secured. b. Continuing efforts to increase the transparency of sales tax revenue forecasts by showing a range of possible values based on a true confidence interval. SANDAG staff should work
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 43 with the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) and the SANDAG Board to select a confidence level or levels that best communicates the range of possible values projected by the forecast including best case, worse case, or reasonably expected scenarios. c. Developing a process or policy for more frequent reporting—such as quarterly—to oversight committees on cost increases and include factors used to estimate costs, project stage or milestone used as basis for cost, and reasons for cost increase such as inflation, materials spike, or scope changes using Dashboard data and other reliable data sources. 2. Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and its 7-point Data Accuracy and Modeling Work Plan are implemented to reduce the potential for data errors and develop formal procedures covering version control, periodic archival of dynamic or continuously updated data and documents, data validation and accuracy, and release and reporting of data. The status of the implementation of the 7-point plan and new procedures for data authentication should be documented and reported back to decision makers. 3. Regularly track and report on the TransNet Program’s financial capacity to complete projects and programs by implementing the following: a. Establishing a formal structured protocol to review funding sources and uses occurring in the last 10 to 20 years of the TransNet Extension Program to identify potential capacity and revenue constraints that would impact the ability to complete the major corridor projects by 2048 and assess options such as delaying projects, eliminating projects, or reducing scope as warranted. This capacity assessment should be formally revisited on a regular basis, so that decision makers are aware of periods in which the agency may have to consider delaying projects or reducing project scope as needed. b. Monitoring TransNet revenues and debt service obligations against needed growth projections to better ensure that revenues are sufficient to meet debt service, as well as regularly reporting on results and options to oversight committees that could include restructuring, refinancing, or retiring existing debt or delaying the transition to a pay-as- you-go approach for financing capital projects. c. Identifying methods to assess options, if needed, to delay, eliminate, or reduce scope of projects and whether the method would follow the same priority process used in the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan or a different process would be used. d. Monitoring and reporting on the impacts of changing transportation technologies on the transportation network and future TransNet projects as part of long-term planning to avoid building expensive infrastructure that could be rendered obsolete. 4. Continue to work closely with the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) to monitor the Transit Operations Plan by comparing actual TransNet revenues and operating costs against the Transit Operations Plan projections as additional services begin operations to highlight and mitigate the impact to the local operators, how to absorb any discrepancies through other funding sources, or potential scenarios for reductions in service if warranted. Communicate status, recommended actions, and any mitigation activities.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 44 Chapter 2: Performance Framework
The 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance envisioned goals for sales tax revenues to fund transportation improvements in the San Diego region that would: Relieve congestion and improve safety Maintain or improve local streets and roads Expand freeways Increase transit for seniors and persons with disabilities Match state and federal funds Expand commuter express bus, trolley, and COASTER services
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
Key elements of a performance Set targets for a more meaningful review of progress of the various TransNet framework were not established at funded programs and measure performance against TransNet Ordinance the start of the Ordinance to goals. measure output and performance against the goals of TransNet. Capture performance outcome data related to: o Safety for both motorized and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries Goals were established in the using data available from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Traffic TransNet Extension Ordinance, Integrated Records System. but targets were not set and data o Pavement condition for highways, bridges, and local roadways using was not collected to measure Caltrans data or other reliable sources. progress towards TransNet goals. o Commute times on local roadways using data available through Caltrans or Only limited analysis was private entities that provide transportation analytics. performed to look-back on actual results for highway commutes and Conduct more robust analysis of cause and effect for all performance metrics transit services. Existing to provide meaning to results or help determine if different strategies or performance reporting projects should be employed to get a better result. emphasized modeling results and Provide regular performance monitoring reports that consider past analysis as part of regional long- performance in relation to TransNet goals. term planning and future efforts. Consider allocating funding for additional performance monitoring activities Performance data was available given that SANDAG will likely require more data sources, tools, and resources through a variety of sources, but to track, validate, analyze, ensure quality, and report performance. was not consistently summarized and reported regionally at the Expand on and bolster existing output tracking tools (Story Map, Dashboard, SANDAG level. ProjectTrak) by solidifying data inputs and reconcile results against TransNet Extension Ordinance expectations, especially for the Local Street and Road Program.
A meaningful performance framework should consider elements that allow ELEMENTS OF A PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK for the determination of how outcomes and outputs support progress towards Establish a program’s goals and how decisions made based on data and results can Goals
improve performance. Adjust Goals & Set Targets Framework begins with the establishment of goals and setting of targets to Targets attain the goals. Once targets are set, output and outcome data needs to be collected and measured against targets. To ensure accuracy of collected data, data sets should be validated and analyzed before results are Collect & synthesized and reported to the public. As available results are presented Report Measure Results and vetted in a public forum, goals and targets may need to be adjusted to Data
address changing conditions and needs. Validate & Analyze Data
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 45 Chapter Introduction Outcomes are one of the most important measures of what government entities provide. They compare the results or outputs of program activities—such as completed construction projects or new transit service stops—to a program’s intended purpose to determine progress toward meeting goals. Simply put, outcomes are the impact or result made possible through government actions such as quicker or safer commutes.
To measure outcomes, a structured performance framework should be in place and include the steps shown in Exhibit 20. As noted by the Federal Highway Administration, the ultimate purpose of performance measurement “is not just reporting the performance of the system, but the development of actions that improve performance.”18 Over the last several years, transportation agencies and the federal government have been evolving toward stronger performance measurement in terms of performance priorities, goals target setting, and data collection methods. Legislation passed in 2012 and subsequent guidance have progressively elevated target setting and performance measurement, and transportation agencies across the nation have reacted to these mandates.
EXHIBIT 20. ELEMENTS OF A PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Establish Goals
Adjust Targets and Goals based on Set Targets Results
Collect & Measure Report Results Outcome and Output Data
Validate & Analyze Data
Source: Auditor-generated based on industry performance literature and research.
Performance Targets were Not Established, Although Government Best Practices Recommend as part of a Comprehensive Performance Plan As part of the ballot language for the extension of TransNet sales taxes in 2004, SANDAG developed goals related to congestion relief, safety, and increased transit services among other areas. According to SANDAG, the Board’s direction in 2004 was to complete as many projects as possible under the premise that those efforts would address TransNet goals., While SANDAG developed goals as part of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and set certain performance indicators as part of its San Diego Forward: The
18 Federal Highway Administration Publication #FHWA-HOP-12-018, May 2012, “Operations Performance Measures: The Foundation for Performance-Based Management of Transportation Operations Programs.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 46 Regional Plan, it did not define targets at the outset of the TransNet Program or as part of the regional plan updates. To enable a more meaningful review of progress of the various TransNet projects, targets are needed.19
For decades, best practices recommended using targets or standards as part of any entity’s performance plan.20 More recently, the federal government mandated performance-based planning and development of certain performance indicators. Specifically, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act of 2012 as continued under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 required performance targets in certain areas—safety; pavement and bridge condition; system, freight, and congestion mitigation and air quality; and asset management. However, the federal government set long timeframes for implementation and required metropolitan planning organizations such as SANDAG to coordinate with its state department of transportation (Caltrans) on target-setting—efforts which are currently underway for target-setting and data collection. Thus far, targets were required only for safety indicators, with congestion and asset management performance targets required to be implemented later in 2018.
Similar to others in industry, SANDAG and Caltrans followed federal timelines and guidance for setting targets and evolving to a stronger performance measurement system. Although it is understandable that SANDAG may choose to set targets according to the federal schedule, certain other entities around the nation have regularly tracked and reported against targets as described in the bullets that follow. Depending on the length of time expected to create targets, gather data, and begin to analyze and report on that data, SANDAG may want to implement some type of interim goals or targets for the TransNet Program on a more accelerated timeframe. San Francisco, California The Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the San Francisco Bay Area and its sister agency, the Association of Bay Area Governments, used performance targets in its Plan Bay Area 2040 regional plan to measure and report on its transportation network conditions including: Increase share of jobs accessible within 30 minutes by auto by 20 percent; and Increase non-auto mode share by 10 percent. Chicago, Illinois In its long-range transportation plan titled Go to 2040, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning established specific targets such as: Increase arterials with acceptable ride quality to 90 percent and bridges “not deficient” to 80 percent; and Increase transit ridership’s share to 13.5 percent of trips each weekday.
19 Prior triennial TransNet Performance Audits have raised issues regarding setting performance goals and targets as well as measuring performance against those goals. Refer to TransNet Performance Audit for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 pages 46-48, 49, 50, and 97; FY 2012 pages 19, 20, 22, 31-34, 42-45, 48-49, 67-69, 71, 74-77,84, 90, and 97-101; and FY 2015 pages 2-3, 12-14, 31-34, 43-45, 55-57, 64-65, and 71-74. 20 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 set forth provisions to improve performance by setting goals and reporting progress. Additionally, the U.S. General Accounting Office Publication GAO/GGD-10.1.20. An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans, April 1998, provided direction on using targets to assess progress towards goals. Moreover, the Transportation Research Board cited targets as a characteristic of an effective performance-measurement system to enhance public transparency and accountability.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 47 Even without targets, SANDAG could report useful information on whether performance trends are favorable or unfavorable. This trend information is important when presenting performance data because a measure with a decrease could indicate a favorable or unfavorable direction. For certain measures, the direction is obvious, such as for safety which a downward trend (towards zero crashes) is always favorable. However, for other measures, the goals of the region can affect whether a specific measure going down is favorable or not. For example, a region may choose a target to increase vehicle miles of travel as part of its goal of a stronger economy, while another region may set a target to decrease vehicle miles of travel as part of its goal to promote alternative transportation to relieve congestion, enhance the environment, and sustain healthier communities. Because an unfavorable trend might still be aligned with regional goals, such as keeping congestion below certain thresholds where projections indicate congestion will rise with regional population growth, it is important to include narrative explaining trend results.
Performance Not Measured for all TransNet Areas, and Additional Data is Needed In terms of TransNet goals such as congestion relief and safety, SANDAG tracked and reported data for its major corridor highways through its State of the Commute report and data related to transit through the Transit Coordinated Plan. These reports were published annually and biennially, respectively, and provide information such as highway travel time, commute delay, transit boardings, and transit passenger miles. While SANDAG used data from external databases to capture and report on commutes on highway corridors and transit routes, there were limited performance metrics available in other TransNet areas.
Because SANDAG is the regional entity responsible for TransNet, it makes sense that SANDAG should be the entity to summarize and report on performance efforts or fill in any performance gaps in areas not covered by other TransNet partners. Thus, SANDAG’s performance measurement system should be strengthened to measure other outcomes related to highway safety and infrastructure; local street and road congestion relief, safety, and infrastructure; and habitat conservation to ensure it can assess progress towards meeting TransNet goals.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, establishing a performance measurement program improves the effectiveness of any program since significant effort goes into planning and implementing projects, but little effort goes into looking back on how they performed. The Federal Highway Administration offers four key benefits as follows: Provide transparency to public and accountability to public officials Understand where problems are Direct the best mix of investments Evaluate how well past investments worked
Thus, if the SANDAG Board wants to better capture, track, analyze, and report more fully on the taxpayer’s return on investment from all areas within the TransNet initiative, more staff time and/or monetary resources are likely needed and should be allocated for this function. Specifically, extra resources may be needed to gather and track data, analyze what the data means, correlate the results with other factors, and determine how the data influences future planning and project activities.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 48 Additional data is needed to assess performance in certain modes To capture performance results, different systems and databases were available for certain modes of transportation—although limited information existed for other modes. In the bullets that follow, we describe data available, tracked, and needed for each TransNet area. The Local Street and Road Program is covered in a separate section that follows. Highway Performance Among all TransNet programs and transportation modes, travel time and congestion outcome data on highways is typically the most prevalently available. Caltrans and UC Berkeley have been collaborating since the late 1990s to maintain a Freeway Performance Management System (PeMS) that synthesizes elements such as speed and travel time. Using the PeMS data and private sector data, SANDAG published annual State of Commute reports summarizing results for the corridors and commutes in the region. Other performance indicators for highways were available through systems managed by other entities—although SANDAG did not track performance through these other systems. For instance, for safety crashes and injuries, data can be mined from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) as well as through collision data on every route maintained by Caltrans.21 Additionally, pavement and bridge condition on highways was tracked by Caltrans’ Headquarters Office—allowing for a comparison of the San Diego region against other regions in the State. Thus, SANDAG could summarize and report on data from these external sources or provide a link on its website to the Caltrans’ data. Transit Performance Unlike the other modes, there was a robust performance monitoring system in place for transit operations. In fact, transit operators provided SANDAG with a large amount of performance data on a quarterly basis at the system level by operator, mode level by operator, and route level by operator for compilation into the biennial Transit Coordinated Plan. Some of the performance data related to routes and lines funded by many sources, while other data was specific to those routes and lines fully funded solely through TransNet—namely, the Rapid services made possible through the new major corridor transit operations funds. For each of the transit performance indicator categories, established guidelines existed and actual performance was tracked and reported. Transit performance information was also reported to the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database.
Bike and Pedestrian Mode Performance According to SANDAG, they had not yet set modal percentage of commute goals, but were working on gathering data to set ridership targets using before and after data from an automated network of bike (and pedestrian) counters to supplement manual counts collected on an annual basis. The goal was to gather real-time data, 24-hours a day and 7-days a week—but, there were challenges paying for maintenance and operation of the counters. Like other modes, safety and crash data was also available from the CHP’s SWITRS database, but SANDAG did not analyze or report on this data.
21 California Vehicle Code requires local governments to submit their police collision reports based on severity levels to the CHP for consolidation into the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS) database. A Severity 1 injury is a fatality; Severity 2 injuries includes broken bones, severe lacerations, and extended unconsciousness; Severity 3 is coded for other visible injuries; and Severity 4 indicates complaint of pain, but no visible injury, which can include limping or recovering from brief unconsciousness.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 49 Environmental Mitigation Program Performance Over the last three years, SANDAG’s contracted entity—the San Diego Management and Monitoring Program—and the United States Geological Services continued work on an on-line portal that allowed significant amounts of habitat management and monitoring data and results to be stored, tracked, shared, and analyzed between local land managers. While the portal exists for land managers and research scientists to track and analyze large complex volumes of habitat monitoring data, it would require significant effort and the assistance of experts to synthesize the data and present it in a scientifically valid, yet simplified, way for taxpayers to gauge the overall health of the preserved areas. Thus, SANDAG needs to develop methods to translate the actual data into meaningful results for the public.
Competitive Grants Performance As part of TransNet, SANDAG allocated millions of dollars in local, state, and federal funds through several competitive grant programs. Grants awarded ranged from bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects to habitat management and monitoring efforts to specialized transportation services for senior and disabled populations—all working together to fulfill the goals of TransNet. For these grants, goals were tracked for individual grant contracts through progress reports, but there was limited program outcome data available in most instances as described as follows.
o Senior Mini-Grants: The Senior Mini-Grant Program funded transportation services for seniors whose special needs cannot be met by conventional transit or paratransit services. Beginning in calendar year 2013, Senior Mini-Grant recipients reported the number of trips/services provided and cost per trip/service provided on a quarterly basis. However, there were no other specific performance outcomes compiled at the program level.
o Active Transportation Grants: The goal of the Active Transportation Grant Program is to encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build facilities that promote multiple travel choices for residents—in particular bicycling and walking—and connectivity to transit, schools, retail centers, parks, work, and other community gathering places. However, performance outputs or outcomes were not tracked or measured for these grants and projects.
o Smart Growth Incentive Grants: The Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program provided funding for transportation-related infrastructure improvements and planning efforts that support mixed- use development focused around public transit and increased housing and transportation choices. SANDAG was still in process of capturing how well the Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program goals have been met. In particular, grantees were provided funding to capture “before” data to establish a baseline and SANDAG staff anticipated capturing “after” counts to evaluate performance. This plan was in place during the prior audit, but data still has not been captured or analyzed in this area. Thus, performance outputs or outcomes were not tracked or measured for these grants and projects.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 50 Significant Performance Data is still Needed for Local Street and Road Program Performance data was particularly limited in the Local Street and Road Program for travel time, safety, and infrastructure results. In fact, SANDAG continued to be challenged in demonstrating accomplishments or measuring performance outcomes achieved through the allocation of TransNet funds for this program. This issue was first raised during the 2012 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit, where the lack of local traffic detectors and inconsistent availability of before-and-after studies on measuring traffic volumes, travel time, or speed represented a major barrier in assessing the impact of TransNet dollars at the local level. Such data limitations were partly due to the challenges of mining data from the 19 local jurisdictions—some of which may not have mechanisms in place to capture performance data. While SANDAG, over the last three years, worked with the local jurisdictions to establish alternative methods for capturing certain performance data—the data is still heavily focused on outputs, not outcomes such as level of delay and commute times on local roadways. Specifically, there were two types of performance reports that SANDAG used for the Local Street and Road Program as described as follows.
1. The “Annual Status Report” prepared by local jurisdictions is a narrative style report that lists projects completed and underway for the reporting period as well as allows locals to highlight select projects. In most instances, there was little to no indication of performance outputs captured on these reports such as number of potholes repaired or road miles paved—nor any evaluation of performance outcomes such as congestion relief, safety, or pavement condition improved from at-risk status to good condition as a result of pothole repairs or street resurfacing efforts. 2. The “Output and Outcome Report” is a new tool SANDAG developed in July 2016 to capture the performance data not available via the “Annual Status Report” such as the total number of projects, funding sources, miles of roadway, feet of sidewalk, total traffic calming measures, lights installed, or bulbs replaced. However, these statistics are based on planned activities reported by the local jurisdictions as part of the biennial update to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and do not represent actual outputs or outcomes achieved. Thus, this new report could be enhanced by circling back with the jurisdictions at the end of the period to identify whether actual results align with those planned.
Yet, based on interviews at the larger local jurisdictions, there was more performance output information and pavement condition data available at the local level that could be used by SANDAG to encapsulate what the taxpayers are getting for their sales tax investment. For instance, most jurisdictions were able to provide the auditors with current pavement condition data.22 If SANDAG began collecting this data along with other data available from local jurisdictions, it could create a “report card” type format so the Local Street and Road Program achievements could be summarized, more transparent, and understandable for ITOC and the general public. For example, as suggested in prior audits, a report card could be as simple as the format shown in Exhibit 21.
22 Local jurisdictions that did not provide data include Del Mar, Escondido, Imperial Beach, National City, and Solana Beach.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 51 EXHIBIT 21. EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY REPORT CARD FOR LOCAL STREET AND ROAD PROGRAM
Summarized Local Street & Road Performance Report Card City 1 City 2 Regionwide Total TransNet $ Received $2M $8 $10M Total TransNet $ Spent $1.8M $7 $8.8M Total Local Street and Road Network (miles) 185 250 800 Pavement Rehab & Repair Amt Cost Amt Cost Amt Cost 1) Miles Paved 10 $500 0 $ - 10 $ 500 2) No. Potholes Repaired 250 $100 300 $150 550 $ 250 3) PCI – (indicate year measured) 66 70 68 Pedestrian Improvements Amt Cost Amt Cost Amt Cost 1) Feet of Sidewalk Installed/Repaired 500 $ 50 600 $ 70 1100 $ 120 2) No. of Pedestrian Ramp Upgrades 0 $ - 25 $200 25 $ 200 Traffic Operations Amt Cost Amt Cost Amt Cost 1) No. of New Traffic Signals 30 $ 10 80 $ 30 110 $ 40 2) No. of New Light Bulbs 50 $ 2 120 $ 5 170 $ 7 Source: Auditor-generated. In terms of measuring performance outcomes of the Local Street and Road Program related to TransNet goals of congestion relief and safety, and pavement condition, SANDAG must establish a stronger framework with data available at the regional level so taxpayers know what they are getting for the local investment. To capture the performance data, SANDAG has several options. For instance, SANDAG could require that the local jurisdictions provide this information as part of a modified Annual Status Report. Most of the local jurisdictions have information readily available related to pavement condition ratings, at a minimum, that could easily be provided to SANDAG. While safety data may be more challenging for the locals to gather and summarize, SANDAG could use data available from the CHP’s SWITRS database to analyze from a regional perspective, identify where hot-spots and accidents are occurring, and work with local jurisdictions to mitigate the situations.
Additionally, private sector data sources and improved analytic tools provide opportunities for SANDAG to track and analyze street and road performance if resources and funding are available for this effort. Private sector information is based on global positioning system data, and has enabled other agencies to analyze travel time reliability and congestion. When using this data, SANDAG would also need to conduct verification and validation steps on the data before using the information. During our audit period, SANDAG received some private sector data from a well-known industry provider at no cost through the Federal Highway Administration; however, more effort would be needed to determine how the data could be used to measure congestion on the local roadways. Additionally, there are other private sites that track and report on congestion or travel times such as Google Maps, Waze, or TomTom Traffic Index that could possibly be leveraged to assist SANDAG with data. Yet, there can be a high cost to this private sector data and having staff resources to validate and integrate such data sources with existing tools to determine appropriateness for use in a comprehensive performance framework. Resources would also be needed to ultimately analyze and summarize the performance data into a format that is easily understandable for the public.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 52 Detailed Performance Analysis and More Reporting are Needed Once additional performance data is captured, analysis against baselines and targets is needed to understand results and communicate to the public. Yet, SANDAG was faced with several challenges related to performance analysis. Without targets and an analysis of cause and effect, it is difficult to assess the impact that TransNet funds had in achieving regional goals. Additionally, gathering and validating data can take substantial resources—as can analyzing other factors that might be influencing or impacting a particular metric such as injury crashes. However, without deeper analysis and evaluation, it is difficult to identify the implications for future planning and decisions regarding future project mix and strategies.
Moreover, with all the effort that goes into performance analysis, it is important that results are formally communicated and reported to the public for transparency and to decision makers allowing them to quickly assess existing systems and monitor trends over time. Analyses should be summarized and regularly communicated or made available in an understandable way for the public and decision makers to use as part of monitoring and adjusting the TransNet Program.
Story Map Tracked Some Outputs and Accomplishments, Although More is Needed When the TransNet Extension Ordinance was passed in 2004, a tracking structure was not established to capture and summarize a comprehensive list of project outputs and accomplishments such as quantity of new lane miles added, potholes filled, new bike paths, and transit stop improvements—although we believe that SANDAG should begin tracking this data using reliable sources as another indication of results for taxpayer sales tax investments.
In an effort to capture information on completed TransNet projects, SANDAG created a TransNet “Story Map” using a web-platform that visually presented highlights and accomplishments of the program to-date. As shown in Exhibit 22, much has been accomplished—although many more outputs were likely realized, they were not captured because a dedicated framework to track information was not in place at the beginning of the Ordinance.
EXHIBIT 22. HIGHLIGHTS OF SOME ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY TRANSNET AREA
TransNet Area Output/Accomplishments
Highways-Major Corridors 23 segments completed; 12 in progress (Includes Managed Lanes) 44.8 managed lane miles added or improved 39.6 general purpose miles added or improved 21 new lanes 9 highway interchanges/connectors and direct access ramps 1 FasTrak facility Transit-Major Corridors 25 projects completed; 18 in progress 101 transit revenue miles added 35 upgraded stations and 47 enhanced transit stops 94 new vehicles (includes 65 light rail vehicles) 5 transit stations and 1 park & ride 1,047 parking spots and 20 bus bays 1 expanded bus maintenance facility
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 53 TransNet Area Output/Accomplishments 16.6 railway miles and 3 railway bridges Transit Service Approximately $344 million dedicated to improving transit services Local Street and Road More than 136 projects completed Environmental Mitigation Program More than 8,900 acres of land acquired Grants – Senior Mini Nearly 1.5 million one-way rides provided Trained 9,300 seniors on using transit services 69 grants awarded Grants – Smart Growth 43 grants awarded Grants – Active Transportation 77 grants awarded Bike Early Action Program (EAP) 2.7 bikeway miles open to traffic since Bike EAP approved in 2013 64 miles in progress Source: TransNet Story Map, grant status and update reports, TransNet Quarterly Financial Reports, TransNet Dashboard, fact sheets, and internal SANDAG tracking spreadsheets.
While SANDAG captured certain outputs and accomplishments in the Story Map, SANDAG should expand on this foundation and capture additional statistics to better demonstrate how TransNet funds were spent and what taxpayers got for their investment. For instance, additional items that could be tracked include the following bulleted items. Highway—miles, lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or ramps Local Roadways—miles resurfaced, potholes filled, interchanges widened, sidewalks or bike lanes added Bike—paths, miles, lockers, or striping added Transit—new bus stops, added shelters, miles of track, vehicles purchased, or new routes EMP Grants—access barriers installed, reseeded areas, removal of non-native plants, or pounds of trash removal, weeding cycles, cactus planted, or dethatched areas Senior Mini-Grants—riders served or vans purchased Active Transportation Grants—miles added, bike lockers built, sidewalks fixed, or lighting replaced Smart Growth Grants—proximity of housing developments to transit within Smart Growth areas
Much of this data likely already exists for the highway projects, EMP activities, and grant programs— although SANDAG efforts would be needed to mine that data from project and grant files. However, other items would require SANDAG to request detailed information from the local jurisdictions for street, road, bike, and pedestrian areas or from the transit operators for those transit-related areas.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 54 Recommendations To better measure how transportation improvements meet TransNet Program goals and what has been accomplished with the taxpayer’s investment, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 5. Establish a comprehensive performance framework by implementing the following: a. Setting targets to measure TransNet performance against the TransNet Extension Ordinance goals in-line with federally mandated deadlines or at a faster pace. At a minimum, some narrative could accompany performance reporting to help others understand whether data and results were favorable or unfavorable. b. Capturing performance outcome data related to safety metrics, pavement condition, and bridge condition for highways, local roadways, and bicycle (bike) and pedestrian modes. 1. Use the California Highway Patrols’ Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to measure and monitor safety statistics—both for motorized and non- motorized fatalities and serious injuries—especially against the new safety targets developed by Caltrans and adopted by SANDAG. 2. Track and report highway pavement and bridge condition available from Caltrans on the SANDAG website or provide a hyperlink to where that information is available for taxpayers. Additionally, work with Caltrans to determine if bridge and pavement data can be isolated for San Diego County from the Imperial County data contained within the Caltrans District 11 reported data. 3. Track and report on local jurisdiction pavement condition by requiring local jurisdictions to provide pavement condition index data as soon as pavement condition surveys are performed and results become available. 4. Obtain and use private sector data to analyze congestion and delay on local streets and roads or evaluate status of Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System (PeMS) to capture road performance including level of coverage of detection. c. Conducting more robust analysis of cause and effect for all performance metrics to provide meaning to results or help determine if different strategies or projects should be employed to get a better result. For instance, consider using heat maps to identify where the majority or significant severity accidents occur and work with Caltrans and local jurisdictions to inform solutions and future projects. d. Providing regular performance monitoring reports that consider past performance in relation to TransNet goals through quarterly updates to the SANDAG Board and committees, annual public reports on the status of TransNet, and website postings. e. Considering allocating funding for additional performance monitoring activities given that SANDAG will likely require more data sources, tools, and resources to track, validate, analyze, ensure quality, and report performance.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 55 6. Explore and study public-private partnerships with entities such as Google, Waze, Scoop, TomTom, or others to integrate and summarize performance results as well as provide information on a real-time basis to travelers identifying different commute times and options. 7. Enhance the Story Map tool, TransNet project status listing (shown in Appendix A) or develop a different tool to capture project output details and track TransNet accomplishments over time by implementing the following. a. Developing a comprehensive universe of TransNet projects completed, underway, and planned. Reconcile universe back to TransNet Extension Ordinance and what was expected to be delivered. Once universe is reconciled for historic projects, update universe as new projects are started and continue reconciliation of those new projects to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. b. Building upon planned output data currently captured through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program’s automated ProjectTrak database and reported in the Annual Output and Outcome report by reconciling those planned outputs with actual accomplishments. Consider requiring local jurisdictions to provide a closeout report with updated, actual data as projects are completed.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 56 Chapter 3: Major Corridor Capital Construction
The 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance set aside 38 percent of total annual TransNet sales tax revenues, or approximately $5.15 billion over the life of the program to help leverage state and federal funds and pay for financing costs on capital construction projects with the intent to relieve congestion and improve safety by expanding the following local freeways and highways: I-5, I-8, I-15, SR 52, SR 54, SR 56, SR 67, SR 76, SR 78, SR 94, SR 125, and I-805.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS A key goal the TransNet major capital corridor Update and refine the project listing started in the 10- construction program is to relieve congestion on the Year Look-Back Review to ensure all major corridor region’s freeways by increasing capacity and improving projects are tracked back to those in the TransNet safety for vehicular travel. Factors that can affect Extension Ordinance. Regularly report on project and congestion and safety include population, gas prices, financial status using the project listing developed in and employment. For the San Diego region, population 10-Year Look-Back Review as a foundation or develop increased 10 percent, employment is higher, and gas an alternate tool to accomplish the goal of tracking prices are now lower than when the Ordinance passed— against the TransNet Extension Ordinance. although gas prices fluctuated. Begin gathering data on whether the Construction 61 percent of major corridor projects were either Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method used on completed or in progress. the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project is delivering on expectations for cost savings, efficiencies, better Like comparison areas, the San Diego region’s highways continue to be congested: quality, or collaboration to solve problems rather than using a typical silo-approach between design, o Vehicle miles of travel slightly increased between 2013 construction, contractors, and owners. and 2015. o Commuters took longer to get work in 2016 than in Compare SANDAG’s proposed metrics for assessing 2014, but their commute times were still among the MCC project performance to the performance metrics lowest among comparison areas. This trend was and practices used by Caltrans’ to determine whether observed since the start of TransNet with lower there are any additional practices SANDAG may want commute times experienced only during the Great to include or adopt, such as the Caltrans innovations Recession. log, to help formally track benefits, successes, and challenges. Although fatalities and injury collisions increased between 2013 and 2015, collisions resulting in fatalities for the Gather and store documents to support “benefit” region are the second lowest among comparison areas statistics tracked for the North Coast Corridor and the and were lower than when TransNet started. Mid-Coast Corridor whether using the innovations log utilized by Caltrans or another method used by Highway pavement quality increased and is better than SANDAG. Maintain supporting documentation, such as comparison Caltrans districts and the statewide average. cost comparisons, in a centralized repository that is Similarly, the percent of bridges in structurally deficient linked or reconciled with the log or summary statistics. condition was lowest among comparison areas.
The construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) project delivery method employed on two large TransNet projects—I-5 North Coast Corridor and Mid-Coast Corridor—reported initial CMGC benefits such as time and cost savings over more traditional methods. Yet, while Caltrans has developed a framework to measure CMGC success, SANDAG has not yet formalized its framework.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 57 Chapter Introduction A region’s highway capital construction performance is affected by many internal factors such as how agencies operated a service, constructed a project, or made policies related to the various modes of transportation.
Since the start of the TransNet Extension Ordinance in 2004, there were also several changes in the transportation environment that affect performance related to gas prices, economy, population, and technology. For instance, the regional population in the San Diego area grew by approximately 10 percent to approximately 3.3 million in 2016 and was impacted by the unprecedented Great Recession of 2008 with jobs lost, unemployment higher, and fewer people on the roads. Gas prices have a direct correlation with vehicle travel—the lower the price, the more commuters choose to drive; when prices are too steep, some commuters turn to alternate modes of transportation. Although prices rose again through 2013, they declined between 2014 and 2016. Additionally, changes in the way people commute have also changed. When commuting, many use technology to navigate traffic, avoid delays, or find rideshare services. Moreover, attitudes about transportation changed and trends emerged with people choosing to walk or bike along with growing concerns about the environment.
Highways Continued to be Congested One of the goals of TransNet is to provide congestion relief which can be measured through reduced travel time and less delay.23 To capture performance indicators related to highways, Sjoberg Evashenk compared San Diego’s performance over the last three years with other comparable areas as well as against trends over the past decade—although there were limitations in the conclusions that could be drawn from the data because there were no targets in place as described in Chapter 2. Further, because transportation projects leverage TransNet funds with other federal, state, and local funds, performance outcomes could not be isolated to TransNet alone.
Specifically, we used U.S. Census American Community Survey data to identify similarly populated Urbanized Zone Areas (Urbanized Areas)—which are U.S. Census-designated land areas consisting of a central core and adjacent to densely settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 residents. Comparison areas to San Diego were selected based on population and other factors such as proximity, coastal environment, and tourism destinations.24
Vehicle miles of travel slightly increased As part of the analysis, we normalized raw data to account for changes in the number of vehicles on the road by calculating performance rates per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT).25 As shown in Exhibit 23, annual VMT in the San Diego Urbanized Area increased slightly more than 1 percent from 28.12 million
23 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan also noted measurements of improving mobility such as travel time, safety, commute mode share, and annual transit boardings—these indicators are discussed and analyzed in other chapters in this report. 24 Peers selected included Las Vegas-Henderson, Nevada; Riverside-San Bernardino, California; San Francisco-Oakland; California, Seattle, Washington; and Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida. 25 Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a widely-known industry measure of the number of miles traveled by vehicles in a region over a period of time. VMT is determined by either actual odometer readings or by estimated modeling calculations.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 58 vehicle miles of travel in 2013 to 28.45 million in 2015. This rate of growth was consistent with other comparison areas.
EXHIBIT 23. AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL, 2013 TO 2015
30 28.12 28.28 28.45 Alameda County
25 Riverside County 20 San Bernadino County 15 San Diego County 10
Annual Annual VMT(Millions) San Francisco (City and) 5 County 0 2013 2014 2015 Source: Auditor generated based on U.S. Census American Community Survey data estimates.
Commute time less than 30 minutes slightly increased Data produced by the U.S. Census American Community Survey estimated commute times for cars, trucks, and vans in each of the urbanized areas. Over the last three years, San Diego’s percent of commute time that took less than 30 minutes decreased from 67 percent in 2014 to 64 percent in 2016—meaning that it took more people longer to commute to work in 2016 as shown in Exhibit 24. Yet, in comparison to other areas, the San Diego Urbanized Area has a larger share of commute times under 30 minutes, meaning that San Diego’s commute times were among the lowest. When compared to trends over the last decade, San Diego’s performance showed a general rise in commute times from 2005 through 2011, then trending down by 2016. In 2009, when the economy was in recession, the shorter commute times were likely due to fewer drivers on the road during commute hours. It should be noted that statistics from the U.S. Census American Community Survey are not detailed by time of day or by route.26
EXHIBIT 24. COMMUTE SHARE THAT TOOK LESS THAN 30 MINUTES IN COMPARISON AREAS, 2014 TO 2016 75% Las Vegas--Henderson, NV Urbanized Area 70% San Diego, CA Urbanized 67% Area 65% 65% 64% Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL Urbanized Area
than 30 Minutes 30 than 60% Seattle, WA Urbanized
Area
% of Car, Truck, Truck, and Van %Car, of Commutes that took took less that Commutes 55% Riverside--San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area 50% San Francisco--Oakland, 2014 2015 2016 CA Urbanized Area Source: Auditor generated based on U.S. Census American Community Survey data estimates.
26 SANDAG’s annual State of the Commute reports provide details on specific commute corridors using data collected from Caltrans’ Performance Management System (PeMS) relying on freeway detectors to calculate estimates of travel speeds, travel time, and delay for general-purpose lanes only, not high-occupancy vehicle or express lanes. Morning (AM) and evening (PM) travel times are based on the assumption that the commuter enters the freeway at 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., respectively.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 59 Hours of delay per capita increased According to the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard produced by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, improvements in the national economy seen in recent years unfortunately came with worsening congestion—a trend seen in most urban areas of all sizes. The most recent 2015 report compiled travel time over the year and then divided this data by the number of people commuting in private vehicles in each urbanized area to arrive at an average delay per auto commuter. Results showed the San Diego Urbanized Area ranked the lowest or near the lowest out of the comparison areas in 2015—meaning that San Diego had one of the lowest delays per vehicle commuter compared to the other regions which is consistent with the larger share of commutes that took less than 30 minutes.
However, looking at data from Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System, trends in San Diego showed that delays in the morning commute increased although the evening commute peak delay contributed the most to the annual freeway delay as shown in Exhibit 25. In fact, evening peak delay increased by approximately 59 percent from 4.26 million vehicle hours in 2014 to 6.76 million vehicle hours in 2016. Further, while annual delay dropped significantly between 2008 and 2012 during the Great Recession and beyond, there has been an increasing trend since that time surpassing 2006 levels to their highest point of delay in 2016.
EXHIBIT 25. TOTAL ANNUAL FREEWAY DELAY, 2014 TO 2016
12 Weekend/Holiday
10 Weekday Off-Peak PM Peak 8 6.76 AM Peak 6
4 4.26
Delay (million hours) (million vehicle Delay 2
0 2014 2015 2016
Source: 2015-2016 State of the Commute Report as generated by SANDAG using Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System (PeMS).
Injuries and Fatalities on Highways and Roadways Recently Increased after a Declining Trend over the last Decade Another important goal of both TransNet and San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan relates to safety in the region. Not only are collisions most important from a life perspective, but also these events disrupt mobility on the regional roadways. When comparing the raw data on fatalities and injuries, we normalized the data based on vehicle miles of travel to account for the assumption that more miles of travel result in more chances for collisions.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 60 Fatalities were slowly rising over the last Three Years Fatalities are a commonly used measure of roadway safety, and we found San Diego’s fatality rate was among the lowest of the five comparison regions based on the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System data. Yet, the general trend in San Diego County reflected an increase over the last three years in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel. Specifically, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel increased 24 percent from 0.71 in 2013 to 0.88 in 2015 as shown in Exhibit 26.27
This trend is different than experienced over the last decade where there was a general decline in fatalities over the entire period—most dramatically around the time of the recession between 2008 and 2010, with rates slowly increasing between 2011 and 2015.
EXHIBIT 26. RATE OF FATALITIES FOR CALIFORNIAN COMPARISON COUNTIES, 2013 TO 2015
1.40
1.20
1.00 0.88
Fatalities per Fatalities 0.81 100 Million VMT Million 100 0.80 0.71 0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 2013 2014 2015
San Bernardino Riverside San Francisco San Diego Alameda
Source: Caltrans Public Road Data reports 2012-2015 and California Highway Patrol (CHP)’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).
27 This statistic is used to “normalize” data with the assumption that more miles of travel results in more changes for collisions. Normalizing also allows for better comparisons with other regions. For instance, in 2015, San Diego reported 251 fatalities that appear worse than the 38 fatalities reported by San Francisco. Yet, when data is normalized, the result shows fatalities were fewer per 100 million miles of travel in San Diego at 0.88 versus San Francisco at 1.18.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 61 Injury collisions were also on the rise Another safety measure considers all collisions that result in injury.28 When looking between 2013 and 2015 as shown in Exhibit 27, San Diego experienced a 13 percent increase from 46 collisions resulting in injury per 100 million vehicle miles of travel in 2013 to 52 in 2015—similar to increases experienced by the comparison areas. Yet, the increase between 2013 and 2015 was different than the safety trend since 2005 where injuries per 100 million vehicle miles of travel declined.
EXHIBIT 27. Total Collisions per 100 Million VMT for Californian Comparison Counties, 2013 to 2015
140
4) - 120
100
80
60 52 Collisions 1 (Severity Collisions 46 49 40
20
0 2013 2014 2015 San Francisco San Diego Alameda Riverside San Bernardino Source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. Note: Collison data includes statistics for severity 1 through 4.
Condition of Pavement and Bridge Infrastructure Improved Another measure of performance through the investment of TransNet dollars is the improvement in roadway and bridge condition allowing for safe and free-flow travel to help address congestion.
Highway pavement quality increased While TransNet did not provide funds specifically for rehabilitation on the State Highway System, the new highway improvements funded by TransNet impacted the average overall condition. Pavement condition can be assessed using a variety of methods, and Caltrans captured the condition of pavement on California highways for each of its twelve districts in terms of major or minor distress and ride quality in its biennial State of Pavement reports.29 We compared pavement condition for the combined San Diego County and Imperial County District 11 region with two other Caltrans districts from the two most recent biennial reports issued.
Between 2013 and 2015, the percent of highway pavement in distressed condition for District 11 dropped from 12 percent in 2013 to just less than 10 percent in 2015 as shown in Exhibit 28. Notably, District 11 had
28 Does not include collisions resulting in property damage only. 29 Roads are categorize into three main groups—good condition requiring only routine preventative maintenance, fair condition requiring corrective maintenance, and poor or “distressed” condition requiring preventative overlay maintenance or full rehabilitation and replacement.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 62 the lowest percent of distressed miles of the other Caltrans Districts—meaning that the San Diego region’s pavement quality was better than the comparison areas over the years measured. Comparisons to other areas outside of California cannot be made since those areas used a different methodology to assess roadway condition than California.
EXHIBIT 28. PAVEMENT CONDITION RESULTS FOR CALIFORNIAN COMPARISON CALTRANS DISTRICTS
35% District 4 30% District 8 25% District 11 20% State Total 15% 12% 10%
10% Distressed Condition Condition Distressed
Percent of Lane Miles in in Miles PercentLane of 5% 0% 2013 2015
Source: Caltrans State of Pavement reports. Note: District 4 includes counties Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Marin, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. District 8 includes counties San Bernardino and Riverside. District 11 includes counties San Diego and Imperial.
Fewer bridges were in distressed condition Multiple entities collected bridge condition data in San Diego County with each entity responsible for assessment of its respective system. This data was reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics through the National Bridge Inventory database, and included ratings of deck, superstructure, and substructure conditions in addition to scores for the overall designation of “in good repair” or “structurally deficient.”
As shown by the decreasing percent of bridges rated structurally deficient in Exhibit 29, bridge condition improved in all comparison areas between 2013 and 2015. Specifically, in San Diego, the percent of bridges rated structurally deficient decreased 4 percent from 10 percent in 2013 to 6 percent in 2015 across approximately 1,500 bridges. This was similar to the trend over the last decade where bridge condition has improved.
EXHIBIT 29. PERCENT OF STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGE DECK AREA BY COMPARISON AREA, 2013 TO 2015
45%
30% Deficient 15% 10%
7% 6% Percent Structurally PercentStructurally 0% 2013 2014 2015 San Francisco County, California Alameda County, California Riverside County, California King County, Washington San Bernardino County, California San Diego County, California Source: U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics National Bridge Inventory database.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 63 Many Capital Construction Projects were Completed or Started To achieve the goals of congestion relief and improved safety, the TransNet Ordinance proposed 48 major corridor capital construction improvements. Those 48 Ordinance projects were split into several project segments. As of June 30, 2017, the SANDAG Board approved for a total of 78 project segments consistent with TransNet Extension Ordinance provisions.30
Nonetheless, of the 48 specific major corridor projects listed in the Ordinance, 33 percent were completed and 28 percent were in-progress as shown in Appendix A. To date, SANDAG reported program costs of nearly $4.4 billion and estimated approximately $22.7 billion in remaining expenditures to complete all projects planned when voters passed the TransNet Ordinance. However, as transportation needs and preferences for the region change over time, those original projects may not all need to be delivered as promised. For instance, the Coronado tunnel project, although listed in the Ordinance, is no longer a TransNet project after Coronado residents voted against its construction in June 2010.
Control over Task Order Amendments and Change Orders Seemed Reasonable While the dollar value of task orders and construction contracts can be significant for most, if not all of the TransNet projects, amendments and change orders are standard practice for capital projects when unfolding circumstances require changes to scope, schedule, or cost. These modifications may be caused by unforeseen circumstances, weather, emergencies, inadequate service or quality, or insufficiently defined scope of work. When looking over the past three years under audit, we found the percent of task order amendments and change orders appeared reasonable.
Task order amendments averaged 37% for SANDAG and 20% for Caltrans During the 3-year period of our review, Caltrans had 34 active contracts with architectural and engineering consulting firms with 375 related task orders and 225 amendments totaling $85.2 million. The average task order amendment as a percent of task orders issued was 20 percent—which is in the mid-range when compared to the average results from the 2009 and 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance Audits of 14 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
Similarly, SANDAG had 31 active contracts with architectural and engineering consulting firms with 277 related task orders and 444 amendments totaling $380.8 million. Given the data available, these amendments equate to 37 percent of task orders issued. This rate was slightly higher than the 33 percent from the 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit and was primarily due to SANDAG issuing task order amendments for individual project phases (e.g. scoping, preliminary engineering, and final design) on the San Diego Bridge Double-Tracking project.
Change orders averaged 5.5% for SANDAG and 4.3% for Caltrans Additionally, over the 3-year audit period, SANDAG and Caltrans had 50 active construction contracts for projects worth more than $2.2 billion for TransNet projects with a combined $113.1 million in change
30 See Appendix A for full listing of all project segments.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 64 orders. For these projects, SANDAG’s 963 change orders averaged 5.5 percent of the total contract value; while Caltrans’ 694 change orders averaged 4.3 percent of the contract value.
In the past, Caltrans generally estimated a 10 percent contingency for roadway construction projects in-line with targets set by peers. Not only did the average change order percentage between FYs 2015 and 2017 meet or outperform the Caltrans standard, but also these results compared favorably with the average of 14 percent noted in the 2009 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit and the 16.5 percent average from the 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit.
Innovative Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery Method Reports Advantages Both SANDAG and Caltrans employed an innovative delivery method for two substantial major corridor projects known as the construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) method. This method seeks to bridge the gap of the frequently cited issue of conflicting interests by project owners and contractors— especially public owners often are bound to low bid or best value procurement rules whereas contractors inherently seek to maximize profit by incorporating the highest possible mark-up on bid items or look to change order projects during construction. However, results noted thus far mostly related to anecdotal synergies between contractors and project owners who both commented on an exceptional collaborative environment where issues were openly discussed and resolved as to not negatively affect progress on the project. While the full impact of the CMGC project delivery method will not be fully measurable until the projects are done, Caltrans had a good framework underway to enable future measurement while SANDAG should start developing a tool to track and quantify CMGC benefits.31
Specifically, over the last several years, Caltrans and SANDAG managed the delivery of the State’s two largest transportation projects using the CMGC delivery method as detailed in Exhibit 30. With a budget of approximately $700 million, the I-5 North Coast Corridor – Phase 1 (Build NCC) project represents the largest Caltrans-lead CMGC investment in California and is part of an even larger $6 billion investment on a 27-mile stretch of the I-5 North Corridor between Oceanside and La Jolla to be completed by 2050. 32 Similarly, the Mid-Coast Corridor (MCC) project is an approximate $2.2 billion transit project lead by SANDAG that extends the San Diego Trolley Blue Line from Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego to the University Towne Center Transit Center in University City. In addition to the light rail extension, the project includes construction of nine new transit stations, park-and-ride facilities, and traction power substations as well as the purchase of new light rail vehicles and equipment.
31 CMGC projects are scheduled for completion by FY 2021. 32 Build NCC extends 14 miles along I-5 between SR 78 in Carlsbad and Lomas Santa Fe Drive in Solana Beach.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 65 EXHIBIT 30. TRANSNET CMGC PROJECTS
I-5 North Coast Corridor – Phase I (Build NCC) Project Mid-Coast Corridor (MCC) Project
Investment Approximately $700 Million 1 Approximately $2.2 Billion
Scope HOV/Carpool Lanes from Lomas Santa Fe Drive in 9 new transit stations; Solana Beach to the SR 78 in Carlsbad; 10.92 miles of rail double-tracking; Double Tracking the Coastal Rail Line over the San Elijo 5 park-and-ride facilities providing 1,170 spaces; and Batiquitos Lagoons; 36 Light Rail Vehicles; Replacing four lagoon bridges; Train control and signals; Constructing the North Coast Bike Trail; Traction power and communication systems; Building Soundwalls; Fare collection systems and equipment; and Enhancing bike and pedestrian facilities; and 13 new traction power substations. Restoring and enhancing the San Elijo lagoon. Current In Construction In Construction Status Fully Open By 2020 By 2021 to Traffic Source: Build NCC Fact Sheet, October 2016; Build NCC Project Schedule, September 2017; Federal Transit Administration Mid-Coast Corridor Project Profile, December 2016. Note: 1 Amount per Build NCC Fact Sheet, October 2016.
CMGC is still relatively new to the transportation industry In order for a state department of transportation to utilize the CMGC project delivery method, an enabling state legislation has to be in place. In California, Assembly Bill 2498 (Chapter 752) authorized Caltrans to use CMGC since 2012. With enabling legislation only present in 14 states as of June 2017, CMGC is still considered relatively new to the transportation industry. 33 Of the nine CMGC projects approved by Caltrans to-date, Build NCC has the largest budget and nearly double the budget for the second largest CMGC project adding managed lanes on the US 101 in the San Francisco Bay area. In addition, among large- scale transportation CMGC projects nationwide, Build NCC is one of the largest as shown in Exhibit 31.
EXHIBIT 31. PREVALENCE OF CMGC ACROSS THE NATION
CMGC Enabling No. of CMGC Largest Project State Largest Project Legislation Year Projects Budget California 2012 9 I-5 North Coast Corridor Phase I (Build NCC) $606 million 1 Twin Ports Interchange (replace 33 bridges and Minnesota 2012 6 $204 million reconstruct an interchange) Oregon 2008 1 I-5: Willamette River Bridge (replace 2 bridges) $156 million Source: CMGC Homepage from Departments of Transportation shown; Federal Highway Administration CMGC Homepage. Note: 1 Project Budget per Caltrans District 11 CMGC Application, May 2013.
33 Federal Highway Administration reported 14 states with CMGC Enabling Legislation as of June 27, 2017: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Further, prior to MAP-21 in 2012, federal approval for CMGC projects was also required as CMGC was considered a Special Experimental Project (SEP-14) by FHWA. State DOTs required project specific FHWA approval prior to choosing CMGC. This is in addition to the requirement for state legislation enabling CMGC.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 66 I-5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROGRAM Over the last three years, Caltrans took the I-5 North Coast Corridor (known as Build NCC) project from preliminary design to actual award of the CMGC construction contract in December 2016. Construction is currently underway on various segments along the corridor. According to Caltrans project management staff, the CMGC delivery method has both benefits and challenges—although benefits appear to outweigh challenges thus far. One area Caltrans highlighted was that the CMGC process was an extensive collaborative effort between project owner and contractor in negotiating cost and scope, addressing constructability issues, and communicating with the public and stakeholders. Although the full impact of the CMGC cannot be evaluated until the end of the project, a framework must be established to measure the effectiveness of the project.
Caltrans considered CMGC leading practices and developed a framework to measure success Over the last three years, Caltrans employed many of the suggested leading practices to minimize the risks associated with the CMGC delivery method and studied factors that led to failures in other projects in the nation. As shown in Exhibit 32, Caltrans followed leading practices such as fostering a collaborative environment by co-locating project teams, holding a construction kick-off meeting that involved all levels from senior management to resident engineers, and continuing open discussions via regularly-held partnering meetings.
EXHIBIT 32. CALTRANS CONSIDERED LEADING CMGC PRACTICES
Leading Practice Caltrans Leading Practice Caltrans
Co-Location of project teams during preconstruction and construction Open book estimating Qualification Based Collaborative Constuction Kick-Off and Procurement & Open Environment regular partnering meetings Book GMP Negotiation Independent Cost Estimator Reconciliation
Project Charter
Source: Auditor generated based on Associated General Contractors of America & National Association of State Facilities Administrators: CMGC Guidelines for Public Owners (2007 Joint Publication); FHWA CMGC Homepage; 2012 FHWA CMGC Peer Exchange; Caltrans Report on Boston Lessons Learned; Caltrans 6/14/17 presentation to ITOC.
In addition, with the hiring of an external “CMGC Coach” in the spring of 2016, Caltrans began formalizing processes and procedures and developing a framework to capture the benefits and challenges of CMGC. By June 2016, Caltrans had developed a performance measures framework for the Build NCC project related to areas such as safety, cost, schedule, opportunities, and challenges that aligned with statewide goals as well. For example, the Build NCC safety goal targets zero pedestrian and Occupational Safety and Health Administration recordable accidents and highway fatalities, as well as zero Federal Railroad
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 67 Administration compliance issues or fines within the rail corridor aligning with statewide goals of “maintaining a safe environment for the traveling public, pedestrians and employees during construction of a project.”
Once that framework was finalized, Caltrans developed a spreadsheet to capture data related to those performance measures. Using the safety example, the spreadsheet captured any recordable safety incidents for all segments in construction and calculated the recordable incident rate as well as lost time incident rate. Another important part of the monthly performance reporting captured “issues and opportunities gained.” Dubbed the “innovations log” by the project team, its intent was to quantify Build NCC successes to address the statewide goal of “providing information for policy and decision makers concerning the viability and a potential for increased value to the community and region using CMGC as a delivery method and needed improvements if suitable for future use.” This innovations log listed opportunities gained from using CMGC and was updated and discussed monthly among the project teams. Innovations were captured in six categories—cost, risk avoided, environmental impact, schedule, traveler impact and early involvement—and were linked to opportunity types such as “innovation, constructability, or integration.” Two examples are shown as follows: Under Innovation Item No. 13 that considered a single span design for one of the highway lagoon bridges, cost comparison calculations showed an estimated savings of $1.04 million under the single span design versus the existing design. Another cost saving example related to using highway export for structural backfill where $937,700 in savings was identified from using one CMGC contractor. Specifically, Caltrans avoided paying one contractor to “remove and dispose of dirt” and paying a different contractor to bring in dirt for required backfills. However, unlike in the bridge example, Caltrans was unable to provide documentation to support the $937,700 amount—although, that data may be available, just embedded in a project team member’s file and not yet recorded in a centralized repository of innovation log backup data.
Thus, while the innovation log will allow Caltrans to report on the success of the CMGC as it progresses through construction, it needs to be routinely updated, followed-through, and bolstered with reliable supporting documentation. Caltrans was aware of this shortcoming and is working with its contractor to obtain supporting data on a go-forward basis and research back-up data for previously claimed innovations.
Although premature to fully assess, Build NCC partners already report synergies from CMGC While the full complement of CMGC “pros and cons” often cannot be fully assessed until a project is complete, Caltrans reported that by bringing all parties to the table and securing buy-in early on, typical issues resulting from a traditional design-bid-build delivery method were minimized. For instance, by involving the contractor when the design was approximately 50 percent complete, the contractor construction expert can raise constructability concerns early on and allow time for redesign rather than having to respond to a final set of plans where modifications can often involve schedule delays and increased costs. Caltrans also believed that the CMGC resulted in better cost containment since the partnership with the contractor allowed for the sharing of risks of project unknowns and unforeseen conditions. For example, through the collaborative information sharing of the CMGC, potential problems
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 68 associated with drilling pillars and pouring foundations in those areas were shared upfront and acceptable levels of risks were negotiated and included in the guaranteed maximum price.
In addition, Caltrans construction management indicated that CMGC allowed Caltrans to staff the project with fewer resident engineers as opposed to a design-build project. Over the life of the project, having fewer inspection staff on an on-going basis can result in project cost savings. However, the smaller number of resident engineers did not imply that work was less supervised. Rather, because CMGC placed greater accountability on the contractor and self-assessment of the quality of their work product, Caltrans did not have to continuously monitor the contractor to ensure there were no “corners cut.” For example, a common issue where contractors may deviate from contract specifications relates to night road or lane closures that are set between certain hours to minimize impact on traffic. While some contractors would exceed the allotted closure times and not properly cone the construction zone, Caltrans indicated that unannounced night drive-by site visits by inspectors on the Build NCC project found that the contractor had properly coned the construction area and that established lane closure times were observed.
In addition to these anecdotal examples of how CMGC worked well for Caltrans, there was also a tangible measure to support the CMGC method such as the number of unsatisfactory work elements noted by resident engineers. While this statistic can be voluminous when using traditional project delivery methods, Caltrans reported these were not present on the Build NCC project as resident engineers did not report any unsatisfactory work to-date as evidenced by Caltrans payment reports and weekly meeting minutes. In addition, according to both Caltrans and the contractor, there were no claims or disputes over payments to- date.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR PROGRAM In September 2014, SANDAG awarded one CMGC contract for pre-construction services for certain Mid- Coast Corridor transit double track projects, and subsequently expanded the contract to include pre- construction and construction for a number of projects included in the Mid-Coast Corridor (MCC) project. Although SANDAG is the lead and responsible for overseeing all projects and the CMGC contract, SANDAG worked in close coordination with MTS and NCTD to implement many best practices. These practices include co-location during design and construction, bringing the CMGC on early in the design process, not selecting the CMGC contractor based on cost alone, and developing a project management plan that included project scope, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and protocols for communication, safety and security, change management, quality management, risk management, and issues resolution. According to SANDAG, there were some challenges in negotiating the guaranteed maximum price; however, SANDAG hired a consultant and independent cost estimator to provide assistance and resolution. According to SANDAG, CMGC is expected to not only result in a fair negotiated price, but also reducing owners risk for design, constructability, and coordination issues as well as ultimately reducing the number and cost of changes.
While MCC noted CMGC benefits to date, there was no data available at this time to validate the cost savings benefit. The MCC project was still in the early stages of construction during our audit and will not realize all potential benefits of the CMGC project delivery method until the project is completed; however, both SANDAG and MTS indicated there were a number of benefits already derived. Specifically, the entities
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 69 noted time savings with elements of the project that were able to advance at a faster rate than with traditional design-bid-build in addition to cost savings from economies of scale by having one contractor provide design input, schedule and coordinate construction, consolidate management, and construct the corridor projects together. In a SANDAG project presentation in June 2017, SANDAG indicated that there was a reduction in time from the Full Funding Grant Agreement to construction. Further, both agencies indicated that the collaboration, communication, and coordination on the project was tremendous. According to SANDAG and MTS, the level of public outreach and stakeholder engagement on the project was far greater than on other projects.
While at the time of the audit there was no specific data or measures tracked to quantify or validate cost savings, SANDAG recently proposed metrics that it plans to use for comparing the Mid-Coast project performance to the performance of another transit project, the Mission Valley East project that used a Design,-Bid,-Build project delivery method. Proposed metrics include a comparison of change order costs, construction management cost as a percentage of construction, total change order cost divided by total construction costs, claims pursued by contractors, construction duration, safety incident rates, and several other metrics. While the proposed metrics appear reasonable, only comparing Mid-Coast performance to one other project may not provide a comprehensive assessment of the benefits achieved from using the CMGC project delivery method. Unlike Caltrans, SANDAG may be challenged in comparing project performance to other projects because it has not historically had a process in place to formally track project performance.
Further, SANDAG began collecting data to measure intangibles, such as owner, contractor, and stakeholder satisfaction. Responses from a November 2017 MCC survey showed average scoring of 3.8 out of the highest score of 5 for elements related to project progress and opportunities for improvement. Survey elements assessed included the project’s impact on the community, project delivery on-budget, project delivery on-schedule, project delivery meeting or exceeding SANDAG quality standards for design and construction, project safety, use of disadvantaged business enterprises, project character and culture, and project impact on the environment. While respondents generally ranked most elements with higher average scores, the survey also identified concerns related to the budget and schedule. According to survey results, the high costs of changes and late value engineering proposals were drivers for negative feedback received. In addition, some survey responses raised concerns that the change order amounts were higher than expected for the CMGC project delivery method. While there was a consensus among respondents that the project would be delivered on-schedule, concerns were voiced on those schedule impacts from on-going changes, design issues, right-of-way acquisition, and installation of signals and communication systems. As the project moves forward, the project management team should work to address and resolve concerns raised by the project team in the survey responses.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 70 Recommendations To enhance delivery of the major corridor capital construction program and track highway performance, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 8. Update and refine the project listing started in the 10-Year Look-Back Review to ensure all major corridor projects are tracked back to those in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Regularly report on project and financial status using the project listing developed in 10-Year Look-Back Review as a foundation or develop an alternate tool to accomplish the goal of tracking against the TransNet Extension Ordinance. 9. Begin gathering data on whether the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method used on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project is delivering on expectations for cost savings, efficiencies, better quality, or collaboration to solve problems rather than using a typical silo- approach between design, construction, contractors, and owners by implementing the following: a. Comparing SANDAG’s proposed metrics for assessing Mid-Coast Corridor project performance to the performance metrics and practices used by Caltrans’ to determine whether there are any additional practices SANDAG may want to include or adopt, such as the Caltrans innovations log, to help formally track benefits, successes, and challenges. b. Addressing recent survey comments related to possible schedule impacts from project activities in addition to the perceived higher value of change orders. 10. Gather and store documents to support “benefit” statistics tracked for the North Coast Corridor and the Mid-Coast Corridor whether using the innovations log utilized by Caltrans or another method used by SANDAG. Maintain supporting documentation, such as cost comparisons, in a centralized repository that is linked or reconciled with the log or summary statistics.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 71
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 72 Chapter 4: Local Street and Road
The 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance allocated 29.1 percent of annual sales tax revenues to the 19 local jurisdictions to fund improvements on the local street and road network. With approximately $714 million 1 provided through June 2017, this program is the second largest TransNet Program after major corridor capital construction.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS Absent standard performance outcome data, improvements Revisit the TransNet Extension Ordinance to the local street and road network was limited to the congestion relief and maintenance split to be more reporting of pavement condition as a measure of road relevant with local needs as the TransNet lifecycle quality. Additionally, both the Ordinance and SANDAG matures by considering elimination of the 70/30 Board policy requirements pertaining to local jurisdictions’ split, change to the percentage limitations, or compliance with bike and pedestrian accommodations and modification of the categorical definitions within the the applicability of splitting local funding 70/30 for TransNet Extension Ordinance limitations. congestion relief and maintenance need to be reevaluated. Use results from SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Over the last three years, pavement condition decreased by local Rule 21 review to make identified changes to one percent. This follows the trend since the start of TransNet the Ordinance definitions and follow-up on areas of where pavement condition in the San Diego region declined noncompliance noted during the review. from a good condition to the current at-risk condition rating. Work with locals to determine a method to 70/30 congestion relief and maintenance project split may not demonstrate compliance with Board Policy No. 031, allow local jurisdictions sufficient flexibility in linking TransNet Rule 21. monies to current individual infrastructure needs at the local level. Amend or establish a SANDAG Board Policy to require local jurisdictions to track and report on the While the SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21 requires number of bike and pedestrian facilities local jurisdictions to provide appropriate accommodations for implemented using TransNet funds. bicycle and pedestrian travel when building new or reconstructing existing local streets and roads, compliance Conduct another review of local projects and with the rule is not regularly monitored by SANDAG—except considering whether any adjustments are warranted for a review performed in 2014, that identified continued in light of SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy. efforts were required to ensure compliance. Yet, in light of SANDAG’s Complete Streets policy emerging at the same
time, Rule 21 compliance has since not been further pursued by SANDAG and has been deferred to monitoring efforts as part of the Complete Streets policy implementation.
72 San Bernardino Pavement in the San Diego region is Riverside considered in at-risk condition and has 70 declined over recent years. But recent Alameda 68 pavement rehabilitation efforts by the City San Francisco of San Diego will result in improved 66 66 65 San Diego conditions over the next few years.
64 Pavement Condition Index Condition Pavement 62 2014 2016
Note: 1 Refer to Report Exhibit 2 for TransNet allocations of nearly $714 million for Local Street and Road Program.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 73 Chapter Introduction Local streets and roads feed the highway system, provide paths for transit, and provide neighborhood-level transportation access. As such, TransNet set aside 29.1 percent of sales tax collections to fund improvements on the region’s approximate 7,800 center line miles of local streets and roads. Specifically, TransNet stipulated that local jurisdictions propose a variety of congestion relief and maintenance projects through the biennial Regional Transportation Improvement Program for spending TransNet money and committing other state, federal, and local funds allocated. To deliver these projects, local jurisdictions followed common public construction project delivery and procurement methods and employed a mix of in-house and consultant staff to plan, design, and oversee projects. Capital construction was still typically outsourced, while routine maintenance of assets was generally performed in-house by designated public works crews. Since 2008, nearly $714 million was provided to local jurisdictions for their streets and roads making it the second largest TransNet Program after major corridor capital construction.34
Pavement Condition Declined, but Recent Efforts may Reverse Trend Given the lack of local street and road performance outcome data to demonstrate congestion relief improvements and greater mobility, local street and road performance outcome communication was limited to the reporting of road quality. A typical measure of road quality is the pavement condition index (PCI) initially developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This measure rates of pavement distress with scores ranging from 0 (failed) to 100 (perfect). Points are deducted from 100 for distress such as cracking, rutting, and other distortions. Thus, the higher a PCI score, the better average road condition. Typically, an index of 70 to 100 indicates good or excellent condition, 50 to 69 is at-risk condition, and 49 and below is poor to failed condition.
While this data was not tracked or analyzed by SANDAG at the regional level, external reports indicated the average PCI for roads in cities within San Diego County dropped from a PCI rating of 66 to 65 between 2014 and 2016 as shown in Exhibit 33. This is part of an overall declining trend where San Diego pavement condition dropped from a PCI of 74 in 2008, indicating a good condition, when TransNet started.35
EXHIBIT 33. BIENNIAL PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX FOR CALIFORNIAN COMPARISON COUNTIES, 2014 AND 2016
72 San Bernardino
70 Riverside Alameda
Index 68 San Francisco 66 66
65 San Diego Pavement Condition Condition Pavement 64
62 2014 2016 Source: League of California Cities Biennial California Statewide Local Street and Road Needs Assessment reports.
34 Refer to Report Exhibit 2 for TransNet allocations of nearly $714 million for Local Street and Road Program. 35 Based on the League of California Cities biennial California Statewide Local Street and Road Needs Assessment Report showing PCI ratings for all California counties.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 74 Individual local jurisdiction pavement survey results showed improving conditions To capture most current pavement condition at the local jurisdictional level, we surveyed the 19 local jurisdictions.36 While not all jurisdictions used TransNet funds to maintain their roadways, survey responses from 14 local jurisdictions showed the average current PCI for the San Diego region was 71, which is considered a “good” condition. This number differed from the results presented by the California Statewide Local Street and Road Assessment in its 2016 report perhaps due to timing of the City of San Diego reported data. Recently, the City of San Diego invested significant TransNet resources and other funding sources to improve its roadways and reported an increased PCI of 71 in 2017 based on road condition survey results conducted in 2016. Given that streets and roads in the City of San Diego account for approximately 38 percent of the roadways in San Diego County, an increase in PCI for the City of San Diego will likely positively reflect on the overall PCI for San Diego County in future League of California Cities’ reports.
Congestion Relief and Maintenance Split May Need to Be Revisited The TransNet Extension Ordinance requires that at least 70 percent of the revenues provided for the Local Street and Road Program be spent on congestion relief projects and no more than 30 percent spent on maintenance projects—commonly known as the “70/30 Split Rule.” Examples of each category are shown in Exhibit 34. While SANDAG Board Policy No. 031: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules provided a mechanism for local agencies to request an exemption to the 30 percent maintenance limitation with justification, some local jurisdictions expressed that the process was cumbersome.
EXHIBIT 34. EXAMPLES OF LOCAL STREET AND ROAD 70/30 SPLIT RULE DEFINITIONS
Congestion Relief (70%) Maintenance (30%) New or widened roads and bridges Lane removal for bikes Pavement overlay 1-inch thick or greater Pavement overlay less than 1-inch Bridge retrofit Bridge replacement for aesthetic purposes New traffic signals or upgrades Traffic signal replacement or software Pedestrian crossings and lighting Light bulb replacement Source: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Implementation Guidelines, June 23, 2006.
In the past, local jurisdictions conveyed that these definitions established in 2006 have restricted their use of TransNet funds because the 70/30 Split Rule did not adequately reflect their needs, particularly for pavement rehabilitation projects. Some jurisdictions felt they must wait until a roadway deteriorated to meet eligibility definitions as a 70 percent congestion relief project. Based on interviews conducted during the current and prior performance audits, local jurisdictions have voiced preferences for a more flexible approach on how TransNet monies can be spent for local projects. Some jurisdictions were fairly built-out and felt that the 70/30 split prohibits them from using TransNet monies on other needed maintenance projects. Even jurisdictions with space for congestion relief projects may welcome a different split allowing
36 The following local jurisdictions did not respond to the survey— Del Mar, Imperial Beach, National City, and Solana Beach.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 75 for larger allocations towards maintenance as maintenance will become a more significant issue for locals over the next decade as congestion relief improvements begin to deteriorate as well.
Recently passed California Senate Bill 1 legislation is likely to help in this area by providing nearly $1.5 billion statewide to local jurisdictions for maintenance needs. This influx of funds will certainly help rebuild the region’s roadway infrastructure, but there could still be areas that have greater maintenance needs while having fewer capital projects that meet the current TransNet congestion relief definitions. While there is a mechanism to get approval for changes to the 70/30 split, it appears to be cumbersome and time- consuming. To allow local jurisdictions more flexibility on how to best spend TransNet monies on local project needs, the SANDAG Board may want to consider modifying the rule’s definitions or changing the 1-inch or thicker requirement for congestion relief-type pavement overlays.
Continued Effort is Needed to Ensure Compliance with Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations In February 2008, the SANDAG Board added Rule 21 to its Board Policy No. 031: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules requiring local jurisdictions to provide appropriate accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian travel during street and road reconstruction for new projects or major reconstruction projects.37 The rule also allowed for exceptions where bike and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the facility or where the costs of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Compliance and requested exceptions were tracked through self-certifications made during biennial Regional Transportation Improvement Program updates by selecting a check-box in the electronic ProjectTrak system and written requested exceptions presented to SANDAG’s Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee. SANDAG performed a detailed evaluation of bike and pedestrian accommodations in 2014; yet, continued efforts are needed to ensure compliance with this policy.
Specifically, to determine whether the rule was effectively encouraging a balanced transportation network, SANDAG staff conducted a three-part evaluation in 2014 consisting of surveying local public works staff to collect data on how they implement the requirement, determining which projects included the accommodations, and conducting a field review of those projects to determine compliance with the requirement. Those efforts found that not all street maintenance overlay projects included the minimum bicycle and pedestrian accommodations or project accommodations did not cover the entire length of the projects. However, it was difficult to evaluate the impact of the rule on the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure since only six local agencies tracked bike facilities funded with TransNet and only three agencies tracked pedestrian facilities. From this review, SANDAG identified that additional types of projects should be subject to Rule 21 and should be added to the policy such as median landscape projects and traffic signal installation projects. Additionally, the review determined that a checklist to evaluate projects was needed and learned that local agencies had compliance questions.
While the compliance review was a sound practice employed, it was only completed once in 2014 and has not been regularly performed on an ongoing basis. Moreover, SANDAG did not follow-up on the evaluation’s results to revise the Rule 21 definitions, develop the evaluation checklist, or work with the local
37 Board Policy No, 031: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules, Rule 21: Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 76 jurisdictions to solve perceived compliance issues. According to SANDAG, it did not make changes because the SANDAG Board approved the Complete Streets Policy at the same time that committed to a process that ensures the needs of people using all modes of travel are considered on every street or network of streets. However, SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy is applicable only to SANDAG infrastructure projects whereas locals are required by the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 to incorporate a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highway elements into their general plans. Further, SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy stated that SANDAG would periodically evaluate the effectiveness of Rule 21 to ensure compliance with the provision and that the rule reflects current best practices in Complete Streets implementation.
Thus, SANDAG should follow through with the results from the Rule 21 evaluation conducted in 2014 and continue to monitor compliance with the rule, until otherwise amended. Further, SANDAG should require local agencies to track and report on the number of bike and pedestrian facilities implemented using TransNet funds.
Recommendations To better understand whether Local Street and Road Program spending is delivering projects that result in the best performance outcomes and value for taxpayer investment, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 11. Revisit the Ordinance congestion relief and maintenance split to be more relevant with local needs as the TransNet lifecycle matures by considering elimination of the 70/30 split, change to the percentage limitations, or modification of the categorical definitions within Ordinance limitations. 12. Continue to monitor compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21, until otherwise amended, by implementing the following: a. Following-up on the results from the SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21 evaluation conducted by SANDAG in 2014. 1. Use results from SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, local Rule 21 review to make identified changes to the Ordinance definitions and follow-up on areas of noncompliance noted during the review. 2. Work with locals to determine a method to demonstrate compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21. 3. Amend or establish a SANDAG Board Policy to require local jurisdictions to track and report on the number of bike and pedestrian facilities implemented using TransNet funds. b. Conducting another review of local projects and considering whether any adjustments are warranted in light of SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 77
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 78 Chapter 5: Transit Services
The 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance set aside 16.5 percent of net annual TransNet sales tax revenues, or $2.24 billion over the life of the program to support transit services and identified two key goals transit improvements should achieve: Increase transit for seniors and persons with disabilities; and Expand commuter express bus, trolley, and COASTER services.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
With $344 million allocated to transit operators since Continue to analyze major transit commute routes and the start of TransNet, MTS and NCTD are serving services and report on whether commute times have over 100 million riders annually. Systemwide, the improved or should be improved. transit network generally demonstrated strong Regularly track and report on TransNet goals to increase performance as compared to peers with results services to seniors and persons with disabilities. mostly meeting targets. TransNet-only funded Rapid services also showed positive performance. Work together with the region’s transit operators to analyze options offsetting the impact subsidy disparities have on The TransNet goal of increased services to seniors available funds for expanding transit services, such as and persons with disabilities was met with 23.9 million funding the pass subsidy disparity for seniors and persons riders in 2016, or 7 percent more than when TransNet with disabilities from other TransNet areas—as allowed by started. Over the same period, the senior population the TransNet Extension Ordinance—adjusting the discount increased nearly 43 percent. offered for senior/disabled and youth riders, determining Systemwide and Rapid transit service performance whether disparities can be funded through other sources, showed positive results and outperformance of peer or maintaining existing funding and process. agencies. Collaborate with the operators to revisit the operating cost In 2015, systemwide transit ridership reached a ceiling tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index as 10-year high, then subsequently declined. specified in the TransNet Extension Ordinance so that operators have some flexibility with reasonable cost Cost of pass subsidy for seniors and persons with increases while still maintaining the intent of TransNet to disabilities may impact funds available for other transit provide some assurance of the reasonableness of those operations and service improvements. cost increases TransNet limitations on operating costs were restrictive in times of low inflation changes.
SYSTEMWIDE RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE MILES TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE ALLOCATION FOR TRANSIT
109 16.5% 120 108 105 45 40 for Transit Services 100 35 80 30 25 60 20 2.5% 94.25% 40 15 3.25% Revenue Revenue (millions) Miles Specialized Services for Pass/Subsidies/Operations/
Passenger Passenger Trips (millions) 10 Senior Grant Program 20 Seniors & Disabled (ADA) Capital per SRTP 5 0 0 2014 2015 2016 Ridership Revenue Miles
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 79 Chapter Introduction Since 2008, the TransNet Program supported transit alternate modes of transportation by providing 16.5 percent of the net annual sales tax revenue for transit services, with the majority made available to the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) for operations, passes, and subsidies. Some of these funds—2.5 percent—were allocated for paratransit services while another 94.25 percent was set aside for pass subsidies to seniors and persons with disabilities as well as general MTS and NCTD operations. To date, $344 million was allocated to the operators. Throughout the San Diego region, transit services were predominantly influenced by MTS and NCTD’s operation of their fleet— although TransNet funds comprised less than 13 percent of general transit services funding for both operators. Over the last three years where data was available, the percent of commute by public transit remained relatively flat. Specifically, data showed that approximately 3.2 percent of commuters used public transportation.
Systemwide Performance Showed Positive Results Results from our evaluation of transit performance found generally positive performance systemwide in San Diego and as compared to peers. While we provide a high-level discussion of seven performance metrics measuring service effectiveness, quality, sustainability, safety, and productivity in the bullets that follow, a detailed presentation of the performance results can be found in Appendix D of this report.
To measure performance, we focused on standard financial and operational performance indicators used in the transit industry and reported by MTS and NCTD in the National Transit Database. When assessing trends and changes in performance, it is important to recognize that the methodologies and tools used to gather transit operations performance data have changed. Over the years, data gathering transitioned from manual data collection to more accurate automated collection with the implementation of automatic vehicle location systems, passenger counters, and fare media equipment. Further, the federal government provided guidance and better defined how metrics should be calculated and reported to the National Transit Database to enhance consistency and provide greater uniformity in data reporting among transit operators. While information reported to the National Transit Database was the best available information, it is important to note that information was self-reported by transit agencies—although the data was subject to audit by the Federal Transit Administration and other entities.
Service Effectiveness: ridership declined nearly 3 percent Transit ridership across all modes declined nearly 3 percent from 107.5 million riders in 2014 to 104.7 million riders in 2016. Ridership is expected to further decline in 2017—similar to national trends. As the economy improves, the unemployment rate declines and gas prices or the cost of owning a vehicle remain relatively low; thus, less individuals often ride public transportation. In addition, according to NCTD and MTS, the declining ridership can also be attributed to record high automobile sales, increased proliferation of transportation network companies and ride-sharing services, increased vehicle miles, and changed demographics such as gentrification of transit-rich neighborhoods and relocation of affordable housing to more remote communities. MTS polled 29 large and medium-sized transit agencies in California and reported it had found all but four agencies
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 80 experienced significant ridership losses in the first three quarters of 2017 when compared to 2016 ridership. As discussed later in this Chapter, both MTS and NCTD recently made system and route improvements based on performance data in an effort to increase ridership and improve service.
Quality of Service: on-time performance fluctuated by mode On-time performance is a key indicator of service delivery as it may impact customer satisfaction and decisions to use public transportation. Since 2014, both MTS and NCTD on-time performance fluctuated by mode, with some modes, such as the NCTD COASTER rail and SPRINTER rail, consistently meeting or exceeding established on-time performance guidelines with more than 95 percent on-time arrivals. Conversely, fixed route bus for both operators and the NCTD LIFT paratransit service did not always meet established guidelines. For instance, even though NCTD LIFT paratransit on-time performance did not meet the 94 percent target between 2014 and 2016, performance was still between 0.2 and 2.5 percent of those established guidelines.
Sustainability: farebox recovery generally met guidelines The farebox recovery ratio is the percent of operating expenses covered by fare revenue. A higher farebox recovery ratio indicates a greater percent of the operating costs are covered by fare revenue and provides increased financial stability. Higher fares can increase the farebox recovery ratio; however, regional fares in San Diego have not changed since 2008. With the exception of several services provided by NCTD, annual farebox recovery ratios remained above established guidelines for each mode of transit. For instance, over the last three years, MTS consistently exceeded goals with bus and rail farebox recovery ratios ranging from a low of 34 percent to as high as 56 percent—similar to trends observed since TransNet was implemented a decade ago.
Safety: preventable accidents were low One metric that can be used to measure transit safety is the number of preventable accidents per 100,000 miles by mode. According to MTS, a preventable accident does not indicate that a vehicle code was violated, rather that the driver could have potentially done something different to prevent the accident from occurring. Since 2014, MTS has decreased the number of preventable accidents for fixed route from 2.81 per 100,000 miles in 2014 to 2.47 in 2016—a decline of 12 percent. Similarly, NCTD reported 1.55 per 100,000 miles in preventable accidents or less for each mode from 2015 to 2017.
Load Performance: seat utilization factors were within guidelines This indicator relates to seat utilization and tracks the percent of seats occupied. Higher load factors than established guidelines is indicative of overcrowding on buses, trains, and paratransit vans, while a lower load factor than guidelines indicates that seats were available on transit vehicles. Since 2014, both MTS and NCTD fixed route bus load factors have been within the guidelines established by SANDAG each year with utilization remaining constant between years but ranging from 44 percent to a low of 19 percent across different modes of transit. Partly, this metric was impacted by decisions to purchase larger buses and reduce overcrowding to enhance the customers experience that resulted in less full buses.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 81 Productivity: passengers per revenue hour guidelines met for rail, but not bus From 2014 to 2016, rail and paratransit services consistently met or exceeded established guidelines for passengers per revenue hour. Conversely, MTS fixed route bus and NCTD BREEZE bus did not always meet established guidelines. For example, MTS fixed route bus had a target of 35 passengers per revenue hour; yet, actual passengers per revenue hour declined from 32 passengers in 2014 to 28 passengers in 2016. Similarly, NCTD BREEZE bus had a target of 20 passengers per hour, but actual passengers per hour declined from 19 passengers in 2014 to 16 passengers in 2016.
Headway: rail frequency of service met guidelines, while fixed route bus did not According to the most recent Transit Coordinated Plan, the MTS and NCTD minimum peak service headway goals are 15 minutes for buses, 15 to 30 minutes for light rail, and 40 minutes for commuter rail. While both entities met headway goals for rail, neither MTS nor NCTD met headway goals for fixed route bus. For instance, the average headway for MTS light rail was approximately 11 minutes—well within the 15 to 30-minute goal. Conversely, fixed route bus average headway was 23 minutes, which was higher than the 15-minute goal. Both agencies indicated that funding limitations impact their ability to meet these headway goals.
Rapid Transit Performance Results were Positive An additional 8.1 percent of annual net TransNet revenue was reserved for operation of transit as part of new TransNet-funded transit construction—currently operated services as known as Rapid routes More than $179 million of TransNet funds were allocated to support the new Rapid transit service that features high-frequency, limited-stop bus service, and upgraded vehicle and station amenities. To date, $46 million was spent with the rest held in reserve for future transit services planned on the Mid-Coast, COASTER, SPRINTER, and Blue Line Trolley. Rapid provides faster travel times through the use of transit signal priority, dedicated lanes on certain routes, and limited stops. Three Rapid services were implemented—the SuperLoop Rapid (Routes 201/202 and 204), Mid-City Rapid (Route 215), and I-15 Rapid (Routes 235 and 237). An additional South Bay Rapid service is planned to launch in 2018.
Transit ridership grew between 2014 and 2016 With the addition of three new TransNet funded routes in 2014, Rapid Transit weekday boardings increased from 17,228 weekday boardings in 2014 to 22,518 weekday boardings in 2016—an increase of 31 percent. Although the weekday boardings for all MTS fixed-route bus modes declined between 2015 and 2016, ridership for the TransNet funded Rapid Transit routes continued to grow from 2014 to 2016 as shown in Exhibit 35.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 82 EXHIBIT 35. RAPID TRANSIT WEEKDAY BOARDINGS BY ROUTE, 2014 TO 2016
25,000 22,518 Rapid 237 18,738 Rapid 235 20,000 17,228 Rapid 215 15,000 SuperLoop
10,000 Total
5,000
0 2014 2015 2016 Source: State of the Commute Spreadsheets provided by SANDAG.
Quality of Service: on-time performance was consistently higher than 82 percent On-time performance for Rapid routes remained at more than 82 percent from 2014 to 2016 as shown in Exhibit 36. SuperLoop Rapid showed a positive improvement to its weekday average on-time performance from 2014 to 2016, and experienced a 93 percent on-time success rate in 2016. Weekday average on-time performance for the other Rapid routes stayed fairly consistent—although the Rapid 235 route decreased. According to MTS, on-time performance was impacted by road construction and increased traffic congestion.
EXHIBIT 36. RAPID TRANSIT WEEKDAY AVERAGE ON-TIME PERFORMANCE BY ROUTE, 2014 TO 2016
2-Year 2014 2015 2016 Route Percent Change SuperLoop 87.1% 85.4% 93.4% 7% Rapid 215 82.4% 82.4% 83.4% 1% Rapid 235 95.3% 88.8% 82.9% -13% Rapid 237 92.1% 87.1% 85.5% -7% Source: State of the Commute spreadsheets provided by SANDAG.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 83 Load Performance: seat utilization generally increased With the exception of the SuperLoop service, the weekday average load factor generally increased between 2014 and 2016.38 For example, Rapid 237 weekday average load factor showed a notable improvement, increasing from 8.1 percent in 2014 to 20 percent in 2016—as shown in Exhibit 37. At the same time, the SuperLoop weekday average load factor declined from 24.4 percent in 2014 to 22.9 percent in 2016.
EXHIBIT 37. RAPID TRANSIT WEEKDAY AVERAGE LOAD FACTOR BY ROUTE, 2014 TO 2016
50.0% 38.2% 35.5% 40.0% 31.6% 30.0% 25.8% 24.7% 25.3% 22.9% 20.0% 24.4% 23.7% 20.0% 10.0% 8.1% 11.5% 0.0% 2014 2015 2016
SuperLoop Rapid 215 Rapid 235 Rapid 237
Source: State of the Commute spreadsheets provided by SANDAG.
Productivity: passengers per hour increased by more than 7 percent As shown in Exhibit 38, the SuperLoop service weekday average passengers per hour increased by 7.2 percent over the last three years—yet, individual route performance varied. For instance, for Rapid 235, weekday average passengers per hour slightly increased from 30 passengers in 2014 to 31 passengers in 2016.
EXHIBIT 38. RAPID TRANSIT WEEKDAY AVERAGE PASSENGERS PER HOUR BY ROUTE, 2014 TO 2016
160 148 138 133 140 120 100 80 52 60 48 41 34 40 30 31 18 22 20 11 0 2014 2015 2016
SuperLoop Rapid 215 Rapid 235 Rapid 237 Source: State of the Commute spreadsheets provided by SANDAG. Note: Rapid Routes 215, 235, and 237 began service in 2014.
38 According to SANDAG, the drop in seat utilization on the SuperLoop service was mostly caused by a switch from regular bus vehicles to articulated bus vehicles that allow more seat capacity and less crowding through a joint mechanism allowing the buses to bend for sharp curves and passengers to walk from end-to-end.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 84 Sustainability: farebox recovery increased between 2015 and 2016 Weekday average farebox recovery ratios for individual Rapid services fluctuated between 2015 and 2016 (the years data was available,) but increased for all Rapid routes between 3 percent and 66 percent as shown in Exhibit 39. Most of the individual routes remained above the industry standard transit farebox recovery of 20 percent in 2016, yet the Rapid 237 route was lower than industry averages for both years. Given that the route was a newer service, the ridership base may be continuing to form.
EXHIBIT 39. RAPID TRANSIT WEEKDAY AVERAGE FAREBOX RECOVERY BY ROUTE, 2015 TO 2016
1-Year 2015 2016 Percent Change
SuperLoop 28.9% 35.1% 21% Rapid 215 30.1% 30.9% 3% Rapid 235 19.5% 22.7% 16% Rapid 237 9.9% 16.4% 66% Source: State of the Commute Spreadsheets provided by SANDAG.
San Diego Outperforms Peers on Most Metrics To assess San Diego transit performance against peers, we used the peer agencies identified by the Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System based on a variety of service characteristics and urban area characteristics, such as urban population, total vehicle miles, operating budget, population density, and annual delay per traveler. Our review identified 10-peer transit agencies that were used for fixed route peer comparison, although one of the transit agencies did not provide light rail services. 39 As result, we compared light rail to 9 peers.40 For Hybrid Rail, San Diego is one of only four transit agencies nationwide providing this mode of service.41
Generally, San Diego outperformed the combined peer average for each of the three modes reviewed— fixed route bus, light rail, and hybrid rail. For instance, each mode in San Diego reported a higher farebox recovery ratio and passenger trips per revenue mile than the peer averages. Conversely, fixed route bus and light rail modes in San Diego generally experienced a lower number passenger trips per service area capita then peers. This metric measures the number of passenger trips in comparison to the service area population and is a measure of service supply.
Systemwide Fixed route bus outperformed all peer metrics except passenger trips per capita Overall, San Diego consistently exhibited a higher farebox recovery ratio for fixed route bus then its peers; in 2015, the San Diego systemwide fixed route farebox recovery ratio was 33.3 percent compared to the 18.1 percent 10-peer average as shown in Exhibit 40. This indicates a higher percent of operating costs
39 Dallas (DART), Denver (RTD), Los Angeles (LACMTA), Minneapolis (Metro Transit), Orange (OCTA), Phoenix (RPTA), Portland (TriMet), Sacramento (RT), Salt Lake (UTA), and Santa Clara (VTA). 40 Dallas (DART), Denver (RTD), Los Angeles (LACMTA), Minneapolis (Metro Transit), Phoenix (RPTA), Portland (TriMet), Sacramento (RT), Salt Lake (UTA), and Santa Clara (VTA). 41 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit Corporation, and Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 85 were covered by fare revenue in San Diego than in peer regions. Conversely, San Diego systemwide performance related to passenger trips per service area capita was not as strong as peers. For example, the passenger trips per service area capita in 2015 was 9.62 in San Diego, compared to the 14.28 peer average—meaning that service was used less by residents in San Diego than in peer regions.
EXHIBIT 40. SAN DIEGO SYSTEMWIDE FIXED ROUTE BUS PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO 10 NATIONAL PEERS
Operating Operating Passenger Trips Farebox Passenger Trips Year Agency Expense per Expense per Per Service Area Recovery Ratio Per Revenue Mile Revenue Mile Passenger Trip Capita
San Diego 37.1% $7.55 $3.06 11.40 2.7
2013 10-Peer Average 20.3% $9.16 $5.55 14.53 2.0
San Diego 34.9% $7.45 $3.12 11.40 2.6
2014 10-Peer Average 18.8% $9.46 $5.34 14.46 2.0
San Diego 33.3% $7.40 $3.25 9.62 2.5
2015 10-Peer Average 18.1% $9.44 $5.30 14.28 2.0 Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database. Key: Green = San Diego performed better than peers; Red = San Diego performance worse than peers.
Light rail comparisons with peers showed similar results Similarly, the San Diego systemwide light rail generally outperformed the 9-peer average for the metrics reviewed, as shown in Exhibit 41. From 2013 to 2015, San Diego showed improved performance, with light rail farebox recovery ratio increasing from 53.6 percent in 2013 to 56.3 percent in 2015 compared to the 9-peer average that remained fairly constant between 30 and 34 percent. In addition, passenger trips per revenue mile increased from 3.83 in 2013 to 4.66 in 2015, while the 9-peer average declined over the same period from 3.82 in 2013 to 3.71 in 2015. Although, similar to fixed-route bus, the 9-peer average passenger trips per capita performed better than San Diego each year.
EXHIBIT 41. SAN DIEGO SYSTEMWIDE LIGHT RAIL PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO 9 NATIONAL PEERS
Operating Farebox Operating Passenger Trips Passenger Expense per Year Agency Recovery Expense per Per Service Area Trips Per Passenger Ratio Revenue Mile Capita Revenue Mile Trip San Diego 53.6% $8.55 $2.23 13.39 3.83
2013 9-Peer Average 34.6% $13.12 $3.63 18.83 3.82
San Diego 56.1% $8.41 $1.80 17.89 4.66
2014 9-Peer Average 30.5% $13.74 $3.91 19.20 3.73
San Diego 56.3% $8.50 $1.82 16.28 4.66
2015 9-Peer Average 29.9% $14.06 $4.07 19.48 3.71 Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database. Key: Green = San Diego performed better than peers; Red = San Diego performance worse than peers.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 86 NCTD’s SPRINTER hybrid rail performance was better than peers for all metrics compared While the NCTD SPRINTER is one of only four hybrid rail systems in the nation, it outperformed the three-peer average for each metric reviewed as shown in Exhibit 42. Specifically, the NCTD SPRINTER reported a higher number of passenger trips per revenue mile, higher farebox recovery ratio, and lower operating costs per revenue mile and passenger trip. These indicators measure the financial stability, efficiency of service, and service utilization.
EXHIBIT 42. NCTD SPRINTER HYBRID RAIL PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO 3 NATIONAL PEERS
Operating Farebox Operating Passenger Trips Passenger Expense per Recovery Expense per Per Service Area Trips Per Fiscal Passenger Agency Ratio Revenue Mile Capita Revenue Mile Year Trip
San Diego 15.5% $27.75 $7.36 2.2 3.8
2013 3-Peer Average 12.8% $39.92 $14.69 0.4 2.7
San Diego 18.4% $22.23 $5.89 3.0 3.8
2014 3-Peer Average 11.7% $41.64 $15.28 0.4 2.7
San Diego 18.6% $23.50 $5.83 3.3 4.0
2015 3-Peer Average 10.4% $40.12 $14.85 0.4 2.7 Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database. Key: Green = San Diego performed better than peers; Red = San Diego performance worse than peers.
Transit Operators Used Route Performance to Identify Opportunities for Improvement and Changes to Routes In light of declining transit ridership trends, both MTS and NCTD used a combination of public input and transit performance information to assess system productivity, identify opportunities for improvement at the system and route level, and develop strategic plans to improve ridership—actions that were in-line with industry practices.
Specifically, beginning in the fall of 2016, MTS conducted a comprehensive one-year study, called the Transit Optimization Plan, to review market demographics, analyze service trends, and respond to ridership needs and changes. The goal of the study was to identify opportunities for increasing ridership and revenue by reinvesting resources from underutilized services into more productive areas, routes, and segments to retain a high demand. A combination of rider input, system performance data, and ridership patterns were used to develop recommendations presented to decision makers for approval and implementation. Specifically, MTS recently conducted a review of its transit route performance, where routes were ranked based on performance. Under-performing routes were identified and service adjustment recommendations were presented to both the MTS Board and SANDAG for review and approval. On January 28, 2018, the first round of changes were implemented and included a mix of increased service frequency, split routes from one route to two routes, reduced service, changed service routes, and discontinued routes.
Similarly, in FY 2017, NCTD also conducted a review of its routes and made similar recommendations. Specifically, NCTD refined its methodology used to evaluate BREEZE productivity. Rather than using
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 87 separate rankings by each category, NCTD now uses a composite score based on the system median of three performance measures and farebox recovery based on the state requirement of 20 percent recovery.42 Under the new methodology, NCTD identified ten BREEZE routes that performed below standard and five routes that could be modified to improve service efficiency. Proposed changes included discontinuation of certain routes, replacing fixed-routes with FLEX service, eliminating low-performing segments, and enhancing existing service. After approval, service changes were effective in October 2017. Moreover, NCTD is planning a Comprehensive Operations Analysis to analyze current operations aimed at improved connectivity between bus and rail services.
MTS and NCTD’s optimization practices were in-line with industry practices identified at other jurisdictions such as Phoenix and Tucson. Both MTS and NCTD should continue efforts to evaluate route performance and identify opportunities to increase ridership and improve service efficiency and quality.
TransNet Goal of Increased Services for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Was Met as Measured Through Increased Ridership Another key goal of the TransNet Extension Ordinance was to increase transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities. While this goal was not specifically measured by SANDAG or the operators, we found that systemwide paratransit ridership and MTS senior and persons with disabilities non-paratransit ridership grew from approximately 22.2 million riders in 2007 to nearly 23.9 million riders in 2016—an increase of nearly 1.7 million riders or more than 7 percent since TransNet began.
Over the past three years, San Diego systemwide paratransit ridership slightly increased from 713,395 riders in 2014 to 721,830 riders in 2016—although ridership peaked in 2015 to 792,872 riders as shown in Exhibit 43. When comparing ridership since 2007 right before TransNet started, ridership is down 11.5 percent. Paratransit services have very low farebox recovery and are heavily subsidized from other revenue sources. To ensure only eligible individuals used paratransit services, MTS began in-person eligibility reviews for adherence to the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines in December 2016. Similarly, NCTD plans to implement a new process that combines online applications, in-person interviews, and evaluations to ensure only eligible individuals are obtaining certifications.
EXHIBIT 43. SAN DIEGO SYSTEMWIDE PARATRANSIT RIDERSHIP, 2007 TO 2016
900,000 815,706 792,872 800,000 713,395 721,830 700,000
Ridership 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database and MTS and NCTD Performance Reports.
42 The three performance measures used were passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, and cost per passenger.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 88 When just looking at results for non-paratransit seniors and persons with disabilities, we reviewed MTS data because NCTD did not specifically track ridership on COASTER and SPRINTER services in that manner. As shown in Exhibit 44, MTS senior and persons with disabilities ridership decreased over the last three years—although it increased 8 percent since 2007. At the same time, the senior population in San Diego County increased nearly 43 percent between 2007 and 2016 according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates.
According to MTS, as the number of riders using senior/persons with disabilities fare media grew, MTS began enforcing its policy requiring individuals using these passes to show proof of eligibility. Beginning in July 2015, MTS used code compliance officers on board buses to verify a person was using a correctly assigned pass. Further, in an effort to enhance paratransit services, MTS and NCTD are working together to coordinate services and reduce transfers needed between MTS and NCTD’s systems in a small geographical area located by the Veterans’ Administration in La Jolla. According to NCTD, the coordination’s benefits include reduced travel times, cost savings, and lower one-way passenger costs.
EXHIBIT 44. MTS SENIOR AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES RIDERSHIP, 2007 TO 2016
30,000,000 28,534,524 23,163,091 25,000,000 21,419,722
Ridership 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: Ridership Report provided by MTS and does not include paratransit ridership.
Transit Pass Subsidy for Senior/Disabled Passes May Impact Funds Available for Other Transit Service Improvements and Operations Part of the 16.5 percent transit funding through TransNet is set aside for transit pass subsidies along with funds to support transit operations and improvements—although no specific dollar amount was estimated or budgeted for the pass subsidies.43 Specifically, the Ordinance stated that remaining funds available— after the 2.5 percent allocated for transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities and 3.25 percent allocated for the Senior Mini-Grant Program—should be “expended in such sums as necessary to guarantee [...] a monthly regional transit pass for senior (60 years or older) and disabled riders priced at not more than 25 percent of the cost of a regular regional monthly transit pass.” Further, the Ordinance requires monthly youth transit passes for students (18 years or under) be priced at half the cost of the regular regional monthly transit pass. The discounts in the TransNet ordinance were significantly greater than federal requirements which only require a 50 percent discount for seniors age 65 and older
43 According to TransNet Ordinance Section 4.C.3.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 89 and those with disabilities for off-peak service, not including monthly passes—and does not require youth discounts at all.
According to MTS, it was initially anticipated that TransNet would provide MTS with $5.5 million annually to cover the cost of senior/persons with disabilities and youth pass subsidies. Yet, between FY 2007 and FY 2017, the annual fare subsidy amounts reached between $11.6 and $14.4 million—resulting in an additional $6 to $9.4 million of transit operator funding used for these subsidies. As a result, less TransNet funds were available to support MTS transit service improvements, including operations and capital improvements.44
As shown in Exhibit 45, our review of pass discounts offered by peer transit agencies found that the discounts provided in San Diego for seniors, those with disabilities, and youth monthly passes were generally greater than many offered by peer agencies. Further, most peer agencies classified seniors as ages 65 and older, not ages 60 and older like under TransNet.
EXHIBIT 45. SAN DIEGO MONTHLY PASS DISCOUNT COMPARISON WITH 10 PEER AGENCIES
Senior (Age 65 and Older)/Disabled Transit Agency Youth Pass Monthly Fare Discount Monthly Pass Fare Discount San Diego 25% of Full Fare Pass 50% of Full Fare Pass *Seniors classified as Age 60 and Older Dallas (DART) 50% of Full Fare Pass 50% of Full Fare Pass Denver (RTD) 50% of Full Fare Pass 50% of Full Fare Pass Los Angeles (LACMTA) 20-39% of Full Fare Depending on Pass 24% of Full Fare only offered on 30- Selected Day Pass Minneapolis (Metro Transit) 1 50% of non-rush hour Single Fare 50% of non-rush hour Single Fare Orange (OCTA) 32% of Full Fare Pass 58% of Full Fare Pass 86% of Express Fare Pass *Seniors classified as Age 60 and Older Phoenix (RPTA) 50% of Full Fare Pass 50% of Full Fare Pass Portland (TriMet) 28% of Full Fare Pass 28% of Full Fare Pass Sacramento (RT) 50% of Full Fare Pass No Pass Discount, but Single Fare Discount is 50% of Full Single Fare Salt Lake (UTA) 50% of Full Fare Pass 75% of Full Fare Pass Santa Clara (VTA) 38% of Full Fare Pass 38% of Full Fare Pass Source: Auditor-generated from fares posted on agency websites as of February 9, 2018. Note: 1 Monthly pass discounts were not posted on website; only single one-way fare discount reported.
Although the Ordinance prioritizes the 16.5 percent of TransNet funding allocated for transit services on fare subsidies for seniors and persons with disabilities, the current fare subsidy disparity results in less TransNet funds available to expand services—which is another goal of the TransNet Ordinance. Thus, SANDAG may want work together with the operators to consider whether to increase TransNet transit
44 NCTD was unable to provide data necessary to assess the impact fare subsidies have on TransNet funds available for NCTD operations.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 90 funding to fund the pass subsidy disparity through shifts from other TransNet areas—given limitations of the Ordinance; adjust the discount offered to seniors, persons with disabilities, and youth riders; or find alternate funding for the subsidies or transit service expansions.
TransNet Limitations on Operating Cost Increases May Be too Restrictive To maintain eligibility to receive TransNet funds under the Ordinance, MTS and NCTD must “limit the increase in its total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services and revenue vehicle mile for rail services from one fiscal year to the next to “no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index for San Diego County over the same period.” While the TransNet Extension Ordinance also contains provisions for unusual circumstances in any given year to calculate the requirement over a three-year average or to exclude certain cost increases including, but not limited to, related to fuel, insurance, or new legal mandates, the SANDAG Board may want to revisit this section of the Ordinance to be more relevant with the economic realities faced by the operators.
Specifically, over the last few years, changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego was historically low making it challenging to ensure changes in operating costs remained in alignment with the Ordinance. For instance, between FY 2014 and FY 2015, the CPI decreased 6.4 percent and decreased another 3.8 percent the following year between FY 2015 and FY 2016—resulting in a zero percent target increase for bus operating cost per revenue vehicle hour and rail operating cost per revenue vehicle mile for both years. Even a modest one-percent increase in MTS rail operating costs was initially considered noncompliant with the Ordinance.
Although MTS met the target for its bus operations in FY 2015 and FY 2016, it did not meet the target for its rail operations. Specifically, rail operating cost per revenue vehicle mile increased by a modest 1.2 percent from FY 2014 to FY 2015 and 2.4 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016. While these increases were minimal, MTS was initially unable to comply with the TransNet-prescribed annual CPI target and the three-year average operating cost calculation for several reasons. First, in 2015, electricity costs increased by $1.7 million (16 percent) when compared to 2014. Then, in 2016, poor performance of the CalPERS pension fund investments where MTS staff retirement funds were held resulted in an increased pension expense of approximately $700,000 between FY 2015 and FY 2016. Finally, there was a swing of $400,000 in non-cash transactions from FY 2015 to FY 2016. When these items were excluded from operating expense, MTS complied with the zero percent target for both years.
Similarly, NCTD was challenged to meet the CPI requirement for its rail operation in FY 2015. Specifically, the operating cost per revenue vehicle mile increased by 4.3 percent between FY 2014 and FY 2015 with NCTD asserting that annual contract escalations guaranteed in the COASTER and SPRINTER rail contracts were the primary driver for the cost increases. To help control rail operating expenses and achieve reasonable price protection, NCTD made a decision to negotiate long-term contracts with service providers. While long-term contracts are beneficial when changes to CPI increase each year, they are counterproductive when the CPI changes remain unusually low or deflation occurs. When the contractual cost increases were excluded, NCTD met the zero percent target.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 91 Thus, while the TransNet Extension Ordinance language limits annual service provider operating cost increases separately by bus mode and rail mode, this requirement can be challenging to meet in years of deflation or unusually low inflationary changes. Thus, SANDAG should consider working with transit operators to revise the TransNet Extension Ordinance requirement to provide some flexibility when justification for increased operating expenses is required. For instance, SANDAG may want to adjust the TransNet Extension Ordinance language to allow for a wider variance in cost increases, set a threshold for a not-to-exceed limit, consider expanding the target by a specified percent in years when CPI has declined, allow cost exclusions that can be supported, or modify TransNet Extension Ordinance language to apply the cost thresholds at the operator level rather than by individual mode.
Recommendations To further enhance transit operations and improve effectiveness of transit service, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff and encourage the transit operators to perform the following: 13. Continue to analyze major transit commute routes and services and report on whether commute times have improved or should be improved. 14. Regularly track and report on TransNet goals to increase services to seniors and persons with disabilities. 15. Work together with the region’s transit operators to analyze options offsetting the impact subsidy disparities have on available funds for expanding transit services, such as funding the pass subsidy disparity for seniors and persons with disabilities from other TransNet areas—as allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance—adjusting the discount offered for senior/disabled and youth riders, determining whether disparities can be funded through other sources, or maintaining existing funding and process. 16. Collaborate with the operators to revisit the operating cost ceiling tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index as specified in the TransNet Extension Ordinance so that operators have some flexibility with reasonable cost increases while still maintaining the intent of TransNet to provide some assurance of the reasonableness of those cost increases. This could include allowing for a wider variance in cost increases, setting a threshold for a not-to-exceed limit, expanding the target by a specified percent in years when changes to the Consumer Price Index decline, or allowing cost exclusions that can be supported, or modify TransNet Extension Ordinance language to apply the cost thresholds at the operator level rather than by individual mode.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 92 Chapter 6: Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation
The 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance set aside two percent of total annual TransNet revenues, with approximately $46 million spent to date, to fund bikeway facilities and connectivity improvements, pedestrian and walkable community projects, bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and programs, and traffic calming projects. In addition to these programs funded on a competitive grant basis, SANDAG created the Bike Early Action Program (EAP) in 2013 and committed $200 million in TransNet funds to implement high-priority regional bikeway projects through 2024.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
Bike and pedestrian modes of transportation Continue efforts to establish baseline data for bike and increased since the start of TransNet, but have pedestrian volume to identify trends and set targets. fluctuated over the past three years with a Finalizing and implementing the in-progress Regional downward trend between 2014 and 2016 for both Bikeway Program Management Plan. bike ridership and bike commute share. Use Dashboard data that currently tracks frequent causes of For the past three years, total commutes across all delays during the design and environmental phases of bike modes increased 4 percent, yet bike ridership projects, to summarize lessons learned, identify and mitigate decreased 13 percent. This is not unlike trends future preventable occurrences, and improve scheduled observed across the nation. In contrast, since the delivery of the remaining projects. start of TransNet in 2008, average annual bike
commuters increased by 35 percent from approximately 7,800 riders to more than 10,500 3% riders in 2016. PERCENT OF COMMUTE BY BIKE
Bike rider injuries and fatalities modestly decreased 2% 2 percent from 2013 to 2015, but increased 21 percent since the start of TransNet. 1% 0.88% 0.70% 0.74% Pedestrian injuries and fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles of travel have grown 18 percent since 0% the start of TransNet and 4 percent from 2013 to 2014 2015 2016 2015. San Francisco--Oakland, CA Urbanized Area Seattle, WA Urbanized Area Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL Urbanized Area San Diego, CA Urbanized Area Las Vegas--Henderson, NV Urbanized Area Riverside--San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area Bike EAP activities generally follow leading project management practices and efforts have ramped up recently, but some bike projects show delay. 25 BIKE RIDERS INJURED OR KILLED PER 100 MILLION VMT 20
15
10 3.74 5 3.44 3.38
0 2013 2014 2015 Alameda Riverside San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco
STATUS OF 37 BIKE EAP PROJECTS
Not Yet in CIP Enviromental Design Construction Open to Public
•9 Projects •9 Projects •12 Projects •3 Projects •4 Projects
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 93 Chapter Introduction Since 2008, the TransNet Program supported alternate modes of transportation through a variety of activities including transit, bike and pedestrian initiatives, and technology support systems as part of specific TransNet programs for transit, Local Street and Road, and grant allocations from the Active Transportation, Senior-Mini, and Smart Growth Incentive Programs. For the TransNet funding set-aside specifically for bike and pedestrian projects, SANDAG allocated $48 million since the passage of the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
Bike Ridership and its Share of Commute Increased since the Start of TransNet, but Decreased over past Three Years Although SANDAG did not track and report on bike ridership statistics, U.S. Census American Community Survey data revealed the overall average of annual bike commuters grew since the start of TransNet from approximately 8,000 to 10,500 over the period from 2006 to 2016—an increase of 35 percent. While the percent share of the commute for bike riders slightly increased over that same timeframe, recent results between 2014 and 2016 showed a decrease in bike share of commute.
Specifically, data revealed that the percent share of bike commuters decreased by 0.14 percentage points from 0.88 percent in 2014 to 0.74 percent in 2016 as indicated in Exhibit 46.45 When comparing the San Diego region with five comparison areas, we found that San Diego was near the lower end in terms of commute percentage.
EXHIBIT 46. PERCENT OF COMMUTE BY BIKE IN COMPARISON AREAS, 2014 TO 2016
3% San Francisco--Oakland, CA Urbanized Area Seattle, WA Urbanized Area
2% Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL Urbanized Area San Diego, CA Urbanized Area 1% 0.88% 0.70% 0.74%
Percent of Commute by Bike by Percent Commute of Las Vegas--Henderson, NV Urbanized Area
0% Riverside--San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area 2014 2015 2016 Source: Auditor-generated based on U.S. Census American Community Survey estimates.
In terms of number of commuters, there were an estimated 1.4 million total commuters in San Diego in 2016, of which, approximately 10,500 were estimated to be bike commuters. Comparing 2014 to 2016, there was a decrease in bike commuters by about 13 percent, down from a high of approximately 12,000 in 2014.
45 One limitation of the U.S. Census American Community Survey data source is that it is only collected for commute and, thus, does not provide a full understanding of the importance of bike pathways for other trips such as shopping, visiting friends, and other non-commute related travel.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 94 Limited Data Exists to Establish Ridership Baselines for Bike and Pedestrian Performance While the U.S. Census American Community Survey data provides a foundation for assessing the region’s modal trends, one limitation of the data is that it is only collected for commute and does not provide a full understanding of how important bike pathways are for other trips such as shopping, visiting friends, and other non-commute related travel. Further, the data on commute is limited to primary mode, so biking to transit may be captured as transit or biking one day a week and carpooling four days a week may be captured as carpool.
According to SANDAG, it started efforts in 2017 to understand and validate the data from local bike and pedestrian “Eco” counters to establish a volume baseline—although the data cannot yet be relied upon. Part of the validation process is to determine how to gauge the accuracy of the counters, including whether counters are not functioning at time resulting in inconsistent or incomplete data collected. We analyzed counter data between February 2012 and July 2017 and found many fluctuations with counts ranging wildly between months likely due to counter malfunctions. To properly monitor the counters and inspect them when there are suspected malfunctions, resources are needed to quickly response through field checks and maintenance. According to SANDAG staff, it dedicated staff in early 2018 to monitor a specific subset of 12 counters and repairs any issue within week of being identified. As such, SANDAG should continue efforts to establish baseline data for bike and pedestrian volume as an important first step to identify trends and set targets as well as formalize analysis of the data.
Bike and Pedestrian Safety Was Better over last Three Years, but Worse since Start of TransNet Like ridership data, safety performance statistics were also not tracked or reported by SANDAG. Based on data from the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, the rate of collisions involving a bicyclist decreased over the last three years by 1.7 percent. This was different than the trend over the last ten years where collisions resulting in bike rider injuries and fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel increased over the period.
As shown in Exhibit 47, collisions resulting in bike rider injuries and fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel in San Diego slightly decreased by 1.7 percent from a rate of 3.44 in 2013 to 3.38 in 2015. All comparison areas, except for San Francisco, also experienced a decrease over the period. Conversely, between 2005 and 2015, there was an increase of approximately 21 percent in collisions resulting in bike rider injuries and fatalities.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 95 EXHIBIT 47. RATE OF BICYCLISTS INJURED OR KILLED IN CALIFORNIA COMPARISON COUNTIES, 2013 TO 2015
25 Alameda 20 Riverside
15 San Bernardino VMT
10 San Diego Bicyclists or Injured Bicyclists
Killed per 100 Million perMillion 100 Killed San Francisco 5 3.44 3.74 3.38
0 2013 2014 2015 Source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Note: Severity levels 1 through 4 were included in exhibit—severity 1 = fatality; severity 2 = serious injury; severity 3 = visible injury; and severity 4 = complaint of pain.
By contrast, for pedestrian injuries and fatalities, all comparison areas had an increase from 2013 to 2015. However, San Diego County had one of the smallest increases at 4 percent increasing from a rate of 4.07 injuries or fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel to 4.21, as shown in Exhibit 48.
EXHIBIT 48. RATE OF PEDESTRIANS INJURED OR KILLED IN CALIFORNIA COMPARISON COUNTIES, 2013 TO 2015
30 Alameda 25 Riverside 20 San Bernardino VMT 15 San Diego 10
San Francisco Killed per 100 Million per Million 100 Killed Pedestrians Injured or or Injured Pedestrians 4.07 4.32 4.21 5
0 2013 2014 2015 Source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Note: Severity levels 1 through 4 were included in exhibit—severity 1 = fatality; severity 2 = serious injury, Severity 3 = visible injury; and severity 4 = complaint of pain.
Yet, these results were different than the trend since 2005 when TransNet began where San Diego County experienced an 18 percent increase in pedestrian injuries and fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel between 2005 and 2015—the largest among comparison areas.
Regional Bike EAP Project Management Methods Aligned with Leading Practices In 2013, SANDAG implemented an Early Action Program (EAP) for bike projects in conjunction with the Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan adopted in May 2010. Specifically, the SANDAG Board designated approximately $200 million for specific EAP projects with SANDAG planning to fund projects over a 10-year span TransNet revenues and additional amounts from state and local resources. The Bike EAP consisted of 37 projects totaling 77 miles of new bikeways throughout the county.
With a responsibility for implementing the EAP projects from project design through construction, SANDAG seemed to generally follow leading practices for managing the Bike EAP projects consistently and ensuring
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 96 appropriate documentation was retained to support key milestones, schedule, budget, and management decisions. Our cursory review of files found typical documentation in place such as independent cost estimates, budgets and schedules, inspections, and project team meeting minutes. Like other EAP projects, the TransNet Dashboard tracked schedule, budget, and expenditure information for the Bike EAP against original baselines and budgets. Although SANDAG was developing a formal program monitoring and management plan expected to have been completed by 2015, it is still in draft form as of January 2018. Thus, SANDAG should quickly finish and implement the plan for additional structure around the Bike EAP program.
Bike EAP Activities Recently Ramped up, But Some Projects Showed Delays With the Bike EAP projects started in late 2013, spending was slow in the first three years with only 4 of the 37 projects open to the public.46 According to SANDAG, there was a slow start due to the newness of the program and the learning curve for stakeholders to understand the benefit of the projects to gain momentum. However, spending recently ramped up during FY 2017. Additionally, SANDAG reported receiving $38.7 million of state funds to pay for construction of the bike early action program projects. While the pace of spending increased, there were schedule delays that most commonly occurred in the design and environmental phases. This poses a risk to the on-time completion of the remaining projects as the majority of projects (21 out of 37) were still in environmental and design phases.47
Bike expenditures ramped up from FY 2014 to FY 2017 Annual bike expenditures have increased each year since the start of the Bike EAP program in FY 2014, as shown in Exhibit 49. If future annual expenditures keep pace with FY 2017 spending, it would take approximately eight years to spend the remaining $167 million allocated. Further, according to the Dashboard, all 28 current capital improvement projects budgets are within 10 percent of actual costs on work completed.
EXHIBIT 49. FUNDS EXPENDED PER FISCAL YEAR ON BIKE EAP PROJECTS
Total Expenditures Fiscal Year FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 over First Four Years Expenditure per Year $4,425,000 $3,547,000 $6,703,000 $19,201,000 $33,876,000 Source: SANDAG budgets, FY 2015 to FY 2017.
Many Bike EAP projects were still in the design and environmental phases, but showed delays Of the 37 Bike EAP projects envisioned, 4 projects were completed—although another 24 projects were in- progress as depicted in Exhibit 50. In the original Bike EAP scenario, there were 17 projects listed as “high- priority urban bikeway.” All but one of these priority bikeway projects have been started as of January 2018.
46 SANDAG’s major project milestones include preliminary engineering, environmental, final design, local reviews and approvals, bidding, and construction. 47 Of the original 38 projects in the $200 million scenario, two were programmed under the same CIP 1223056 (San Ysidro to Imperial Beach – Bayshore Bikeway Connection 13 and 21), so there are currently 37 total projects.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 97 EXHIBIT 50. STATUS OF BIKE EAP PROJECTS, AS OF JANUARY 2018
Not Yet in CIP Enviromental Design Construction Open to Public
•9 Projects •9 Projects •12 Projects •3 Projects •4 Projects
Source: Dashboard milestones and SANDAG crosswalk of Bike EAP to capital improvement budget.
Of the 24 active projects that have not yet been completed, five projects were within 10 percent of schedule baselines as of 7/30/2017. More importantly, when looking at the Dashboard, most of the projects were showing some delays with 10 projects in a yellow caution status and 9 projects in a red status indicating a schedule variance from the baseline of more than 20 percent. Summary data from the Dashboard showed that most delays were noted in the design phase, followed closely by the environmental phase. Reasons for the delays included redesigns, obtaining permits, right-of-way problems, funding issues, and public involvement challenges. For example, on the Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main Street to Palomar project, there were challenges establishing a right of entry agreement with an adjacent land owner in order to perform Geotech borings.48 SANDAG used the Dashboard to identify and understand the causes for project delays, in addition to elevating those issues to executive levels for resolution. Those results should be documented in a formal lesson learned format to be used to mitigate any similar delays on future projects.
Recommendations To improve Bike EAP project delivery, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 17. Continue efforts to establish baseline data for bike and pedestrian volume to identify trends and set targets. 18. Improve project management practices and project delivery for the Bike Early Action Program projects by implementing the following: a. Finalizing and implementing the in-progress Regional Bikeway Program Management Plan. b. Using Dashboard data that currently tracks frequent causes of delays during the design and environmental phases of bike projects, to summarize lessons learned, identify and mitigate future preventable occurrences, and improve scheduled delivery of the remaining projects.
48 Geotechnical borings help identify the condition of soil and rock to design foundation-type structures.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 98 Chapter 7: Environmental Mitigation Program
The 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance established the $850 million Environmental Mitigation Program to fund: Mitigation of the direct environmental impacts related to TransNet capital construction projects, and Regional conservation of habitat and endangered species.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
With nearly $222 million spent to-date on TransNet’s Continue efforts to establish a new Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), much has been Memorandum of Agreement with Caltrans, accomplished—more than half of the mitigation projects California Department of Fish and Game, and outlined in the Ordinance have mitigation activities underway the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to replace or are being restored. current one expiring before funding expires in June 2018. EMP processes and agreements were successful and significant progress was made—although much work remains as efforts Review and update cost estimates in light of higher cost than anticipated with restoring shift towards restoration efforts. coastal wetlands. Restoration costs are expected to exceed estimates mostly Consider the most efficient use of available because the program is restoring more wetlands that were funding and possible adjustments to focus on acquired as agreed by the California Coastal Commission for the higher priority activities and projects given the North Coast Corridor. reduced revenue forecasts and increased cost estimates. $200 million local mitigation bank, set aside by the Ordinance to mitigate environmental impacts of local street and roads projects, Make changes to marketing efforts for the local has been underutilized due to various factors including reduced streets and road mitigation bank as well as local development during the recession, requirements for consider revisions to eligibility criteria or utilize developers to pay for impact, improvements did not affect funding for other EMP priorities. biological resources, or lack of awareness of the available funds. Measure progress in meeting EMP goals and develop metrics to measure overall health of Habitat conservation performance structure was in place, but communicating complex results to the public remains a the preserve against baselines established in regional conservation plans as well as report challenge. those performance results to the public.
Original Updated EMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING CYCLE TransNet TransNet Expenses Ordinance Area EMP Activity Revenue Revenue (Through Estimate Estimate 9/15/2017) (2017) Update Two (2005) Priorities of Year Work Land MSP $188.1 $173.2 $102.3 Program Acquisitions Habitat Regional $225.2 $207.3 $47.8 Transportation Restoration Project Habitat $15.2 $14.0 $2.1 Update MSP Mitigation Management Goals, Annual Objectives Allocation of Administration $21.5 $19.8 $7.0 and Funding Support priorities Local Transportation Project $200.0 $184.1 $12.8 Mitigation Contract for Actions and Subtotal $650.0 $598.4 $172.0 provide to SDMMP Regional Habitat Conservation $200.0 $184.1 $49.8 Total $850.0 $782.5 $221.8
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 99 Chapter Introduction Part of the TransNet Extension Ordinance called for $850 million to fund mitigation of the direct environmental impacts related to TransNet capital construction projects and regional conservation of habitat and endangered species. In essence, the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) focused on land acquisitions, restoration, management, and monitoring. To date, SANDAG spent a total of $222 million on this program—$159.2 million for regional mitigation through the acquisition of land, restoration of that land as needed, and management and monitoring of the habitat on those acquired lands as well as another $12.8 million for local land acquisitions and $49.8 million for regional habitat conservation activities.
EMP Processes were Effective The EMP’s program administration realized several accomplishments over the last three years and the last decade in general. For instance, SANDAG worked closely with Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining a plan to acquire and mitigate habitats. Through that agreement, the SANDAG Board voted to finance $440 million (of the $650 million estimated revenues for mitigation) over an eleven-year period (2008 through 2018) for direct mitigation of regional and local transportation projects and $44 million (of the $200 million conservation estimate) for regional habitat conservation efforts. This MOA is set to expire in March 2018, and SANDAG is working with its partners to have a new MOA in place before funding associated with the current MOA ends by the end of FY 2018. If a new agreement is not reached and formalized, future funding related to habitat conservation would be disrupted.
To assist with issues involved in implementing both the mitigation and conservation components of the EMP, the SANDAG Board established the Environmental Mitigation Program Working Group with representatives from the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, four SANDAG sub-regions, state and federal wildlife agencies, and several organizations representing various disciplines and interests. Considerable cooperation and coordination is required among SANDAG, Caltrans, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and the California Department of Fish and Game to successfully align the region’s mitigation needs with available conservation opportunities. The EMP Working Group continued to meet regularly over the last three years and provided recommendations to the SANDAG Regional Planning Committee on implementation of the EMP.
Significant Progress Was Made, but Much Work Remains as Efforts Shift Towards Restoration Activities While $850 million was estimated for the entire EMP over the 40-year TransNet Program, the first of two major components of the EMP relates to $650 million in funding earmarked for mitigation activities necessary to mitigate the direct impacts caused by transportation improvement projects. As shown in Exhibit 51, these activities are further broken down into regional transportation mitigation ($450 million) and local transportation mitigation ($200 million). Of the $650 million set aside for the 40-year period, the SANDAG Board allocated $440 million over an eleven-year period (2008 through 2018). In 2017, the original estimate of $650 million was revised downward to approximately $598 million in anticipated funding for transportation project mitigation activities.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 100 EXHIBIT 51. ESTIMATED REVENUE IN 2002 DOLLARS FOR KEY EMP ACTIVITIES
Environmental Mitigation Program ($850 Million)
Transportation Project Mitigation Regional Habitat Conservation ($650 Million) ($200 Million)
Regional Local Land Acquisition Habitat Conservation Unreleased Transportation Transportation Grants Activities Funds ($450 Million) ($200 Million) ($20 Million) ($40 Million) ($140 Million)
Habitat Land Acquisition Restoration ($225 Million) ($188 Million) Habitat Administration Management ($15 Million) ($21 Million)
Source: 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance. Note: Figures may not sum to total due to rounding.
In total, $502 million of the original TransNet $850 million estimate has been allocated during the first decade of the program—$438 million (of the $650 million mitigation revenue estimate) for direct mitigation and $64 million (of the $200 million conservation revenue estimate) for regional habitat conservation efforts.49 Approximately $212 million is left for mitigation efforts and $136 million for conservation efforts.
As of September 15, 2017, nearly $222 million of the original $850 million estimate, or 26 percent, was expended during the first ten years of the program to fund key mitigation activities including land acquisition, habitat restoration, and parcel-specific land management activities as well as habitat conservation activities as shown in Exhibit 52. Additionally, of the 44 project mitigation projects envisioned by the Ordinance, more than half of the projects (23) have had mitigation activities commenced, ranging from mitigation sites secured to being fully permitted and restoration underway.
EXHIBIT 52. EMP REVENUE ESTIMATE AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURES, AS OF 9/30/2017
Original TransNet Updated TransNet Expenditures Ordinance Area EMP Activity Revenue Estimate Revenue Estimate (As of 9/15/2017) (2005) (2017) Land Acquisitions $188.1 $173.2 $102.3 Regional Habitat Restoration $225.2 $207.3 $47.8 Transportation Project Mitigation Habitat Management $15.2 $14.0 $2.1 Administration Support $21.5 $19.8 $7.0 Local Transportation Project Mitigation $200.0 $184.1 $12.8 Subtotal $650.0 $598.4 $172.0 Regional Habitat Conservation $200.0 $184.1 $49.8 Total $850.0 $782.5 $221.8 Source: 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance, One Solution financial system extract, and internal EMP spreadsheets.
49 EMP estimates are in 2002 dollars.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 101 Over the past three years, efforts related to land acquisitions for project mitigation was nearing completion. In fact, only about 7 percent of total acres were acquired in the last three years meaning that most of the activity to acquire 3,500 acres occurred before FY 2015 as shown in Exhibit 53.
EXHIBIT 53. MITIGATION ACRES ACQUIRED
Timeframe Acres
Total Mitigation Acres Acquired as of 9/17/2017 3,502
Total Mitigation Acres Acquired before FY 2015 3,266
Total Mitigation Acres Acquired in the last three years 236 Source: Internal EMP spreadsheets.
As such, efforts related to transportation project mitigation over the last three years have shifted to restoration activities of wetlands, particularly related lagoon restoration efforts identified in the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan. In fact, through September 15, 2017, the EMP program spent about $48 million on restoration activities, or about 21 percent of the original restoration estimate of $225 million restoring the properties that require restoration. During the last three years, approximately $37 million has been spent— or 77 percent of the total $48 million was spent showing ramped up restoration activity.
EXHIBIT 54. RESTORATION EXPENSES
Timeframe Expenses
Total Restoration expenditures as of 9/17/2017 $48 million
Total Restoration expenditures before FY 2015 $11 million
Total Restoration expenditures in the last three years $37 million Source: One Solution Financial System Extract and internal EMP spreadsheets.
Financing Needs to Be Revisited as Restoration Costs are expected to Exceed Estimates In 2017, SANDAG updated its TransNet revenue forecast to reflect several billion less in expected revenue over the 40-year program. As of September 2017, the revised estimate for EMP was $782.5 million (2017 dollars), a $67.5 million reduction from the original estimate.
In addition to less revenues anticipated, SANDAG estimated higher restoration costs. While SANDAG has only spent a small percentage so far on restoration activities, restoration costs are anticipated to far exceed the original restoration estimates of $225 million. In fact, in addition to the $48 million spent so far on restoration costs, SANDAG estimates that future restoration costs could be at least an additional $213 million—largely related to North Coast Corridor lagoon restoration expenses. Given the fact that the original TransNet revenue estimate was revised downward to $207 million earmarked for restoration activities, it is not clear how the additional restoration activities will be funded. According to SANDAG, cost savings from other parts of the EMP program (such as the saving from coastal wetland acquisitions) could
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 102 make up the difference, but details are not yet available until the restoration is completed and true cost is known.
The increase in restoration costs was mostly attributed to the fact that although many fewer acres of coastal wetlands were acquired than anticipated, the program is restoring additional wetland acres beyond those that were actually acquired—67 acres were acquired with EMP funds, but more than 400 acres of coastal wetlands are required to be restored. The increase in the number of acres to restore is a result of the additional efforts required by the coastal wetland mitigation agreement with the California Coastal Commission. A significant component of restoration activities and funding involves the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation Resource Enhancement Program that was jointly developed by SANDAG and Caltrans. This plan included a package of highway, rail, transit, bike/pedestrian, environmental and coastal access improvements along San Diego’s North Coast Corridor—a 27-mile stretch from La Jolla to Oceanside.50
With less revenues projected and habitat restoration costs more than expected, the EMP may not have sufficient money for mitigation planned under the EMP. Thus, EMP cost estimates should be reevaluated as the first decade of the program concludes. For example, during the first ten years of mitigation efforts, far more upland acres were acquired than anticipated and many fewer (more expensive) wetland acres, resulting in acquisition cost savings. Additional acquisition cost savings resulted from purchasing land at lower prices due to the recession. However, anticipated costs associated with restoring the acquired land is expected to be much higher than original restoration estimates (based on 2002 dollars) largely due to the fact that the cost to restore coastal wetlands is much higher than originally envisioned. According to SANDAG, there is an effort underway to review and update the original EMP estimates and determine whether cost savings realized through the acquisition process could be leveraged to provide additional funding for restoration efforts.
Economic Benefit Methodology Approved, But Revisions May Impact Future Activities To release, or allocate, funding related to the $200 million set aside for regional habitat conservation, cost savings—known as “economic benefit”—must be achieved on the regional and local transportation improvement projects. To release some of the $200 million during the first ten years of the program, SANDAG developed a methodology to estimate how much cost savings had already been achieved via the regional transportation improvement projects. Based on the calculation methodology, the SANDAG Board approved $64 million in economic benefit to be allocated for habitat conservation efforts as follows: $44 million ($4 million per year from FY 2008 through FY 2018) for habitat conservation activities51 $20 million for specific land acquisition grant
50 Corridor projects include lagoon enhancements, habitat restoration, and coastal access improvements at the San Elijo Lagoon and/or Buena Vista Lagoon, San Dieguito Lagoon, Laser, Dean Family Trust, Batiquitos Bluffs and La Costa, Hallmark, and Deer Canyon. 51 These efforts are accomplished through a competitive Land Management Grant Program funding regional biological monitoring efforts and directly assisting land managers with the necessary tools and resources to aid in their efforts.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 103 SANDAG administered these activities through direct contracts as well as through individual competitive land management and acquisition grants. Currently, SANDAG is conducting a review to quantify how much economic benefit was actually achieved compared against what was released and identify funding deficits or surpluses. As SANDAG revisits its TransNet revenue forecast, SANDAG is also reviewing the previously approved methodology, adopted by the SANDAG Board in 2013, to calculate economic benefit to ensure the calculation accurately represents the cost savings that have been achieved.
Local Project Mitigation Bank was Underutilized In addition to regional mitigation efforts, TransNet set aside an estimated $200 million for local mitigation activities related to local transportation improvement projects—which, per the Ordinance, was not budgeted at a specific project level. Rather, the Ordinance simply directed that funding be utilized for direct mitigation costs of local transportation projects consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan as part of the Environmental Mitigation Program. As of September 15, 2017, portions of seven properties (approximately 370 acres in total) were purchased for $12.8 million and set aside in a local transportation mitigation bank— of which 56 acres have been assigned to the following projects: 11.7 acres—San Marcos Redevelopment area 2.1 acres—San Diego Friars Road/SR-163 17.4 acres—Merge 56 3.8 acres—Otay Truck Route IV 21 acres—El Camino Real Widening
Yet, there was little utilization of these funds over the past three years or since the start of TransNet. According to SANDAG, there has not been much interest or demand for these local mitigation funds because local entities have not focused on projects due to the following factors: Local jurisdictions have not pursued new streets and roads development due to the economic recession. New local street and road projects that impact biological resources are rare. Local street and road mitigation is typically the responsibility of the developer as a condition of new development and/or paid for by developer impacts fees. Local jurisdictions may not be aware that these funds are available for local mitigation.
SANDAG stated that they pursued an increased marketing effort, including reaching out to public works and planning directors in the region via SANDAG’s monthly working group meetings to educate and encourage the local jurisdictions to take advantage of this available funding source. While SANDAG should continue these efforts, it could also look to repurposing these funds for other local mitigation needs—as allowed under the Ordinance.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 104 Solid Habitat Conservation Performance Structure was in Place, But Need to Synthesize and Report on Results In addition to the conservation and restoration of land for mitigation, the EMP provides funding for regional monitoring to assure that the region’s habitats and species do not decline and become included on endangered lists. While $49.8 million was spent on these efforts, no easily understood metrics of success have yet been established.
However, there was a Management Strategic Plan (MSP) implemented for habitat conservation activities, including linkages to the funding, goals, objectives, and actions. Nearly all stakeholders interviewed remarked at the success of the plan. The purpose of the MSP managed by the San Diego Management and Monitoring Program contracted by SANDAG is to gain an understanding of the health of the regional preserve system and make strategic funding decisions while protecting the acquisition investment. During the first 10 years of the program, SANDAG worked towards developing an information cycle that identifies conservation priorities, implements conservation goals, and tracks progress and links to funding processes, as shown in Exhibit 55.
EXHIBIT 55. EMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING CYCLE
Update Two Priorities of Year Work MSP Program
Update MSP Annual Goals, Allocation of Objectives Funding and priorities
Contract for Actions and provide to SDMMP
Source: SANDAG and San Diego Management and Monitoring Program (SDMMP). Note: MSP is the Management Strategic Plan.
The detailed MSP identified specific goals and objectives, prioritized activities, facilitated decision-making, and linked the $4 million annual funding allocation with performance toward meeting the goals against three primary target groups—species, vegetation community, and threats. Each target group had overall goals, objectives, actions, and success criteria. The areas of highest priority were included in the two-year work plan that was submitted to the SANDAG Board for funding approval and actions on the goals were associated with contracts and/or grants. Additionally, outcomes were tracked and measured once a grant project was completed—although the outcomes were varied and relate to the specific nature of the grant. Regular field assessments were conducted to test the long-term effectiveness of the grants. According to
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 105 the draft 2017 grant audit results, a majority of the projects reviewed were determined to have exceptional or medium sustained longevity.
Moreover, SANDAG’s San Diego Management and Monitoring Program and the United States Geological Services developed an on-line portal that allowed significant amounts of habitat management and monitoring data and results to be stored, tracked, shared, and analyzed between local land managers. While there was a lot of data available in portal, communicating complex results to public remains a challenge.
Specifically, while the EMP measured its progress in meeting the many specific and detailed goals, objectives, and action items in the MSP, there were no developed protocols to take the abundance of data and holistically understand the status and trend of the overall health of the preserve against the baselines established in the Multiple Species Conservation Program and Multiple Habitat Conservation Programs regional long-term conservation planning programs.52 Additionally, while the portal was useful for EMP professionals, including local land managers and research scientists, to use to store, track, share, and analyze the significant amount of habitat management and monitoring data and results, the system was not designed to communicate complex performance results to the public.
To address this gap, SANDAG will have to undertake a significant effort and work with technical experts to take the large amount of information, analyze and synthesize the data, and present data in a simplified, yet scientifically valid way so the general public can gain an understanding of the overall health of the preserve. On July 12, 2016 the EMP Working Group discussed several examples from around the nation that have produced “State of the Preserve” reports that assessed standard metrics determine status and trends.
Too Early In Lifecycle for Significant Land Management Activities A final step of the TransNet mitigation effort is the habitat management and monitoring of parcel-specific land that has been acquired and restored. These activities are used to maintain the environmental integrity of the acquired land through actions such as installing fencing and signage as well as removing debris and invasive vegetation. Of the $450 million earmarked to mitigate the regional transportation improvement projects, the TransNet Extension Ordinance Habitat Cost Estimate projected approximately $15.2 million would be required for parcel-specific habitat management and monitoring of acquired mitigation land. Yet, with efforts recently moving towards management and conservation over the last few years, it may be too early to summarize full impact and determine whether efforts protected or saved species.
As of September 15, 2017, only $2.1 million (or $700,000 over the last three years) was spent on maintaining the environmental integrity of land acquired through the EMP Program through land management and monitoring activities such as installing fencing and signage as well as removing debris and invasive vegetation. However, land management spending is expected to increase once restoration of the acquired mitigation land is complete and management responsibilities are turned over to local
52 The Multiple Species Conservation Program and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program were required by law to provide large-scale preservation of native habitat and species. In San Diego, MSCP covers more than 80 species across 582,000 acres in the southwestern portion of the County; while the MHCP covers 61 species across nearly 112,000 acres in the northwestern portion of the County.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 106 jurisdictions or other qualified land managers. As part of its review of the original EMP cost estimate, SANDAG should also consider updates to parcel-specific land management efforts.
Outcomes were tracked and measured once a grant project was completed—although the outcomes were varied and relate to the specific nature of the grant. Regular field assessments were conducted to test the long-term effectiveness of the grants. According to the draft 2017 grant audit results a majority of the projects reviewed were determined to have exceptional or medium sustained longevity.
Recommendations To enhance the Environmental Mitigation Program and better measure performance, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 19. Continue efforts to establish a new Memorandum of Agreement with Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to replace current one expiring before funding expires in June 2018. 20. Enhance the financing and use of TransNet funding for the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) by implementing the following: a. Reviewing and updating EMP cost estimates in light of higher costs than anticipated associated with restoring coastal wetlands. b. Considering the most efficient use of available funding and possible adjustments, as allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance, to focus on higher priority activities and projects such as restoring coastal wetlands, given updated revenue forecast information and cost estimates. c. Revisiting the established economic benefit methodology to ensure the calculation accurately represents the cost savings that have been achieved. 21. Make changes, as appropriate, to marketing efforts for the local streets and road mitigation bank funding available for local projects, consider revising eligibility criteria for public entities, or consider whether those monies could be better utilized within other EMP priority actions, as allowed under the TransNet Extension Ordinance. 22. Measure progress in meeting specific and detailed EMP goals, objectives, and action items for regional monitoring and management under the Management Strategic Plan. Specifically, develop metrics using the abundance of data to holistically understand the status and trend of the overall health of the preserve against the baselines established in regional conservation plans and formalize a system to communicate complex performance results to the public.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 107
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 108 Chapter 8: Information and Transparency
SANDAG and its TransNet partners have primary responsibility for implementing and managing the TransNet Program. From that responsibility, there are implied obligations to communicate efforts, activities, and results to the public not only to increase awareness of the TransNet Program, but also to hold officials tasked with TransNet Program oversight accountable to the taxpayers.
KEY RESULTS RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
While TransNet represents a significant portion of the Regularly report on implementation of TransNet region’s transportation improvements, specific progress Extension Ordinance goals by annually publishing toward TransNet goals was not tracked. However, progress on SANDAG’s website, annual report, or SANDAG utilized a dedicated KeepSanDiegoMoving other easily visible reporting tool. website to provide data to the public. Enhancements to promoting the visibility of the TransNet Program and its Modify staff reports for SANDAG Board and other contributions for the region could be made. oversight committees to summarize elements related to public input, pros and cons on recommended SANDAG did not specifically track or report progress actions, and implications or impacts of those against Ordinance goals such as congestion relief, safety, recommended actions. Ensure that staff reports are and increased services to seniors and persons with summarized to one or two pages. disabilities. More prominently feature the TransNet logo on Decision makers and public would benefit from succinct SANDAG and TransNet partner websites as well as summarized insights from SANDAG staff to navigate through other media such as Facebook and Twitter. voluminous information presented. Revamp SANDAG website to capture documents Because of limited TransNet promotion on TransNet pertinent to TransNet in a centralized area for each partner websites, the public may not have a strong TransNet Extension Ordinance component. This recognition or association of TransNet with specific project includes linking Dashboard projects with those listed in and service achievements. the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
While similar to other metropolitan planning organizations, Ensure data on completed projects is maintained in TransNet information on the SANDAG website is not the Dashboard—even if under an archived location still centrally located and can be difficult to locate. accessible to the public—and separate past and future expenditures between the original TransNet amounts Dashboard is an innovative tool, but projects were not and the TransNet Extension Ordinance amounts. always easily linked with Ordinance, and initial budgets were not included to allow public to get full snapshot of activities.
EXAMPLE OF STAFF SUMMARY REPORT FOR AGENDA ITEM
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 109 Chapter Introduction Given the significant efforts employed on the TransNet Program, it is important to ensure that activities and results are communicated to decision makers and the public to ensure oversight committees consider available data, increase awareness of the TransNet Program, and improve transparency. Different methods can be used to communicate TransNet Program results and varied levels of emphasis can be placed based on the needs of decision makers, stakeholders, and the general public.
No Specific Tracking against Ordinance Goals Communicated Although SANDAG provides an abundance of information to its SANDAG Board and oversight committees, there was no specific tracking of activities and progress toward TransNet goals such as congestion relief, safety needed to increase services to seniors and those with disabilities that could better inform SANDAG and its TransNet partners’ progress. Based on the work performed throughout this audit, we prepared a quick snapshot of progress towards meeting the Ordinance goals as shown in Exhibit 56. This snapshot, or some similar tool, could be used by SANDAG as a foundation for future measurement and reporting.
EXHIBIT 56. PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING ORDINANCE GOALS OVER THE LAST DECADE
TransNet Goal Progress To Date Goal Met? Commutes of less than 30 minutes decreased from 67% percent to 65%—although San Diego was less delayed than comparable Mixed 1 Relieve Congestion areas reviewed. Results Use of alternate modes as a percent of total commute decreased from 18% to 16%. Highway and Roadways injuries decreased by 9% and fatalities decreased by 19%. Mixed 2 Improve Safety Bike and Pedestrian injuries and fatalities increased by 21% and Results 18%, respectively.
Match State and Federal Major corridor funds was leveraged at $1.89 to $1.00. 3 Yes Funds Local Street and Road planned leveraging was $1.10 to $1.00. Expanded freeways; for example, projects were completed on the I- 4 Expand Freeways 15, I-805, SR 52, and SR 76. Yes 61% of capital construction projects were completed or in-progress. At least 136 projects completed and approximately $714 million 5 Maintain and Improve Roads Yes dedicated for projects on local streets and roads. Increase Transit for Seniors Ridership for seniors and persons with disabilities appeared to have 6 Yes and Persons with Disabilities increased by 7 percent since the state of TransNet. Expand Commuter Express Expanded transit services; for example, 3 new Rapid Bus Services 7 Bus, Trolley, and COASTER Routes were put into service. Yes Services 94 vehicles (including 65 light-rail trolley vehicles) were purchased. Source: TransNet Story Map, grant status and update reports, TransNet Quarterly Financial Reports, TransNet Dashboard, fact sheets, internal SANDAG tracking spreadsheets, California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, Caltrans’ Freeway Performance Management System, MTS ridership by senior/persons with disabilities fare category.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 110 Information provided to Decision Makers was like Similar Entities, but Enhancements could be Made Transportation planning and implementation is a complex and complicated area of government—especially with the variety and uniqueness of each mode of transportation between highways, local roadways, transit operations, bike and pedestrian services, environmental mitigation and habitat conservation, and grants for concepts such as Smart Growth as well as financing the entire connected system. One challenge involves how best to communicate technical and detailed information to decision makers, oversight bodies, stakeholders, and the general public when user needs are varied and often parochial.
While SANDAG Board and committees involved with TransNet received a multitude of information related to projects, contracts, reports, performance, and financing, the volume and type of information provided by SANDAG staff was voluminous—and similar to other metropolitan planning organizations and transportation authorities, as shown in Exhibit 57. The volume of information provided seemed dependent on the nature of the business before the oversight body, but the volume of materials can make it challenging for decision makers to digest.
EXHIBIT 57. INFORMATION PROVIDED TO OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES IS SIMILAR TO OTHER TRANSPORTATION ENTITIES
Page in Meeting Entity Committee Meeting Date Packet
LA Metro in Los Angeles, California Various No links available on-line --
3/29/2017 Regional Council 204 Maricopa Association of Governments in Phoenix, 8/3/2017 Regional Council 135 Arizona 1/3/2018 Regional Council 152 Metropolitan Transportation Commission of the Bay Various No links available on-line -- Area, California Orange County Transportation Authority in Anaheim, 2/2/2018 Board of Directors 825 California 2/23/2017 Regional Council 55 Puget Sound Regional Council in Seattle, Washington 2/8/2018 Regional Council 38 1/26/2017 Board of Directors 251 Regional Transportation Authority in Tucson, Arizona 1/25/2018 Board of Directors 224 Riverside County Transportation Commission in 2/14/208 Transportation Commission 133 Riverside, California Sacramento Council of Governments in Sacramento, 12/21/2017 Board of Directors 339 California 7/28/2017 Board of Directors 151 San Diego Association of Governments 9/22/2017 Board of Directors 958 Source: Oversight board, council, and commission meeting agendas and packets available on entity websites.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 111 For instance, some meeting packets included lengthy materials—such as audit reports or regional plan— which significantly added to the size of the packet. While other packets only discussed a few items at the particular meeting reviewed and reduced the volume of information needed. Also, nearly all meeting agenda items had some type of summary on the subject, background, and recommendations for action— similar to SANDAG. Some summaries were one to two-pages at maximum, while others were longer at five or six pages.
Yet, one particular entity, the Maricopa Association of Governments, incorporated several additional elements to its oversight body’s meeting packet. In addition to the standard subject summary and recommended actions needed, the Maricopa Association of Governments agenda item summary also captured brief statements on public input, pros and cons on the recommended action, and technical and policy implications as shown in Exhibit 58. This succinct information is helpful to the decision makers to quickly synthesize the information provided and identify any impacts of their actions. Thus, SANDAG may want to add similar elements to its meeting agenda summaries as well as possible elements to comment on potential impacts from proposed actions on TransNet goals and implications to users of TransNet services. Additionally, SANDAG should ensure summaries remain at one or two pages in length.
EXHIBIT 58. EXAMPLE OF STAFF SUMMARY REPORT FOR AGENDA ITEM (EXCERPT)
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, Regional Council Meeting Packet, February 23, 2018.
Because Public Awareness of TransNet is Somewhat Unknown, Visibility could be Improved Specific surveying of the level of public awareness of TransNet was not conducted; thus, it was difficult to gauge the public’s views about TransNet. While SANDAG and its TransNet partners provided a significant amount of information publicly as well as captured and responded to public inquiries, there were no overall conclusions that could be drawn to measure public awareness of TransNet and associations drawn between TransNet to the actions taken or achievements realized by SANDAG and its TransNet partners.
Related surveys revealed mixed results on services Over the last few years, there were several different formal surveys conducted by SANDAG and its TransNet partners as shown in Exhibit 59. These studies revealed mixed results on the level of user satisfaction. For instance, Rapid transit riders showed increased satisfaction with I-15 corridor and
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 112 Mira Mesa corridor commutes, while rider satisfaction on the Mid-City corridor decreased. Yet, none of these surveys assessed the public’s awareness or views on TransNet. According to SANDAG, extensive public outreach is planned for the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan update process that began in 2017 where public input and feedback will be gathered through 2019 to inform long-range planning decisions.
EXHIBIT 59. HIGHLIGHTS FROM PUBLIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED BETWEEN 2014 AND 2017 Survey Year Area of Focus Highlights Conducted By 79% responded that maintenance of city services, facilities, and infrastructure was City of Chula important. 2014 General Vista 11% responded that improved and repaired roads would make the city a better place to live—the highest-ranking suggestion, next to the “not sure” response. Only 24% of residents were satisfied or very satisfied with the maintenance of streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure. 2015 City of San Diego General Where satisfied, 57% liked the accessibility of streets and sidewalks for people with disabilities and 52% were satisfied with availability of street lighting. Mid-City corridor riders showed a decline in rider satisfaction from the previous year. I-15 corridor rider satisfaction increased from 7.82 in 2014 to 8.31 in 2015 on a scale 2016 SANDAG Rapid Transit of one to ten. Mira Mesa corridor rider satisfaction improved from 7.72 to 7.96 with higher ratings for frequency, on-time, and availability of bus seats. 71.5% of respondents believed information on highway and rail construction impacts North Coast was effective. 2017 Caltrans Corridor 53.8% of respondents have visited SANDAG’s Keep San Diego Moving website with 68.4% of those rating information as easy to find. Source: Community Survey Research Report prepared for the City of Chula Vista, February 27, 2014; City of San Diego Resident Survey 2015; SANDAG Rapid Passenger Satisfaction Survey Final Report, January 28, 2016; and Caltrans’ Build NCC Community Outreach Survey results.
Additionally, we reviewed extensive stakeholder inquiry listings maintained by SANDAG and its TransNet partners to see if public views could be obtained. Based on the listings provided by SANDAG and Caltrans, most public inquiries focused on specific project questions or travel delays—not necessarily complaints or problems with TransNet practices or SANDAG and its TransNet partners.
TransNet Program promotion could be strengthened While there was some association of the TransNet Program with the many achievements to date on SANDAG’s website, we found limited promotion of TransNet outside of SANDAG for instance, although TransNet was highlighted through ITOC’s annual report, had data available through several links on SANDAG’s website, and associated TransNet capital construction projects with posted signage referring to “TransNet funds at-work,” there was no significant promotion of TransNet outside of SANDAG.
In fact, there was no mention of TransNet on the website homepage for most of the TransNet partners including Caltrans, MTS, NCTD, and the local jurisdictions—although Caltrans had earmarked a section for TransNet projects under one of its links. Additionally, two of the smaller local jurisdictions made reference to a SANDAG bike project underway or had a link to specific SANDAG projects such as the LOSSAN—yet, there were no specific references, logos, or linkage to TransNet. Partially, the limited promotion of TransNet with the capital construction projects or other services could be related to the view that TransNet is just one
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 113 of several funding sources leveraged to help fulfill the region’s transportation needs. Although SANDAG created a TransNet logo, it was not featured on its website homepage, Facebook page, or Twitter account nor on the platforms used by the TransNet partners.
As a result, the public may not have a strong recognition of TransNet and the projects and services it funds or an association of the program with TransNet partners’ achievements. Thus, SANDAG may want to more prominently feature its TransNet logo on SANDAG and TransNet partner websites as well as through other media sources such as Facebook and Twitter.
While better than most other entities reviewed, visibility of TransNet for public could be enhanced With voters likely interested in the return on their sales tax investment, we found that information made available by SANDAG to the public for the TransNet Program was more accessible than most other entities with local sales tax measures we reviewed—although some enhancements could further elevate the level of visibility of TransNet.
Specifically, when compared to 20 other metropolitan planning organizations and transportation authorities in California and Arizona, SANDAG’s TransNet information aligned most closely with the Arizona Maricopa Association of Government’s website information. By far, SANDAG and the Maricopa Association of Government’s websites had more documents and data available on their local sales tax measures with overviews, related projects, cost information, performance dashboard, and periodic reporting to convey status. Most other entities had some combination of this information, but no significant visibility of the local tax measure used for transportation improvements.
However, given the importance of the TransNet Program to the success of the region’s transportation network and the responsibility for transparency to the public, SANDAG’s website could more prominently highlight the TransNet Program so that a taxpayer has quick visibility to related documents, activities, and the various entities implementing the program. For instance, while there was a dedicated section for TransNet with links to various documents, the website could be more clearly organized to make it easier to find information as well as feature links to all TransNet areas. Exhibit 60 provides an example of how the TransNet website could be reorganized and certain documents that could be captured within each TransNet section.
As such, each TransNet area should have a separate section or link that groups pertinent documents that are currently available on the website, but require a search inquiry to locate. All documents were provided to the SANDAG Board and other oversight committees at some point, but documents were attached to the SANDAG Board meeting packets making it challenging for the general public to mine information.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 114 EXHIBIT 60. EXAMPLE OF TRANSNET WEBSITE LAYOUT
ITOC Major Corridor Finance Capital Projects
Local Street EMP and Road
Performance Transit
Grants
Program Specific Pages
Grants For each grant type: Performance Information on and links to: • Resources for Grantees • Storymap • Call for Projects • Dashboard • Performance Outcome and Output for each • Awarded Projects program • Quarterly Grant Reports • Progress towards meeting Ordinance goals • Etc. • Etc.
Source: Auditor-Generated.
Dashboard is Innovative Tool, but Enhancements Could Improve Transparency For more than a decade, the TransNet “Dashboard” promoted transparency and greater accountability. This innovative and interactive tool allowed the public to obtain timely information about corridor, segment, or project status, budget, and schedule. Data presented derived from financial records for costs and project management tools for schedule information. Public viewers could get a quick status of projects or delve deeper into segments and individual projects, and TransNet project managers used the automated tool for project monitoring.
However, there are certain enhancements that could enable the pubic to more easily align results against the TransNet Ordinance expectations and have a more complete snapshot of project status against expected budgets and schedules. For instance, projects tracked in the Dashboard were not linked to Ordinance project titles or descriptions making it challenging to determine progress towards fulfilling TransNet Program promises without some type of identification system. Additionally, projects drop off the
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 115 Dashboard once completed along with any budget and cost information; thus, making it challenging to identify overall progress to date. Comparing activity against the Ordinance is further complicated because initial TransNet monies are combined with TransNet Extension monies, making it difficult to get a true comparison.
Recommendations To better summarize information for decision makers and inform the public on TransNet, the ITOC should request the SANDAG Board to direct staff to perform the following: 23. Regularly report on implementation of TransNet Extension Ordinance goals by annually publishing progress on SANDAG’s website, annual report, or other easily visible reporting tool. 24. Modify staff reports for SANDAG Board and other oversight committees to summarize elements related to public input, pros and cons on recommended actions, and implications or impacts of those recommended actions. Ensure that staff reports are summarized to one or two pages. 25. Better link TransNet funding to project and program activities for general public awareness by implementing the following. a. More prominently featuring the TransNet logo on SANDAG and TransNet partner websites as well as through other media such as Facebook and Twitter. b. Revamping SANDAG website to capture documents pertinent to TransNet in a centralized area for each TransNet Extension Ordinance component. This includes linking Dashboard projects with those listed in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. 26. Ensure data on completed projects is maintained in the Dashboard—even if under an archived location still accessible to the public—and separate past and future expenditures between the original TransNet amounts and the TransNet Extension Ordinance amounts.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 116 Chapter 9: Conclusions and Summary of Agency Response to Recommendations
During the three-year audit period, SANDAG and its TransNet partners conducted many activities towards accomplishing the goals of TransNet. In fact, the entities involved delivered on promises such as expanding freeways, improving local roads, adding capacity to rail services, and increasing services to seniors and those with disabilities. Additionally, SANDAG leveraged sales tax monies to complete or start 61 percent of the major corridor capital projects envisioned over the 40-year lifecycle of TransNet, employed leading project management practices and innovative project delivery through the Construction-Manager/General- Contractor (CMGC) method, and implemented a robust Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP).
Our audit also revealed that SANDAG and its TransNet partners had challenges financing the TransNet Program and capturing performance to measure its efforts in meeting TransNet goals—similar to other transportation planning entities. From a fiscal perspective, SANDAG must balance sufficient revenues to cover project costs and forecasting those efforts over the remaining 30 years of the sales tax measure. While several changes were recently made to revenue forecasting and financial planning, practices could be improved to strengthen results and increase transparency for decision makers and the public. In terms of performance, with the exception of major corridor commutes and transit performance, SANDAG was challenged to measure and report performance in other TransNet areas. Over the last several years, similar to SANDAG, transportation agencies and the federal government have been evolving in terms of performance priorities, goals, target setting, and data collection methods. In fact, the federal government has mandated certain performance measurement features under its Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act in 2012 and Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act from 2015.
To improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to the taxpayers of the San Diego region, ITOC should request that the SANDAG Board direct its staff and TransNet partners to consider and implement recommendations summarized in Exhibit 61. In general, SANDAG and its TransNet partners agreed with the recommendations.
EXHIBIT 61. FY 2018 TRANSNET PERFORMANCE AUDIT RECOMMENDATION MATRIX
Audit Recommendation Auditee Response
Chapter 1: TransNet Financing Enhance the Plan of Finance (POF) process and information This process will be more formally incorporated as part provided to decision makers by implementing the following: of the TransNet Major Corridors Plan of Finance a. Leveraging historical data and previous POFs to provide annual updates. 1. additional information regarding estimates of future Staff Lead - Dawn Vettese (TransNet) revenue sources, by comparing projections against historical data as well as comparing estimates from previous POFs against actual funding secured. b. Continuing efforts to increase the transparency of sales SANDAG staff and economic consultants are working tax revenue forecasts by showing a range of possible to create sales tax forecasts that incorporate ranges values based on a true confidence interval. SANDAG staff and scenarios and will present this work to ITOC for should work with the Independent Taxpayer Oversight input.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 117 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response Committee (ITOC) and the SANDAG Board to select a Staff Lead - Jim Miller (Technical Services) confidence level or levels that best communicates the range of possible values projected by the forecast including best case, worse case, or reasonably expected scenarios. c. Developing a process or policy for more frequent Staff will present information on cost estimating reporting—such as quarterly—to oversight committees on practices and methods used to communicate cost cost increases and include factors used to estimate costs, changes to the ITOC, Transportation Committee and project stage or milestone used as basis for cost, and Board in April/May 2018 for input. reasons for cost increase such as inflation, materials Staff Lead - Jim Linthicum (MMPI) spike, or scope changes using Dashboard data and other reliable data sources. Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and its 7-point Data Accuracy Significant progress has been made on the 7-Point and Modeling Work Plan are implemented to reduce the Data Accuracy and Modeling Work Plan and ongoing potential for data errors and develop formal procedures efforts have been incorporated into the agency’s Plan covering version control, periodic archival of dynamic or of Excellence with progress tracked there. As part of continuously updated data and documents, data validation and the 7-Point Plan, staff determined that errors were accuracy, and release and reporting of data. The status of the limited to income variables (Point 1), have conducted implementation of the 7-point plan and new procedures for a dependency analysis to determine where the income data authentication should be documented and reported back variables were used and correct as needed (Point 2), to decision makers. developed a comprehensive flow diagram showing interactions between data and modeling components 2. (Point 3), surveyed agency staff to understand and document how data are disseminated and used (Point 4), convened a nationwide expert panel for recommendations for regional forecasting (Point 5), developed processes and standards to communicate data, methods, and analysis in a clear and transparent manner (Point 6), and (Point 7) realigned people, processes, and technology to support adequate staffing and expertise. Staff Lead - Ray Major (Technical Services) Regularly track and report on the TransNet Program’s financial This process will be more formally incorporated as part capacity to complete projects and programs by implementing of the TransNet Major Corridors Plan of Finance, in the following: coordination with the adopted Regional Plan. a. Establishing a formal structured protocol to review funding Staff Lead - Susan Huntington (TransNet) sources and uses occurring in the last 10 to 20 years of the TransNet Extension Program to identify potential capacity and revenue constraints that would impact the 3. ability to complete the major corridor projects by 2048 and assess options such as delaying projects, eliminating projects, or reducing scope as warranted. This capacity assessment should be formally revisited on a regular basis, so that decision makers are aware of periods in which the agency may have to consider delaying projects or reducing project scope as needed. b. Monitoring TransNet revenues and debt service SANDAG Finance and TransNet staff will continue to obligations against needed growth projections to better communicate information on a regular basis, including ensure that revenues are sufficient to meet debt service, cash flow needs, changes to project timing, and sales as well as regularly reporting on results and options to tax projections; meet and discuss with the SANDAG oversight committees that could include restructuring, financial advisor any potential changes to needs; meet
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 118 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response refinancing, or retiring existing debt or delaying the with investment bankers to understand instruments transition to a pay-as-you-go approach for financing capital currently on the market that could fit SANDAG needs; projects. and include all relevant information at regular intervals or on an as-needed basis at ITOC meetings. Staff Lead - André Douzdjian (Finance) c. Identifying methods to assess options, if needed, to delay, As part of the 2019 Regional Plan update, all projects, eliminate, or reduce scope of projects and whether the including TransNet projects, will be evaluated. method would follow the same priority process used in the Staff Lead - Phil Trom (Planning) San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan or a different process would be used. d. Monitoring and reporting on the impacts of changing SANDAG will include technology assumptions in the transportation technologies on the transportation network development of revenue constrained transportation and future TransNet projects as part of long-term planning scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan. to avoid building expensive infrastructure that could be Staff Lead - Phil Trom (Planning) rendered obsolete. Continue to work closely with the Metropolitan Transportation SANDAG will work with MTS and NCTD to develop a System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) to new methodology to proactively monitor TransNet monitor the Transit Operations Plan by comparing actual Transit Operations funding, focusing on existing data TransNet revenues and operating costs against the Transit for costs and revenues and recognizing the limitations Operations Plan projections as additional services begin of estimating costs and revenues over such a long operations to highlight and mitigate the impact to the local term. Once a new methodology has been established, 4. operators, how to absorb any discrepancies through other staff will report annually to ITOC and Transportation funding sources, or potential scenarios for reductions in Committee. service if warranted. Communicate status, recommended Staff Lead - Muggs Stoll (Planning) actions, and any mitigation activities.
Chapter 2: Performance Framework
Establish a comprehensive performance framework by SANDAG will be setting performance management implementing the following: goals related to the MAP-21/FAST Act timelines and a. Setting targets to measure TransNet performance against requirements. Staff will evaluate federal performance the TransNet Extension Ordinance goals in-line with 5. management goals in order to align with TransNet federally mandated deadlines or at a faster pace. At a funded projects. minimum, some narrative could accompany performance reporting to help others understand whether data and Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) results were favorable or unfavorable. b. Capturing performance outcome data related to safety 1. SANDAG staff is collaborating with Caltrans on metrics, pavement condition, and bridge condition for target-setting for safety. Caltrans is helping to highways, local roadways, and bicycle (bike) and provide county level SWITRS data to MPOs for pedestrian modes. both motorized and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. SANDAG has supported the 1. Use the California Highway Patrols’ Statewide statewide 2018 safety targets and will be Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to highlighting safety projects included in the 2018 measure and monitor safety statistics—both for RTIP and 2019 Regional Plan. Staff will continue motorized and non-motorized fatalities and serious to monitor and analyze SWITRS safety data as it injuries—especially against the new safety targets becomes available. SANDAG and Caltrans will developed by Caltrans and adopted by SANDAG. collaborate on establishing annual safety targets 2. Track and report highway pavement and bridge as per MAP-21/FAST Act requirements. condition available from Caltrans on the SANDAG website or provide a hyperlink to where that
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 119 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response information is available for taxpayers. Additionally, 2. SANDAG is collaborating with Caltrans on target work with Caltrans to determine if bridge and setting for bridge and pavement condition. pavement data can be isolated for San Diego County Caltrans will be providing county level data for from the Imperial County data contained within the these measures for facilities on the National Caltrans District 11 reported data. Highway System (NHS). SANDAG will look for 3. Track and report on local jurisdiction pavement opportunities to share this information as it may condition by requiring local jurisdictions to provide relate to TransNet projects. pavement condition index data as soon as pavement 3. For additional data collection efforts on Pavement condition surveys are performed and results become Conditions, SANDAG staff will need to work with available. CTAC to determine an approach for reporting 4. Obtain and use private sector data to analyze readily available pavement data. This may involve congestion and delay on local streets and roads or an amendment to the ordinance to make such evaluate status of Caltrans’ Performance data collection a requirement. Measurement System (PeMS) to capture road 4. Currently, SANDAG uses PeMS data, and use of performance including level of coverage of detection. private sector data will be examined subject to existing third data sources (INRIX). Examination of other sources is subject to implementation and efforts under Recommendation 5e. Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) c. Conducting more robust analysis of cause and effect for all The recommended analysis likely will require the use performance metrics to provide meaning to results or help of modeling/other analytical tools and additional determine if different strategies or projects should be resources. SANDAG staff will propose an approach to employed to get a better result. For instance, consider implement this recommendation based on the
using heat maps to identify where the majority or outcome of Recommendation 5e. significant severity accidents occur and work with Caltrans Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) and local jurisdictions to inform solutions and future projects.
d. Providing regular performance monitoring reports that More regular reporting is feasible for highway system consider past performance in relation to TransNet goals performance, as more robust data is available via through quarterly updates to the SANDAG Board and Caltrans PeMS. Local street and road performance (in committees, annual public reports on the status of terms of average speed and travel time) is now TransNet, and website postings. available via a third-party vendor (INRIX). Transit data reporting (in terms of passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, operating cost per passenger, operating cost per revenue hour, revenue hours per employee, and farebox recovery ratios) also is feasible and can be made available via reporting currently conducted under Transportation Development Act monitoring. Staff Lead - Ellison Alegre (Operations) e. Considering allocating funding for additional performance SANDAG staff will develop options to implement this monitoring activities given that SANDAG will likely require recommendation, including any potential budget more data sources, tools, and resources to track, validate, impacts, and bring to the Transportation Committee analyze, ensure quality, and report performance. and Board for review and direction. Staff Leads - José Nuncio (TransNet), Ray Traynor (Operations), Explore and study public-private partnerships with entities SANDAG staff in the Operations Department have 6. such as Google, Waze, Scoop, TomTom, or others to integrate been working on partnerships with transportation and summarize performance results as well as provide information providers such as Google and Waze. Our
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 120 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response information on a real-time basis to travelers identifying current 511 system uses Google traffic and transit different commute times and options. data as well as utilizes the Google map. Future plans have us extending the regional Data Hub into a Transportation Mobility Cloud with the intent of utilizing third-party data as well as sharing public data with the private sector. Staff Lead - Alex Estrella (Operations) Enhance the Story Map tool, TransNet project status listing The implementation of this recommendation will (shown in Appendix A), or develop a different tool to capture require changes to existing tools and processes. project output details and track TransNet accomplishments SANDAG staff will propose an approach to implement over time by implementing the following: this recommendation based on the outcome of Recommendation 5e. a. Developing a comprehensive universe of TransNet projects completed, underway, and planned. Reconcile Staff Lead - Michelle Smith (TransNet) universe back to TransNet Extension Ordinance and what was expected to be delivered. Once universe is reconciled for historic projects, update universe as new projects are 7. started and continue reconciliation of those new projects to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. b. Building upon planned output data currently captured through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program’s automated ProjectTrak database and reported in the Annual Output and Outcome report by reconciling those planned outputs with actual accomplishments. Consider requiring local jurisdictions to provide a closeout report with updated, actual data as projects are completed. Chapter 3: Major Corridor Capital Construction Update and refine the project listing started in the 10-Year Project Office staff will utilize the project list crosswalk Look-Back Review to ensure all major corridor projects are created with the 10-Year Look-Back Review and tracked back to those in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. incorporate the data field into the dashboard webform 8. Regularly report on project and financial status using the as part of the 2019 upgrade. project listing developed in 10-Year Look-Back Review as a Staff Lead - Susan Huntington (TransNet) foundation or develop an alternate tool to accomplish the goal of tracking against the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Begin gathering data on whether the Construction Mid-Coast has procedures and tools in place to Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method used on the capture CM/GC savings and efficiencies including Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project is delivering on comment and review logs, risk matrix and RFI expectations for cost savings, efficiencies, better quality, or response process. To address the recommendation, collaboration to solve problems rather than using a typical silo- an innovations log or other method of formally tracking approach between design, construction, contractors, and will be developed. SANDAG will research industry owners by implementing the following: standards for comparing construction contracting methods for application to CM/GC to Low Bid. Mid- a. Comparing SANDAG’s proposed metrics for assessing 9. Coast will be compared to Mission Valley East Light Mid-Coast Corridor project performance to the Rail Transit Extension as the closest side-by-side performance metrics and practices used by Caltrans’ to comparative example. Project, Construction, and determine whether there are any additional practices CM/GC managers will continue to meet regularly to SANDAG may want to include or adopt, such as the review change orders and schedule impacts identified Caltrans innovations log, to help formally track benefits, in the survey. successes, and challenges. Staff Lead - John Haggerty (MMPI), Allan Kosup (Caltrans)
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 121 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response b. Addressing recent survey comments related to possible schedule impacts from project activities in addition to the perceived higher value of change orders. Gather and store documents to support “benefit” statistics Mid-Coast data are maintained on a project file tracked for the North Coast Corridor and the Mid-Coast sharing site and project record documents including Corridor whether using the innovations log utilized by Caltrans logs and cost data will be permanently stored in a 10. or another method used by SANDAG. Maintain supporting SANDAG SharePoint location. documentation, such as cost comparisons, in a centralized Staff Lead - John Haggerty (MMPI), Allan Kosup repository that is linked or reconciled with the log or summary (Caltrans) statistics. Chapter 4: Local Street and Road Revisit the TransNet Extension Ordinance congestion relief SANDAG staff will work with CTAC to determine an and maintenance split to be more relevant with local needs as approach and possible implementation steps for the TransNet lifecycle matures by considering elimination of examining the 70/30 split recommendation. 11. the 70/30 split, change to the percentage limitations, or Discussion outcomes will be reported to ITOC to modification of the categorical definitions within the TransNet determine possible next steps including Board Policy Extension Ordinance limitations. expenditure guidelines changes. Staff Lead - Alex Estrella (Operations) Continue to monitor compliance with SANDAG Board Policy Board Policy No. 031 Rule No. 21 addresses No. 031, Rule 21, until otherwise amended, by implementing accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians. the following: SANDAG will conduct a compliance review using the a. Following-up on the results from the SANDAG Board existing processes of the Policy. Results will be Policy No. 031, Rule 21 evaluation conducted by SANDAG reported to CTAC for discussion and determination of in 2014: need to modify compliance guidelines and processes. 1. Use results from SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, local SANDAG will amend applicable Board Policy to track Rule 21 review to make identified changes to the development of bicycle and pedestrian projects built 12. Ordinance definitions and follow-up on areas of using TransNet funds. noncompliance noted during the review. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) 2. Work with locals to determine a method to demonstrate compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21. 3. Amend or establish a SANDAG Board Policy to require local jurisdictions to track and report on the number of bike and pedestrian facilities implemented using TransNet funds. b. Conducting another review of local projects and SANDAG will conduct a compliance review using the considering whether any adjustments are warranted in existing processes of the Policy to determine if light of SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy. modifications are necessary to be more consistent with the SANDAG Complete Streets Policy. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Chapter 5: Transit Services Continue to analyze major transit commute routes and SANDAG staff will continue to report on this area via 13. servi ces and report on whether commute times have improved the annual State of the Commute Report. or should be improved. Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning)
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 122 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response
Regularly track and report on TransNet goals to increase SANDAG staff will look at ways to report on this area via services to seniors and persons with disabilities. the annual State of the Commute Report beginning 14. FY 2018. Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) Work together with the region’s transit operators to analyze SANDAG staff is currently working with the transit options offsetting the impact subsidy disparities have on operators on a Regional Fare Study that may help available funds for expanding transit services, such as funding offset the revenue impacts of the discount subsidies. the pass subsidy disparity for seniors and persons with Additionally, SANDAG staff will work with both transit 15. disabilities from other TransNet areas—as allowed by the operators’ staff to study other options to increase TransNet Extension Ordinance—adjusting the discount offered ridership and revenues. for senior/disabled and youth riders, determining whether Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) disparities can be funded through other sources, or maintaining existing funding and process. Collaborate with the operators to revisit the operating cost SANDAG Planning and Finance staff will meet with the ceiling tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index as operators to collaborate on possible solutions to specified in the TransNet Extension Ordinance so that address this recommendation. It is expected that these operators have some flexibility with reasonable cost increases solutions could be included in a future amendment to while still maintaining the intent of TransNet to provide some the Ordinance. assurance of the reasonableness of those cost increases. This Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) 16. could include allowing for a wider variance in cost increases, setting a threshold for a not-to-exceed limit, expanding the target by a specified percent in years when changes to the Consumer Price Index decline, or allowing cost exclusions that can be supported, or modify TransNet Extension Ordinance language to apply the cost thresholds at the operator level rather than by individual mode. Chapter 6: Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation Continue efforts to establish baseline data for bike and SANDAG will continue to capture and maintain 17. pedestrian volume to identify trends and set targets. baseline data to identify trends and establish targets. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Improve project management practices and project delivery for Upon completion of Program Management Plan the Bike Early Action Program projects by implementing the SANDAG Active Transportation Team will have 18. following: trainings with project managers to implement PMP a. Finalizing and implementing the in-progress Regional practices. Bikeway Program Management Plan. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) b. Using Dashboard data that currently tracks frequent Guidance on documenting lessons learned will be causes of delays during the design and environmental included in the Program Management Plan. SANDAG phases of bike projects, to summarize lessons learned, will work to develop procedures and tools to maintain identify and mitigate future preventable occurrences, and lessons learned, identify and mitigate project risks, improve scheduled delivery of the remaining projects. and improve schedule delivery. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Chapter 7: Environmental Mitigation Program Continue efforts to establish a new Memorandum of The MOA has expired, but funding under the SANDAG Agreement with Caltrans, California Department of Fish and CIP budget will be available for FY 2019. SANDAG will 19. Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to replace be using the results of the Ten-Year Review Look- current one expiring before funding expires in June 2018. Back and FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 123 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response Audit as the basis for a new MOA starting in May 2018. Staff Lead – Keith Greer (Planning) Enhance the financing and use of TransNet funding for the SANDAG is tracking the change in cost for the lagoon Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) by implementing the restoration efforts and comparing it to the cost savings following: associated with lower than estimated land acquisition 20. a. Reviewing and updating EMP cost estimates in light of costs. higher costs than anticipated associated with restoring Staff Lead – Kim Smith (Planning) coastal wetlands. b. Considering the most efficient use of available funding and SANDAG will start to discuss ways to address this possible adjustments, as allowed by the TransNet issue in spring 2018 and it will become part of the Extension Ordinance, to focus on higher priority activities revised MOA identified in Recommendation19 above. and projects such as restoring coastal wetlands, given Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) updated revenue forecast information and cost estimates. c. Revisiting the established economic benefit methodology Cost savings are being tracked, but true cost savings to ensure the calculation accurately represents the cost will not occur until a project has completed close-out. savings that have been achieved. This has not happened yet, but over the next years SANDAG will evaluate and assign a value considering the overall costs of the program as described in Recommendation 20a above. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Make changes, as appropriate, to marketing efforts for the SANDAG has made several attempts to promote the local streets and road mitigation bank funding available for availability of these credits. SANDAG will work with local projects, consider revising eligibility criteria for public Communications staff to establish a systematic entities, or consider whether those monies could be better approach. Communications has met with the Planning 21. utilized within other EMP priority actions, as allowed under the EMP staff and has calendared upcoming milestones in TransNet Extension Ordinance. order to plan public information releases on all communication platforms. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Measure progress in meeting specific and detailed EMP goals, SANDAG has already identified several similar efforts objectives, and action items for regional monitoring and from around the country. SANDAG will develop a management under the Management Strategic Plan. proposed approach to these complex ideas to the Specifically, develop metrics using the abundance of data to public and report as a report card or similar evaluation holistically understand the status and trend of the overall system. Work will start in summer 2018 to develop a 22. health of the preserve against the baselines established in detailed work plan. Communications is involved in the regional conservation plans and formalize a system to planning effort and will effectively work with the communicate complex performance results to the public. department to produce informative pieces for distribution on multiple communication platforms. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Chapter 8: Information and Transparency Regularly report on implementation of TransNet Extension Communications is working on and will complete a Ordinance goals by annually publishing progress on proactive annual plan for publishing progress that will 23. SANDAG’s website, annual report, or other easily visible entail multiple forms of communication pieces on a reporting tool. variety of communication platforms. Staff Lead - Irene McCormack (Communications)
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 124 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response
Modify staff reports for SANDAG Board and other oversight A comprehensive review of the agenda production committees to summarize elements related to public input, process, including report preparation, is being pros and cons on recommended actions, and implications or conducted based on the Board’s Plan of Excellence to impacts of those recommended actions. Ensure that staff ensure transparency and clear, concise, and easily 24. reports are summarized to one or two pages. understandable information in reports and presentations. Staff Lead - Victoria Stackwick (Government Relations) Better link TransNet funding to project and program activities SANDAG staff will review existing websites and make for general public awareness by implementing the following: recommendations for additional TransNet logo and a. More prominently featuring the TransNet logo on SANDAG language placement to create stronger recognition of and TransNet partner websites as well as through other the TransNet Program. Staff also will begin review of media such as Facebook and Twitter. partner agency websites to see where SANDAG and TransNet logos and corresponding language can be added/enhanced. SANDAG social media posts will 25. reference the use of TransNet funding where appropriate, and #TransNetSD will continue to be used as a way of threading all TransNet-funded program and project posts together. Social media campaigns specific to TransNet-funded efforts and accomplishments will be more regularly pursued. Staff Lead - Joy DeKorte (Communications) b. Revamping SANDAG website to capture documents The sandag.org/TransNet web page will be reviewed pertinent to TransNet in a centralized area for each and recommendations made will include each TransNet Extension Ordinance component. This includes TransNet component, including the Dashboard. Staff linking Dashboard projects with those listed in the has been pursuing a complete redesign of sandag.org, TransNet Extension Ordinance. expected to begin in FY 2019, which is planned to include higher visibility of each TransNet component, including the Dashboard. Additionally, staff will begin a coordinated review of the Dashboard to determine the most effective way to link projects back to the Ordinance. Staff Lead - Joy DeKorte (Communications) Ensure data on completed projects is maintained in the SANDAG will ensure all completed projects are Dashboard—even if under an archived location still accessible maintained in the Dashboard, and that all expenditures 26. to the public—and separate past and future expenditures have been associated with the appropriate funding between the original TransNet amounts and the TransNet source. Extension Ordinance amounts. Staff Lead - Lamont Dowell (TransNet)
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 125
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 126 Appendix A: TransNet Project Status
Using the TransNet Extension Ordinance, TransNet Dashboard, major corridor program status table, and Plan of Finance documents provided by SANDAG, the status of the 48 major corridor capital construction projects by TransNet Extension Ordinance category and capital improvement project (CIP) number is summarized in Exhibit 63 that follows. As of June 2017, of the 48 major corridor capital construction projects, 33 percent are completed and 28 percent are currently in-progress. To-date, SANDAG reported program costs of nearly $4.4 billion and estimates approximately $22.7 billion in remaining expenditures to complete all projects planned when voters passed the TransNet Ordinance.53
Due to the complex nature of the information, Exhibit 62 below provides additional clarification to the status of data subsequently presented in Exhibit 63.
EXHIBIT 62. CLARIFICATION FOR TRANSNET PROJECT LISTING AT EXHIBIT 63
Exhibit Area Description
General All budget and expenditures amounts shown are unaudited.
. Numbered 1 to 48—representing the 48 major corridor projects from the 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance passed by voters.
Ordinance Number . EAP (Early Action Program)—19 original project segments from the TransNet Extension Ordinance that the SANDAG Board of Directors designated to be completed during the first 10 years of the program. Subsequent EAP project segments were approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors consistent with the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
. 3 layers—corridor, major corridor project, and project/segment as follows: Ordinance Corridor: 15 corridors per the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Major Corridor Ordinance Project: 48 major corridor projects per the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Project Segment: 78 project segments to date. Project segments are shown with a seven-digit number that represents the project’s capital improvement program (CIP) budget number. Only completed and in- progress projects have a CIP. Example for I-15 Corridor:
Major Corridor Ordinance Corridor Project Segment Ordinance Project Project/Segment Name 1201501: I-15 Express Lanes South Segment SR 163 to SR 56 1201502: I-15 Express Lanes Middle Segment I-15 Centre City Pkwy 1201503: I-15 Express to SR 78 Lanes North Segment
Note: The I-15 stretch between SR 56 and Centre City Pkwy was built as the I-15 Express Lanes Middle Segment.
. Unallocated [Ordinance Corridor Name]: Amounts per the 2005 Plan of Finance and 2017 Plan of Finance. Illustrates budgets and expenditures not yet allocated to specific projects or segments, but available for future projects on the Ordinance Corridor.
53 The 2017 Plan of Finance provided a remaining expenditure estimate range of $20.8 billion to $25.4 billion. The $22.7 billion represents the mid-point estimate.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 127 Exhibit Area Description
The 48 initial TransNet Ordinance projects resulted in 78 individual project segments as of June 30, 2017. This Segment number will grow as new project segments are started. Some projects support multiple corridors, but were only counted once to arrive at the grand total of 78 project segments.
. General: Project segments where only a study was completed are shown because expenses were incurred, but were not counted as a completed project segment. . Project Completed & Open-to-Traffic: At the 48 project level, check () marks represent fully completed Status segment while percentages represent the portion of the segment that is completed. . In-Progress: Project segments could be in various stages—environmental, design, or construction. . Future: Project or project segments have not started and have not incurred expenses. . General: Due to rounding, some budget figures do not roll-up to the exact dollar figure. . Ordinance Estimate: In 2002 dollars. Amounts per the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Data only available at ordinance corridor and major corridor ordinance project level. . Ordinance Escalated to Year Open: Shown for completed project segments only to allow for comparison of 2002 Ordinance cost estimates to costs at time of completion using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data for the San Diego Region.
. 2005 POF Estimate: In 2005 dollars. Amounts per the 2005 Plan of Finance available for the original EAP Budgets project segments only. . 2005 POF Escalated to Year Open: Shown for completed EAP project segments only to allow for comparison of 2005 budgets per the POF to the budget at time of project completion using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data for the San Diego Region. . Project CIP Budget: CIP Budget as of June 30, 2017 from TransNet Dashboard for in-progress project segments only.
. General: Due to rounding, some expenditure figures do not roll-up to the exact dollar figure. . Expenditures through July 2017: Project expenses as reported in the TransNet Dashboard and are inclusive of both SANDAG and Caltrans project expenditures. Due to timing, SANDAG expenditures include expenditures through August 2017, while Caltrans expenditures run through July 2017. Expenditures . Variance: Only calculated for completed projects by subtracting current expenditures from the 2005 POF Estimate (escalated to year open). . Estimated Cost to Complete: Amounts per 2017 Plan of Finance at the Ordinance Corridor and Major Corridor Ordinance level only. Amounts are shown in year of expenditure dollars (YOE).
EXHIBIT 63. STATUS OF MAJOR CORRIDOR CAPITAL PROJECTS AS INCLUDED IN THE TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE
Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
I-15 Corridor $1,400M - $1,893M - - $1,217M - $1,399M 1 I-15: SR 163 to SR 56 - - $220M $286M $423M $482M - $820M -$338M 1201501: I-15 Express Lanes South EAP 1 2011 - - - - $332M $380M - $330M $50M Segment Projects 1201502: I-15 Express Lanes Middle Complete EAP 2 2009 - - - - $72M $79M - $464M -$385M Segment 1
EAP 1201504: I-15 FasTrak® 3 2009 - - - - $20M $23M - $26M -$3M 2 I-15: Centre City Pkwy to SR 78 - - $120M $156M $179M $208M - $183M $25M
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 128 Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
1201503: I-15 Express Lanes North EAP 4 2012 - - - - $179M $208M - $183M $25M Segment Projects Complete EAP 1201504: I-15 FasTrak® 2012 ------3 I-15: SR 94 to SR163 - - $200M - - - - $16M - $1M 1280514: I-805/SR 15 Interchange 5 - - - - - - $18M $16M - - 4 HOV Connector: I-15 / SR 78 - - $200M - - - - $1M - - 1207802: I-15/SR 78 HOV Connectors ------$0.1M $1M - - (Study only) 5 HOV Connector: I-15 / SR 94 - - $150M - - - - $21M - - 1280508: SR 94 Express Lanes I-805 to 6 - - - - - - $23M $21M - - Downtown 6 SR 94: I-5 to I-15 - - $80M ------1280508: SR 94 Express Lanes I-805 to - ------Downtown BRT Route 610: via I-15 / SR 94 7 75% 25% - $370M - $130M - - $173M - $118M (Now Route 235) 1201505: I-15 BRT Stations – Rancho EAP 7 2009 - - - - $63M $69M - $49M $20M Bernardo, Sabre Springs, and Del Lago 1201506: I-15 Mira Mesa DAR & BRT EAP 8 2014 - - - - $58M $70M - $54M $16M Station Projects EAP 1201508: I-15 Bus Rapid Transit 9 2014 ------$34M - Complete 1201509: Downtown BRT Stations 10 2016 ------$17M - 1201512: I-15 BRT Sabre Springs EAP 11 2014 - - - - $9M $11M - $14M -$3M Parking Structure 1201514: Downtown Multiuse and Bus EAP 12 - - - - - - $46M $2M - - Stopover Facility 1201515: Clairemont Mesa Blvd BRT ------$1M $1M - Stations (Study only) 1201516: I-15 BRT Station Project 13 2014 ------$0.1M - Enhancements Complete 1201518: I-15 Mira Mesa Transit Station 14 - - - - - - $15M $1M - - Parking Structure BRT Route 470: via I-15 / Mira Mesa 8 50% 50% - $60M - - - - $3M - - Blvd (Now Route 237) 1201511: Mira Mesa Blvd BRT Priority Project 15 2015 ------$3M - Treatments Complete 1201518: I-15 Mira Mesa Transit Station - ------Parking Structure Unallocated I-15 - - - - - $1,162M - - - - $1,279M I-805 Corridor $2,100M - $2,679M - - $514M - $7,473M 9 I-805: SR 905 to SR 54 50% 25% 25% $150M - $10M - - $40M - - 1280501: I-805 South – 4 Express EAP 16 2011 - - - - $10M $12M - $28M -$16M Lanes Projects 1280510: I-805 South – 2 HOV and Complete 2017 ------DAR 1280515: I-805 South Soundwalls 17 - - - - - - $38M $12M - - 10 I-805: SR 54 to I-8 25% - 75% $450M - - - - $159M - $356M 1280501: I-805 South – 4 Express Projects EAP 2011 ------Lanes Complete
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 129 Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
1280510: I-805 South – 2 HOV and 18 2017 ------$159M - DAR 11 I-805: Mission Valley Viaduct - - $250M ------$1,390M 12 I-805: I-8 to I-5 25% - 75% $380M - $7M - - $204M - $869M EAP 1280503: I-805 North 4 Express Lanes 19 2010 - - - - $7M $8M - $12M -$4M 1280505: I-805 HOV/Carroll Canyon Projects 20 2014 ------$94M - DAR Complete 1280511: I-805 North: 2 HOV Lanes 21 2016 ------$99M - I-805 / SR54 Interchange 13 - - $10M $12M - - - $15M - - Improvements Project 1280506: I-805 E Street Auxiliary Lane 22 2009 ------$15M - Complete BRT Route 628: via I-805 / I-15 / SR 94 14 75% 25% - $500M - $106M - - $96M - $178M (Now known as South Bay Rapid) 1280501: I-805 South – 4 Express Project EAP 2011 ------Lanes Complete EAP 1280504: South Bay BRT 23 - - - - $106M - $119M $34M - - 1280510: I-805 South – 2 HOV and Project 2017 ------DAR Complete 1280512: I-805 Imperial BRT Station ------$1M - - (Study only) 1280513: I-805/SR 94 Bus on Shoulder 24 - - - - - - $31M $1M - - Demonstration Project 1201513: South Bay BRT Maintenance Project 25 2014 ------$60M - Facility Complete 15 SR 94: I-805 to I-15 - - $70M ------$176M 16 BRT Route 680: via I-805 / I-15 / SR 52 - - $70M - $70M - - - - $55M 1280514: I-805/SR 15 Interchange - - - - $70M - - - - 17 SR 52: I-15 to I-805 - - $70M ------HOV Connector: I-805 / SR 52 18 - - $150M ------Interchange Unallocated I-805 - - - - - $2,485M - - - - $4,448M I-5 South Corridor $1,893M - $2,437M - - $918M - $4,236M 19 I-5: SR 905 to SR 54 - - $130M ------$140M 20 I-5: SR 54 to I-8 - - $600M - - - -* - - - 21 I-5: I-8 to I-805 25% 75% - $193M - - - - $88M - $535M 1200505: I-5/I-8 West to North Project 26 2015 ------$16M - Connector Improvements Complete 1200506: I-5/Genesee Interchange and 27 - - - - - - $116M $68M - - Widening 1200507: I-5/Voigt Drive Improvements 28 - - - - - - $12M $3M - - 1200508: I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge 29 - - - - - - $21M $0.1M - - Route 500 (Blue Line Trolley) 22 87.5% 12.5% - $270M $370M - - - $570M - Improvements 2
1210010: Orange and Blue Line PM 30 2015 ------$19M - Projects Complete 1210020: Blue Line Crossovers and 31 2013 ------$41M - Signals
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 130 Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
1210030: Blue Line Station Rehab 32 2015 ------$131M - 1210040: Orange and Blue Line 33 2014 ------$29M - Traction Power Substations 1210050: Orange and Blue Line 34 2015 ------$6M - Communications System 1210070: Orange and Blue Line 35 2013 ------$69M - Platforms 1210080: Low Floor LRT Vehicles 36 2014 ------$275M - 23 Route 570 (MidCoast) - - $670M - $914M - - $229M - $1,395M 1257001: Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit EAP 37 - - - - $914M - $1,814M $229M - - (LRT) Route 634 (SuperLoop) (Now known 24 - - $30M $39M $52M $61M - $31M $30M $56M as Routes 201, 202, and 204) Project EAP 1041502: SuperLoop 38 2012 - - $30M $39M $52M $61M - $31M $30M Complete Unallocated I-5 South - - - - - $1,472M - - - - $2,109M I-5 North Corridor $1,670M - $2,060M - - $464M - $3,273M 25 I-5 / I-805 Merge 25% - 75% $30M $41M $37M $45M - $73M - $59M 1200501: I-5 North Coast – 4 Express Project EAP 39 2015 - - $30M $41M $37M $45M $73M -$28M Lanes Complete 26 I-5: SR 56 to Leucadia Blvd 25% 37.5% 37.5% $400M - $60M - - $164M - $700M 1200501: I-5 North Coast – 4 Express Project EAP 2015 ------Lanes Complete 1200502: I-5 HOV Extension & Lomas Project EAP 40 2009 - - - - $60M $66M - $67M -$1M Santa Fe Interchange Complete 1200504: I-5 HOV Birmingham to 41 - - - - - - $370M $97M - - Palomar 27 I-5: Leucadia Blvd to Vandegrift Blvd 25% 37.5% 37.5% $370M ------$791M 1200501: I-5 North Coast – 4 Express Project EAP 2015 ------Lanes Complete 1200504: I-5 HOV Birmingham to - ------Palomar HOV Connector: I-5 / I-805 28 - - $180M ------Interchange FWY Connector: I-5 / SR 56 29 - - $140M - - - - $12M - $80M Interchange 1200503: I-5/SR 56 Interchange 42 - - - - - - $19M $12M - - FWY Connector: I-5 / SR 78 30 - - $150M ------$48M Interchange Route 398 (COASTER) / BRT Route 31 31.3% 68.7% - $400M - - - - $214M - - 472 Improvements Project 1239801: Sorrento to Miramar Phase 1 43 2014 ------$45M - Complete 1239803: Oceanside Station Pass- 44 - - - - - - $28M $5M - - Through Track Project 1239804: Carlsbad Double Track 45 2012 ------$20M - Complete 1239805: Poinsettia Station 46 - - - - - - $29M $3M - - Improvements
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 131 Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
1239806: San Elijo Lagoon Double 47 - - - - - - $73M $11M - - Track 1239807: Sorrento Valley Double Track 48 2015 ------$31M - Projects 1239808: Tecolote to Washington 49 2013 ------$9M - Complete Crossovers 1239809: Eastbrook to Shell Double 50 - - - - - - $7M $6M - - Track 1239810: Carlsbad Village Double 51 - - - - - - $4M $3M - - Track 1239811: Elvira to Morena Double 52 - - - - - - $193M $46M - - Track 1239812: Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 53 - - - - - - $11M $7M - - 1239813: San Dieguito Lagoon Double 54 - - - - - - $9M $8M - - Track and Platform 1239814: COASTER Preliminary 55 - - - - - - $1M $0.1M - - Engineering 1239815: San Diego River Bridge 56 - - - - - - $94M $12M - - 1239816: Batiquitos Lagoon Double 57 - - - - - - $53M $6M - - Track 1239817: Chesterfield Drive Crossing 58 - - - - - - $6M $0.1M - - Improvements 1143800: Encinitas Grade Separation Project 59 2013 ------$6M - Pedestrian Crossing Complete Unallocated I-5 North - - - - - $1,963M - - - - $1,596M SR 52 $410M - $498M - - $499M - $295M 32 SR 52: I-15 to SR 125 50% - 50% $170M - $210M - - $43M - $56M EAP 1205201: SR 52 2 ML – I-15 to SR 125 60 - - - - $192M - $12M $7M - - Project EAP 1205202: SR 52 Widening 61 2011 - - - - $18M $21M - $36M -$15M Complete 33 SR 52: SR 125 to SR 67 - - $240M $309M $288M $331M - $456M -$125M - Project EAP 1205203: SR 52 Extension 62 2011 - - - - $288M $331M - $456M -$125M Complete Unallocated SR 52 ------$239M SR 94 / SR 125 $620M - $765M - - $8M - $1,873M FWY Connector: SR 94 / SR 125 34 - 50% 50% $110M - - - - $8M - $1,472M Interchange 1212501: SR94/SR125 South to East 63 - - - - - - $11M $8M - - Connector 35 SR 94: SR 125 to Steele Canyon Rd - - $90M ------$194M 36 SR 94 / SR 125: I-805 to I-8 - - $350M ------$206M Route 520 (Orange Line Trolley) 37 - - $70M $95M - - - - - Improvements 1210010: Orange and Blue Line PM 2015 ------1210020: Blue Line Crossovers and 2013 ------Projects Signals Complete 1210040: Orange and Blue Line 2014 ------Traction Power Substations 1210050: Orange and Blue Line 2015 ------Communications System
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 132 Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
1210070: Orange and Blue Line 2013 ------Platforms 1210080: Low Floor LRT Vehicles 2014 ------Unallocated SR 94 / SR 125 - - - - - $765M - - - - - SR 54 / SR 125 $140M - $173M - - - - $383M 38 SR 54 / SR 125: I-805 to SR 94 - - $140M ------$383M Unallocated SR 54/ SR 125 - - - - - $173M - - - - - SR 67 $240M - $296M - - - - $994M 39 SR 67: Mapleview St to Dye Rd - 25% 75% $240M ------$994M SR 67 Intersection Improvements at 64 - ------Dye Rd 3 Unallocated SR 67 - - - - - $296M - - - - - I-8 Corridor $30M - $37M - - - - $80M 40 I-8: Second St to Los Coches Rd - - $30M ------$80M Unallocated I-8 - - - - - $37M - - - - - SR 78 $700M - $864M - - $90M - $2,332M 41 SR 78: I-5 to I-15 25% 75% - $500M - - - - $25M - $544M 1207801: SR 78 HOV/Managed Lanes ------$2M $2M - - (Study only) 1201510: SR 78 Nordahl Road Project 65 2012 ------$23M - Interchange Complete Route 399 (SPRINTER) / BRT Route 42 - - $200M $245M - - - $65M - $428M 471 Improvements Project 1230001: SPRINTER: Single Track 66 2008 ------$65M - Complete Unallocated SR 78 - - - - - $864M - - - - $1,360M SR 76 $180M $258M $342M $416M - $306M $110M $2M 43 SR 76: Melrose Dr to I-15 - - $180M $258M $342M $416M - $306M $110M $2M
EAP 1207602: SR 76 Middle 67 2012 - - - - $195M $227M - $162M $65M Projects EAP 1207606: SR 76 East 68 2017 - - - - $147M $189M - $145M $44M Complete SR 56 $100M - $123M - - - - $273M 44 SR 56: I-5 to I-15 - - $100M ------$273M Unallocated SR 56 - - - - - $123M - - - - - Mid-City to Downtown $90M - $111M - - $72M - $55M BRT Showcase Route 611: via El 45 Cajon Blvd & Park Blvd (Now known 50% 50% - $90M - - - - $72M - $55M as Mid-City Rapid Route 215) Project 1240001: Mid-City Rapid Bus 69 2014 ------$41M - Complete 1201507: SR 15 BRT – Mid-City EAP 70 - - - - $63M - $61M $32M - - Centerline Stations 1201514: Downtown Multiuse and Bus EAP - ------Stopover Facility Unallocated Mid-City / Downtown - - - - - $111M - - - - - Coronado Tunnel $25M - $25M - - - - - SR 75 / SR 282 (Coronado Tunnel): 46 - - $25M ------Glorietta Blvd to Alameda Blvd
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 133 Status Budgets Expenditures
d
-
-
Traffic
Project/Segment Name -
to
-
Progress
-
Variance
Segment
Complete Complete
2005 POF 2005
Year Open Year Open Year
Ordinance
In
Escalated to Escalated to Escalated
(2002 Dollars) (2002 Dollars) (2005
Expenditures Expenditures
rough July 2017 July rough
Ordinance Number Ordinance
Future Project Future
& Open &
Estimated Cost to Cost Estimated
th
Project Completed Completed Project
(2005EscalatePOF
2005 POF Estimate POF 2005
Project CIP Budget CIP Project
minus Expenditures) minus
Ordinance Estimate Ordinance $) YOE to (Escalated
Unallocated Coronado Tunnel - - - - - $25M - - - - - Border Access Improvements $25M - $25M - - $198M - - 47 Border Access Improvements 85% 15% - $25M - - - - $198M - - 1201101: SR 11 and Otay Mesa East 71 2016 ------$138M - Port of Entry 1300601: San Ysidro Intermodal Freight - 72 2016 ------$39M - Facility 1300602: South Line Rail Freight - 73 2016 ------$46M - Capacity Projects Complete 1390501: SR905 – I-805 to Britannia - 74 2012 ------$82M - Blvd 1390502: I-805/I-905 Connectors 75 2012 ------$18M - 1390504: SR 905/125/11 Northbound 76 2016 ------$11M - Connectors 1390505: SR 905/125/11 Southbound 77 - - - - - - $69M $1M - - Connectors Unallocated Border Improvement - - - - - $25M - - - - - SR 125 ------48 SR 125: SR 905 to SR 54 75% 25% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3312100: South Bay Expressway (Toll 78 2011 ------Road Purchase) 4 1390504: SR 905/125/11 Northbound ------Connectors 1390505: SR 905/125/11 Southbound - ------Connectors
15 Ordinance Corridor Grand Total - - - $9,623M - $12,328M - - $4,391M - $22,667M Project Status at 48 Ordinance Level 33% 28% 39% ------
Note: 1 Total expenditures for the I-15 Express Middle Segment include expenditures incurred under the initial TransNet Program. The project budget reflects the portion of the project or project segment that was to be funded by the TransNet Extension. 2 While all the Blue Line Trolley Improvements have been completed and the services are open to the public, some additional work on the project is still in-progress. 3 Project did not use TransNet major corridor funds; rather $14 billion of County of San Diego TransNet funds and $2 billion of State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds were programmed for this project. 4 The SR 125 Toll Road was purchased for $342 million in 2011 using TransNet funds with the intent to recover the expense through toll revenues.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 134 Appendix B: Detailed Audit Methodology
The TransNet Extension Ordinance established a requirement that the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) conduct triennial performance audits of the agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects. In June 2017, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. (Sjoberg Evashenk) was selected by the ITOC to conduct the fourth in a long series of triennial performance audits of TransNet- funded programs. The period covered by this audit was July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, except where we needed to obtain contextual or underlying support data from periods prior to 2014 or more recent information to fully analyze project activities and practices. Additionally, the audit was conducted simultaneously with the TransNet 10-Year Look-Back Review required by the TransNet Ordinance. Thus, relevant data and performance since the start of the TransNet Extension Ordinance was incorporated into the audit, as appropriate.
Specifically, ITOC asked Sjoberg Evashenk to examine the performance of SANDAG, Caltrans, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and a representative sample of the other cities of the region that have been involved in TransNet-funded projects. This included, but was not limited to, a review of the degree to which the projects completed achieved the goals set out in the Ordinance, financial management, project delivery, oversight, and monitoring as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of TransNet projects and program areas.
The primary objectives identified for this performance audit were as follows: 1. Review of goals consistent with TransNet Extension Ordinance Section 4. Expenditure Plan Purposes 2. Identify key metrics to which outcomes will be measured consistent with the Regional Plan 3. Identify outcomes achieved in the implementation of facilities and services under TransNet 4. Evaluate the status of implementation of recommendations from the third triennial performance audit and effectiveness of these prior recommendations 5. Determine whether the organizational structure and operational process continue to allow for effective and efficient project delivery, cost control, and schedule adherence 6. Identify process changes in contracting, construction, permitting, and other procedures that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TransNet Program 7. Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of ITOC, including adherence to its bylaws 8. Identify and evaluate any potential barriers to and opportunities for proposed changes
To understand changes made to the TransNet Program since the prior audit, Sjoberg Evashenk reviewed federal and state regulations, TransNet Extension Ordinance updates and amendments, prior audit status of corrective action, annual budgets, fact sheets, and online data, in addition to the following: Regional Transportation Improvement Program of 2014 and 2016; 2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan;
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 135 State of the Commute Reports for 2014 and 2015-2016; TransNet Quarterly Reports from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017; and SANDAG’s Capital Improvement Program and Overall Work Program for FYs 2016 to 2018. To analyze and consider the full complement of challenges and successes surrounding the organizational and operational procedures in the implementation of the TransNet Program, we researched similar programs and current best practices, as well as conducted a wide-range of interviews to ascertain perspectives, insights, challenges, and recommendations on the implementation of the TransNet Program. Specifically, we met with more than 100 executives, officials, managers, staff, consultants, and stakeholders in areas related to transportation planning, capital construction, environmental mitigation, grant and program management, finance and economics, transit operations, local public works and engineering, and program oversight. Refer to Appendix G for a complete listing of the auditees and stakeholders interviewed.
To evaluate the financing decisions made by SANDAG to date, we conducted the following tasks: Reviewed the reasonableness of the Plan of Finance and debt structure model to consider reasonableness of available funding to finish Early Action Program (EAP) projects, evaluated revenue forecast and cost projection methodologies, and reviewed the analysis developed by SANDAG’s external, independent financial experts related to the availability of TransNet funding for EAP projects. Assessed and compared SANDAG’s practices with others in industry related to plans of finance, debt versus pay-as-you-go, financing through similar half-cent sales tax measures, levels of leveraged funding, and method for forecasting sales tax revenues. Identified a group of peer agencies that had a similar structure to SANDAG and had enacted or extended a half-cent retail sales tax around the same time as the TransNet Extension Ordinance to compare peer sales tax activity with TransNet’s sales tax revenues, revenue forecasting practices, leveraging, and use of bond debt. Reviewed revenue projections and underlying assumptions, compared past forecasts to actual collections for TransNet and other funding sources, and identified fluctuations in sources. Analyzed cost estimates and underlying assumptions, and summarized expectations with actual results for pertinent cost indicators such as construction (including labor), steel, and asphalt. Compared funds provided by debt versus TransNet only revenues to determine the number of projects that have been accelerated. Additionally, compared initial projects promised including cost estimates in first 10 years of TransNet with actual costs and completed projects and identified any concerns with completing planned TransNet projects given progress to date.
Reviewed the 2016 Transit Operations Plan of Finance’s underlying assumptions and projections of revenues and costs to determine reasonableness given current and past transit performance. Identified any periods where program cash flow were projected to be negative and would require additional operational funding.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 136 To analyze performance related to goals of the TransNet Program, we conducted the following tasks: Captured, trended, and summarized performance outcomes and indicators using SANDAG State of Commute reports, SANDAG Performance Monitoring Reports, transit metrics from the Transit Coordinated Plan, and other sources including Caltrans State of Pavement reports and California Statewide Local Street and Road Needs Assessment. External databases were also used including the Caltrans’ Performance Monitoring System (PeMS), California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD), federal Urban Integrated National Transit Database (NTD), and United States Census American Community Survey (ACS) data. Compared the San Diego region’s performance with selected comparable areas and peers as follows: o For congestion performance indicators of commute time and commute share by mode, we used US census data to select the nearest two Urbanized Zone Areas (UZA) with populations greater than the San Diego UZA and the nearest three UZAs with populations less than the San Diego UZA (to arrive at a total of 5 comparison areas). That effort identified Seattle, Washington, and San Francisco–Oakland, California, UZAs as the two comparison areas with populations greater than the San Diego UZA. The three comparison areas with populations less than the San Diego UZA were Tampa–St. Petersburg, Florida; Riverside–San Bernardino, California; and Las Vegas–Henderson, Nevada. When selecting the areas with populations less than San Diego, further considerations were taken in regards to proximity to San Diego, centers of tourism, climate, and coastal areas. For example, the Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota, UZA had a population closer to the San Diego UZA than the Tampa–St. Petersburg, Florida UZA, yet we did not use the locale because of drastic differences in climate; specifically, the impact that snow and ice have on the transportation system which is not experienced in San Diego. o For safety performance indicators, data was only available by California County (not Urbanized Area), so comparison counties were selected to best align with the UZAs chosen as described above for the congestion performance indicators. Thus, we selected San Francisco and Alameda counties to align with the San Francisco–Oakland UZA; Riverside and San Bernardino counties for the Riverside–San Bernardino UZA; and San Diego County to align with the San Diego UZA. o For pavement condition, data was available by California transportation districts, so comparison districts were selected to best align with the areas chosen as described above for the congestion performance indicators. Thus, we selected District 2 to align with the San Francisco–Oakland UZA; District 8 for the Riverside–San Bernardino UZA; and District 11 for the San Diego UZA. o For bridge condition using the National Bridge Inventory, data was available by US counties so comparison counties were selected to best align with the areas chosen as described above for the congestion performance indicators. Thus, we selected San Francisco and Alameda counties to align with the San Francisco–Oakland UZA; Riverside and San
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 137 Bernardino counties for the Riverside–San Bernardino UZA; San Diego County to align with the San Diego UZA; and King County for the Seattle, Washington, UZA. o For transit performance comparisons, peers were selected using transit agencies identified using the Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System based on a variety of service characteristics and urban area characteristics, such as urban population, total vehicle miles, operating budget, population density, and annual delay per traveler. These metrics were compared and assessed with other peer entities in terms of size and operations including Los Angeles, Orange County, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sacramento, and other cities in California as well as entities in Arizona, Oregon, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, and Texas for National Transit Database Reporting Years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Trended performance outcomes for vehicle miles of travel, commute time, hours of delay, annual safety statistics (fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel, number of bicyclists and pedestrians injured or killed, and total number of collisions), pavement condition, bridge condition, commute mode share, ridership, on-time performance, farebox recovery, preventable accidents, operating expenses, and seat utilization. Given that most data comes from data from external agencies, we did not validate performance data available. Reviewed historical usage of MTS Senior/Disabled and Youth discounted monthly passes and compared actual TransNet funds allocated for subsidies to amounts initially envisioned to assess the impact subsidies had on funds available for transit service improvements, including operations and capital improvements. We also compared discounts offered in San Diego to the 10-peer transit agencies previously identified to determine whether the monthly pass discounts included in the TransNet Ordinance were in-line with the types and amounts offered by peer agencies. Gathered and reviewed a wide breadth of data and information to summarize performance since 2014 including financial audits, performance audits, Federal Transit Administration audits, Transportation Development Act audits, San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, Coordinated Plan, Regional Bikeway Plan, fact sheets, maps, and documents as well as data included in electronic spreadsheets or databases such as the TransNet Story Map, Dashboard, and ProjectTrak.
To analyze the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of practices and processes over the Local Street and Road program, Sjoberg Evashenk conducted the following procedures: Reviewed changes to SANDAG’s management and administration of the program including obtaining applicable policies, rules, and audits associated with the program since the last audit period. Also, we reviewed annual financial and compliance audits conducted by external audit firms that assess local agency compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 31: TransNet Ordinance Expenditure Plan Rules—Rule 17. Conducted site visits at the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista to interview local engineering, public works, finance, and department management staff to gain an overall understanding of local processes and procedures related to project selection, design, right- of-way, environmental, construction, close-out, and contractor/consultant procurement as well as public outreach and information, bike and pedestrian accommodations, and pavement management.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 138 As part of our evaluation of the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), we performed the following activities: Reviewed various pertinent reports and documents, including TransNet Extension Ordinance, EMP Memorandum of Agreement between SANDAG and wildlife agencies, EMP policies and guidelines, strategic plans and objectives, EMP status reports, discussion memos to decision makers, and SANDAG Board decisions. Interviewed SANDAG staff involved in the EMP as well as pertinent stakeholders including the EMP Working Group Vice Chair, ITOC Chair, and EMP consultants and stakeholders. Assessed the status and transition from a planning and acquisition focus to implementation as well as understanding progress towards evaluating what habitats have been restored or conserved as well as species protected. Additionally, summarized progress made related to measuring performance and communicating results to the public. Analyzed financial data, including budgeted allocations and actual program expenditures related to acquisitions, restoration, management, and administration activities as well as projected program expenditures and revised revenue estimates. Determined the status of the expiring Memorandum of Agreement and the effectiveness of utilization of local mitigation program funding. To assess the processes, controls, project management, and delivery of the Major Corridor Capital Construction Program, we performed the following: Interviewed SANDAG and Caltrans Corridor Directors in addition to project managers as well as reviewed project documentation to understand changes in project management practices since the third triennial audit. Reviewed the new Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) project delivery method being employed by SANDAG and Caltrans for the North Coast Corridor and the Mid-Coast Corridor capital construction projects. Compared CMGC activities and framework against industry leading practices related to project management and delivery.
To review processes, controls, and oversight exercised over Bike EAP, we performed the following: Interviewed SANDAG Bikeway Corridor Director, Active Transportation Program Manager, and bikeway project managers. Reviewed project documentation to understand bikeway project delivery framework and project management practices. Analyzed TransNet budgets and expenditures to determine Bike EAP progress. Queried data from the TransNet dashboard to determine bikeway projects’ schedule and budget statuses and reasons for delay. Researched Complete Streets legislation, SANDAG policy, and related Caltrans directive. Assessed implementation of Rule 21 related to accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians on local street and road projects, SANDAG’s 2014 review of local implementation of the rule, and related presentations to oversight committees.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 139 To evaluate information provided to decision makers and the public as well as the awareness of TransNet activities, we performed the following: Studied public surveys conducted by TransNet partners on TransNet related activities or modes of transportation. Reviewed public websites and links of all TransNet partners and more than 20 other similar transportation agencies in California and Arizona. Evaluated board meeting agendas and packets for the SANDAG Board and several other transportation oversight committees in California, Arizona, and Washington.
Finally, we assessed ITOC’s compliance and effectiveness in fulfilling its obligations by reviewing the “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the ITOC for the TransNet Program,” completed conflict of interest forms, member Statements of Economic Interests, and ITOC member resumes in addition to ITOC bylaws and implementation procedures developed in concert with SANDAG. Sjoberg Evashenk reviewed ITOC meeting agendas and minutes for the months of July 2014 through June 2017, including attendance lists, annual ITOC reports, presentations of information, discussions and recommendations, and special meetings to select new members. Further, Sjoberg Evashenk compared ITOC experience requirements, activities, and practices with peers in Arizona and other regions within California.
The audit findings and conclusions were presented and discussed with representatives of SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, NCTD, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista in addition to the ITOC on several occasions prior to completion of the audit. Management views and comments were considered and incorporated into the audit report as appropriate.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 140 Appendix C: CMGC Project Delivery Leading Practices
Currently, enabling legislation to use the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) project delivery method is only present in 14 states in the United States—thus, making the method relatively new in the industry. The model relies on commitments from a construction manager to deliver projects within a guaranteed maximum price under an integrated approach where the CMGC is involved in each stage of the project delivery acting as consultant to the owner in the development and design phases and as a general contractor during the construction phase. This differs from traditional approaches where separate consultants and contractors are used for design and construction phases. In fact, the owner generally bears a greater proportion of the risk and control with the traditional industry Design-Bid-Build project delivery method, than the CMGC project delivery method. Yet, once a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established, the CMGC is generally contractually obligated to complete the project within the established price and, as such, assumes a greater share of the risk. National research available cites many benefits and challenges as well as associated risks that must be considered when using the CMGC project delivery method.
Many Benefits Exist, But Risk of Failure is Elevated if Leading Practices Are Not Followed Current CMGC guidelines from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highlight greater innovation, reduced risk, better design quality, fewer change orders and improved cost controls as result of using the CMGC as shown in Exhibit 64.
EXHIBIT 64. CMGC BENEFITS
Reduced Risk
Design Innovation Quality CMGC Benefits
Optimized Construction Cost Control Schedules
Source: FHWA CMGC Fact Sheet, August 2017.
In general, per the FHWA, CMGC is most suitable and beneficial for “transportation projects with sensitive schedules and potential constructability challenges that are located in busy urban areas.” At ITOC’s June 2017 meeting, Caltrans provided a NCC progress update and among other areas discussed how using the CMGC has helped with balancing earth work, staging and integrating work in the lagoons, avoiding right-of- way delays, and has allowed for greater flexibility due to collaboration among all involved parties. These benefits are similar to what other state departments of transportation (DOTs) have reported. For instance,
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 141 the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) on its first CMGC project constructing a new bridge reported that CMGC resulted in reduced complexity of dealing with multiple contractors, aided in community involvement, reduced risks, and allowed for earlier engagement of stakeholders. Benefits quantified by other DOTs at a FHWA CMGC Peer Exchange held in 2012 are summarized in Exhibit 65.
EXHIBIT 65. EXAMPLES OF CMGC BENEFITS REPORTED AT OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION
Colorado Maine Utah
Department's first CMGC Emergency replacement Innovation savings were project was budgeted at of two bridges destroyed expected to be close to $3.5 million and replaced by a hurricane took $13.8 million or 6% of electrical switchgear and 82 days from the time the anticpated total project wiring in a tunnel. It was bridges were destroyed costs of $224.6 million. delivered two months to when the new bridges ahead of schedule and opened to traffic. 25% under budget.
Source: 2012 FHWA CMGC Peer Exchange. Note: Utah innovation savings represent the estimated direct savings based on proposed innovations and savings recognized during design for projects that completed design in 2011-2012.
Benefits, such as those shown in Exhibit 65, and challenges encountered by State DOTs over time evolved into leading practices that were collected and shared by FHWA for freeway projects. On its CMGC homepage, FHWA provided links to materials from State DOTs—some of which were generated by Caltrans as shown in Exhibit 66. EXHIBIT 66. LEADING PRACTICES GUIDELINES
CMGC Sample Materials of CMGC Procurement Strategies Risk Registries & Allocation Other/General Instruction & Contracting Guidance
Arizona DOT: Construction Oregon DOT, Utah DOT: Caltrans Project Risk 2007 Associated General Manager at Risk Guide Sample CMGC Documents Management Contractors of America & National Association of State Minnesota DOT: Project Facilities Administrators: Specific Files on Estimating Caltrans: Sample RFQ CMGC Guidelines for Public Processes, Conflict of Owners (Joint Publication) Interest, Outreach, RFP, Contract 2012 Boston State DOT Peer Exchange Conference Utah DOT: CMGC Selection Materials Manual of Instruction
Source: FHWA CMGC Homepage.
Further, the 2007 Joint Publication by the Associated General Contractors of America and National Association of State Facilities Administrators contained lessons learned from a public owner’s perspective that evolved into a best practices document. In general, the consensus across literature for a successful implementation of a CMGC projects depends on the key areas highlighted in Exhibit 67.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 142 EXHIBIT 67. KEY FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS CMGC SUCCESS
CMGC Procurement • Selection is based on qualifcation not lowest price. • Contractor is involved during preconstruction phase and not when designs are final to help with scope, schedules, and constructability reviews. Collaboration & Communication Open Book Cost Estimation • Communication between project teams • Independent Cost Estimator (ICE) is used needs to be unrestricted. to reconcile owner and contractor cost proposals to ensure negotiated price is • Initial partnering sessions with entire fair and reasonable. project team should occur in early construction to set project goals and • All cost factors including markups and develop project specific partnering profits are brought to the negotiation charter. table.
CMGC Success
Source: Associated General Contractors of America & National Association of State Facilities Administrators: CMGC Guidelines for Public Owners (2007 Joint Publication); Caltrans 6/14/17 presentation to ITOC and report on Boston Lessons Learned.
However, there were instances where the CMGC method was not successful. The most recent prevalent example discussed in transportation industry research related to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) $2 billion Green Line extension project that was halted in late 2015 and repackaged under a design-build model to be delivered by 2021. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) engaged a consulting firm to perform a look-back study in connection with the project. 54 Key factors that contributed towards the failure of CMGC for the MBTA project are highlighted in Exhibit 68.
EXHIBIT 68. KEY FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS FAILURE OF CMGC (MBTA GREEN LINE EXTENSION EXAMPLE)
CMGC selected primarily based on cost Design consultant Inadequate staffing was inexperienced of project by owner with CMGC
Boston Green Line CMGC Failure
Design continued No open book cost during GMP reconciliation negotation Collaborative environment did not exist
Source: Berkeley Research Group Look Back Study, 2015; Caltrans Report on Boston Lessons Learned.
54 Berkeley Research Group, LLC “Look Back Study” prepared for MassDOT, December 2015.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 143
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 144 Appendix D: Systemwide Transit Performance Metrics
Typical of its industry, there was a lot of transit performance data available and reported for the San Diego region—systemwide, by operator, by route, and by TransNet-only funded routes. While this data was generally available on the websites of the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) as well as through SANDAG’s Coordinated Plan, we also captured some of the more typical performance metrics for the San Diego region systemwide using federal National Transit Database (NTD) information. Data was self-reported by the transit operators and was not validated as part of this review; although the operators have undergone triennial performance audits by external parties where the data is subject to audit. Additionally, the methodology for reporting data may vary due to changes in classifications of rail (light rail, commuter rail, or hybrid rail) or type of bus as well as vary due to routes starting or stopping service over the time period examined.
Service Effectiveness: Ridership and Revenue Miles Transit ridership across all modes declined nearly 3 percent from 107.5 million riders in 2014 to 104.7 million riders in 2016, as shown in Exhibit 69, and is expected to further decline in 2017—similar to national trends.
EXHIBIT 69. SAN DIEGO SYSTEMWIDE RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE MILES 1
120,000,000 45,000,000 107,539,465 109,301,081 104,691,480 40,000,000 100,000,000 35,000,000
80,000,000 30,000,000
Revenue Miles Revenue Passenger Trips Passenger 25,000,000 60,000,000 20,000,000 40,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000 5,000,000 0 0 2014 2015 2016 Ridership Revenue Miles
Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database, and MTS and NCTD FY 2016 Performance Reports. Note: 1Ridership does not include Vanpool.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 145 Quality of Service: On-Time Performance On-time performance is a metric of system quality and indicates the percent of trips that arrive on-time, and also directly impacts customer satisfaction and customers’ decision to use public transportation.55 Since 2014, both MTS and NCTD’s on-time performance fluctuated by mode, with some modes generally meeting or exceeding established on-time performance guidelines such as the NCTD COASTER and SPRINTER rail services. Conversely, fixed route bus service for both operators and the NCTD LIFT paratransit service struggled to consistently meet established guidelines.56 Although the NCTD BREEZE missed its 90 percent on-time guideline over the past three years from 2014 to 2016 as shown in Exhibit 70, on-time performance prior to that period met goals since 2006. This change in performance could be partly due to the accuracy of automatic vehicle location technology that NCTD implemented on its BREEZE buses in FY 2013. After the transition from manual to automated data collection, NCTD reported it noted a 10 percent decline in on-time performance for its BREEZE bus operations.
EXHIBIT 70. NCTD ON-TIME PERFORMANCE BY MODE
NCTD COASTER On-time Performance NCTD SPRINTER On-time Performance 100% 99.30% 99.20% 100.00% 98.90% 97.60% 99% 98.00% 96.80% 95.50% 98% 96.00% 97% 94.00% 96% 92.00% 95% 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Actual Guideline Actual Guideline
NCTD BREEZE Bus On-time Performance NCTD LIFT Paratransit On-time Performance
90.50% 95.00% 93.80% 90.00% 94.00% 89.50% 89.20% 89.00% 93.00% 88.30% 88.25% 91.80% 88.50% 92.00% 91.50% 88.00% 87.50% 91.00% 87.00% 90.00% 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
Actual Guideline Actual Guideline
Source: SANDAG Performance Monitoring Data.
From Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year 2016 actual on-time performance for the NCTD BREEZE Bus service did not meet the guideline. While NCTD tracked and reported annual on-time performance, MTS tracked on-time performance by month and did not provide on-time performance for its MTS Access demand response service. Similarly, MTS Express, Urban Frequent, and Urban Standard route categories
55 MTS classifies on-time as buses departing stops within zero to five minutes of the scheduled time and light rail trips arriving at their end terminal within zero to five minutes of the scheduled time. 56 In years when NCTD on-time performance did not meet guidelines, it was within 0.2 and 2.5 percent of those established guidelines.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 146 consistently did not meet targeted on-time performance goals as shown in Exhibit 71. On-time performance improved for several routes, including Rapid and Rapid Express, by incorporating signal priority measures and dedicated lanes for transit in addition to reducing the number of stops. Further, to enhance the accuracy of on-time performance data and provide more robust data analytics, MTS installed automatic vehicle location equipment on its contracted bus service in 2016.
EXHIBIT 71. MTS ON-TIME PERFORMANCE BY ROUTE CATEGORY, JUNE YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISON
MTS Route Category Goal June 2013 June 2014 June 2015
Rapid Corridor (Routes 235/237) 90% Express 90% Premium/Rapid Express 90%
Light Rail (Blue, Orange, and Green Line Trolleys) 90%
Light Rail (Silver Line Trolley) 90%
Rapid Arterial (Route 215/SuperLoop) 85% Urban Frequent 85% Urban Standard 90% Circulator 90% System On-Time Performance 84.1% 85% 84.4% Source: MTS Policy 42 Performance Monitoring Reports 2013, 2014, and 2015. Note: = Target met or exceeded. Categories provided by MTS.
Sustainability: Farebox Recovery The farebox recovery ratio is the percent of operating expenses covered by fare revenue. A higher farebox recovery ratio indicates a greater percent of the operating costs are covered by fare revenue and provides increased financial stability. Several factors influence farebox recovery, including changes in operating costs, ridership, and fare structure. For instance, higher fares can increase the farebox recovery ratio; however, regional fares in San Diego have not changed since 2008. In fact, farebox recovery ratios have remained relatively stable over the three-year period between 2014 and 2016 as well as since the beginning of the TransNet Ordinance.
With the exception of several services provided by NCTD, annual farebox recovery ratios remained above internal guidelines for each mode of transit. As shown in Exhibit 72, MTS consistently exceeded goals with bus and rail farebox recovery ratios ranging from a low of 34.4 percent to a high of 56.3 percent. In fact, MTS Bus consistently exceed the Transit Development Act mandated recovery ratios for bus service. Similarly, MTS farebox recovery for paratransit services exceeded the Transit Development Act 10 percent farebox recovery ratio guideline and NCTD met the guideline in 2014, but not in 2015 and 2016. NCTD met bus and rail farebox recovery guidelines in 2014 and 2015, but did not meet targets in 2016.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 147 EXHIBIT 72. SYSTEMWIDE FAREBOX RECOVERY BY MODE AND SERVICE, 2014 - 2016
Percent Change Guideline 2014 2015 2016 2014 to 2016 Fixed Route Bus
MTS Rapid Express 20.0% 43.4% 52.3% 52.4% 20.7% MTS Bus 31.9% 36.5% 35.5% 34.4% -5.8% NCTD BREEZE Bus 18.8% 19.6% 19.4% 16.4% -16.3%
Rail MTS Light Rail 31.9% 56.1% 56.3% 54.4% -3.0%
NCTD SPRINTER1 Hybrid Rail 18.8% 18.3% 18.6% 17.8% -2.7% NCTD COASTER Commuter Rail 18.8% 38.9% 35.9% 40.0% 2.8%
Paratransit Demand Response
MTS Access Paratransit 10.0% 13.1% 13.7% 12.9% -1.5% NCTD LIFT Paratransit 10.0% 11.9% 9.2% 8.9% -25.2% Source: SANDAG Performance Monitoring Data.
According to the most recent Transportation Development Act audit report, NCTD identified several opportunities to improve its farebox recovery. First, NCTD plans to implement any changes to the Regional Fare Ordinance. Second, NCTS plans to introduce new scheduling technology, including automated scheduling software that will allow passengers to book rides on-line or through an interactive voice response system and mobile data terminals on each LIFT and FLEX vehicle notifying customers when the vehicle is near their pick-up point. As such, NCTD believes these will improve its scheduling efficiency. Third, NCTD plans to implement a more robust eligibility certification program for those that qualify for the Americans with Disabilities Act that will use a combination of online application and in-person interview and functional assessments. NCTD indicated that when other agencies implemented similar changes, the number of unrestricted clients declined and denials increased 4 percent. Finally, NCTD plans to increase its usage of brokered trips using taxicabs and other providers.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 148 Safety: Preventable Accidents Several metrics can be used to measure transit safety, such as the number of preventable accidents, safety incidents, or crime rates. Exhibits 73 and 74 reflect the metric of number of preventable accidents per 100,000 miles by mode. According to MTS, this metric indicated that the driver could have potentially done something different to prevent the accident from occurring, but the accident was not a code violation. Since 2014, MTS decreased the number of preventable accidents for fixed route. Similarly, NCTD reported less than two preventable accidents per 100,000 miles by mode for each mode from 2015 to 2017.
EXHIBIT 73. MTS PREVENTABLE ACCIDENTS PER EXHIBIT 74. NCTD AVERAGE PREVENTABLE ACCIDENTS 100,000 MILES BY MODE PER 100,000 MILES BY MODE
3 2.81 2.52 2.47 Mode 2015 2016 2017 2.5 BREEZE 0.77 0.82 0.97 2
1.5 1.13 SPRINTER 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.55 0.46 COASTER 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.5 0.23 0.21 0.26 Preventable Accidents Preventable 0 LIFT/FLEX 0.97 1.07 1.55 2014 2015 2016 Source: Data provided by NCTD. Fixed Route Bus Demand-Responsive Light Rail Note: NCTD could only provide data from FY 2015 to FY 2017. Source: Data provided by MTS. Note: Fixed Route Bus includes MTS Directly Operated Bus and Contracted Fixed Route Bus.
Seat Utilization: Load Performance This indicator relates to seat utilization and tracks the percent of seats occupied. Since 2014, both MTS and NCTD fixed route bus load factors have been within the guidelines established by SANDAG each year. As shown in Exhibit 75, the average weekday load factor for each mode was within established guidelines and remained relatively consistent over the 3-year period. Higher load factors over suggested guidelines indicated overcrowding on buses, trains, and paratransit vans, while a load factor lower than guidelines indicated seats were available.
EXHIBIT 75. AVERAGE WEEKDAY LOAD FACTOR BY MODE AND SERVICE
Change Mode and Service Guideline 2014 2015 2016 2014 to 2016 Fixed Route MTS Bus 1.00 0.28 0.27 0.27 -0.01 NCTD BREEZE Bus 1.10 0.22 0.20 0.20 -0.02 Rail MTS Light Rail 3.00 0.41 0.44 0.41 0 NCTD SPRINTER Hybrid Rail 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.02 NCTD COASTER Commuter Rail 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.19 -0.01 Source: SANDAG Performance Monitoring Data.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 149 Productivity: Passengers per Revenue Hour Another measure of the productivity of a transit vehicle is passengers per revenue hour. From 2014 to 2016, rail and paratransit services consistently met or exceeded established guidelines for passengers per revenue hour. Conversely, both MTS Bus and NCTD BREEZE Bus did not always meet established guidelines, as shown in Exhibit 76.
EXHIBIT 76. SYSTEMWIDE PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR BY MODE
Mode and Service Guideline 2014 2015 2016 MTS Bus 35 32 31 28 NCTD BREEZE Bus 20 19 17 16 MTS Light Rail 35 79 81 80 NCTD SPRINTER Hybrid Rail 20 85 91 74 NCTD COASTER Commuter Rail 20 47 47 45 MTS Access Paratransit 2 2 2 2 NCTD LIFT Paratransit 2 2 2 2 Source: SANDAG Performance Monitoring Data.
Headway: Frequency of Service According to SANDAG’s most recent Transit Coordinated Plan, the MTS and NCTD minimum peak service headway goals were 15 minutes for buses, 15 to 30 minutes for light rail, and 40 minutes for commuter rail. Data revealed neither MTS nor NCTD met headway goals for fixed route bus—except in 2013 where MTS commuter fixed route bus met the guideline. Conversely, both entities met headway goals for rail. For instance, the average headway for MTS light rail was approximately 11 minutes in both 2014 and 2015, well below the 15 to 30-minute goal as shown in Exhibit 77. Moreover, since TransNet began, average annual headway results for each mode were fairly consistent over time for rail, while fixed route showed more fluctuation.
EXHIBIT 77. SYSTEMWIDE AVERAGE HEADWAY (IN MINUTES)
Mode and Service Guideline 2013 2014 2015 Fixed Route1 21 23 MTS Commuter Bus 15 minutes 15 21 MTS and NCTD Bus 15 minutes 23 23 Rail 25 24 24 MTS Light Rail 15-30 minutes 13 11 11 NCTD SPRINTER Hybrid Rail 15-30 minutes 30 30 30 NCTD COASTER Commuter Rail 40 minutes 31 31 31 Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database. Note: 1 Average headway was not reported for Fixed Route in the 2015 NTD Reporting Year.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 150 Revenue Miles Countywide transit revenue miles (miles traveled when in service and available to carry passengers) across all modes of transit increased from 37.8 million miles in 2013 to 41.9 million miles in 2016—an 11 percent growth.
Fixed Route Bus revenue miles increased 6 percent from 23.6 million miles in 2013 to 25 million miles in 2015, as shown in Exhibit 78. Changes in total revenue miles is impacted by the number of routes offered, span of service, and frequency of service.
EXHIBIT 78. SYSTEMWIDE FIXED ROUTE REVENUE MILES (IN THOUSANDS)
30,000 25,050 23,631 23,838 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000
0 Revenue Miles (in Thousands) (in Miles Revenue 2013 2014 2015 Fixed Route Total Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database. Note: Vanpool not included as it is not funded by TransNet.
Rail revenue miles (including commuter rail, light rail, and hybrid rail) experienced growth of approximately 10 percent increasing from nearly 9.7 million miles in 2013 to nearly 10.7 million miles in 2015 as shown in Exhibit 79. Most of the increase can be attributed to MTS Light Rail operations.
EXHIBIT 79. SYSTEMWIDE RAIL REVENUE MILES BY SERVICE (IN THOUSANDS)
12,000 10,675 9,681 NCTD SPRINTER 10,000 Hybrid Rail
8,000 MTS Light Rail
6,000 NCTD COASTER 4,000 Commuter Rail
2,000 Rail Total Revenue Miles (in Thousands) (in Miles Revenue
0 2013 2014 2015 Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 151 Paratransit revenue miles increased from approximately 4.5 million miles in 2013 to 6.2 million miles in 2015—an increase of nearly 38 percent, as shown in Exhibit 80. Thus, usage of paratransit services significantly grew over the 3-year period.
EXHIBIT 80. SYSTEMWIDE PARATRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE REVENUE MILES BY SERVICE
7,000 6,196 6,000 5,092 4,499 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
Revenue Miles (in Thousands) (in Miles Revenue 0 2013 2014 2015
Systemwide Demand Response
Source: http://ftis.org/ Urban Integrated National Transit Database and MTS and NCTD Form C for 4rd Quarter 2015 as provided by SANDAG.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 152 Appendix E: Status of Prior Performance Audit Recommendations
The prior audit suggested improvements in a number of areas to increase efficiency such as revisiting definitions surrounding the Local Street and Road program, employing checklists over grant site visits, and streamlining processes for grant applications. Other recommendations focused on strengthening oversight and accountability to ensure the foundation surrounding the program continues to be solid. For instance, performance indicators for vehicle-hours of delay and miles traveled are now publicly available and data to measure grant performance and Local Street and Road performance are in the initial stages of development. Moreover, practices have been tightened over the Environmental Mitigation Program with defining economic benefit concepts, establishing strategic plans with clear goals, and developing management systems to track results and performance.
As of June 2017, SANDAG implemented 11 of the 18 recommendations from the FY 2015 TransNet Triennial Performance audit and was actively working on addressing the remaining 7 recommendations. Most of the outstanding recommendations pertain to the development of performance monitoring and reporting tools of TransNet funded programs. SANDAG was also still working on collecting baseline data for its Active Transportation and Smart Growth Incentive grant programs that will allow future performance evaluations. Status is shown in Exhibit 81.
EXHIBIT 81. STATUS OF FY 2015 TRANSNET TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Recommendation Status
Summarize performance results in a report 1 Completed. card. 2 Finalize construction management manual. Completed. Monitor risks associated with and implement 3 Completed. best practices with CMGC. Measure internal project delivery 4 Completed. performance. In-Progress. SANDAG investigated third-party data vendors, and additional work continues Measure local streets and road performance 5 to implement a new tool to address recommendation and other performance outcomes. monitoring requirements from MAP-21 and FAST act. However, no outcome data has been captured and measured to date. In-Progress. SANDAG developed an Outcome and Output report to gather output Report and summarize Local Street and 6 information. Because the current report is based on planned outputs—not Road outputs. actual outputs from completed projects. SANDAG is working to better capture actual output information. Revisit the Expenditure Plan 70/30 Completed. 7 definitions for Local Streets and Road Although the current audit proposes another recommendation in this area. congestion relief and maintenance. Continue effort to market local mitigation Completed. 8 program. Although the current audit proposes another recommendation in this area.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 153 Summary of Recommendation Status
Measure results of mitigation efforts to In-Progress. 9 implement EMP Strategic Plan and Tracking efforts have started. Plan is to report results on Dashboard by Resource Enhancement/Mitigation Program. summer 2018. Create methodology to quantify EMP In-Progress. 10 economic benefits to compare against Methodology established; analysis to identify funding deficits or surpluses is monies released. scheduled for 2018. Link to transit operator performance 11 Completed. dashboards once developed. In-Progress. Track and report performance and whether Started working with grantees on baseline data collection and capturing post- 12 grants are achieving program goals. construction data. SANDAG still developing a procedure for analysis and reporting. Make minor changes in grant site visit 13 Completed. processes. Date stamp all grant applications to 14 Completed. determine compliance with deadlines. Develop project delivery and management In-Progress. 15 plans for Bike EAP. External contractor was selected to create plan; scheduled for by June 2018. Utilize project management tools on Bike 16 EAP projects to monitor schedule and costs, Completed. and validate accuracy of Dashboard data. In-Progress. SANDAG elected to implement this recommendation through a report card. A draft report card was provided to ITOC for comment at its 2/14/18 meeting, and Set and capture performance data for summarized outputs and project delivery showing projects delivered, status, 17 outputs, outcomes, and project delivery for schedule milestone attainment, support-to-capital ratio, construction versus Bike EAP projects. engineers’ estimates, and pre-award budget and construction budget to cost— although it did not contain performance data on outcomes such as safety and rate of injuries and fatalities. Alternate ITOC member terms so no more 18 Completed. than two terms end in a given year.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 154 Appendix F: Assessment of ITOC’s Performance
One of the key safeguards established by the 2004 TransNet Extension Ordinance is the creation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) that provides an increased level of accountability over TransNet revenues. Several documents guide the function of the committee including a “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the ITOC for the TransNet Program,” ITOC Bylaws, and Implementation Procedures in addition to the Ordinance itself. Combined, these documents provide the framework for member experience and resumes, meeting protocols and function, and member conduct and responsibilities.
Members Possessed Requisite Expertise and Service Per ITOC bylaws, there are seven voting members representing different areas of expertise with two ex-officio members—the SANDAG Executive Director and the San Diego County Auditor. These two ex-officio members are bound by the requirements of the bylaws, but do not have voting authority. As with prior audits, we found that, over that past three years, the ITOC members possessed the requisite skills and experience to fulfill ITOC's responsibilities as outlined in the TransNet Ordinance, as well as continued to provide a valuable and constructive role in the ongoing improvement and enhancements to the TransNet Program.
Meetings were Held and Attendance Complied with Bylaws With regularly scheduled ITOC meetings on the second Wednesday of every month except August and December, there were 30 possible meetings during the 3-year audit period. Of the 30 meetings, 3 meetings, or 10 percent, were cancelled. This rate was generally consistent with the cancellation rates noted in prior TransNet Triennial Performance Audits and occurred because there were no business items to bring forward to the ITOC for discussion. Moreover, the cancelled meetings did not have a detrimental effect on TransNet activities and did not affect schedule or cost of the program. Additionally, we found that meetings were regularly attended by the ITOC members averaging 82 percent over the 3-year period. These results comply with ITOC Bylaws.
Stated Responsibilities were Fulfilled ITOC has ten primary responsibilities as outlined in the “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the ITOC for the TransNet Program” as shown in Exhibit 82.These included conducting annual fiscal and compliance audits in addition to triennial performance audits, preparing annual reports, providing recommendations to SANDAG on proposed TransNet amendments and 10-year reviews, and reviewing State of the Commute reports, system performance measurement, programming of TransNet revenues, debt financing, and cost and schedule adherence on major congestion relief projects. As with prior audits, we reviewed past meeting minutes and documents and found that ITOC met its responsibilities.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 155 EXHIBIT 82. COMPARISON OF ITOC RESPONSIBILITIES WITH ACTIONS TAKEN
ITOC Responsibilities per TransNet ITOC Actions Taken Ordinance
Hired an independent audit firm to review local adherence to TransNet Extension Conduct Annual Fiscal and Compliance 1 Ordinance, Board policies, and maintenance of effort requirements on an annual Audits basis. Monitored scope of work and relevant issues reported. Developed and issued annual reports that included information on TransNet Prepare Annual Reports to SANDAG Board 2 Program projects’ progress and highlights, revenue forecasting, results of audits, of Directors and upcoming activities. Hired an independent auditor to review performance and opportunities for increased Conduct Triennial Performance Audits of 3 efficiency and effectiveness. Monitored scope of work and relevant issues reported. TransNet Funded Projects Results of the fourth triennial audit are presented in this audit report. Analyzed and made recommendations on amendments to the TransNet Ordinance Make Recommendations on Proposed and Expenditure Plan including some related to SANDAG Board Policy No. 31, Rule 4 Amendments to TransNet Ordinance 6 on local street and road accrued interest and Rule 7 on public hearings on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program update. The first 10-year review report is due in 2019, and was elected by the SANDG Board to be performed as a two-step process. The first part, a 10-year look-back, was Provide Recommendations in 10-year 5 completed by an independent firm in January 2018 and the ITOC provided a letter Review of TransNet Program with comments and recommendations to the SANDAG Board. The second part, the 10-year look-forward, will be completed by SANDAG in 2019. Participate in Ongoing Refinement of Project 6 Evaluation Criteria and Project Prioritization Received and reviewed a variety of documentation related to topics in this area. in the RTP and RTIP Analyzed annual State of the Commute Reports as part of its standard meeting Provide Independent Analysis of Information process as well as through its own annual ITOC reporting process. For instance, for 7 in State of the Commute Report the draft FY 2015 and 2016 State of the Commute Reports, ITOC made suggestions for additional analysis and different presentation of data to be considered. Review and Comment on the Programming Reviewed, discussed, and made recommendations on programming and changes 8 of TransNet Revenues in the RTIP made to the program. Assessed debt service ratios and financing proposals to monitor SANDAG’s ability to 9 Review Proposed Debt Financing pay for TransNet Program debt as well as the Plan of Finance on a regular basis. Committee raised questions and requested changes as appropriate. Analyzed a variety of quarterly reports from SANDAG and its TransNet partners on Quarterly Review of Major Congestion Relief 10 status, progress, and performance. Committee raised questions and requested Projects Identified in the Ordinance additional information as needed.
ITOC Employed Best Practices when Compared to Similar Committees Like in previous audits, we found that TransNet’s ITOC subscribed to many of the best practices employed by similar taxpayer or transportation oversight committees throughout the nation. Specifically, ITOC members must possess a wider breadth of experience than its peers, adhere to more formal operating protocols and attendance requirements, and follow stringent conflict of interest requirements. Review of meeting minutes also demonstrated that ITOC appeared to be highly valued by decision makers with the type of information provided to ITOC and that ITOC members diligently reviewed, questioned, and vetted the data presented in meetings.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 156 Appendix G: List of Auditees and Stakeholder Interviewers
To gain insights, perspectives, challenges, strengths, and information on the implementation of the TransNet Program, we met with approximately 100 oversight committees, executives, officials, directors, managers, staff, consultants, contractors, and stakeholders in areas related to transportation planning, transit planning and operations, capital construction, local public works and engineering, bike and pedestrian activities, environmental mitigation, grant and program management, finance and economics, and program oversight. The table that follows provides a list of those auditees and stakeholder interviews.
Interviewee Name Title and Functional Role ITOC
1 Tracy Drager Advisory Member, County Deputy Controller
2 Stewart Halpern Chair, Finance & Budget
3 Dustin Fuller Vice Chair, Environmental & Biology
4 Brad Barnum Member, Construction
5 Kaitlin Arduino Member, Real Estate, Land Economics, Right-of-Way
6 Kai Ramer Member, Transportation Design/Construction, PE
7 Jonathan Tibbitts Member, Architectural, Civil/Traffic Engineering, PE
8 Richard Vortmann Member, Executive, Finance SANDAG – Executive Office
9 Gary Gallegos Executive Director
10 Kim Kawada Chief Deputy Executive Director
11 Steve Castillo Principal Management Internal Auditor SANDAG – Communications
12 David Hicks Communications Manager, Public Outreach/Public Information
13 Elizabeth Cox Communications Manager, Marketing SANDAG – Operations
14 Ray Traynor Department Director
15 Alex Estrella Senior Regional Planner, ITS, Local Street & Road Liaison, CTAC Liaison
16 Ellison Alegre Associate Regional Planner, ITS SANDAG – Finance
17 Andre Douzdjian Department Director
18 Leeanne Wallace Finance Manager
19 Kim Monasi Financial Project Control Manager
20 Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin Senior Accountant SANDAG – Land Use & Transportation Planning
21 Muggs Stoll Department Director
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 157 Interviewee Name Title and Functional Role
22 Linda Culp Principal Regional Planner, Active Transportation & Rail Planning
23 Keith Greer Principal Regional Planner, Environmental & Public Facilities Planning
24 Elisa Arias Principal Regional Planner, Long-Range Transportation Planning & Binational Planning Senior Regional Planner, Bike & Ped Working Group, Non-motorized Transportation Planning, 25 Chris Kluth Bicycle Master Plan, TransNet/TDA Bike & Ped Program Oversight, Active Transportation Working Group
26 Coleen Clementson Principal Regional Planner, Transit Planning & Land Use Coordination
27 Carolina Gregor Senior Regional Planner, Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG)
28 Audrey Porcella Regional Planner Associate Regional Planner, Land Use Planning & Coordination- RCP, Smart Growth Incentive 29 Chr istine Eary Program, North County Development Review
30 Brian Lane Senior Transit Planner SANDAG – Mobility Management & Project Implementation
31 Jim Linthicum Department Director
32 Ramon Ruelas Principal Engineer, Construction
33 John Haggerty Director of Rail, Design & Engineering
34 Greg Gastelum Principal Engineer, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.
35 Sharon Humphreys Principal Engineer, LOSSAN Coastal Rail, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
36 Omar Atayee Senior Engineer, Bike EAP
37 Emilio Rodriguez Senior Engineer, Bike EAP SANDAG – Technical Services
38 Ray Major Department Director & Chief Economist Darlanne Hoctor- 39 Senior Research Analyst Mulmat SANDAG – TransNet
40 Jose Nuncio Department Director
41 Susan Huntington Manager of Financial Planning & Project Control, TransNet Project Office
42 Dawn Vettese Financial Programming Manager, Financial Programming
43 Ariana zur Nieden Senior Financial Programing & Project Control Analyst, TransNet ITOC & Program Oversight
44 Michelle Smith Senior Financial Programming & Project Control Analyst, TransNet Caltrans
45 Caridad Sanchez Public Information Office, Chief of Public Information & Legislative Affairs
46 Allan Kosup Corridor Director, I-5 & SR-76
47 Gustavo Dallarda Corridor Director, I-15 & I-805
48 Arturo Jacobo Project Manager, I-5 North Coast
49 Ursula Paulus TransNet Project Office
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 158 Interviewee Name Title and Functional Role
50 Karen Jewel Project Manager, SR-72 & SR-76
51 Mohamad Khatib Assistant Project Manager, I-5 North Coast
52 Clint Peace Assistant Project Manager, I-5 North Coast
53 Faridun Javed Construction Manager, I-5 North Coast
54 Steve McMillan Senior Resident Engineer, I-5 North Coast NCTD
55 Matt Tucker Chief Executive Officer
56 Janee Harris Compliance Officer
57 Lori Winfree General Counsel
58 Luz Cofresi-Howe Chief Financial Officer
59 Karen Tucholski Chief Administrative Officer MTS
60 Sharon Cooney Chief of Staff
61 Paul Jabonski Chief Executive Officer
62 Rob Schupp Director of Marketing and Communications
63 Mike Thompson Directors of Financial Planning and Analysis
64 Denis Desmond Manager of Planning
65 Eric Cheng Capital Grant Supervisor
66 Wayne Terry Chief Operating Officer City of San Diego Deputy Director, Transportation & Storm Water Department, Transportation Engineering 67 Linda Marabian Operations Division
68 Hasan Yousef Deputy Director, Transportation & Storm Water Department
69 Kristie Reeser Deputy Director, Transportation & Storm Water Department, Street Division
70 Akram Bassyouni Deputy Director, Public Works Department, Right-of-Way Design Division
71 Abi Palaseyed Assistant Deputy Director, Public Works Department, Right-of-Way Design Division
72 Benjamin Battaglia Administrative Services & Fiscal Manager, Transportation & Storm Water Department
73 Michael Clark Budget Coordinator, Financial Management Department County of San Diego
74 William Morgan Deputy Director, DPW Engineering Services, County Engineer
75 Mark Perrett Program Manager, CIP
76 Collins Solomon Program Manager, CIP Construction, Engineering
77 Tony Potter Program Coordinator, CIP
78 Murali Pasumarthi Program Manager, Traffic Operations & Loss Mitigation
79 Mike Aguilar Project Manager, Drainage & Pavement Management
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 159 Interviewee Name Title and Functional Role
80 Frank Arebalo Senior Civil Engineer, Pavement Management
81 Robert Laudy Unit Manager, Cartography/Recycling
82 Amparo Suter Unit Manager, Financial Services City of Chula Vista
83 Richard Hopkins Director of Public Works
84 Bill Valle Director of Engineering & Capital Projects
85 Jose Luis Gomez Principal Civil Engineer
86 Francisco Rivera Principal Civil Engineer
87 Eddie Flores City Traffic Engineer
88 Mike Sylvia Finance & Purchasing Manager
89 Robert Beamon Administrative Services Manager EMP Consultants & Stakeholders
90 Teri Fenner AECOM; SANDAG Science Support to EMP
91 Yvonne Moore Red Hawk Fencing; San Diego Management and Monitoring (SDMMP) Administrator
92 Dr. Kris Preston USGS; Lead Ecologist for SDMMP
93 LeAnn Carmichael County of San Diego, Program Manager Environmental Services, Vice Chair EMP Working Group
94 Mike Beck Endangered Habitat League
95 Susan Wynn U.S Fish & Wildlife Service CMGC Consultants & Stakeholders
96 Mike Robertson Caltrans CMGC Consultant
97 Mike Martinez CMGC Contractor (Flatiron)
98 Mike Spain CMGC Contractor (Skanska)
99 Ja y LaFleur CMGC Contractor (Stacy and Witbeck) Other Stakeholders & Interested Parties
100 Colin Parent Circulate San Diego, Executive Director, General Counsel
101 Jim Desmond Transportation Committee Chair, Mayor San Marcos
102 Haney Hong San Diego Taxpayers Association, President, CEO
103 John Anderson Bike SD, Executive Director
Stakeholder Diane Takvorian from the Environmental Health Coalition was also contacted for interview, but respectfully declined to participate due to prior commitments and schedule constraints.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 160 Appendix H: Auditee Response
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 161
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 162 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response
Chapter 1: TransNet Financing Enhance the Plan of Finance (POF) process and This process will be more formally incorporated as part of information provided to decision makers by implementing the TransNet Major Corridors Plan of Finance annual the following: updates. a. Leveraging historical data and previous POFs to Staff Lead - Dawn Vettese (TransNet) 1. provide additional information regarding estimates of future revenue sources, by comparing projections against historical data as well as comparing estimates from previous POFs against actual funding secured. b. Continuing efforts to increase the transparency of SANDAG staff and economic consultants are working to sales tax revenue forecasts by showing a range of create sales tax forecasts that incorporate ranges and possible values based on a true confidence interval. scenarios and will present this work to ITOC for input. SANDAG staff should work with the Independent Staff Lead - Jim Miller (Technical Services) Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) and the SANDAG Board to select a confidence level or levels that best communicates the range of possible values projected by the forecast including best case, worse case, or reasonably expected scenarios. c. Developing a process or policy for more frequent Staff will present information on cost estimating practices reporting—such as quarterly—to oversight committees and methods used to communicate cost changes to the on cost increases and include factors used to estimate ITOC, Transportation Committee and Board in April/May costs, project stage or milestone used as basis for 2018 for input. cost, and reasons for cost increase such as inflation, Staff Lead - Jim Linthicum (MMPI) materials spike, or scope changes using Dashboard data and other reliable data sources. Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and its 7-Point Data Significant progress has been made on the 7-Point Data Accuracy and Modeling Work Plan are implemented to Accuracy and Modeling Work Plan and ongoing efforts reduce the potential for data errors and develop formal have been incorporated into the agency’s Plan of procedures covering version control, periodic archival of Excellence with progress tracked there. As part of the 7- dynamic or continuously updated data and documents, Point Plan, staff determined that errors were limited to data validation and accuracy, and release and reporting of income variables (Point 1), have conducted a dependency data. The status of the implementation of the 7-point plan analysis to determine where the income variables were and new procedures for data authentication should be used and correct as needed (Point 2), developed a documented and reported back to decision makers. comprehensive flow diagram showing interactions 2. between data and modeling components (Point 3), surveyed agency staff to understand and document how data are disseminated and used (Point 4), convened a nationwide expert panel for recommendations for regional forecasting (Point 5), developed processes and standards to communicate data, methods, and analysis in a clear and transparent manner (Point 6), and (Point 7) realigned people, processes, and technology to support adequate staffing and expertise. Staff Lead - Ray Major (Technical Services) Regularly track and report on the TransNet Program’s This process will be more formally incorporated as part of financial capacity to complete projects and programs by the TransNet Major Corridors Plan of Finance, in implementing the following: coordination with the adopted Regional Plan. 3. a. Establishing a formal structured protocol to review Staff Lead - Susan Huntington (TransNet) funding sources and uses occurring in the last 10 to 20 years of the TransNet Extension Program to identify
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 163 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response potential capacity and revenue constraints that would impact the ability to complete the major corridor projects by 2048 and assess options such as delaying projects, eliminating projects, or reducing scope as warranted. This capacity assessment should be formally revisited on a regular basis, so that decision makers are aware of periods in which the agency may have to consider delaying projects or reducing project scope as needed. b. Monitoring TransNet revenues and debt service SANDAG Finance and TransNet staff will continue to obligations against needed growth projections to better communicate information on a regular basis, including ensure that revenues are sufficient to meet debt cash flow needs, changes to project timing, and sales tax service, as well as regularly reporting on results and projections; meet and discuss with the SANDAG financial options to oversight committees that could include advisor any potential changes to needs; meet with restructuring, refinancing, or retiring existing debt or investment bankers to understand instruments currently delaying the transition to a pay-as-you-go approach for on the market that could fit SANDAG needs; and include financing capital projects. all relevant information at regular intervals or on an as- needed basis at ITOC meetings. Staff Lead - André Douzdjian (Finance) c. Identifying methods to assess options, if needed, to As part of the 2019 Regional Plan update all projects, delay, eliminate, or reduce scope of projects and including TransNet projects, will be evaluated. whether the method would follow the same priority Staff Lead - Phil Trom (Planning) process used in the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan or a different process would be used. d. Monitoring and reporting on the impacts of changing SANDAG will include technology assumptions in the transportation technologies on the transportation development of revenue constrained transportation network and future TransNet projects as part of long- scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan. term planning to avoid building expensive Staff Lead - Phil Trom (Planning) infrastructure that could be rendered obsolete. Continue to work closely with the Metropolitan SANDAG will work with MTS and NCTD to develop a new Transportation System (MTS) and North County Transit methodology to proactively monitor TransNet Transit District (NCTD) to monitor the Transit Operations Plan by Operations funding, focusing on existing data for costs comparing actual TransNet revenues and operating costs and revenues and recognizing the limitations of estimating against the Transit Operations Plan projections as costs and revenues over such a long term. Once a new 4. additional services begin operations to highlight and methodology has been established, staff will report mitigate the impact to the local operators, how to absorb annually to ITOC and Transportation Committee. any discrepancies through other funding sources, or Staff Lead - Muggs Stoll (Planning) potential scenarios for reductions in service if warranted. Communicate status, recommended actions, and any mitigation activities. Chapter 2: Performance Framework Establish a comprehensive performance framework by SANDAG will be setting performance management goals implementing the following: related to the MAP-21/FAST Act timelines and a. Setting targets to measure TransNet performance requirements. Staff will evaluate federal performance 5. against the TransNet Extension Ordinance goals in- management goals in order to align with TransNet funded line with federally mandated deadlines or at a faster projects. pace. At a minimum, some narrative could accompany Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) performance reporting to help others understand
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 164 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response whether data and results were favorable or unfavorable. b. Capturing performance outcome data related to safety 1. SANDAG staff is collaborating with Caltrans on target- metrics, pavement condition, and bridge condition for setting for safety. Caltrans is helping to provide county highways, local roadways, and bicycle (bike) and level SWITRS data to MPOs for both motorized and pedestrian modes. non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. SANDAG has supported the statewide 2018 safety targets and 1. Use the California Highway Patrols’ Statewide will be highlighting safety projects included in the 2018 Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to RTIP and 2019 Regional Plan. Staff will continue to measure and monitor safety statistics—both for monitor and analyze SWITRS safety data as it motorized and non-motorized fatalities and becomes available. SANDAG and Caltrans will serious injuries—especially against the new collaborate on establishing annual safety targets as safety targets developed by Caltrans and per MAP-21/FAST Act requirements. adopted by SANDAG. 2. SANDAG is collaborating with Caltrans on target 2. Track and report highway pavement and bridge setting for bridge and pavement condition. Caltrans condition available from Caltrans on the will be providing county level data for these measures SANDAG website or provide a hyperlink to for facilities on the National Highway System (NHS). where that information is available for taxpayers. SANDAG will look for opportunities to share this
Additionally, work with Caltrans to determine if information as it may relate to TransNet projects. bridge and pavement data can be isolated for 3. For additional data collection efforts on Pavement San Diego County from the Imperial County data Conditions, SANDAG staff will need to work with contained within the Caltrans District 11 reported CTAC to determine an approach for reporting readily data. available pavement data. This may involve an 3. Track and report on local jurisdiction pavement amendment to the ordinance to make such data condition by requiring local jurisdictions to collection a requirement. provide pavement condition index data as soon 4. Currently, SANDAG uses PeMS data, and use of as pavement condition surveys are performed private sector data will be examined subject to existing and results become available. third data sources (INRIX). Examination of other 4. Obtain and use private sector data to analyze sources is subject to implementation and efforts under congestion and delay on local streets and roads Recommendation 5e. or evaluate status of Caltrans’ Performance Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) Measurement System (PeMS) to capture road performance including level of coverage of detection. c. Conducting more robust analysis of cause and effect The recommended analysis likely will require the use of for all performance metrics to provide meaning to modeling/other analytical tools and additional resources. results or help determine if different strategies or SANDAG staff will propose an approach to implement this projects should be employed to get a better result. For recommendation based on the outcome of
instance, consider using heat maps to identify where Recommendation 5e. the majority or significant severity of accidents occur Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) and work with Caltrans and local jurisdictions to inform solutions and future projects. d. Providing regular performance monitoring reports that More regular reporting is feasible for highway system consider past performance in relation to TransNet performance, as more robust data is available via Caltrans goals through quarterly updates to the Board and PeMS. Local street and road performance (in terms of committees, annual public reports on the status of average speed and travel time) is now available via a TransNet, and website postings. third-party vendor (INRIX). Transit data reporting (in terms of passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, operating cost per passenger, operating cost per revenue hour, revenue hours per employee, and farebox recovery ratios) also is feasible and can be made available
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 165 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response via reporting currently conducted under Transportation Development Act monitoring. Staff Lead - Ellison Alegre (Operations) e. Considering allocating funding for additional SANDAG staff will develop options to implement this performance monitoring activities given that SANDAG recommendation, including any potential budget impacts, will likely require more data sources, tools, and and bring to the Transportation Committee and Board for resources to track, validate, analyze, ensure quality, review and direction. and report performance. Staff Leads - José Nuncio (TransNet), Ray Traynor (Operations), Explore and study public-private partnerships with entities SANDAG staff in the Operations Department have been such as Google, Waze, Scoop, TomTom, or others to working on partnerships with transportation information integrate and summarize performance results as well as providers such as Google and Waze. Our current 511 provide information on a real-time basis to travelers system uses Google traffic and transit data as well as 6. identifying different commute times and options. utilizes the Google map. Future plans have us extending the regional Data Hub into a Transportation Mobility Cloud with the intent of utilizing third-party data as well as sharing public data with the private sector. Staff Lead - Alex Estrella (Operations) Enhance the Story Map tool, TransNet project status The implementation of this recommendation will require listing (shown in Appendix A), or develop a different tool to changes to existing tools and processes. SANDAG staff capture project output details and track TransNet will propose an approach to implement this accomplishments over time by implementing the following: recommendation based on the outcome of Recommendation 5e. a. Developing a comprehensive universe of TransNet projects completed, underway, and planned. Staff Lead - Michelle Smith (TransNet) Reconcile universe back to TransNet Extension Ordinance and what was expected to be delivered. Once universe is reconciled for historic projects, update universe as new projects are started and 7. continue reconciliation of those new projects to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. b. Building upon planned output data currently captured through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program’s automated ProjectTrak database and reported in the Annual Output and Outcome report by reconciling those planned outputs with actual accomplishments. Consider requiring local jurisdictions to provide a closeout report with updated, actual data as projects are completed. Chapter 3: Major Corridor Capital Construction Update and refine the project listing started in the 10-Year Project Office staff will utilize the project list crosswalk Look-Back Review to ensure all major corridor projects are created with the 10-Year Look-Back Review and tracked back to those in the TransNet Extension incorporate the data field into the dashboard webform as Ordinance. Regularly report on project and financial status part of the 2019 upgrade. 8. using the project listing developed in 10-Year Look-Back Staff Lead - Susan Huntington (TransNet) Review as a foundation or develop an alternate tool to accomplish the goal of tracking against the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 166 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response
Begin gathering data on whether the Construction Mid-Coast has procedures and tools in place to capture Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method used on the CM/GC savings and efficiencies including comment and Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project is delivering on review logs, risk matrix and RFI response process. To expectations for cost savings, efficiencies, better quality, address the recommendation, an innovations log or other or collaboration to solve problems rather than using a method of formally tracking will be developed. SANDAG typical silo-approach between design, construction, will research industry standards for comparing contractors, and owners by implementing the following: construction contracting methods for application to CM/GC to Low Bid. Mid-Coast will be compared to Mission Valley a. Comparing SANDAG’s proposed metrics for assessing East Light Rail Transit Extension as the closest side-by- Mid-Coast Corridor project performance to the 9. side comparative example. Project, Construction, and performance metrics and practices used by Caltrans’ CM/GC managers will continue to meet regularly to review to determine whether there are any additional change orders and schedule impacts identified in the practices SANDAG may want to include or adopt, such survey. as the Caltrans innovations log, to help formally track benefits, successes, and challenges. Staff Lead - John Haggerty (MMPI), Allan Kosup (Caltrans) b. Addressing recent survey comments related to possible schedule impacts from project activities in addition to the perceived higher value of change orders Gather and store documents to support “benefit” statistics Mid-Coast data are maintained on a project file sharing tracked for the North Coast Corridor and the Mid-Coast site and project record documents including logs and cost Corridor whether using the innovations log utilized by data will be permanently stored in a SANDAG SharePoint 10. Caltrans or another method used by SANDAG. Maintain location. supporting documentation, such as cost comparisons, in a Staff Lead - John Haggerty (MMPI), Allan Kosup centralized repository that is linked or reconciled with the (Caltrans) log or summary statistics. Chapter 4: Local Street and Road Revisit the TransNet Extension Ordinance congestion SANDAG staff will work with CTAC to determine an relief and maintenance split to be more relevant with local approach and possible implementation steps for needs as the TransNet lifecycle matures by considering examining the 70/30 split recommendation. Discussion 11. elimination of the 70/30 split, change to the percentage outcomes will be reported to ITOC to determine possible limitations, or modification of the categorical definitions next steps including Board Policy expenditure guidelines within the TransNet Extension Ordinance limitations. changes. Staff Lead - Alex Estrella (Operations) Continue to monitor compliance with Board Policy No. Board Policy No. 031 Rule No. 21 addresses 031, Rule 21, until otherwise amended, by implementing accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians. the following: SANDAG will conduct a compliance review using the a. Following-up on the results from the Board Policy No. existing processes of the Policy. Results will be reported 031, Rule 21 evaluation conducted by SANDAG in to CTAC for discussion and determination of need to 2014: modify compliance guidelines and processes. SANDAG 1. Use results from SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, will amend applicable Board Policy to track development 12. local Rule 21 review to make identified changes of bicycle and pedestrian projects built using TransNet to the Ordinance definitions and follow-up on funds. areas of noncompliance noted during the review. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) 2. Work with locals to determine a method to demonstrate compliance with Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21. 3. Amend or establish a SANDAG Board Policy to require local jurisdictions to track and report on
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 167 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response the number of bike and pedestrian facilities implemented using TransNet funds. b. Conducting another review of local projects and SANDAG will conduct a compliance review using the considering whether any adjustments are warranted in existing processes of the Policy to determine if light of SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy. modifications are necessary to be more consistent with the SANDAG Complete Streets Policy. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Chapter 5: Transit Services Continue to analyze major transit commute routes and SANDAG staff will continue to report on this area via the 13. services and report on whether commute times have annual State of the Commute Report. improved or should be improved. Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) Regularly track and report on TransNet goals to increase SANDAG staff will look at ways to report on this area via the 14. services to seniors and persons with disabilities. annual State of the Commute Report beginning FY 2018. Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) Work together with the region’s transit operators to SANDAG staff is currently working with the transit analyze options offsetting the impact subsidy disparities operators on a Regional Fare Study that may help offset have on available funds for expanding transit services, the revenue impacts of the discount subsidies. such as funding the pass subsidy disparity for seniors and Additionally, SANDAG staff will work with both transit persons with disabilities from other TransNet areas—as operators’ staff to study other options to increase ridership 15. allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance—adjusting and revenues. the discount offered for senior/disabled and youth riders, Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) determining whether disparities can be funded through other sources, or maintaining existing funding and process. Collaborate with the operators to revisit the operating cost SANDAG Planning and Finance staff will meet with the ceiling tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index as operators to collaborate on possible solutions to address specified in the TransNet Extension Ordinance so that this recommendation. operators have some flexibility with reasonable cost It is expected that these solutions could be included in a increases while still maintaining the intent of TransNet to future amendment to the Ordinance. provide some assurance of the reasonableness of those Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) cost increases. This could include allowing for a wider 16. variance in cost increases, setting a threshold for a not-to- exceed limit, expanding the target by a specified percent in years when changes to the Consumer Price Index decline, or allowing cost exclusions that can be supported, or modify TransNet Extension Ordinance language to apply the cost thresholds at the operator level rather than by individual mode. Chapter 6: Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation Continue efforts to establish baseline data for bike and SANDAG will continue to capture and maintain baseline 17. pedestrian volume to identify trends and set targets. data to identify trends and establish targets. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Improve project management practices and project Upon completion of Program Management Plan SANDAG delivery for the Bike Early Action Program projects by Active Transportation Team will have trainings with project 18. implementing the following: managers to implement PMP practices. a. Finalizing and implementing the in-progress Regional Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Bikeway Program Management Plan.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 168 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response
b. Using Dashboard data that currently tracks frequent Guidance on documenting lessons learned will be causes of delays during the design and environmental included in the Program Management Plan. SANDAG will phases of bike projects, to summarize lessons work to develop procedures and tools to maintain lessons learned, identify and mitigate future preventable learned, identify and mitigate project risks, and improve occurrences, and improve scheduled delivery of the schedule delivery. remaining projects. Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Chapter 7: Environmental Mitigation Program Continue efforts to establish a new Memorandum of The MOA has expired, but funding under the SANDAG Agreement with Caltrans, California Department of Fish CIP budget will be available for FY 2019. SANDAG will be and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to using the results of the Ten-Year Review Look-Back and 19. replace current one expiring before funding expires in FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit as the June 2018. basis for a new MOA starting in May 2018. Staff Lead – Keith Greer (Planning) Enhance the financing and use of TransNet funding for the SANDAG is tracking the change in cost for the lagoon Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) by implementing restoration efforts and comparing it to the cost savings the following: associated with lower than estimated land acquisition 20. a. Reviewing and updating EMP cost estimates in light of costs. higher costs than anticipated associated with restoring Staff Lead – Kim Smith (Planning) coastal wetlands. b. Considering the most efficient use of available funding SANDAG will start to discuss ways to address this issue in and possible adjustments, as allowed by the TransNet spring 2018 and it will become part of the revised MOA Extension Ordinance, to focus on higher priority identified in Recommendation19 above.
activities and projects such as restoring coastal Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) wetlands, given updated revenue forecast information and cost estimates. c. Revisiting the established economic benefit Cost savings are being tracked, but true cost savings will methodology to ensure the calculation accurately not occur until a project has completed close-out. This has represents the cost savings that have been achieved. not happened yet, but over the next years SANDAG will evaluate and assign a value considering the overall costs of the program as described in Recommendation 20a above. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Make changes, as appropriate, to marketing efforts for the SANDAG has made several attempts to promote the local streets and road mitigation bank funding available for availability of these credits. SANDAG will work with local projects, consider revising eligibility criteria for public Communications staff to establish a systematic approach. entities, or consider whether those monies could be better Communications has met with the Planning EMP staff and 21. utilized within other EMP priority actions, as allowed under has calendared upcoming milestones in order to plan the TransNet Extension Ordinance. public information releases on all communication platforms. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Measure progress in meeting specific and detailed EMP SANDAG has already identified several similar efforts from goals, objectives, and action items for regional monitoring around the country. SANDAG will develop a proposed and management under the Management Strategic Plan. approach to these complex ideas to the public and report 22. Specifically, develop metrics using the abundance of data as a report card or similar evaluation system. Work will to holistically understand the status and trend of the start in summer 2018 to develop a detailed work plan. overall health of the preserve against the baselines Communications is involved in the planning effort and will established in regional conservation plans and formalize a effectively work with the department to produce
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 169 Audit Recommendation Auditee Response system to communicate complex performance results to informative pieces for distribution on multiple the public. communication platforms. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Chapter 8: Information and Transparency Regularly report on implementation of TransNet Extension Communications is working on and will complete a Ordinance goals by annually publishing progress on proactive annual plan for publishing progress that will 23. SANDAG’s website, annual report, or other easily visible entail multiple forms of communication pieces on a variety reporting tool. of communication platforms. Staff Lead - Irene McCormack (Communications) Modify staff reports for SANDAG Board and other A comprehensive review of the agenda production oversight committees to summarize elements related to process, including report preparation, is being conducted public input, pros and cons on recommended actions, and based on the Board’s Plan of Excellence to ensure 24. implications or impacts of those recommended actions. transparency and clear, concise, and easily Ensure that staff reports are summarized to one or two understandable information in reports and presentations. pages. Staff Lead - Victoria Stackwick (Government Relations) Better link TransNet funding to project and program SANDAG staff will review existing websites and make activities for general public awareness by implementing recommendations for additional TransNet logo and the following: language placement to create stronger recognition of the a. More prominently featuring the TransNet logo on TransNet Program. Staff also will begin review of partner SANDAG and TransNet partner websites as well as agency websites to see where SANDAG and TransNet through other media such as Facebook and Twitter. logos and corresponding language can be added/enhanced. SANDAG social media posts will 25. reference the use of TransNet funding where appropriate, and #TransNetSD will continue to be used as a way of threading all TransNet-funded program and project posts together. Social media campaigns specific to TransNet- funded efforts and accomplishments will be more regularly pursued. Staff Lead - Joy DeKorte (Communications) b. Revamping SANDAG website to capture documents The sandag.org/TransNet web page will be reviewed and pertinent to TransNet in a centralized area for each recommendations made will include each TransNet TransNet Extension Ordinance component. This component, including the Dashboard. Staff has been includes linking Dashboard projects with those listed in pursuing a complete redesign of sandag.org, expected to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. begin in FY 2019, which is planned to include higher visibility of each TransNet component, including the Dashboard. Additionally, staff will begin a coordinated review of the Dashboard to determine the most effective way to link projects back to the Ordinance. Staff Lead - Joy DeKorte (Communications) Ensure data on completed projects is maintained in the SANDAG will ensure all completed projects are Dashboard—even if under an archived location still maintained in the Dashboard, and that all expenditures 26. accessible to the public—and separate past and future have been associated with the appropriate funding source. expenditures between the original TransNet amounts and Staff Lead - Lamont Dowell (TransNet) the TransNet Extension Ordinance amounts.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 170
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
SJOBERGEVASHENK P a g e | 171
455 Capitol Mall • Suite 700 • Sacramento, California • 95814 • Tel 916.443.1300 • www.secteam.com
AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-7 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: APPROVE
CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY PROJECT: CALIFORNIA File Number 1223054 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXEMPTION
Introduction Recommendation
SANDAG staff has completed preliminary engineering The Transportation Committee is asked design for the Central Avenue Bikeway (Project). The to approve the California Project is covered by California Environmental Quality Environmental Quality Act exemption Act (CEQA) provisions for classes of projects that are for the Central Avenue Bikeway exempt from requirements to prepare environmental (Attachment 1). documents. Attachment 1 includes a detailed description and map of the Project.
Discussion
The Central Avenue Bikeway will improve north-south bicycle connectivity through the City of San Diego neighborhoods of City Heights and Kensington by creating an inviting and convenient bikeway that connects key community destinations including schools, parks, and commercial areas. Of particular note is the direct connectivity of the Project to the State Route 15 (SR 15) Centerline Stations and Rapid service, and the bridge-deck transit centers at University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard. The Central Avenue Bikeway consists of approximately one-mile of bikeway facilities on Terrace Drive, from Adams Avenue to Monroe Avenue, and on Central Avenue, from Monroe Avenue to Landis Street. Proposed project features include a new segment of separated bike path, bike lanes, improved pedestrian crossings, bicycle signals, a new cul-de-sac, and traffic calming features, all of which will create safer biking and walking conditions for people of all ages and abilities, as well as safer roadway conditions for those who drive.
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000-21189) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.) identify classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and declare these classes of projects to be categorically exempt from CEQA requirements to prepare environmental documents (categorical exemptions) and classes of projects that have been granted exemptions from CEQA by the Legislature (statutory exemptions). There are exceptions to using categorical exemptions depending on the nature or location of a project or its environmental impacts, but there are no such exceptions for statutory exemptions. Staff has reviewed these provisions and concluded that the Project is covered by a combination of three CEQA exemptions: two categorical exemptions, “Class 1. Existing Facilities” and “Class 4. Minor Alterations to Land” (CCR Sections 15301[c] and 15304[h]), and one statutory exemption, “Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas” (PRC Section 21080.20.5). The Project’s compliance with these CEQA provisions is summarized below and described in more detail in Attachment 2.
The Class 1 and Class 4 categorical exemptions cover the types of physical improvements included in the Project, including but not limited to alterations to existing city streets, curbs, intersections, and related facilities that result in negligible or no expansion of existing uses and creating new bicycle lanes in existing rights-of-way. Moreover, the Project does not meet any of the exceptions that preclude use of the categorical exemptions provided in CCR Section 15300.2.
The Project also is covered by the statutory exemption because it includes restriping for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area, consistent with the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan. As described below, staff has completed the actions that CEQA requires before the Transportation Committee can consider approving the statutory exemption: (1) prepared an assessment of the Project’s vehicular traffic and bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts (traffic and safety impact assessment); (2) held a noticed public hearing; and (3) heard and responded to public comments.
Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment
As required by PRC Section 21080.20.5(b)(1)(A), staff prepared an assessment of the Project’s traffic and safety impacts. The assessment concludes that the Project would result in two vehicular traffic impacts as defined by City of San Diego Significance Thresholds for Traffic Impacts.
Vehicle operations at the El Cajon Boulevard/SR 15 Northbound Ramps and University Avenue/SR 15 Northbound Ramps will already operate at unacceptable levels without the project, but the project would increase vehicle delays at the intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This is primarily due to the prohibitions of the northbound right-turn movement. However, given the good operations for the northbound off-ramp approach, a feasible mitigation is recommended to optimize the signal timings such that more green-light time is allocated to the arterials (i.e., El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue). SANDAG would need to coordinate with Caltrans to implement this mitigation.
The assessment also concludes that the Project would not have any negative bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts. The assessment was published on February 9, 2018, along with notice of the Project’s public hearing.
Public Hearing
As required by PRC Section 21080.20.5(b)(2), a noticed public hearing was held on February 26, 2018, to hear public comments on the Project. The hearing was held two blocks from the Project area at the Kassab Family Community Theater at Cherokee Point Elementary School in the San Diego neighborhood of Cherokee Point. Nineteen people attended the open house and public hearing.
2 PublicComments
A total of 12 individuals or organizations provided comments on the Project. Verbal and written comments were provided and accepted at the open house and public hearing on February 26, 2018. No comments were submitted to staff via letter or email.
Most of the comments received expressed support for the Project. Specific concerns regarding the Project related mostly to on-street parking. Staff organized all comments received according to common themes and provided a written response to each common theme.
Copies of all written comments, emails, and court reporter-prepared transcripts of the verbal comments are provided in Appendix A of Attachment 4.
Public Outreach
In addition to the February 26, 2018, open house and public hearing, for which over 1,000 door hanger invitations were distributed, public outreach and community involvement have occurred throughout the planning and development of the Project. The Central Avenue Bikeway Project is one of several segments originally included in the North Park | Mid-City Bikeways. Since the North Park | Mid-City Bikeways planning process began in 2013, several community meetings were held and several presentations were made to community groups. Over the last year, presentations of the Project have been made to the following community groups: Normal Heights Community Planning Group, Kensington Talmadge Planning Group, City Heights Area Planning Committee, and the Teralta West Neighborhood Association. In addition, pop-up community meetings were held at the Kensington Library, Teralta Park, and at the home of a resident of the 4300 block of Central Avenue.
Throughout the process, the Project website has been kept up-to-date to inform interested persons about the Project.
Next Steps
Pending approval of the CEQA exemption, staff would move forward with final design and construction of the Project, which is expected to be ready to advertise for construction in summer 2019, with construction expected to begin in fall 2019, and the bikeway anticipated to be open to the public in late summer 2020.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Project Description for the Central Avenue Bikeway 2. Notice of Exemption for the Central Avenue Bikeway 3. Central Avenue Bikeway - Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment, February 2018 4. Responses to Comments on the Central Avenue Bikeway
Key Staff Contact: Chris Carterette (619) 699-7319, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1
Central Avenue Bikeway
Project Description
The Central Avenue Bikeway will improve north-south bicycle travel through the City of San Diego neighborhoods of Kensington and City Heights by creating inviting and convenient bikeways that connect key community destinations, including schools, parks, transit stops, and commercial areas. The Central Avenue Bikeway comprises the following street segments:
• Terrace Drive from Monroe Avenue to Adams Avenue • Central Avenue from Landis Street to Monroe Avenue
The Central Avenue Bikeway alignment is depicted in Figure 1, shows the proposed project facility type and improvements on the study corridor. The conceptual layout plans of the proposed bikeway and improvements are provided in Appendix A of the Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment. The following description is based on the proposed project’s current level of design and will be finalized during the final engineering design phase before construction.
Terrace Drive between Adams Avenue and Monroe Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the same basic existing configuration of a single vehicle travel lane in each direction and will replace existing single shared lane markings with enhanced, larger Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings. Parking will be maintained along both sides of the road. At the terminus of Terrace Drive, south of Adams Avenue, where bike traffic currently connects through a parking lot and via Adams Avenue to the Caltrans State Route 15 (SR 15) bikeway, a separate two-way bike path will be constructed in the undeveloped space, owned by the City of San Diego and Caltrans, between the parking lot and the SR 15 Northbound exit ramp. This path will completely remove the need for bicycle travel through the parking lot. A striped, green bike crossing will be installed across the east leg of Adams Avenue/SR 15 Northbound Ramp intersection adjacent to the existing pedestrian crosswalk to connect to the SR 15 Commuter Bikeway. In addition, a blank- out “No-Right-Turn-On-Red” sign with bike signals will be installed that will be activated when pedestrians or bicycles are present to eliminate vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts at this location.
Central Avenue between Monroe Avenue and Meade Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the same basic existing configuration of a single travel lane in each direction and will replace existing single shared lane markings with enhanced, larger Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings. Parking will be maintained along both sides of the road.
Central Avenue between Meade Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard
Three options are being considered between El Cajon Boulevard and Meade Avenue:
Option A will close access to Central Avenue at El Cajon Boulevard via a cul-de-sac or stub-out with mountable curbs treatment; thus, vehicles will no longer be able to directly access Central Avenue from El Cajon Boulevard or the SR 15 Northbound off-ramp. The segment of Central Avenue between El Cajon Boulevard and Meade Avenue will be converted in a two-way roadway, with one lane in
4 each direction, and installed shared lane markings. Parking will be removed from the east side adjacent to the residences, but parking along the west side will remain.
Option B will maintain access from El Cajon Boulevard, although the through option from the SR 15 Northbound Ramp will be removed via restriping and installation of "No Through Movement” signs. A southbound bike lane will be provided on the west side of Central Avenue, with a speed table providing crossing for southbound bicycle traffic just north of the El Cajon Boulevard signal, and a two-way raised bikeway is provided along the east side of Central Avenue between the speed table and the signal.
Option C will apply the same cul-de-sac treatment to Central Avenue as Option A, with the difference that parking will be removed along the west side, but the east side parking spaces adjacent to the residences will remain.
In all Options, a striped, green bike crossing will be installed across the east leg of the El Cajon Boulevard/SR 15 Northbound Ramp intersection adjacent to the existing pedestrian crosswalk. In addition, a blank-out “No-Right-Turn-On-Red” sign with bike signals will be installed that will be activated when pedestrians or bicycles are present to eliminate vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts and the multiple-turn threat at this location.
Central Avenue between El Cajon Boulevard and Landis Street
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the same basic existing configuration of a single vehicle travel lane in each direction and, in the southbound direction, will replace existing standard shared lane markings (sharrows) with enhanced Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings. Additionally, the northbound segment from Landis Street to Wightman Street will be upgraded to a bike lane. Parking will be maintained along both sides of the road throughout this segment where currently permitted. At the Orange Avenue/Central Avenue intersection, the project will install a pedestrian activated warning beacon on the west leg of the intersection on Orange Avenue with a striped crosswalk and refuge island median. A striped crosswalk will be installed on all legs, except the east leg, on this intersection. Lastly, a striped, green bike crossing will be installed across the east leg of the University Avenue/SR 15 Northbound Ramp intersection adjacent to the existing pedestrian crosswalk. In addition, a blank-out “No-Right-Turn-On-Red” sign with bike signals will be installed that will be activated when pedestrians or bicycles are present to eliminate vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts and the multiple-turn threat at this location.
Other Physical Improvements
In general, other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include curb ramps; pedestrian refuge islands; new or modifications to existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and drainage inlets; colored concrete and/or colored pavement; separated concrete or asphalt bike path; intersection crossing (or “conflict”) markings; shared lane, bike lane, or bike box pavement markings; re-striping of travel lanes; new signage; new or modifications to existing traffic signals; new trees, landscaping, and irrigation; landscaping or other measures to treat storm water; relocation of existing underground and aboveground utilities; street lighting; and similar minor physical improvements.
5 Figure 1. Central Avenue Bikeway
THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS MAP ARE NOT FINAL AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
6 Attachment 2 Notice of Exemption
To: From:
Office of Planning and Research San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 401 B Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 San Diego, CA 92101
County Clerk County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92101
Project Title: Central Avenue Bikeway (“proposed project”).
Project Location: City of San Diego, San Diego County.
Description of Specific Location, Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: The proposed project would create a 1.1-mile bikeway along Central Avenue and Terrace Drive between Adams Avenue and Landis Street. The proposed project will improve north-south connectivity for people who bike and walk within San Diego’s Kensington and City Heights communities. The proposed project would also provide bikeway connections to the Mission Valley community via the SR 15 Commuter Bikeway. Additionally, the proposed project would intersect with three corridors of the planned North Park | Mid-City Bikeways project (Georgia-Meade, Howard-Orange, and Landis bikeways), improving access for people riding bikes in the North Park, Hillcrest, Mid-City, and College Area communities. Proposed project features include enhanced shared lane markings, bike lanes, bike boxes, green bike crossings at the SR-15 Northbound Ramp intersections, No-Right-Turn-On-Red signs at the SR-15 Northbound Ramp intersections, roadway closure via a cul-de-sac or stub-out, striped crosswalk with refuge island median, and striped crosswalks, all of which support safer biking and walking conditions for people of all ages and abilities.
The proposed project would help fulfill the vision laid out in Riding to 2050, the San Diego Regional Bike Plan (May 2010) to make riding a bike a more convenient and safer choice for everyday travel. The proposed project is part of the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (Bike EAP), a 10-year effort to expand the regional bike network and complete high-priority bikeway projects approved in Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan (Bike Plan). The Bike Plan and Bike EAP are part of the region’s efforts to make riding a bike a viable, attractive choice for everyday trips.
The objective of the proposed project is to create safe and convenient multi-modal connections between the Kensington and City Heights neighborhoods, as well as connections to adjacent communities, improve safety for all users, and create vital links to the larger bikeway network being built throughout the region. By supporting bike riding as a viable choice for everyday trips, the proposed project would support local, regional, and state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions through reductions in vehicle miles traveled. A description of the proposed project is provided below
Terrace Drive between Adams Avenue and Monroe Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the same basic existing configuration of a single vehicle travel lane in each direction and will replace existing single shared lane markings with enhanced, larger Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings. Parking will be maintained along both sides of the road. At the terminus of Terrace Drive, south of Adams Avenue, where bike traffic currently connects through a parking lot and via Adams Avenue to the Caltrans SR 15 bikeway, a separate two-way bike path will be constructed in the undeveloped space, owned by the City of San Diego and Caltrans, between the parking lot and the SR-15 Northbound exit ramp. This path will completely remove the need for bicycle travel through the parking lot. A striped, green bike crossing will be installed across the east leg of Adams Avenue/SR-15 Northbound Ramp intersection adjacent to the existing pedestrian crosswalk to connect to the SR-15 Commuter Bikeway. In addition, a blank-out “No-Right-Turn-On-Red” sign
7 Notice of Exemption
with bike signals will be installed that will be activated when pedestrians or bicycles are present to eliminate vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts at this location.
Central Avenue between Monroe Avenue and Meade Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the same basic existing configuration of a single travel lane in each direction and will replace existing single shared lane markings with enhanced, larger Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings. Parking will be maintained along both sides of the road.
Central Avenue between Meade Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard Three options are being considered between El Cajon Boulevard and Meade Avenue:
• Option A will close access to Central Avenue at El Cajon Boulevard via a cul-de-sac or stub-out with mountable curbs treatment; thus, vehicles will no longer be able to directly access Central Avenue from El Cajon Boulevard or the SR-15 Northbound off-ramp. The segment of Central Avenue between El Cajon Boulevard and Meade Avenue will be converted in a two-way roadway, with one lane in each direction, and installed shared lane markings. Parking will be removed from the east side adjacent to the residences, but parking along the west side will remain. • Option B will maintain access from El Cajon Boulevard, although the through option from the SR- 15 Northbound Ramp will be removed via restriping and installation of "No Through Movement” signs. A southbound bike lane will be provided on the west side of Central Avenue, with a speed table providing crossing for southbound bicycle traffic just north of the El Cajon Boulevard signal, and a two-way raised bikeway is provided along the east side of Central Avenue between the speed table and the signal. • Option C will apply the same cul-de-sac treatment to Central Avenue as Option A, with the difference that parking will be removed along the west side, but the east side parking spaces adjacent to the residences will remain.
In all Options, a striped, green bike crossing will be installed across the east leg of the El Cajon Boulevard/SR-15 Northbound Ramp intersection adjacent to the existing pedestrian crosswalk. In addition, a blank-out “No-Right- Turn-On-Red” sign with bike signals will be installed that will be activated when pedestrians or bicycles are present to eliminate vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts and the multiple-turn threat at this location.
Central Avenue between El Cajon Boulevard and Landis Street
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the same basic existing configuration of a single vehicle travel lane in each direction and, in the southbound direction, will replace existing standard shared lane markings (sharrows) with enhanced Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings. Additionally, the northbound segment from Landis Street to Wightman Street will be upgraded to a bike lane. Parking will be maintained along both sides of the road throughout this segment where currently permitted. At the Orange Avenue/Central Avenue intersection, the project will install a pedestrian activated warning beacon on the west leg of the intersection on Orange Avenue with a striped crosswalk and refuge island median. A striped crosswalk will be installed on all legs, except the east leg, on this intersection. Lastly, a striped, green bike crossing will be installed across the east leg of the University Avenue/SR-15 Northbound Ramp intersection adjacent to the existing pedestrian crosswalk. In addition, a blank- out “No-Right-Turn-On-Red” sign with bike signals will be installed that will be activated when pedestrians or bicycles are present to eliminate vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts and the multiple-turn threat at this location.
Other Physical Improvements:
In general, other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include curb ramps; pedestrian refuge islands; new or modifications to existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and drainage inlets; colored concrete and/or colored pavement; separated concrete or asphalt bike path; intersection crossing (or
8 Notice of Exemption
“conflict”) markings; shared lane, bike lane, or bike box pavement markings; re-striping of travel lanes; new signage; new or modifications to existing traffic signals; new trees, landscaping, and irrigation; landscaping or other measures to treat storm water; relocation of existing underground and aboveground utilities; street lighting; and similar minor physical improvements.
Name of Public Agency Approving and Carrying out Project: San Diego Association of Governments
Exempt Status:
☒ Statutory Exemption. State code number: 21080.20.5 ☒ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15301(c); 15304(h)
Reasons why project is exempt:
The attached table explains the reasons why the proposed project is exempt from CEQA.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone:
Signature: ______Date: ______Title: ______
☒ Signed by Lead Agency
9 Notice of Exemption
Central Avenue Bikeway
Reasons Why Exempt from CEQA
The table below explains the reasons why the proposed project qualifies for a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20.5, and Categorical Exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(c) and 15304(h).
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
Statutory Exemption, Section 21080.20.5 Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas (a) This division does not apply to a project that consists of As explained below, the proposed project is consistent with the City of San Diego’s the restriping of streets and highways for bicycle lanes Bicycle Master Plan (“City’s Bike Plan”) (City of San Diego 2013), which meets in an urbanized area that is consistent with a bicycle the requirements of a bicycle transportation plan set forth in Section 891.2 of the transportation plan prepared pursuant to Sec. 891.2 of Streets and Highways Code. The proposed project would provide enhanced shared the Streets and Highways Code. lane markings, bike lanes, bike boxes, green bike crossings, no-right-turn-on-red signs, striped crosswalks, and a roadway closure via a cul-de-sac or stub-out. These improvements are consistent with and enhance the proposed Class 3 Bike Route classification in the City’s Bike Plan (Figure 6.2 (page 98); Table 3-1 (page 19).
While some of the facility types proposed by the project are not identical to those identified in the City’s Bike Plan, the proposed project is consistent because it proposes bikeways and improvements that provide equal or enhanced levels of service (perceived and actual safety, comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness to people on bikes) compared to those facilities identified in the City’s Bike Plan. In addition, Section 6.1.2 of the City’s Bike Plan (page 94) explains that its proposed bikeway classifications are expected to be used as a guide and may change at project implementation. (b) Prior to determining that a project is exempt pursuant Please see the following cells for explanation of how the proposed project meets to this section, the lead agency shall do both of the both of the following requirements. following:
10 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
(1) (A) Prepare an assessment of any traffic and safety SANDAG has prepared an assessment of the proposed project’s traffic and safety impacts of the project and include measures in impacts, which concludes that the proposed project would result in two vehicular the project to mitigate potential vehicular traffic impacts as defined by the City of San Diego Significance Thresholds for traffic impacts and bicycle and pedestrian Traffic Impacts. The assessment also concludes that the proposed project would not safety impacts. result in any adverse bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts. The assessment was published by SANDAG on February 9th, 2018. (B) The requirement to prepare an assessment Subparagraphs (B)(i) and (ii) do not apply to the proposed project and therefore pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall not apply if SANDAG has prepared an assessment as required by subparagraph (1)(A) above. either of the following conditions is met: (i) Measures to mitigate these impacts are identified in an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration prepared pursuant to this division for the bicycle transportation plan, certified or approved no more than five years prior to making the determination, the measures are included in the plan, and those measures are incorporated into the project. (ii) An assessment was prepared pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Sec. 21080.20 no more than five years prior to making the determination, the measures to mitigate these impacts are included in the plan, and those measures are incorporated into the project. (2) Hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by SANDAG held a noticed public hearing at the Cherokee Point Elementary School the project to hear and respond to public comments. on February 26th, 2018. SANDAG received public comments at the public hearing Publication of the notice shall be no fewer times and has prepared written responses to public comments. Notice of the public hearing than required by Sec. 6061 of the Government was published in both English and Spanish. The English and Spanish versions were Code, by the public agency in a newspaper of both published on February 9th, 2018, in the San Diego Union Tribune and El Latino general circulation in the area affected by the newspapers, respectively. proposed project. If more than one area will be
11 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
(c) (1) If a state agency determines that a project is not This subparagraph does not apply to the proposed project because SANDAG is not subject to this division pursuant to this section, and a state agency. it determines to approve or carry out that project, the notice shall be filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Sec. 21108. (2) If a local agency determines that a project is not If the SANDAG Board of Directors approves adoption of this exemption for the subject to this division pursuant to this section, and proposed project, then SANDAG shall file notices with the Office of Planning and it determines to approve or carry out that project, Research and the Clerk of San Diego County as specified in subdivisions (b) and the notice shall be filed with the OPR, and filed (c) of Section 21152. with the county clerk in the county in which the project is located in the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Sec. 21152. (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, The SANDAG Transportation Committee will be asked to consider approving this 2021, and as of that date is repealed. exemption on April 20, 2018. Categorical Exemption, Section 15301(c) 15301. Existing Facilities The proposed project qualifies for this exemption because it consists of minor Class I consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, alterations to existing City streets, including vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of curbs, gutters, crosswalks, parking stalls, and similar facilities. The proposed existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical project would make improvements to and repurpose space within existing City equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible streets, and there would be negligible or no expansion of existing streets. The types or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of of minor alterations to existing City streets proposed by the project that fall under the lead agency’s determination. The types of “existing this exemption include but are not limited to: facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all- • inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class II bike lanes that are separated from vehicle traffic with a painted stripe. Class I. The key consideration is whether the project • Class III shared lane markings consisting of signage and painted shared lane involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. markings (i.e., sharrows), or enhanced Bicycle Boulevard shared lane markings, indicating that lanes are to be shared by vehicles and people on bikes.
12 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
(c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities • In general, other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include curb ramps; pedestrian refuge islands; new or modifications to existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and drainage inlets; colored concrete and/or colored pavement; separated concrete or asphalt bike path; intersection crossing (or “conflict”) markings; shared lane, bike lane, or bike box pavement markings; re-striping of travel lanes; new signage; new or modifications to existing traffic signals; new trees, landscaping, and irrigation; landscaping or other measures to treat storm water; relocation of existing underground and aboveground utilities; street lighting; and similar minor physical improvements that involve negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Categorical Exemption, Section 15304(h) 15304. Minor Alterations to Land The proposed project qualifies for this exemption because it involves the creation Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the of bicycle facilities within existing right-of-way, including Class II bike lanes, and condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not Class III shared lane markings, and Class IV separated bike lanes. The proposed involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for project may involve the removal of existing trees, but it does not involve removal forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are of any trees that are considered scenic resources, part of scenic views or vistas, or not limited to: otherwise considered scenic by any adopted plan, policy, or regulation. (h) The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Exceptions to Use of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15300.2 (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by The proposed project does not meet any of these criteria that would preclude use of consideration of where the project is to be located -- a the above-listed categorical exemptions from CEQA (i.e., Sec. 15301(c) and project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the 15304(h). The proposed project and its environmental effects would be typical of environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be other projects within Class 1 and Class 4. The types of construction equipment and significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply duration of construction activity required to construct the proposed project, the all instances, except where the project may impact on an operation of the proposed project, and the resulting environmental effects (e.g., environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern temporary increases in noise levels, air emissions) would be typical of other projects where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted in Class 1 involving minor alterations to existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. and pedestrian trails, and other facilities, and other projects in Class 4 involving the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Similar to the proposed project,
13 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are other projects in Class 1 and Class 4 involve removal of existing center turn lanes. inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive From a review of existing physical conditions in the project area, construction and projects of the same type in the same place, over time is operation of the proposed project would: significant. • Not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources within a scenic (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be highway. used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility • that the activity will have a significant effect on the Not be located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Government environment due to unusual circumstances. Code Section 65962.5 or otherwise have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be • Not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resource. resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic • Not have a reasonable possibility of causing a significant effect on the buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a environment due to unusual circumstances, or contribute to cumulative impacts highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, including This does not apply to improvements which are required as effects related to: mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. scenic vistas, visual character, and light or glare; o natural resources including agricultural, archaeological, biological, (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall o forestry, mineral, paleontological, and water supply resources; not be used for a project located on a site which is included air and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, noise, and on any list compiled pursuant to Sec. 65962.5 of the o vibration; Government Code. o earthquakes, soil erosion, or other geologic conditions; (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not o transport, use, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials; be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse o hazards related to airports, wildfires, or flooding; change in the significance of a historical resource. o adopted land use plan, policy, or regulatory conflicts o growth inducement, housing displacement, or physically dividing a community; o public services, facilities, or utilities including parks, stormwater, water supply, wastewater, landfills, schools, libraries, police and fire protection o performance or safety of the transportation system, including for vehicles, public transit, people walking and on bikes, and emergency access.
14 Attachment 3
Item 7 – Attachment 3: Central Avenue Bikeway - Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment, February 2018
The full document in electronic format can be downloaded at http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Libraries/Bike_Projects/Central_Avenue_Bikeway_TSIA_Feb_2 018.sflb.ashx
A reference copy will be available at the meeting. For a hard copy, please contact the Public Information Office at (619) 699-1950 or [email protected].
15 Attachment 4
Responses to Comments on the Central Avenue Bikeway
SANDAG held an open house and public hearing for the Central Avenue Bikeway (proposed project) on February 26, 2018, from 6 to 8 p.m., at Kassab Family Community Theater on the campus of Cherokee Point Elementary School. On February 9, 2018, SANDAG published a notice of the open house and public hearing and made available online the proposed project’s Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment.
A total of 12 individuals or organizations provided comments on the proposed project in writing and verbally at the open house and public hearing on February 26, 2018 (Table 1)., Table 1 provides a list of all comments received, including the name of each individual or organization that submitted a comment, the date of the comment, and how the comment was submitted (i.e., written, verbal, email). All written and transcribed verbal comments are included as Appendix A. Table 1 List of Comments on the Central Avenue Bikeway
Public Public Individual or Organization Comment Date Hearing- Hearing- Email Written Verbal
Jim Baross, Normal Heights 2/26/2018 x x Community Planning Group
Adam Denbry 2/26/2018 x
Andy Hanshaw, San Diego 2/26/2018 x County Bicycle Coalition
Sean Harrison, Kensington 2/26/2018 x x Talmadge Planning Group
Paul Jamason, Bike SD 2/26/2018 x
Ryan Jones 2/26/2018 x
Jeff Kucharski 2/26/2018 x
Margaret Loose 2/26/2018 x
Karen Manley 2/26/2018 x
Nicholaus Norvell 2/26/2018 x
Jake Serbel 2/26/2018 x
Randy Van Vleck, City Heights CDC, City Heights Area Planning 2/26/2018 x x Committee
16 The concerns and feedback expressed in the comments fall into common themes. Staff has organized the comments according to these common themes, listed below, and provided a written master response to each:
• Master Response 1: Overarching Project Design Concepts and Specific Project Features • Master Response 2: Project History • Master Response 3: On-Street Parking
Master Response 1: Overarching Project Design Concepts and Specific Project Features
Introduction
Commenters expressed support and acknowledged the need for various overarching project design concepts, treatments, or features intended to be included in the proposed project. Below is a listing of project concepts, treatments, or features mentioned in the comments, followed by a staff response.
Response
Connections with future bike projects
Numerous commenters expressed satisfaction with, and emphasized the importance of, the connectivity of the proposed project with existing and future bicycle projects in the area.
Response:
SANDAG understands the importance of network connectivity and has designed the Central Avenue Bikeway to enhance connectivity to existing and future bikeway projects (e.g., at the State Route 15 (SR 15) Commuter Bikeway, Orange Avenue, Meade Avenue and Landis Street – by way of neighborhood traffic circles and other intersection enhancements).
Reduced crossing distances, Bike signals and No Right Turn on Red signs at Adams Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard, and University Avenue
Several commenters emphasized the importance of, and support for, enhancements for non- motorized users’ safety at the major intersections, such as no right turn on red signs, bike signals, and reduced crossing distances.
Response:
The project design team will strive to have these features approved and permitted for construction in the final design of the project.
Closure to through traffic of the 4300 Block of Central Avenue at El Cajon Boulevard and Cul de Sac
Numerous commenters expressed support for the closure of the 4300 Block of Central Avenue at El Cajon Boulevard in order to allow two-way traffic (the street is currently one-way, northbound) and eliminate the cut-through traffic from the northbound SR 15 freeway off-ramp, and from
17 El Cajon Boulevard. It was requested that this be accomplished with either a stub out of the street, or the smallest possible cul-de-sac permitted by the City of San Diego.
Response:
The project design team is working with several city departments to accomplish the street closure with the smallest possible cul de sac, or a simple stub out of the street.
Uphill Bike Lane in segment between Landis and Wightman Streets
One commenter expressed support for the bike lane on the uphill (northbound) side of the Central Avenue between Landis and Wightman Streets.
Response:
The project design team will strive to have this and all other enhancements to safety for all roadway users included in the final design.
Safe routes for biking in the neighborhood and to schools
Some commenters discussed the enhancements they envision the proposed project bringing, in terms of improving the safety of biking and walking in the neighborhood, and in biking and walking to schools in the project vicinity.
Response:
The project design and route is intended to enhance neighborhood traffic safety, for all types of users, and make it more attractive and compelling to travel for everyday trips, such as going to the library, store, school, or work by bike or on foot.
The project fits with transit enhancements and supports the City of San Diego’s Vision Zero initiative and Climate Action Plan
Response:
The proposed project supports transit enhancements, especially those associated with the University and El Cajon Transit Centers and the SR 15 Centerline Rapid project. The project will contribute to increased safety for people walking and riding bikes, and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing a viable alternative to single-occupant motor vehicle use, both factors supporting efforts by the region and the City of San Diego to implement the Vision Zero initiative and Climate Action Plan.
Master Response 2: Project History
Introduction
The Central Avenue Bikeway represents part of an overall package of community enhancements intended to be implemented along with the construction of the SR 15 Freeway through City Heights and Kensington.
18 The Central Avenue Bikeway is an SR 15 associated legacy project.
Several commenters referenced the history of the SR 15 freeway planning and construction, and that biking and walking enhancements have been slated for the freeway project area for more than 30 years. To those commenters, the implementation of the Central Avenue Bikeway is representative of promises relating to the freeway construction being kept.
Master Response 3: On-street Parking
Introduction
One commenter expressed concern with removal of on-street parking on one side of the 4300 block of Central Avenue as part of the proposed project. They stated that if the spots are not replaced elsewhere, then they are not in favor of the project.
Response
The proposed project, if completed with a new street closure at El Cajon Boulevard and Central Avenue, will cause the removal of existing on-street parking spaces on one side of the 4300 block of Central Avenue, which is currently one-way, northbound. The design team has participated in neighborhood meetings with residents of the 4300 block of Central Avenue and learned of their support for the project, including the associated parking removal. The support for the project, despite the parking removal, is due to the residents’ desire to have the frequent and often high-speed cut through traffic from SR 15’s northbound off-ramp and El Cajon Boulevard eliminated by the street closure. It is the closure of the block at the south end that requires the parking to be removed from one side, in order to allow the street to become two-way for motor vehicles and bikes.
19 This Relates to Agenda Item No. 7, Attachment 4 Transportation Committee April 20, 2018
20 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
PUBLIC HEARING: CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
HELD AT: CHEROKEE POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BY: SANDAG
Transcribed by: Rosalie A. Kramm, CA CSR No. 5469
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 21 Page: 1 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 FEBRUARY 26, 2018 MONDAY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 2 MR. SINNOTT: Good evening, Everybody. Thank 3 you for coming. My name is Terry Sinnott. I'm a 4 Councilman from the City of Del Mar and currently the 5 Chair of the SANDAG Board. It is my honor to be your 6 Public Hearing Officer for this public hearing on the 7 Central Avenue Bikeway. 8 Let me describe a little bit about how we're 9 going to proceed. The intent of this evening is to hold 10 a public hearing in compliance with the State 11 Environmental Law known as CEQA, or the California 12 Environmental Quality Act. 13 Many of you are probably familiar with it. 14 Staff's review of this project indicates it may 15 qualify as an exempt project under CEQA. Holding a 16 public hearing and preparing the traffic and safety 17 impact assessment are required before SANDAG can consider 18 approving a project as an exempt project from CEQA. I 19 think you saw some of the results of our study on the 20 easels. 21 Our transportation committee is anticipated to 22 consider whether the project is exempt from CEQA at its 23 April 20th meeting. If you are interested in providing 24 any comments regarding what you think this project -- if 25 there are any issues, concerns, comments, this is what
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 22 Page: 2 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 we're trying to do, is to capture those comments tonight. 2 If you are interested in providing spoken 3 comments this evening, what we would like you to do is 4 fill out one of these speaker slips, which I think are 5 either passed around or in the back. If you are 6 interested in providing comments, written comments, there 7 is a comment table at the back where you can write out 8 your comments about the project, and we'll capture those 9 as well. 10 And we have different interpreters who can 11 interpret if that is needed, also. 12 What we're hoping to do tonight is provide an 13 opportunity for you to speak about the project. That 14 would be comments, what you like, what you may have 15 concerns about, or anything that you think could make the 16 project better. 17 So we're not really prepared to respond 18 directly to your questions at this time, except I saw an 19 awful lot of discussion in the back when you were talking 20 to our project folks, and hopefully you got some of your 21 questions answered. 22 But we will respond to these comments. We will 23 first of all record them. They will become part of the 24 record, and the responses will be documented when this is 25 presented to the transportation committee.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 23 Page: 3 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 There is a timer on the table. We think we may 2 not need it, but we would like you to limit your comments 3 to two to three minutes, so we can get everybody's in. 4 If you would prefer -- I already talked about written 5 comments. You can do that as well. 6 We also have a court reporter who is recording 7 your information, and if you would like to speak with her 8 after the session, you can do that, as well. 9 As I mentioned, written, spoken comments will 10 be collected at tonight's open house as well as written 11 responses. Those comments will be provided to our 12 transportation committee for their consideration when 13 they take action related to the CEQA compliance. 14 So that is kind of what we're about. 15 I will, then, begin calling people up. If you 16 can come on up, grab the microphone, and give us your 17 thoughts, and we'll get started. 18 Did I cover everything, guys, in the back? 19 Our first speaker is Sean Harrison. Give us 20 your name. There is a microphone. 21 MR. HARRISON: My name is is Sean Harrison. I 22 live in Kensington. I'm also the subcommittee chair for 23 the transportation subcommittee for the Talmadge Plan 24 Group. I've heard the presentation and several of the 25 design options and the current design option numerous
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 24 Page: 4 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 times. I've been to several stakeholder meetings in 2 regards to this. I've met with the residents along 3 Central Avenue, all the various stakeholders on several 4 occasions. I just want everybody to know we voted 5 unanimously for this project in its current design, and 6 we're here to support it. That's it. 7 MR. SINNOTT: Very good. Thank you very much. 8 I appreciate it. 9 Is Paul Jamason here? 10 MR. JAMASON: Yes. Hi. I'm Paul Jamason. I'm 11 a volunteer board member for Bike San Diego, and I also 12 live in Kensington. . I also bike on 13 this route sometimes when I take the -- one of the two 14 rapid bus lines, either on El Cajon Boulevard or I-15. 15 And right now I have to bike the wrong way down the 16 streets, which is not good. I don't want to break the 17 rules or law, but it is not safe for me to bike on 18 El Cajon Boulevard. So to get to the bus stop, I bike 19 down, and if I see a car coming, I get on the sidewalk 20 and walk it. We have spent a lot of time both on the 21 centerline stations. I went to the grand opening this 22 weekend to for those and saw the El Cajon Rapid Bus, 23 another 44 million. So I think it makes sense. We have 24 made all these huge investments. Now, we have to get to 25 these things safely. I walk or bike there.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 25 Page: 5 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 This is one way to do it in a safer way with 2 this bikeway. 3 Also, this area is slated for a lot more 4 density, which I support. We have a huge housing crisis 5 here, and to say everyone has to drive everywhere, that 6 is not going to work. We'll pack a lot more people in. 7 We need to give people choices on how to get around. I 8 walk and bike in the neighborhood as much as I can to 9 reduce the traffic impact. It is not safe to do so on 10 the cul de sac on Central Avenue. I think it would be 11 great if they can put it in. 12 You've got the freeway traffic and then it is a 13 double indignity that these folks have to cut through all 14 the cut-through traffic, over a thousand cars a day. You 15 have the freeway noise and the cut-through traffic. I 16 think a cul de sac would be great. Make it smaller so 17 you still have development on that site with the 18 housings. 19 Real quick, Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan 20 both call for safe routes like these. We need a 21 connecting bike network. We need to connect. The new 22 Bike Share Plan, a lot more people are biking with a bike 23 share. I used it this weekend. It is awesome. I don't 24 have to worry about getting my bike stolen again. I 25 support this project. Thank you.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 26 Page: 6 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 MR. SINNOTT: Andy Hanshaw. 2 MR. HANSHAW: Good evening, I'm Andy Hanshaw 3 with the San Diego County Bike Commission voicing our 4 strong support for this Central Avenue Bikeway. Lots of 5 great input from the community, and lots of good support 6 for it. We support safe and connected bikeways. 7 In this case it is connecting communities, it 8 is connecting schools, it is connecting parks, and it is 9 connecting transit, all in a safer, calmer manner, and 10 all those ways to get more people biking and encourage, 11 as Paul said, in compliance with our Climate Action Plan, 12 Vision Zero, things that are very important to getting 13 more people on bikes and creating a safer environment. 14 So particularly I like the connection to the 15 SR-15 community bikeway so you can continue to go south 16 down to City Heights and make it a safer bikeway. And 17 then the east-west crossing, the other bikeways, excite 18 me, Orange, and Landis, that this kind of -- this is the 19 spine to that. It all just makes perfect sense to 20 connect in a safe manner to all these different bikeways. 21 We are building out a network here, all throughout the 22 region, and that is what is really important. We are 23 giving people transportation choices by connecting 24 networks of bikeways. This is what we want to see all 25 around. We strongly support it. Thank you.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 27 Page: 7 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you. 2 Randy Van Vleck? 3 MR. VAN VLECK: Thank you for your time 4 tonight. My name is Randy Van Vleck. I'm the 5 Transportation and Planning Manager for the City Heights 6 Community Development Corporation. Since 1981 when the 7 organization was founded, advocating for the walking, 8 biking transit amenities along the SR-15 has been one of 9 our legacy projects. 10 So given that, the past year has been big. We 11 celebrated the opening of SR-15 commuter bike lanes, a 12 $16 million investment; the centerline station 13 celebration last weekend was huge. And those are unique 14 investments in our community that we really want to 15 leverage. 16 Further down south along the SR-15 corridor, we 17 have Park De La Cruz down here with the new skate park. 18 All of those projects are part of the State 19 Route 15 planning process, and they are all called out in 20 a Memorandum of Understanding from 1983, and including 21 the centralized bikeway, which we really want to see as 22 one of the last pieces, infrastructure pieces of those 23 promises made over 25 years ago. 24 So it is really key that we move this project 25 forward. We are really excited to see it move forward.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 28 Page: 8 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 We support the staff recommendation. We have 2 been participating throughout the process. We really 3 want to have a project that is really going to create the 4 safe streets that our community needs and deserves. 5 We know that City Heights has an inexplicable 6 amount of traffic crashes compared to other communities. 7 In the last -- we did a study called the City Heights 8 School Report and found in a span of four years 114 kids 9 were hit by cars while walking in school zones. That is 10 just the tip of the iceberg. That is just the reported 11 crashes. 12 Getting those complete paths that we need and 13 deserve is really key. We hope to see the project move 14 forward as soon as possible. We appreciate the 2019 15 construction date. Let's stick to that. We have worked 16 for this for a long time, from 1978 to 2018. City 17 Heights and Mid-City residents have been working on the 18 SR-15. That is too long. Sorry. Let's stick to the 19 construction date of 2019. 20 And then we -- in regards to the design, we are 21 supportive of all the design elements. 22 One of the big questions seems to be the cul de 23 sac on Central Avenue just north of El Cajon Boulevard. 24 We want to see the smallest cul de sac possible there. 25 The current cul de sacs are huge. I saw an elderly man
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 29 Page: 9 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 after the celebration, he went straight across which is 2 what I do, and he had to stand there and wait for the 3 right opportunity to cross. So let's get a small cul de 4 sac, land is scarce, especially in Mid-City. Let's not 5 have it be asphalt sitting there all day. We hope they 6 have the smallest cul de sac possible in that area and 7 allow the walking distance to the Boulevard Transit Plaza 8 to be reduced. 9 Thank you very much. 10 MR. SINNOTT: Adam Denbry. 11 MR. DENBRY: Adam Denbry. I'm here from Normal 12 Heights. I live on . I rode to the event for 13 the opening of the bus line this weekend, too, and I had 14 never ridden down there before, and this plan addresses 15 the problem I had crossing El Cajon Boulevard from 16 Central. So that's really wonderful to see. 17 It looks like this plan connects perfectly with 18 the plans we've been shown in the Normal Heights 19 Community Planning Group, the Georgia and Meade bike 20 path. So I'm excited to see a project that we've spent a 21 couple of years looking at details about get continued 22 and branch into other communities that I don't have the 23 access to by bike that I would like to have right now. 24 And, I mean, I support everything, you know, 25 all the historic stuff that everybody else has said. I
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 30 Page: 10 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 don't want to repeat it. 2 But I did come across a City of San Diego 1980, 3 '81 budget recently, and in that budget is a 4 comprehensive bike plan. It is for a regional bike plan, 5 and the budget is $124,000, I believe. So it's -- I'm 6 glad that, you know, 37, 38 years later, we're getting to 7 finishing that project and serving all these communities 8 together with one regional system. 9 So I support everything in this plan. Thank 10 you. 11 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you. Jim Barros. 12 MR. BARROS: Hi, I'm Jim Barros. I live in 13 Normal Heights. I bike this area quite a bit. In fact, 14 I rode here tonight. That is why I'm dressed in 14 15 layers. It is cold outside. 16 I'm speaking in favor of the project. It is a 17 long time waiting. I can speak for the Normal Heights 18 Planning Group, and I do Chair that organization and we 19 are certainly in favor of giving opportunities for people 20 to get around safer, especially because we have two 21 schools along this route, the elementary school and 22 junior high. I think it will be real important for them. 23 I do agree with the comments about the cul de 24 sac at the south end of Central. I think that could be 25 designed in a way that makes it easier to get through for
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 31 Page: 11 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 bicyclists and pedestrians. 2 I do however notice there is no comment or 3 information about any kind of outreach or public 4 information that will be available after the project is 5 in place or maybe just before. Many motorists don't know 6 what those markings are on the road, that looks like a 7 bicycle with the two slashes on them, and the no right 8 turn flashing light and the extra crosswalk space on 9 Adams Avenue. These are opportunities for motorists to 10 get confused, and if we can remove confusion, we will all 11 be a lot safer. I hope within the budget there will be 12 opportunities for outreach, not only to motorists, 13 bicyclists, and pedestrians, but the police enforcement 14 folks that doesn't know what is appropriate and what is 15 not, and do enforcement out there. 16 So thanks for this effort. Pretty cool. We 17 have a microphone and everything. 18 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much. Jake 19 followed by Margaret. 20 MR. SERBEL: My name is Jake Serbel. I live in 21 Kensington. I live off . I live 22 close to the Terrace and Adams Avenue, and I am in full 23 support of this bike project. Driving down the Terrace 24 Drive there is -- there is no safe place for any 25 bicyclists whatsoever. One day you can count how many
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 32 Page: 12 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 bicyclists should have got hit, but thankfully everyone 2 is aware. I'm in full support of this to make it safer 3 for everyone to get around. 4 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much. Margaret 5 Loose. 6 MS. LOOSE: Hello, I'm Margaret Loose. I live 7 in Cherokee Point at , and I'm here to 8 address the gender imbalance in the speakers tonight. 9 No. 10 I am in favor of this project as well and 11 others like it. I'm also -- by the way, I'm not speaking 12 on behalf of, but I am on the board of the Cherokee Point 13 Neighborhood Association, and many of our conversations 14 have revolved around making our neighborhood, Cherokee 15 Point, more pedestrian and bike friendly. But I don't -- 16 I am not speaking on behalf of them, but I'm part of the 17 board. 18 I'm excited to see a project that will help 19 connect our neighborhood by virtue of connecting to the 20 SR-15 route, help us eventually get to the trolley that 21 is proposed to be built. I work at UCSD, and it's a 22 long, complicated process to try to get there without a 23 car -- or with a car, frankly. 24 But I see this bikeway as another piece in 25 something that will allow me to get to Old Town and
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 33 Page: 13 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 connect with the trolley that could get me to work. 2 I am also pleased as someone who rides a 3 recumbent trike, it is parked outside, if you don't know 4 what I'm talking about, I'm also pleased to see some 5 attention in the draft plans to sharp turns, fixed 6 objects, narrow ramps that are not ADA compliant. Those 7 things benefit people like me who are riding vehicles 8 that you can't just pick up with one hand and turn. 9 So I'm happy to see -- I think that is 10 mentioned between Terrace and Adams. 11 I also like the idea of the bike lane for 12 uphill traffic between Landis and Wightman. I think that 13 is helpful for less intrepid cyclists in particular, and 14 those of us with -- who have a love affair with gravity 15 and are a little slower going uphill. 16 I have a question about -- which I know people 17 can't answer tonight. The no right turn on red, 18 blank-out signs are ingenious, because we always are 19 facing push-back from motorists. I do wonder if, like, 20 how blazing would they be? Will they get people's 21 attention, because a lot of times we're so accustomed to 22 making right turns on red, that even if there are 23 permanent signs there, people don't notice them. So it 24 would need to be something almost blinding. 25 But thank you for the effort here and the
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 34 Page: 14 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 presence and food and drinks, and I'm out of time. Good 2 night. 3 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much. 4 Do we have anybody else who would like to make 5 some comments regarding the project? Going once, going 6 twice. Okay. 7 We will close the public comment. We really 8 appreciate some of the thoughts that were put together. 9 There is an opportunity to continue, if you come up with 10 another comment, we're going to be here for at least 11 until 8:00 o'clock. And if you have some questions for 12 the project team or you want to put more comments in, you 13 can write them, and they will be included in the record. 14 We'll keep the public hearing open until 8:00. 15 I really want to thank all of you. Many of you 16 have been engaged in this project development for a long 17 time, and it takes an interchange of information and 18 joint planning in the neighborhood groups to really get 19 this to the point that it is. So I want to thank those 20 people who have been involved in project planning. 21 SANDAG folks who have been involved in this, 22 could you just raise your hand? Okay. So we've got 23 about half a dozen to seven people that have -- they have 24 been active in this area and working on this for a number 25 of years, and we appreciate all of that work, too.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 35 Page: 15 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 So as I said, we'll be here until 8:00, and we 2 thank you for much for coming, and we appreciate your 3 support. You're done, at least this part of it. 4 MR. CARTERETTE: I did find another comment 5 slip. I guess it was on the floor or something. 6 MR. SINNOTT: Who is it? 7 MR. CARTERETTE: Ryan Jones. 8 MR. JONES: That is me. I listened, and I 9 don't need to say anything. 10 MR. CARTERETTE: That is fine. I didn't want 11 to put you on the spot. I didn't want to exclude 12 anybody. 13 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much. 14 * * *
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 36 Page: 16 Public Hearing re: Central Avenue Bikeway SANDAG PUBLIC HEARING- CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, Rosalie A. Kramm, Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter for the State of California, CSR No. 5469, do 5 hereby certify: 6 That the foregoing was taken before me at 7 the time and place herein set forth; that the proceedings 8 were reported stenographically by me and were transcribed 9 through computerized transcription by me; that the 10 foregoing is a true record of the proceedings taken at 11 that time; and that I am not interested in the event of 12 the action. 13 Witness my hand dated February 28, 2018
14
15
16 ______17 ROSALIE A. KRAMM 18 CA CSR NO. 5469
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 37 Page: 17 G,b COMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
NAME ADDRESS HO EMAIL 3.Àxn1 {n.'tt \ut<\q I C r.--t Haul\f3c0 L tr Please email'me project updates in the future (email address required above)
GOMMENTS
T\¡v-.,\'1 o, Fùrl- N\t<, ØCAgNT- fLu4c Lo Ut- 5. F1)^- wQt\D T.Ò \ 1_5 \ f10 Lrr.ø.-,-FrYTl ùl1,/ (- \ P1 rlrL \.--,ç.- ( .,000 rLç_ ì\A ç-.* Ðr-:.¡ o ñ r?-¡-\}JÑr'$ n-^'0 s{t F\oo G rt.J S?k- Sçc- ,t I\A /lr- u^,r Cu r D ç- > /Y7, ( fio L {-{r./n ¡- tr\ .r,.-$l-Z ï>()tV \r-': \l'np¿rr'r.r¡..f- 'To v1 lu^-= |"rf- !\laC5{6¡14rr-s +^- UN (- +- ÔF-F Or'f. :iu\40 5 N,r "vG--" frr [-.-^-, J\-,LI) ( -2,o\ L?A< çfl (w lß Þ.\ (- æe 1 ( o>S"etvcr-ì d 5c t¡-C-OvLú-'. P LCYYST*. 5 5 t, ((- \rrr- \q f\t ot ; \< 1..r>o Lq-¡xzL. Ml/h'r._ ì ü., For official use only: Bikeway Project: raiW Date Received: 38 W G,b COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME AD PHONE EMAIL )eÇ? Vr"h**' GOMMENTS: Src o r4 +lt,S e€[- T+ ,*:tl k nSSe4 Ç. .?€tk\Lr. tro,rJ 1o 4olc< a\. 'lr,¿z *o.ü el^ ss 'Ç",'( {> le n¡.- lq o (-"le t) ls ßr, -lt J,' Q'-- "4 t I c,-i,t'., ß lvJ + L1a,Þ<.r1*2, Hç ') (ol l" S^¿ )e s f5a 'ç- [^l J E t C.i¿--, ßt-' For official use only: Bikeway Project: / .-. Date Received: 39 W Gb COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL K*ne ¡l ilnu/€ v Please email e project updates in the future (email address required above). COMMENTS: For official use only: Bikeway Project Date Received: 40 wanuffi G,b COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL S'*R Þ,rzoSS å\¿ _.9_ u)APlease email me project updates in the future (email address requ¡red above). æ q GOMMENTS: L^ç""*- G Ct¡\ so8 ils.a. . 'S-'1. b* ,^*S\**ì t h" '\L s c us \xr I t' ) f*¡l^^* "É),ro..r-.,**r rr W\$ô--r\ lr lt VÐ (t t (-¡ \^) ö =-\ For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 41 WWraffi G,b COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL t'li¿ho ktuç ñorv¿l\ tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above) COMMENTS A3 ^ f- ,+ \v" ö'4 üì^ ù^J t/1 tf ouJv,&A t-L tu- AA^ \ ì\ I( filvn rn (L¿."( s Çi h^ t tuh il For official use only Bikeway Project: Date Received: 42 WWniffi Gb COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL sn{t s tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above). COMMENTS: L^ f ,/ jr' t,1 r 'tT a ¿ T 5r^T I For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 43 Wffi Gb COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL c,ú\ tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above). COMMENTS: â\AN Cl^¿r e l; w {Ðt) V, '{W- +ï, C ( \ a ^l For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 44 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-8 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND FY 2019 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM File Number 8000100 Introduction Recommendation The regional Transit Capital Improvement Program The Transportation Committee is asked to (CIP) is a rolling five-year plan, which outlines current recommend that the Board of Directors: transit needs and planned investments in transit (1) approve the submittal of Federal Transit capital, rehabilitation, and replacement projects. The Administration grant applications for the program is updated annually and is designed to San Diego region; and (2) adopt Regional meet ongoing transit operational and infrastructure Transportation Commission (RTC) needs in a responsive and efficient manner. The Resolution No. RTC-2018-03, in Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County substantially the same form as shown in Transit District (NCTD) have developed their FY 2019 Attachment 3, approving Amendment CIPs which cover FY 2019-2023. These CIPs are the No. 11 to the 2016 Regional Transportation basis for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Improvement Program. Section 5307 Urbanized Area, Section 5337 State of Good Repair, and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities formula grant applications and for updating the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Discussion The NCTD Board of Directors approved its CIP on January 18, 2018, and the MTS Board of Directors approved its CIP on March 8, 2018. Funding assumptions used for development of the FY 2019 Transit CIP are based on Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2018 apportionments and some carryover of the FFY 2017 apportionments. In accordance with the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the estimates for FTA formula programs increase 2 percent for FFY 2020. The estimate conservatively remains flat for the three final years of the estimate, FFY 2021 through FFY 2023, which are outside of the FAST Act. The funding estimate for the FY 2019 CIP reflects the transit revenue estimates approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its February 23, 2018, meeting. After allocating funds to SANDAG for the cost of the vanpool program, the balance of the Section 5307 funds are allocated to the operators on a 70 percent/30 percent basis, with the more populous MTS area receiving 70 percent and the 30 percent share going to NCTD. This methodology was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its February 23, 2007, meeting. The same 70/30 formula was used to allocate the Sections 5337 and 5339 funds between MTS and NCTD. These FTA formula funds combined with the required 20 percent local match make over one half of the funding for the transit agency CIPs. Additional state and local funding sources supplement the FTA programs. The combined funding for the regional CIP is $248 million for FY 2019 and $1.2 billion for the five-year program from FY 2019 to FY 2023. The individual transit agency CIP summaries are in Attachment 1. Based on the CIPs, SANDAG may apply for FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula funds for MTS and NCTD capital projects for which SANDAG is the implementing agency in accordance with Senate Bill 1703 (Peace, 2002). These include capital projects for planning; design and construction of new infrastructure and facilities; rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and facilities; capital projects involving environmental, engineering, and construction support; and construction right-of-way. Both MTS and NCTD are grantees for routine capital projects that support the day-to-day business of the operators and will apply for FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula, Section 5337 State of Good Repair, and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities funds. Examples of projects for which each operator would apply for its own respective federal grants include maintenance and repair projects and procurements, right-of-way and equipment in support of operations, revenue and nonrevenue vehicle procurements, light rail vehicle maintenance, and revenue vehicle parts and components, as well as operating assistance for new rail extensions, preventive maintenance, associated capital maintenance, and some Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) paratransit services. CIP Funding Three FTA formula programs: Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, Section 5337 State of Good Repair Program, and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program are the primary source of funding for the transit agency CIPs and generally provide 80 percent of the cost of eligible activities. Section 5307 Section 5307 Urbanized Area Program provides funding for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. Eligible activities under this program include planning, engineering design, and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement of buses; overhaul and rebuilding of buses; crime prevention and security equipment; construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. All preventive maintenance and some ADA complementary paratransit service, while recorded as operating expenditures, are considered capital costs for purposes of eligibility. The FTA defines preventive maintenance as all maintenance costs related to vehicles and non-vehicles. Specifically, it is all the activities, supplies, materials, labor, services, and associated costs required to preserve or extend the functionality and serviceability of the asset in a cost-effective manner, up to and including the current state-of-the-art for maintaining such an asset. 2 Section 5337 This State of Good Repair Program provides capital assistance for maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation projects of high-intensity fixed guideway and bus systems to help transit agencies maintain assets in a state of good repair. Additionally, State of Good Repair grants are eligible for developing and implementing Transit Asset Management plans. This program reflects a commitment to ensuring that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development. Eligible activities include projects that maintain, rehabilitate, and replace capital assets as well as projects that implement transit asset management plans. The FAST Act clarifies that high-intensity motorbus tier funds can only be used for vehicle state of good repair costs and not for roadway state of good repair costs. Section 5339 The FAST Act provides both formula and discretionary programs for this section as developed under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The Bus and Bus Facilities Program makes federal funding available for the purpose of financing capital bus and bus-related projects which will support the continuation and expansion of public transportation services in the United States. There also is a sub-program that provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero-emissions vehicles. The purpose of both formula and competitive programs is to provide capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities. FY 2019 CIP Development MTS and NCTD undertook similar project selection processes based on established criteria and involving the active participation of sponsoring agencies and/or departments. The transit agencies reviewed and prioritized capital project submittals to ensure that operationally critical projects were funded. Attachment 1 includes summaries of the five-year Capital Programs for MTS and NCTD. The FY 2019 Transit Capital Program Fiscally Constrained CIPs can be seen in Attachment 2. The proposed CIPs are revenue constrained programs, meaning they are based on existing, committed, or reasonably expected funding levels for each of the next five years. MTS The MTS CIP primarily is funded with FTA formula funds and the required local match. In addition to the FTA formula funds, the MTS FY 2019 CIP includes some additional funding from SD&AE Desert Line, State of California Cap-and-Trade Program, State Transit Assistance (STA), Transportation Development Act (TDA), CNG rebate, and other FY 2017 Carryover. The MTS CIP program assumes approximately $59.7 million for preventive maintenance and planning projects for each of the next five years. The remaining funds would be used for capital projects ranging from $68.4 million to $81.7 million over the five-year program. For FY 2019, the CIP will provide approximately $141.4 million for MTS projects and planning and preventive maintenance, of which $81.7 million allocated to capital projects. 3 NCTD In addition to the FTA formula funding that flows through SANDAG and required local match, the NCTD FY 2019 CIP includes additional funding from the FTA Section 5311 program for rural areas, State of California Cap-and-Trade Program, State of Good Repair, and State Rail Assistance funding, STA, TransNet Senior and Disabled and Transit System Improvement program funds, TDA, Air Pollution Control District Carl Moyer Grant, and TransNet program funds. The NCTD FY 2019 CIP assumes approximately $78 million to $84.2 million of formula funds for preventive maintenance and planning projects for each of the next five years, with the remainder being used for capital projects ranging from $25 million to $29.5 million over the five-year program. For FY 2019, the CIP will provide approximately $107 million for NCTD projects and preventive maintenance, of which $29 million allocated to capital projects. Regional Transportation Improvement Program As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the San Diego region, SANDAG is the designated recipient for FTA formula funds and is responsible for programming the FTA funds in the RTIP. The RTIP is the multiyear funding program for major transportation projects in the San Diego region. Projects included in the CIP, and subsequently in the FTA grant application, also must be programmed in the RTIP. The SANDAG Board of Directors has delegated authority to the Transportation Committee to approve RTIP amendments pursuant to Board Policy No. 001: Allocation of Responsibilities – Board and Policy Advisory Committees Responsibilities; however, approval of this proposed amendment is sought from the SANDAG Board of Directors because the Transportation Committee does not have authority to approve the operator’s CIPs, which are the foundation for Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP. The projects shown in Table 1 – The public review and comment period for Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP (Attachment 4) closed on April 4, 2018. During the public comment period, MTS reduced TransNet – Transit System Improvements funding on MTS32A to align with the Board approved TransNet revised five-year revenue estimates and reduced FTA Section 5339 funding on MTS29. No other comments were received. The TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee reviewed Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP at its April 11, 2018, meeting, focusing its review on the TransNet-funded projects within this amendment; any comments received will be reported. Federal regulations require the 2016 RTIP to be a revenue-constrained document with programmed projects based upon available or committed funding and/or reasonable estimates of future funding. Funding assumptions are generally based upon: (1) authorized or appropriated levels of federal and state funding from current legislation; (2) conservative projections of future federal and state funding based upon a continuation of current funding levels; (3) the most current revenue forecasts for the TransNet program; and (4) the planning and programming documents of the local transportation providers. Tables 2a through 2c (Attachment 5) provide updated program financial summaries, including a comparison from the prior approved formal amendment (Amendment No. 9) to the 2016 RTIP. (Chapter 4 of the Final 2016 RTIP discusses in detail the financial capacity analysis of major program areas including discussion of available revenues.) Based upon the analysis, the projects contained within the 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 11, are reasonable when considering available funding sources. 4 Air Quality Analysis On September 23, 2016, SANDAG found the 2016 RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan (SIP) and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy for the San Diego region. All of the required regionally significant capacity increasing projects were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and the 2016 RTIP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the FTA jointly approved the conformity determination for the 2016 RTIP and the conformity redetermination for the Regional Plan on December 16, 2016. The proposed amendment does not reflect a change in the design, concept, or scope of the project or the conformity analysis years as modeled for the regional emissions analysis of the 2016 RTIP. Projects in the 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 11 meet the conformity provisions of the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.122(g)). All capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 11 were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the Regional Plan and 2016 RTIP. All other projects not included in the air quality conformity analysis are either non-capacity increasing or are exempt from the requirement to determine conformity according to the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.126). SANDAG followed interagency consultation procedures to determine which projects are exempt. Amendment No. 11 does not interfere with the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures. The 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 11, remains in conformance with the SIP. Performance Management Analysis The MAP-21 included provisions for the establishment of a performance and outcome-based program, which includes national performance goals for the Federal-Aid Highway Program in several areas. Signed into law on December 5, 2015, the FAST Act continues MAP-21’s overall performance Management Approach. The FHWA has issued three rules related to performance management. The performance management 1 (PM 1) rule focuses on safety. After the two-year phase-in date for highway safety performance measures of May 27, 2018, FHWA and the FTA may only determine conformity of a Transportation Improvement Plan that has been developed according to the provisions and requirements of 23 CFR Part 450. MPOs are required to establish targets specific to the MPO planning area for the same five safety performance measures for all public roads in the MPO planning area or support the statewide safety targets established by Caltrans. On January 26, 2018, the SANDAG Board of Directors voted to approve supporting the 2018 statewide safety targets. In preparation for development of the 2018 RTIP, on January 16, 2018, SANDAG began collecting information on planned investments in the RTIP to improve safety on all public roads. The 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 11 includes funding for continued local bus operations on public roads and has been developed in accordance with the applicable provisions and requirements of 23 CFR Part 450. 5 Next Steps The SANDAG Board of Directors is scheduled to approve the FY 2019 Transit Capital Improvement Program at its April 27, 2018, meeting. Pending approval by the Board of Directors SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD will submit the FTA grant applications for the San Diego region. Pending approval by the Board of Directors, the 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 11 will be transmitted to Caltrans for review and approval and then forwarded to FHWA and FTA. Upon the approval of both federal agencies, the amendment will be incorporated in to the 2017 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. ANDRÉ DOUZDJIAN Director of Finance Attachments: 1. Proposed Transit Capital Improvement Program Summary for FY 2019 to FY 2023 2. Proposed FY 2019 Transit Capital Improvement Program - Fiscally Constrained 3. Draft RTC Resolution No. RTC-2018-03: Approving Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP 4. Table 1 - 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program – Amendment No. 11 5. Tables 2a-2c: Fiscal Constraint Analysis for Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Key Staff Contacts: Kimberly Monasi, (619) 699-6902, [email protected] Sue Alpert, (619) 595-5318, [email protected] 6 Attachment 1 SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY FY 2019 to FY 2023 in '000's Five Year FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Total FTA Formula Program 5307 $45,962 $46,881 $46,881 $46,881 $46,881 $233,487 Local Match for 5307 11,490 11,720 11,720 11,720 11,720 58,372 5307 Carryover 1,287 0 0 0 0 1,287 FTA Formula Program 5337 27,678 28,232 28,232 28,232 28,232 140,606 Local Match for 5337 6,920 7,058 7,058 7,058 7,058 35,152 5337 Carryover 242 0 0 0 0 242 FTA Formula Program 5339 3,754 3,829 3,829 3,829 3,829 19,072 Local Match for 5339 939 957 957 957 957 4,768 5339 Carryover 199 0 0 0 0 199 TDA 15,004 19,539 19,539 19,539 19,539 93,158 STA 18,277 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 45,877 California Cap and Trade (LCTOP) 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 CNG Rebate 4,100 0 0 0 0 4,100 SD&AE Desert Line Revenue 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,000 Other - FY17 Carryover 1,515 0 0 0 0 1,515 Total CIP Funding $141,368 $128,117 $128,117 $128,117 $128,117 $653,835 Less: Preventive Maintenance /ADA/Planning 58,850 58,816 58,816 58,816 58,816 294,115 SANDAG Planning 837 854 854 854 854 4,253 Total Funding Available For Capital Projects $81,681 $68,447 $68,447 $68,447 $68,447 $355,467 7 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY FY 2019 to FY 2023 in '000's Five Year FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Total FTA Formula Program 5307 $19,698 $20,092 $20,092 $20,092 $20,092 $100,066 Local Match for 5307 4,924 5,023 5,023 5,023 5,023 25,016 FTA Formula Program 5307 Carryover 552 0 0 0 0 0 Local Match for 5307 Carryover 138 0 0 0 0 0 FTA Formula Program 5337 11,368 11,596 11,596 11,596 11,596 57,752 Local Match for 5337 2,842 2,899 2,899 2,899 2,899 14,438 Federal Formula Program 5337 Carryover 100 0 0 0 0 0 Local Match for 5337 Carryover 25 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Formula Program 5339 1,609 1,641 1,641 1,641 1,641 8,174 Local Match for 5339 402 410 410 410 410 2,043 Federal Formula Program 5339 Carryover 85 0 0 0 0 0 Local Match for 5339 Carryover 21 0 0 0 0 0 Other Federal - 5311 424 424 424 424 424 2,122 Local Match for 5311 343 343 343 343 343 1,713 State of Good Repair (SB 1) 1,575 1,575 1,575 1,575 1,575 7,875 California Cap and Trade (LCTOP) 543 543 543 543 543 2,716 STA 4,770 4,770 4,770 4,770 4,770 23,852 STA Incremental (SB 1) 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 18,750 TDA 4.5 2,019 2,102 2,187 2,272 2,272 10,852 TransNet Senior & Disabled 337 351 366 380 396 1,830 APCD - Carl Moyer Grant 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 10,000 TDA 29,950 31,906 33,476 35,107 35,107 165,547 Transnet 12,714 13,246 13,773 14,330 14,905 68,968 State Rail Assistance (SB 1) 3,900 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 20,300 Total CIP Funding $107,090 $109,772 $106,969 $109,255 $109,846 $542,932 Less: Preventive Maintenance /ADA/Planning 78,128 80,284 81,946 83,681 84,262 408,301 Total Funding Available For Capital Projects $28,963 $29,488 $25,022 $25,575 $25,584 $134,631 8 Attachment 2 SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM FY 2019 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCALLY CONSTRAINED In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 1 MTS FY19 Bus Procurement 22,500 32,000 29,500 17,500 13,000 2 MTS SD100 Replacement 20,366 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 3 MTS New Transit Facility 5,823 18,447 18,829 19,829 0 4 MTS Fare System Replacement 5,250 0 0 0 0 5 MTS Substation Direct Current (DC) Feeder Breakers NTP 3 3,280 0 0 0 0 6 MTS Bus Shelters 3,030 0 0 0 0 7 MTS FY19 ADA Bus Procurement 2,500 0 0 0 3,300 8 MTS Trolley Station Network Communication Equipment 2,332 0 0 0 0 9 MTS Orange/Blue Line Tie Replacement 2,225 0 0 0 2,000 10 MTS Control Power Corp. (CPC) Substation Replacement 2,000 0 0 3,118 4,000 11 MTS Grade Crossing Replacement 1,865 0 0 0 4,115 12 MTS SD9 LRV Procurement 1,600 0 0 0 0 13 MTS CTC System Technology Refresh 1,441 0 0 0 0 14 MTS Zero Emission Bus 1,400 0 2,118 10,000 22,000 15 MTS Lifting Jacks Replacement 697 0 0 0 0 16 MTS Low Voltage Power Upgrade 600 0 0 0 0 17 MTS South Bay Maintenance Facility - Floor Replacement 442 0 0 0 0 18 MTS Special Trackwork Replacement (S34 &S37) 415 0 0 0 0 19 MTS Security Office Renovation 350 0 0 0 0 20 MTS Fence Improvements on Right-of-Way 350 0 0 0 0 21 MTS Switch Machines # 9 and # 11 - Signaling 350 0 0 0 0 22 MTS C Building C1 East Fall Protection 302 0 0 0 0 23 MTS Smart Sign Project 278 0 0 0 0 24 MTS MTS Network Equipment Refresh 276 0 0 0 250 25 MTS MTS Server Refresh 240 0 0 0 230 26 MTS AC Switchgear Replacement (Design) 225 0 0 0 0 27 MTS Imperial Avenue Division (IAD) RAM Maintenance Floor 178 0 0 0 0 28 MTS Paint Booth Blowers 175 0 0 0 0 29 MTS Transit Service Truck Replacement 163 0 0 0 0 30 MTS TVM Enhanced Card Holder Security 151 0 0 0 0 31 MTS Cyber Security Assessment 150 0 0 0 0 32 MTS Station Lighting Upgrade 135 0 0 0 50 33 MTS Station Parking Lot Resurface 105 0 0 0 0 34 MTS Kearny Mesa Division (KMD) Bus Wash Blowers 91 0 0 0 0 35 MTS South Bay Maintenance Facility - Building Netting 90 0 0 0 0 36 MTS Facilities Cleaning Equipment 75 0 0 0 75 37 Imperial Avenue Division (IAD) Crew Room Exterior MTS Rehabilitation 75 0 0 0 0 38 MTS San Diego Trolley Facility HVAC 70 0 0 0 100 39 Imperial Avenue Division (IAD) Crew Room Restroom MTS Rehabilitation 61 0 0 0 0 40 MTS Kettner Pedestrian Improvement 25 0 0 0 0 41 MTS Station Track Replacement 0 0 0 0 727 42 MTS Rail Replacement at America Plaza, Kettner Blvd., and India St. 0 0 0 0 300 43 MTS Orange Line Rail Replacement 0 0 0 0 300 FIVE YEAR CIP - CONSTRAINED 81,681 68,447 68,447 68,447 68,447 9 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT FY 2019 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCALLY CONSTRAINED In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 1 NCTD COASTER Locomotives Purchase 12,149 14,827 9,485 11,967 2,860 2 SANDAG Bridge 257.2 Replacement 2,465 694 0 0 0 3 NCTD SPRINTER Power Packs 2,184 2,184 0 0 0 4 NCTD COASTER Capital Replacement 1,632 1,680 1,731 1,783 1,836 5 NCTD SPRINTER Capital Replacement 840 866 892 918 946 6 NCTD COASTER Bi-Level Passenger Car Refurbishment 827 852 878 904 931 7 NCTD SPRINTER Carbody Brake System 775 775 0 0 0 8 NCTD At Grade Crossings (6) 720 0 0 0 0 9 NCTD Fall Protection - Various Facilities 660 0 0 0 0 10 NCTD Zero Emission Bus Purchase 543 543 543 543 543 11 NCTD Payroll & Employee Self-Service System 462 0 0 0 0 12 NCTD JD Edwards Improvements 450 450 405 0 0 13 NCTD SPRINTER Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Roof 380 380 380 380 0 Mounted Units 14 NCTD Backflow Device Handle & Valve Replacement - District Wide 364 0 0 0 0 15 NCTD SPRINTER Door System Overhaul 357 367 377 387 397 16 NCTD Roof Repairs - District Wide 340 340 0 0 0 17 NCTD SPRINTER Wheel Replacement 295 310 0 0 624 18 NCTD SPRINTER Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Refurb 293 293 293 293 0 19 NCTD Replace Portable Lifts - East/West Division 250 0 0 0 0 20 NCTD SPRINTER Truck Overhauls 235 235 48 242 242 21 NCTD SPRINTER Pre-Heaters & Compressor Clutches Replacement 216 222 0 0 0 22 NCTD Mile Post (MP) 225.5 Permanent Best Manager Practices (BMPs) 200 0 0 0 0 23 NCTD Parking Lot Restorations, Various Locations 160 18 132 0 0 24 NCTD Call Manager Upgrade 158 0 0 0 120 25 NCTD Gas Methane Refurbishment East Division 156 780 0 0 0 26 NCTD Floor Coatings for Six Restrooms 154 0 0 0 0 27 NCTD Los Peñasquitos Bridges Replacement Environmental Mitigation 142 122 113 120 0 28 NCTD Electrical Panel Schedule Verification & Panel Compliance Upgrades 100 100 0 0 0 29 NCTD Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Replacements - 100 1,420 0 0 0 District Wide 30 NCTD JD Edwards Real Estate Functionality 100 0 0 0 0 31 NCTD SPRINTER Passenger Seat Overhaul 100 100 100 100 100 32 NCTD Trash & Recycling Receptacles 100 0 0 0 0 33 NCTD 3PAR Storage Replacement 90 0 0 0 0 34 NCTD Voice Print Upgrade 85 0 0 0 0 35 NCTD Pressure Washers Replacement 77 0 0 0 0 36 NCTD LED Lighting Upgrade & SPRINTER Central Emergency Lighting 75 47 0 0 0 Inverter Replacement 37 NCTD Fire Detection Alarm Systems 72 120 240 0 0 38 NCTD Project Online Phase 2 70 0 0 0 0 39 NCTD Escondido Subdivision Signal House Air Conditioning Units 68 0 0 0 0 40 NCTD Information Technology (IT) Equipment Upgrades 58 95 58 58 95 41 NCTD Mobile Phone Upgrade 55 0 60 0 60 42 NCTD Replace In Ground Lifts West Division - Assessment 50 0 0 0 0 43 NCTD COASTER Disk Brake Replacement 43 44 45 46 47 44 NCTD Automatic Transfer Switch Replacement 40 0 0 0 0 45 NCTD Replacement of Shop Area Drop Lights 39 0 0 0 0 46 NCTD COASTER Carbody Brake Valve Overhaul 38 39 40 42 43 47 NCTD Server Upgrades 35 61 14 7 59 48 NCTD Software Upgrades 34 35 35 35 35 49 NCTD Storage Upgrades 20 20 20 20 20 50 NCTD Carlsbad Village Light Poles Refinishing 18 0 0 0 0 51 NCTD Sewage Lift Station at COASTER Operations & Maintenance Facility 17 0 85 0 0 52 NCTD BREEZE Operations East Window Replacement 16 0 0 0 0 53 NCTD Oceanside Transit Center (OTC) Monitor Enclosure Replacement 15 0 0 0 0 54 NCTD Elevator Repairs at West Division & California State University San 15 90 0 0 0 55 NCTD COASTER Operations & Maintenance Facility Light Pole Repair 11 0 0 0 0 56 NCTD Safety Nets 10 0 0 0 0 57 NCTD Plaza Camino Real Bus Shelters Roof Replacement 5 0 0 0 0 58 NCTD Driver Control Unit (DCU) Upgrades 0 891 0 0 0 59 NCTD Hyper-Converged Infrastructure 0 95 0 0 0 60 NCTD COASTER Bunker Upgrades 0 90 0 0 0 61 NCTD Escondido Transit Center West Clock Tower 0 85 0 0 0 62 NCTD Escondido Transit Center Storefront Replacement 0 65 0 0 0 63 NCTD Internet Protocol (IP) Phone Upgrade 0 60 0 0 0 64 NCTD General Administrative Office (GAO) Carpet Replacement 0 50 25 0 0 65 NCTD Bus Stop Improvement - Design 0 25 0 25 0 66 NCTD COASTER Operations & Maintenance Facility Air Dryers Replacement 0 17 0 0 0 67 NCTD Vitagold Yard Rehab 0 0 2,000 0 0 68 NCTD General Administrative Office (GAO) Construction/Oceanside Transit 0 0 1,400 0 0 69 NCTD Miscellaneous Facility Repairs 0 0 1,391 797 2,436 70 NCTD FLEX Vehicle Replacement 0 0 794 0 0 10 In '000's Implementing Agency PROJECT FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 71 NCTD Turnout Replacement - Control Point (CP) Ash 0 0 555 0 0 72 NCTD Fare Revenue System Upgrade 0 0 500 750 1,000 73 NCTD SPRINTER Axle-Mounted Brake Disk Replacement 0 0 357 0 0 74 NCTD Turnout Renewal - Control Point (CP) Del Mar 0 0 195 0 0 75 NCTD Turnout Replacement - Control Point (CP) Crosby 0 0 195 0 0 76 NCTD New Oceanside Transit Center (OTC) Back-up Generator 0 0 165 0 0 77 NCTD Rust Removal & Repaint of Handrails, Fencing, Shelters & Awnings 0 0 160 0 0 78 NCTD COASTER San Diego (SD) Hot Box Detector 0 0 136 52 0 79 NCTD SPRINTER Communications Interface Cabinet (CIC) Cabinet Upgrades 0 0 135 0 0 80 NCTD Solar Panel - Repair, Replace, New 0 0 110 0 0 81 NCTD Solana Beach Glass Canopies 0 0 103 0 0 82 NCTD Miscellaneous Equipment Repair/Replacement 0 0 100 601 1,150 83 NCTD Palomar College Concrete Repair Construction 0 0 100 300 0 84 NCTD Transit Stations Refresh - Assessment 0 0 100 100 0 85 NCTD Storage Area Network (SAN) Replacement 0 0 90 0 90 86 NCTD Bus Stop Improvement - Construction 0 0 75 0 75 87 NCTD Microsoft (MS) Exchange Upgrade 0 0 66 0 0 88 NCTD General Administrative Office (GAO) Board Room - Improvements 0 0 62 0 0 89 NCTD Access Control - Design 0 0 50 0 0 90 NCTD Replace & Refurbish Plumbing Fixtures - District Wide 0 0 50 0 0 91 NCTD Security Alarm Systems 0 0 48 240 0 92 NCTD SPRINTER Wheel-Mounted Brake Disk Replacement 0 0 38 0 0 93 NCTD Identification Badge Printer Upgrade 0 0 30 0 0 94 NCTD SPAM Firewall Appliance Upgrade 0 0 20 0 0 95 NCTD Electric Bus Charging Facility 0 0 0 1,878 498 96 NCTD Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System Rehabilitation 0 0 0 1,500 0 97 NCTD Joint Crossing Improvements 0 0 0 870 0 98 NCTD Rehab Old Town & Santa Fe Shelters & Benches, 0 0 0 150 0 99 NCTD LIFT Vehicle Replacement 0 0 0 149 0 100 NCTD SPRINTER Air Bag Replacement - Power & Jacob 0 0 0 132 0 101 NCTD Access Control - Construction 0 0 0 125 125 102 NCTD Transit Stations Refresh - Design 0 0 0 50 50 103 NCTD Apple Computer Setup 0 0 0 10 0 104 NCTD BREEZE Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Bus Replacement 0 0 0 0 7,666 105 NCTD San Marcos Civic Center SPRINTER Station Paving 0 0 0 0 1,300 106 NCTD San Diego Sub Wireless Mesh Update 0 0 0 0 1,127 107 NCTD All Sub-Grade Crossings Renovation 0 0 0 0 833 108 NCTD Transit Stations Refresh - Construction 0 0 0 0 200 109 NCTD VMware Upgrade 0 0 0 0 75 FIVE YEAR CIP - CONSTRAINED 28,963 29,488 25,022 25,575 25,584 11 Attachment 3 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. RTC-2018-03 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO THE 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 23, 2016, SANDAG adopted the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and found the 2016 RTIP in conformance with the applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), in accordance with California law; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2016, the United States Department of Transportation determined the 2016 RTIP and the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) in conformance to the applicable SIPs in accordance with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and SANDAG have requested various changes to existing projects for inclusion into the 2016 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning regulations per 23 CFR Part 450; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Regional Plan, which conforms to the to all applicable SIPs and to the emissions budgets from the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2013, and from the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2008, and from the 2004 Revision to California SIP for Carbon Monoxide, for Ten Federal Planning areas which was approved as a SIP revision in 2006; and WHEREAS, the regionally significant, capacity increasing projects have been incorporated into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the Regional Plan and the 2016 RTIP; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP continues to provide for timely implementation of transportation control measures contained in the adopted RAQS/SIP for air quality and a quantitative emissions analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the RTIP projects and programs meet all the federally required emissions budget targets; and 12 WHEREAS, projects in Amendment No. 11 satisfy the transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(g) and all applicable transportation planning requirements per 23 CFR Part 450 including the establishment of performance management targets for safety performance measures for all public roads in the planning region; and WHEREAS, all other projects in Amendment No. 11 are either non-capacity increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; and WHEREAS, the projects in 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 11 are fiscally constrained; and WHEREAS, the projects in 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 11 are consistent with the Public Participation Policy adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SANDAG Board of Directors, does hereby approve Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that SANDAG finds the 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 11, is consistent with the Regional Plan, is in conformance with the applicable SIPs, and with the 2016 RAQS for the San Diego region, is consistent with SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures, and is consistent with SANDAG Public Participation Policy, as amended. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SANDAG Board of Directors, ALSO ACTING AS THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th of April 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair of the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission [Seal] Attest: Secretary of the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission 13 Attachment 4 Table 1 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD02 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Preventive Maintenance Project Description: NCTD service area - This project funds preventive maintenance for the District bus fixed route, paratransit, rail, facilities, maintenance of way and signals. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $142,557 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,716 $1,716 $1,716 FTA 5307 $57,838 $11,746 $10,751 $11,248 $11,698 $12,394 $57,838 FTA 5337 $54,155 $9,476 $11,108 $10,907 $11,332 $11,332 $54,155 TDA $28,848 $5,306 $5,465 $5,989 $5,958 $6,132 $28,848 TOTAL $142,557 $28,244 $27,324 $28,144 $28,988 $29,858 $142,557 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,716 $1,716 $1,716 FTA 5307 $58,692 $11,746 $9,872 $12,809 $12,754 $11,510 $58,692 FTA 5337 $30,936 $9,476 $7,085 $4,598 $4,149 $5,628 $30,936 TDA $22,407 $5,306 $4,239 $4,352 $4,226 $4,284 $22,407 TOTAL $113,751 $28,244 $21,196 $21,759 $21,129 $21,422 $113,751 MPO ID: NCTD03 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: ADA Paratransit Services Project Description: NCTD service area - This project supports the operations of the District ADA/paratransit services. Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $27,326 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $3,449 $1,731 $327 $337 $337 $351 $366 $3,449 TransNet - ADA Carryover $41 $41 $41 FTA 5307 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Local Funds $7,981 $7,981 $7,981 TDA $13,855 $3,685 $1,922 $1,940 $2,019 $2,102 $2,187 $13,855 TOTAL $27,326 $15,397 $2,290 $2,277 $2,356 $2,453 $2,553 $27,326 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $3,492 $1,731 $327 $337 $351 $366 $380 $3,492 TransNet - ADA Carryover $41 $41 $41 FTA 5307 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Local Funds $7,981 $7,981 $7,981 TDA $13,855 $3,685 $1,922 $1,940 $2,019 $2,102 $2,187 $13,855 TOTAL $27,369 $15,397 $2,290 $2,277 $2,370 $2,468 $2,567 $27,369 Page 1 Monday, April 2, 2018 14 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD05 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Bus Revenue Vehicle Purchases & Related Equipment Project Description: NCTD service area - This project funds the programmatic replacement of fixed route buses that have reached the end of their service life, and the programmatic rebuild of fixed route buses engines and transmissions. Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet Est Total Cost: $60,417 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,509 $1,509 $1,509 TransNet - Transit (Cash) $1,155 $1,155 $1,155 FTA 5307 $21,834 $18,506 $3,329 $21,834 FTA 5309 (Bus) $4,622 $4,622 $4,622 FTA 5311 $2,036 $2,036 $2,036 FTA 5339 $3,739 $1,492 $1,492 $635 $119 $3,739 FTA Funds - AR-5311 $578 $578 $578 Other State - LCTOP $1,629 $543 $543 $543 $1,629 TCRP $7,700 $7,700 $7,700 Local Funds $13,060 $13,060 $13,060 TDA $2,555 $1,161 $1,205 $159 $30 $2,555 TOTAL $60,417 $51,819 $6,026 $543 $1,337 $692 $60,417 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,509 $1,509 $1,509 TransNet - Transit (Cash) $1,155 $1,155 $1,155 FTA 5307 $50,987 $18,506 $3,329 $8,787 $6,209 $6,489 $7,669 $50,987 FTA 5309 (Bus) $4,622 $4,622 $4,622 FTA 5311 $2,036 $2,036 $2,036 FTA 5339 $9,162 $1,492 $1,492 $1,522 $1,552 $1,552 $1,552 $9,162 FTA Funds - AR-5311 $578 $578 $578 TCRP $7,700 $7,700 $7,700 Local Funds $13,060 $13,060 $13,060 TDA $11,199 $1,161 $1,205 $2,577 $1,940 $2,010 $2,305 $11,199 TOTAL $102,008 $51,819 $6,026 $12,886 $9,701 $10,051 $11,526 $102,008 Page 2 Monday, April 2, 2018 15 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD06 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Bus/Rail Support Equipment & Facilities Project Description: NCTD service area - This project funds District state of good repair projects, including the repair, replacement and upgrade of fixed route and rail operations facilities and equipment, including information technology equipment. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase of office, shop and operating equipment for existing facilities Est Total Cost: $55,552 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $27,669 $13,803 $2,944 $1,769 $2,232 $4,052 $2,869 $27,669 FTA 5309 (Bus) $332 $332 $332 FTA 5337 $4,326 $2,717 $591 $360 $345 $108 $205 $4,326 FTA 5339 $5,863 $1,694 $1,641 $1,006 $1,522 $5,863 Transit Security (TSGP) $1,538 $1,538 $1,538 Local Funds $5,474 $5,474 $5,474 TDA $10,350 $2,119 $1,284 $1,031 $1,059 $2,735 $2,123 $10,350 TOTAL $55,552 $25,983 $4,819 $4,854 $5,277 $7,901 $6,719 $55,552 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $18,335 $13,803 $2,944 $476 $500 $274 $337 $18,335 FTA 5309 (Bus) $332 $332 $332 FTA 5337 $7,218 $2,717 $591 $2,544 $1,366 $7,218 Transit Security (TSGP) $1,538 $1,538 $1,538 Local Funds $5,474 $5,474 $5,474 TDA $4,777 $2,119 $1,284 $119 $761 $410 $84 $4,777 TOTAL $37,674 $25,983 $4,819 $595 $3,805 $2,050 $421 $37,674 MPO ID: NCTD16B RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Oceanside to Escondido Rail-SPRINTER Debt Service Project Description: SPRINTER, Oceanside to Escondido - This project funds debt service on $34 million of Certificates of Completion issued to fund SPRINTER rail construction. Change Reason: Revise Fund Source Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $12,960 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $10,022 $1,395 $2,174 $2,180 $2,134 $2,139 $10,022 TransNet - TSI Carry Over $2,938 $2,938 $2,938 TOTAL $12,960 $4,333 $2,174 $2,180 $2,134 $2,139 $12,960 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $10,016 $1,395 $2,174 $2,174 $2,135 $2,139 $10,016 TransNet - TSI Carry Over $2,938 $2,938 $2,938 TDA $6 $6 $6 TOTAL $12,960 $4,333 $2,174 $2,180 $2,135 $2,139 $12,960 Page 3 Monday, April 2, 2018 16 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD18 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Rail-Right-of-Way State of Good Repair & Improvements Project Description: NCTD service area - This project funds various District state of good repair projects and programs for the rail right of way, grade crossing replacement, right-of-way (ROW) drainage improvement, and programmatic replacement of rail ties and rail grinding. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $16,261 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $10,379 $240 $2,712 $2,135 $2,297 $2,995 $10,379 FTA 5337 $156 $156 $156 Prop 1B - PTMISEA $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 STA $395 $200 $195 $395 STIP-IIP PTA $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 TDA $3,331 $60 $820 $534 $1,168 $749 $3,331 TOTAL $16,261 $1,300 $4,532 $2,869 $3,621 $3,939 $16,261 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $240 $240 $240 FTA 5337 $2,766 $968 $1,097 $421 $281 $2,766 Prop 1B - PTMISEA $900 $900 $900 TDA $751 $60 $242 $274 $105 $70 $751 TOTAL $4,657 $1,200 $1,210 $1,371 $526 $351 $4,657 Page 4 Monday, April 2, 2018 17 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD20 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Rail Vehicles & Related Equipment Project Description: NCTD service area - This project funds the District state of good repair projects and programs replacing, repairing and rehabilitating the District COASTER and SPRINTER rail fleets, which includes the purchase of replacement locomotives, and Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) rehabilitation and component overhauls. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet Est Total Cost: $65,988 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $11,261 $3,462 $3,922 $2,044 $1,834 $11,261 FTA 5337 $1,381 $978 $344 $59 $1,381 SB1 - SGR $6,468 $1,743 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $6,468 SB1 - SRA Commuter $14,600 $2,500 $3,900 $4,100 $4,100 $14,600 STA $13,518 $3,183 $3,030 $3,750 $3,555 $13,518 Local Funds $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 TDA $8,760 $1,955 $925 $1,937 $766 $3,176 $8,760 TOTAL $65,988 $2,933 $11,813 $19,708 $17,235 $14,299 $65,988 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5337 $16,449 $978 $3,215 $3,253 $5,556 $3,446 $16,449 TDA $6,770 $1,955 $1,271 $1,294 $1,389 $862 $6,770 TOTAL $23,219 $2,933 $4,486 $4,547 $6,945 $4,308 $23,219 Page 5 Monday, April 2, 2018 18 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) North County Transit District MPO ID: NCTD34 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Transit Service Operating Support Project Description: NCTD service area - This project funds operating costs for existing fixed route and rail transit service, including rural services. Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $229,466 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $54,724 $10,904 $10,540 $10,534 $11,111 $11,634 $54,724 TransNet - TSI Carry Over $79 $79 $79 FTA 5311 $2,113 $415 $424 $424 $424 $424 $2,113 STA $23,681 $4,770 $4,600 $4,770 $4,770 $4,770 $23,681 TDA $148,869 $24,991 $30,016 $30,924 $31,365 $31,573 $148,869 TOTAL $229,466 $41,159 $45,580 $46,652 $47,670 $48,401 $229,466 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-05 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $56,346 $10,904 $10,540 $11,072 $11,638 $12,191 $56,346 TransNet - TSI Carry Over $79 $79 $79 FTA 5311 $2,114 $415 $425 $425 $425 $425 $2,114 STA $23,681 $4,770 $4,600 $4,770 $4,770 $4,770 $23,681 TDA $147,580 $24,991 $27,073 $30,192 $31,609 $33,716 $147,580 TOTAL $229,800 $41,159 $42,638 $46,459 $48,442 $51,102 $229,800 Page 6 Monday, April 2, 2018 19 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN40 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Metropolitan Planning SANDAG ID: 33001, 33201, 33003, 33203, 33216, 34200, Project Description: Countywide - ongoing regional transportation planning as well as 23016 administrative oversight for various TransNet and FTA-funded programs. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Non construction related activities Est Total Cost: $50,503 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $395 $80 $20 $148 $147 $395 TransNet - MC $395 $395 $395 TransNet - SGIP $395 $80 $20 $148 $147 $395 TransNet - SS $410 $168 $42 $70 $130 $410 CBI $250 $250 $250 FTA 5307 $39,738 $14,978 $4,797 $4,917 $5,015 $5,015 $5,015 $39,738 FTA 5309TOD $239 $239 $239 ITS $231 $231 $231 Local Funds $8,450 $3,438 $1,019 $983 $1,003 $1,003 $1,003 $8,450 TOTAL $50,503 $19,859 $5,898 $6,266 $6,442 $6,018 $6,018 $50,503 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $140 $80 $20 $20 $20 $140 TransNet - MC $395 $395 $395 TransNet - SGIP $140 $80 $20 $20 $20 $140 TransNet - SS $294 $168 $42 $42 $42 $294 CBI $250 $250 $250 FTA 5307 $32,418 $14,978 $4,797 $4,159 $4,242 $4,242 $32,418 FTA 5309TOD $239 $239 $239 ITS $231 $231 $231 Local Funds $7,602 $3,438 $1,019 $1,035 $1,055 $1,055 $7,602 TOTAL $41,709 $19,859 $5,898 $5,276 $5,379 $5,297 $41,709 Page 7 Monday, April 2, 2018 20 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN132 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Elvira to Morena Double Track SANDAG ID: 1146500, 1239811 Project Description: On coastal rail corridor from Control Point (CP) Elvira near SR 52 to CP Friar near Friars Road - convert 2.6 miles of single-track to double-track and install new signals. Replace 1 mile of double track. Construct new/replacement bridges at MP 260.4, 259.6, 259.1, 258.6, and 257.2. Construct new water/sewer facilites for the City of San Diego between Friars Road and SR 52 - does not add additional transit service Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $197,092 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $44,611 $6,504 $14,721 $22,378 $1,008 $6,098 $807 $37,706 TransNet - MC AC $0 $37,939 $12,056 $(24,998) $(24,998) CMAQ $24,878 $24,878 $2,776 $22,102 FTA 5307 $4,191 $2,080 $1,556 $555 $2,080 $2,111 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $9,920 $9,920 $6,082 $3,838 RSTP $29,688 $17,878 $11,810 $4,688 $927 $24,073 CAP-TRADE $61,983 $49,995 $11,988 $61,983 STA $520 $520 $520 TCRP $4,052 $4,052 $4,052 Local Funds $16,721 $3,032 $6,834 $5,154 $1,701 $16,721 TDA $528 $389 $139 $528 TOTAL $197,092 $64,292 $98,820 $42,953 $(7,362) $(2,620) $1,008 $22,244 $1,734 $173,114 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $44,611 $6,504 $324 $23,288 $13,945 $550 $6,098 $807 $37,706 TransNet - MC AC $0 $37,939 $12,056 $(49,995) CMAQ $24,878 $24,878 $2,776 $22,102 FTA 5307 $2,080 $2,080 $2,080 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $9,920 $9,920 $6,082 $3,838 RSTP $29,688 $17,878 $11,810 $4,688 $927 $24,073 CAP-TRADE $61,983 $49,995 $11,988 $61,983 TCRP $4,052 $4,052 $4,052 Local Funds $13,089 $2,999 $6,639 $3,451 $13,089 TDA $2,220 $2,220 $786 $1,434 TOTAL $192,521 $64,259 $101,169 $39,305 $(26,707) $13,945 $550 $22,510 $1,734 $168,277 Page 8 Monday, April 2, 2018 21 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments DELAYED MPO ID: SAN200 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: San Onofre Bridge Replacement SANDAG ID: 1145400 Project Description: From MP 207.6 to MP 209.9 - replace three aging timber trestle railway bridges in order to maintain compliance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards and support intercity, commuter and freight rail services in the second busiest rail corridor in the nation Change Reason: Delay project Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $8,855 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $7,084 $7,084 $217 $6,867 TDA $1,771 $1,771 $54 $1,717 TOTAL $8,855 $8,855 $271 $8,584 * An additional $1.08M contributed from previous FTA grants PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $9,224 $7,084 $2,139 $217 $9,007 TDA $2,306 $1,771 $535 $54 $2,252 TOTAL $11,530 $8,855 $2,674 $271 $11,259 Page 9 Monday, April 2, 2018 22 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS23A RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Transit Service Operations Project Description: MTS service area - Operating support for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Paratransit bus service Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $32,503 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $22,747 $4,298 $4,641 $4,603 $4,603 $4,603 $22,747 FTA 5311 $2,464 $550 $479 $479 $479 $479 $2,464 Local Funds $2,671 $1,510 $1,160 $2,671 TDA $4,621 $1,547 $1,537 $1,537 $4,621 TOTAL $32,503 $6,358 $6,280 $6,629 $6,619 $6,619 $32,503 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-05 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $22,095 $4,298 $4,384 $4,471 $4,471 $4,471 $22,095 FTA 5311 $2,424 $550 $469 $469 $469 $469 $2,424 Local Funds $7,473 $1,510 $1,474 $1,496 $1,496 $1,496 $7,473 TOTAL $31,992 $6,358 $6,327 $6,436 $6,436 $6,436 $31,992 Page 10 Monday, April 2, 2018 23 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS28 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Bus & Rail Rolling Stock purchases and Rehabilitations Project Description: MTS service area - purchase replacement buses, replacement Light Rail Vehicles, procurement of materials and services for the rehabilitation or retrofit of mechanical components, electrical components, and coach bodies of Light Rail Vehicles and buses. FY19 funding includes purchase of 24 45' CNG buses, 7 40' CNG buses, and 35 22' paratransit vehicles for fleet replacement. Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet Est Total Cost: $208,167 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $71,354 $10,292 $14,092 $15,657 $15,657 $15,657 $71,354 FTA 5339 $18,543 $3,102 $3,953 $3,829 $3,829 $3,829 $18,543 Other State - LCTOP $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 STA $21,906 $8,181 $13,725 $21,906 Local Funds $1,696 $1,696 $1,696 TDA $91,668 $12,272 $4,511 $13,957 $30,796 $30,132 $91,668 TOTAL $208,167 $35,543 $22,556 $50,168 $50,282 $49,618 $208,167 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $73,841 $10,292 $14,883 $16,222 $16,222 $16,222 $73,841 FTA 5339 $17,168 $3,102 $3,200 $3,622 $3,622 $3,622 $17,168 STA $8,181 $8,181 $8,181 Local Funds $133,869 $1,696 $20,802 $28,942 $32,882 $49,546 $133,869 TDA $12,272 $12,272 $12,272 TOTAL $245,331 $35,543 $38,885 $48,786 $52,726 $69,390 $245,331 Page 11 Monday, April 2, 2018 24 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS29 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Bus and Fixed Guideways Station Stops and Terminals Project Description: MTS service area - maintenance, improvements, upgrades, and retrofits of bus and trolley stations and stops throughout the San Diego area Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $27,450 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 FTA 5309 (Bus) $347 $347 $347 FTA 5309 (FG) $528 $528 $528 FTA 5311 $39 $39 $39 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $1,008 $1,008 $1,008 STA $1,729 $1,010 $719 $1,729 Local Funds $11,533 $5,713 $5,820 $11,533 TDA $10,622 $3,449 $4,090 $3,059 $25 $10,622 TOTAL $27,450 $13,738 $4,090 $9,598 $25 $27,450 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 FTA 5309 (Bus) $347 $347 $347 FTA 5309 (FG) $528 $528 $528 FTA 5311 $39 $39 $39 FTA 5339 $351 $351 $351 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $1,008 $1,008 $1,008 STA $1,729 $1,010 $719 $1,729 Local Funds $18,333 $5,713 $5,820 $3,400 $3,400 $18,333 TDA $13,246 $3,449 $4,090 $3,059 $2,649 $13,246 TOTAL $37,225 $13,738 $4,090 $9,949 $2,649 $3,400 $3,400 $37,225 Page 12 Monday, April 2, 2018 25 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS30 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Bus/Rail Support Facilities and Equipment Project Description: MTS facilities throughout the MTS service area - install security cameras on bus/rail rolling stock and at bus/rail facilities and stations; Southbay and East County bus maintenance facility expansions and upgrades including: land acquisition, site development plans, building demolition and remodeling, fencing, lot paving, and storm water pollution prevention program compliance; other misc. capital equipment for transit maintenance; design and procurement of materials and services for support equipment Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Purchase of office, shop and operating equipment for existing facilities Est Total Cost: $69,097 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON Other State - LCTOP $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 STA $13,800 $6,900 $6,900 $13,800 Local Funds $21,325 $10,000 $4,710 $6,615 $21,325 TDA $27,972 $10,496 $8,547 $8,929 $27,972 TOTAL $69,097 $10,000 $4,710 $17,111 $18,447 $18,829 $69,097 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON Local Funds $14,710 $10,000 $4,710 $14,710 TDA $12,479 $1,100 $3,129 $8,250 $12,479 TOTAL $27,189 $10,000 $4,710 $1,100 $3,129 $8,250 $27,189 MPO ID: MTS31 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Rail Electrification and Power Project Description: Along Blue Line Right-Of-Way (ROW) - Substation DC Feeder Breaker Replacement; Baltimore Power Switch Replacement Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $15,074 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 Other State - LCTOP $3,000 $3,000 SB1 - SGR $3,280 $3,280 $3,280 STA $2,746 $1,746 $2,746 TDA $4,448 $930 $400 $4,448 TOTAL $15,074 $2,676 $1,600 $3,680 $15,074 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON STA $1,746 $1,746 $1,746 Local Funds $17,455 $7,016 $6,250 $4,189 $17,455 TDA $3,400 $930 $2,470 $3,400 TOTAL $22,601 $2,676 $2,470 $7,016 $6,250 $4,189 $22,601 Page 13 Monday, April 2, 2018 26 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS32A RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Preventive Maintenance Project Description: MTS service area - maintenance of equipment, rolling stock, and facilities for bus and rail systems Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $496,879 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $161,879 $30,348 $31,293 $32,232 $33,390 $34,616 $161,879 FTA 5307 $128,490 $25,107 $26,079 $25,768 $25,768 $25,768 $128,490 FTA 5337 $139,510 $26,893 $27,921 $28,232 $28,232 $28,232 $139,510 Local Funds $54,000 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $54,000 TDA $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 TOTAL $496,879 $95,348 $98,793 $99,732 $100,890 $102,116 $496,879 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - TSI $163,422 $30,348 $31,293 $32,603 $33,903 $35,275 $163,422 FTA 5307 $121,736 $25,107 $24,569 $24,020 $24,020 $24,020 $121,736 FTA 5337 $138,264 $26,893 $27,431 $27,980 $27,980 $27,980 $138,264 Local Funds $52,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $52,000 TDA $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 TOTAL $488,422 $95,348 $96,293 $97,603 $98,903 $100,275 $488,422 Page 14 Monday, April 2, 2018 27 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS34 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Bus Signal and Communications Equipment Project Description: MTS service area - rehabilitation of light rail vehicles (LRV), electronic control circuit (U2), LRV HVAC retrofit, rehabilitate traction motor phase II and pilot motor control unit drive, LRV tires; design and implement new ITS to replace failing radio/CAD and scheduling system Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Reconstruction or renovation of transit structures Est Total Cost: $43,935 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $3,116 $3,116 $3,116 FTA 5309 (Bus) $800 $800 $800 FTA 5309 (FG) $120 $120 $120 FTA 5339 $380 $380 $380 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $7,782 $5,558 $2,224 $7,782 STA $2,446 $2,446 $2,446 Local Funds $765 $765 $765 TDA $28,526 $13,599 $1,350 $8,230 $4,868 $28,526 TOTAL $43,935 $26,404 $3,954 $8,230 $4,868 $43,935 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $3,116 $3,116 $3,116 FTA 5309 (Bus) $800 $800 $800 FTA 5309 (FG) $120 $120 $120 FTA 5339 $380 $380 $380 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $7,782 $5,558 $2,224 $7,782 STA $2,446 $2,446 $2,446 Local Funds $24,380 $765 $13,615 $10,000 $24,380 TDA $23,179 $13,599 $1,350 $8,230 $23,179 TOTAL $62,203 $26,404 $3,954 $8,230 $13,615 $10,000 $62,203 Page 15 Monday, April 2, 2018 28 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS35 RTIP #:16-11 Project Title: Fixed Guideway Transitways/Lines Project Description: MTS service area - rail infrastructure maintenance and upgrades including rail tie replacement, WYE switch indicator standardization, rail file grinding, and traction motor disconnects Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $29,884 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $622 $622 $622 Prop 1B - PTMISEA $464 $464 $464 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $800 $800 $800 SB1 - SGR $1,272 $1,272 $1,272 STA $8,965 $3,065 $8,965 Local Funds $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 TDA $15,761 $4,360 $3,301 $1,801 $4,758 $15,761 TOTAL $29,884 $10,311 $4,301 $1,801 $6,030 $29,884 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON FTA 5307 $622 $622 $622 Prop 1B - PTMISEA $464 $464 $464 Prop 1B Transit Sec Grant Prg $800 $800 $800 STA $3,065 $3,065 $3,065 Local Funds $11,103 $1,000 $1,000 $6,103 $3,000 $11,103 TDA $9,461 $4,360 $3,301 $1,801 $9,461 TOTAL $25,515 $10,311 $4,301 $1,801 $6,103 $3,000 $25,515 Page 16 Monday, April 2, 2018 29 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 11 San Diego Region (in $000s) RTIP Fund Types Federal Funding BIP/CBI Border Infrastructure Program/Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality FRA-PRIIA Federal Railroad Administration Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 FTA Section 5307 Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program FTA Section 5309 (Bus) Federal Transit Administration Discretionary Program FTA Section 5309 (FG) Federal Transit Administration Fixed Guideway Modernization Formula Program FTA Section 5311 Federal Transit Administration Rural Program FTA Section 5337 Federal Transit Administration State of Good Repair Grant Program FTA Section 5339 Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grant Program ITS Intelligent Transportation System RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program TSGP Transit Security Grant Program (Federal Discretionary) CMAQ/RSTP Conversion Reimbursement of advanced federal funds which have been advanced with local funds in earlier years State Funding PTA Public Transportation Account PTMISEA Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (State Prop 1B) STA State Transit Assistance STIP-IIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program TCRP Traffic Congestion Relief Program TSGP Transit Security Grant Program (State Prop. 1B) Local Funding TDA Transportation Development Act TransNet-ADA Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit TransNet-BPNS Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program TransNet-MC Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Major Corridors TransNet-MC AC TransNet - Major Corridors - Advanced Construction; mechanism to advance TransNet funds to be reimbursed at a later fiscal year with federal/state funds TransNet-SGIP Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Regional Smart Growth Incentive Program TransNet-SS Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Senior Services TransNet-TSI Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax- Transit System Improvements Page 17 Monday, April 2, 2018 30 Table 2a: Revenues San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Attachment 5 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Prior Years Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Sales Tax $2,293,660 $559,681 $564,854 $613,799 $628,356 $598,989 $582,335 $456,750 $445,258 $553,908 $550,583 $5,076,787 $5,065,046 -- County $2,293,660 $559,681 $564,854 $613,799 $628,356 $598,989 $582,335 $456,750 $445,258 $553,908 $550,583 $5,076,787 $5,065,046 Other Local Funds $428,813 $122,991 $122,100 $162,872 $144,221 $543,321 $501,409 $134,107 $90,423 $136,188 $80,956 $1,528,259 $1,367,922 -- County General Funds -- City General Funds $287,880 $98,794 $97,904 $79,572 $60,921 $105,890 $63,978 $124,860 $81,176 $108,636 $53,404 $805,599 $645,262 -- Street Taxes and Developer Fees $140,934 $24,196 $24,196 $83,300 $83,300 $437,431 $437,431 $9,247 $9,247 $27,552 $27,552 $722,660 $722,660 -- RSTP Exchange funds Other $523,266 $105,829 $103,609 $75,496 $80,348 $59,182 $91,749 $52,761 $88,018 $57,492 $86,869 $875,797 $973,859 Local Total $3,245,740 $788,500 $790,563 $852,167 $852,925 $1,201,492 $1,175,492 $643,618 $623,698 $747,588 $718,409 $7,480,843 $7,406,827 State Highway Operations and Protection Program $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $149,480 $54,562 $54,562 $149,755 $149,755 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $539,162 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $149,480 $54,562 $54,562 $149,755 $149,755 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $539,162 SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program $603,307 $1,105 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $650,622 $651,622 STIP (Including Augmentation) $561,551 $1,105 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $608,866 $609,866 Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior $41,756 $41,756 $41,756 Transportation Enhancement Proposition 1 A $99,698 $99,698 $99,698 STATE LOCAL Proposition 1 B $709,633 $3,124 $3,224 $1,319 $1,319 $714,075 $714,175 GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $155,194 $4,052 $4,052 $159,246 $159,246 State Transit Assistance (e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $96,445 $12,951 $12,951 $5,319 $8,502 $4,770 $22,246 $4,770 $15,420 $4,770 $15,420 $129,026 $170,984 Active Transportation Program $14,340 $4,538 $4,538 $12,438 $12,438 $18,125 $18,125 $11,649 $11,649 $3,231 $3,231 $64,321 $64,321 Other $20,720 $56,829 $56,829 $14,429 $18,672 $2,441 $16,011 $2,441 $11,659 $2,441 $11,659 $99,301 $135,550 State Total $1,930,155 $233,503 $233,603 $182,771 $191,197 $81,003 $112,049 $168,615 $188,483 $58,354 $78,222 $2,654,402 $2,733,709 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $524,273 $66,534 $66,534 $67,865 $71,578 $69,222 $71,135 $69,222 $71,135 $69,222 $71,135 $873,422 $875,790 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,768 $99,768 $99,768 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $123,331 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 100,000 $100,000 100,000 $100,000 100,000 $593,380 $593,380 $1,066,711 $1,066,711 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $57,734 $57,734 $57,734 5310 - Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities $3,391 $3,798 $3,798 $7,189 $7,189 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $6,806 $965 $965 $893 $903 $893 $903 $893 $903 $893 $903 $11,345 $11,383 5316 - Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 5317 - New Freedom 5337 - State of Good Repair $130,176 $37,939 $37,939 $38,698 $39,389 $39,472 $39,828 $39,472 $39,828 $39,472 $39,828 $325,229 $326,988 FEDERAL TRANSIT FEDERAL 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $13,417 $4,974 $4,974 $5,073 $5,648 $5,175 $5,470 $5,175 $5,470 $5,175 $5,470 $38,987 $40,449 Other $93,839 $160 $160 $93,999 $93,999 Federal Transit Total $1,052,736 $164,370 $164,370 $212,529 $217,517 $214,762 $217,335 $214,762 $217,336 $708,142 $710,716 $2,574,384 $2,580,010 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) * $340,096 $47,143 $47,143 $15,763 $15,763 $33,531 $33,531 $34,223 $34,223 $34,223 $34,223 $504,977 $504,977 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $192,381 $45,000 $45,000 $237,381 $237,381 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $113,582 $5,841 $5,841 $1,307 $1,307 $120,731 $120,731 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $43,955 $11,930 $11,930 $3,317 $3,317 $1,755 $1,755 $14,733 $14,733 $282,416 $282,416 $358,105 $358,105 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,885 $4,750 $4,750 $3,842 $3,842 $12,585 $12,585 $13,231 $13,231 $36,293 $36,293 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $432,594 $39,148 $39,148 $40,826 $40,826 $43,072 $43,072 $44,862 $44,862 $44,862 $44,862 $645,364 $645,364 Other $248,299 $3,667 $3,667 $1,800 $2,886 $1,700 $1,700 $9 $9 $255,474 $256,560 Federal Highway Total $1,372,793 $157,478 $157,478 $66,854 $67,940 $92,642 $92,642 $107,048 $107,048 $361,510 $361,510 $2,158,325 $2,159,411 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 Federal Total $2,452,007 $321,848 $321,848 $279,383 $285,457 $307,404 $309,978 $321,810 $324,384 $1,069,651 $1,072,225 $4,759,188 $4,765,900 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 VE VATI FINA INNO Innovative Financing Total REVENUES TOTAL $7,627,902 $1,343,851 $1,346,015 $1,314,321 $1,329,579 $1,589,899 $1,597,518 $1,134,043 $1,136,566 $1,875,594 $1,868,857 $14,894,433 $14,906,436 Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment *CMAQ revenues reflect updates to final apportionments for FY 2017 and a payback of borrowed apportionment to OCTA in FY 2018 31 Table 2b: Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Prior Years Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Local Total $3,245,740 $760,971 $763,034 $827,539 $830,297 $1,184,753 $1,160,767 $636,409 $619,087 $732,567 $705,940 $7,389,717 $7,324,864 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $149,480 $54,562 $54,562 $149,755 $149,755 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $539,162 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $149,480 $54,562 $54,562 $149,755 $149,755 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $539,162 State Transportation Improvement Program $603,307 $1,105 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $650,622 $651,622 STIP (Including Augmentation) $561,551 $1,105 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $608,866 $609,866 Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior $41,756 $41,756 $41,756 Transportation Enhancement Proposition 1 A $99,698 $99,698 $99,698 Proposition 1 B $709,633 $3,124 $3,224 $1,319 $1,319 $714,075 $714,175 STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $155,194 $4,052 $4,052 $159,246 $159,246 State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $96,445 $12,951 $12,951 $5,319 $8,502 $4,770 $22,246 $4,770 $15,420 $4,770 $15,420 $129,026 $170,984 Active Transportation Program $14,340 $4,538 $4,538 $12,438 $12,438 $18,125 $18,125 $11,649 $11,649 $3,231 $3,231 $64,321 $64,321 Other $20,720 $56,829 $56,829 $14,429 $18,672 $2,441 $16,011 $2,441 $11,659 $2,441 $11,659 $99,301 $135,550 State Total $1,930,155 $233,503 $233,603 $182,771 $191,197 $81,003 $112,049 $168,615 $188,483 $58,354 $78,222 $2,654,402 $2,733,709 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $524,273 $66,534 $66,534 $67,129 $71,578 $68,473 $71,135 $68,473 $71,135 $66,369 $71,135 $868,336 $875,790 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,768 $99,768 $99,768 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $123,331 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $593,380 $593,380 $1,066,711 $1,066,711 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $57,734 $57,734 $57,734 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program $3,391 $3,798 $3,798 $7,189 $7,189 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $6,806 $965 $965 $893 $903 $893 $903 $893 $903 $893 $903 $11,345 $11,383 5312 - National Research and Technology Program 5311f - Intercity Bus FEDERAL TRANSIT FEDERAL 5337 - State of Good Repair $130,176 $37,939 $37,939 $38,698 $39,389 $39,472 $39,828 $39,472 $39,828 $37,335 $39,828 $323,092 $326,988 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $13,417 $4,974 $4,974 $5,073 $5,648 $5,175 $5,470 $5,175 $5,470 $5,175 $5,470 $38,987 $40,449 Other $93,839 $160 $160 $93,999 $93,999 Federal Transit Total $1,052,736 $164,370 $164,370 $211,794 $217,517 $214,013 $217,335 $214,013 $217,336 $703,151 $710,716 $2,567,161 $2,580,010 Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $340,096 $47,143 $47,143 $15,763 $15,763 $33,531 $33,531 $34,223 $34,223 $18,227 $18,227 $488,982 $488,982 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $192,381 $45,000 $45,000 $237,381 $237,381 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) Federal Lands Highway Ferry Boat Discretionary High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $113,582 $5,841 $5,841 $1,307 $1,307 $120,731 $120,731 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $43,955 $11,930 $11,930 $3,317 $3,317 $1,755 $1,755 $14,733 $14,733 $282,416 $282,416 $358,105 $358,105 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,885 $4,750 $4,750 $3,842 $3,842 $12,585 $12,585 $13,231 $13,231 $36,293 $36,293 National Scenic Byways Program Projects of National/Regional Significance (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1301) Public Lands Highway FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Railway (Section 130) Recreational Trails Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $432,594 $39,148 $39,148 $40,826 $40,826 $43,072 $43,072 $16,994 $16,994 $3,250 $3,250 $575,884 $575,884 Transportation Improvements (TI) Other $248,299 $3,667 $3,667 $1,800 $2,886 $1,700 $1,700 $9 $9 $255,474 $256,560 Federal Highway Total $1,372,793 $157,478 $157,478 $66,854 $67,940 $92,642 $92,642 $79,180 $79,180 $303,902 $303,902 $2,072,850 $2,073,935 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 Other FRA Federal Railroad Administration Total $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 Federal Total $2,452,007 $321,848 $321,848 $278,648 $285,457 $306,655 $309,978 $293,193 $296,516 $1,007,054 $1,014,618 $4,666,489 $4,680,424 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 INN TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 PROGRAM TOTAL $7,627,902 $1,316,322 $1,318,485 $1,288,958 $1,306,951 $1,572,412 $1,582,793 $1,098,217 $1,104,086 $2,335,459 $2,336,265 $15,248,092 $15,276,482 Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment 32 Table 2c: Revenues versus Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) Prior Y 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Local Total $27,530 $27,530 $24,628 $22,628 $16,739 $14,725 $7,209 $4,612 $15,021 $12,468 $91,126 $81,963 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program SHOPP (Including Augmentation) SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program STIP (Including Augmentation) Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior Proposition 1 A Proposition 1 B STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) Highway Maintenance (HM) Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) Safe Routes to School (SR2S) State Emergency Repair Program Other State Total 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $735 $749 $749 $2,853 $5,086 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program 5311c - Public Transportation on Indian Reservation 5312 - National Research and Technology Program FEDERAL TRANSIT 5337 - State of Good Repair $2,137 $2,137 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program Other Federal Transit Total $735 $749 $749 $4,990 $7,223 Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $15,995 $15,995 $15,995 $15,995 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Recreational Trails FEDERAL HIGHWAY Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $27,868 $27,868 $41,612 $41,612 $69,481 $69,481 Other Federal Highway Total $27,868 $27,868 $57,607 $57,607 $85,476 $85,476 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total Federal Total $735 $749 $28,617 $27,868 $62,598 $57,607 $92,699 $85,476 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) INN TIVE TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total REVENUES - PROGRAM TOTAL $27,530 $27,530 $25,363 $22,628 $17,487 $14,725 $35,826 $32,480 $77,619 $70,076 $183,825 $167,439 33 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-9 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: ADOPT 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT File Number 1500300 PROGRAM: AMENDMENT NO. 12 Introduction Recommendation On September 23, 2016, the Board of Directors The Transportation Committee is asked adopted the 2016 Regional Transportation to adopt Resolution No. 2018-17, in Improvement Program (RTIP), the multiyear program substantially the same form as shown in of proposed major transportation projects in the Attachment 1, approving Amendment San Diego region covering the period FY 2017 to No. 12 to the 2016 Regional FY 2021. The 2016 RTIP is a multibillion dollar Transportation Improvement Program. program of projects funded by federal, state, TransNet local sales tax, and other local funding sources. The 2017 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, which incorporates the SANDAG 2016 RTIP, received federal approval on December 16, 2016. Background SANDAG generally processes amendments to the RTIP on a quarterly basis, but occasionally more frequently as circumstances arise. SANDAG is processing Amendment No. 12 to the 2016 RTIP as part of its quarterly amendment cycle to include requests for changes by member agencies. TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, which is an independent citizen oversight committee, reviewed the TransNet-funded projects included in Amendment No. 12 on April 11, 2018. No comments were received. Public Notice/Resolutions To remain consistent with the SANDAG Public Participation Policy, SANDAG transmitted the draft Amendment No. 12 to interested parties for a 15-day public review period on March 27, 2018, closing on April 17, 2018. As of the date of this report, no comments were received. Discussion The following summarizes the changes proposed in this amendment, in alphabetical order, with additional details included in Table 1 (Attachment 2). Funds referred to as Local Funds are those which are available to local agencies through various formula based tax revenues or local developer fees. These funds are not required to be programmed unless added to a project included in the RTIP. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Interstate 5 – High Occupancy Vehicle/Managed Lanes (CAL09) – This amendment proposes to revise TransNet – Major Corridor (MC), TransNet – MC Advanced Construction (MC AC) and federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Conversion funding between fiscal years. The programmed total remains at $543,963,000 with the overall project total cost of $934,486,000. The California Transportation Committee (CTC) approved the 2018 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) at its March meeting. Phases with funding in the first two fiscal years of the new SHOPP listings (FY 2019 and FY 2020) are included in this amendment as detailed below. Grouped Projects for Safety Improvements – SHOPP Mobility Program (CAL46A) – This amendment proposes to revise SHOPP – Mobility funding between fiscal years for this grouped listing. Total programmed amount remains at $59,459,000. Grouped Projects for Safety Improvements – SHOPP Collision Reduction Program (CAL46B) – This amendment proposes to add SHOPP – Roadside Preservation National Highway System (NHS) funding and increase SHOPP – Collision Reduction (CR) – NHS funding in FY 2019 and FY 2020 in this grouped listing. Total programmed amount increases by $10,831,000, bringing the new total to $123,657,000. Grouped Projects for Bridge Preservation (CAL46D) – This amendment proposes to increase SHOPP – Bridge Preservation funding in FY 2019 for this grouped listing. Total programmed amount increases by $28,130,000, bringing the new total to $82,442,000. Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation – SHOPP Roadway Preservation Program (CAL46E) – This amendment proposes to increase SHOPP – Roadway Preservation NHS funding in FY 2019 and FY 2020 for this grouped listing. Total programmed amount increases by $2,642,000, bringing the new total to $179,868,000. Grouped Projects for Safety Improvements – SHOPP Mandates Program (CAL46I) – This amendment proposes to reduce SHOPP – Mandates funding in FY 2018 while increasing the same fund source in FY 2019 and FY 2020 in this grouped listing. Total programmed amount increases by $9,700,000, bringing the new total to $45,022,000. Interstate 5 – Genesee Interchange and Widening (CAL75) – This amendment proposes to reduce and revise TransNet – MC funding and increase federal RSTP funding in FY 2019. The programmed total remains at $101,324,000, with the overall project total cost of $116,435,000. Interstate 805 South Soundwalls (CAL78D) – This amendment proposes to reflect the conversion of federal RSTP funding in FY 2018 by revising TransNet – MC AC and federal RSTP funding between fiscal years. Total programmed amount remains at $38,289,000. SHOPP Multiple Objective – Asset Management Pilot Project (CAL483) – This amendment proposes to add this new project to the 2016 RTIP which was approved by the CTC in the 2018 SHOPP. This project provides a variety of improvements to Interstate 5 from Sorrento Valley Road to Del Mar Heights Road including rumble strips on both shoulders, fiber optic cable and closed-circuit television cameras and rehabilitation for a bike path and culverts. Total programmed amount is $1,815,000, with the overall project total cost of $6,317,000. 2 City of Chula Vista Pavement Rehabilitation (CHV06) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – Local Street Improvement (LSI) in FY 2019 through FY 2021 to align with Board-approved revised TransNet revenue estimates. This amendment also proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI Carry Over in FY 2017. Total programmed amount decreases by $278,000, bringing the new total to $24,542,000. Traffic Monitoring Program (CHV45) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – Local Street and Roads (L) (Cash) in FY 2018. Total programmed amount increases by $13,000, bringing the new total to $1,379,000. Pavement Major Rehabilitation (CHV48) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – LSI (Cash) in FY 2018 and reduce TransNet – LSI in FY 2019 through FY 2021 to align with revised revenue estimates. Total programmed amount decreases by $521,000, bringing the new total to $38,532,000. City of Encinitas Street Overlay Program (ENC14A) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – LSI Carry Over in FY 2017 and reduce TransNet – LSI in FY 2019 through FY 2021 to align with revised revenue estimates. Total programmed amount decreases by $165,000, bringing the new total to $28,656,000. Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Program (ENC17) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI and TransNet – LSI Carry Over in FY 2017. Total programmed amount decreases by $84,000, bringing the new total to $5,411,000. Traffic Signal Modifications (ENC28) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – LSI Carry Over in FY 2017. Total programmed amount increases by $15,000, bringing the new total to $927,000. City of La Mesa West La Mesa Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Project (LAM48) – This amendment proposes to add TransNet – Commercial Paper, as approved by the Board of Directors at its December 15, 2017, meeting, in order to fully fund this project. This amendment also proposes to remove this project from the grouped listing V14, as discussed below, and program as a stand-alone project. Total programmed amount increases by $2,000,000, bringing the new total to $5,351,000. City of Lemon Grove Lemon Grove Avenue Realignment Project (LG13) – This amendment proposes to increase Local Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program funding in FY 2018, while reducing and revising TransNet – LSI Carry Over funding. Total programmed amount increases by $45,000, bringing the new total to $4,010,000. Traffic Improvements (Preventive Maintenance) (LG14) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2017 and FYs 2019 through 2021 to align with revised revenue estimates. Total programmed amount decreases by $115,000, bringing the new total to $1,104,000. 3 Storm Drain Rehabilitation (Preventive Maintenance) (LG15) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2018. Total programmed amount decreases by $1,000, bringing the new total to $733,000. Storm Drain Rehabilitation (Congestion Relief) (LG16) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2018. Total programmed amount decreases by $6,000, bringing the new total to $1,202,000. Street Improvements (Preventive Maintenance) (LG17) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI and increase TransNet – LSI Carry Over funding in FY 2018. Total programmed amount decreases by $3,000, bringing the new total to $786,000. Traffic Improvements (Congestion Relief) (LG18) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI and funding in FY 2018. Total programmed amount decreases by $1,000, bringing the new total to $332,000. Street Improvements (Congestion Relief) (LG20) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2017 and FY 2018 and decrease TransNet – LSI Carry Over funding in FY 2018. Total programmed amount increases by $18,000, bringing the new total to $3,813,000. City of National City Street Resurfacing Project (NC03) – This amendment proposes to add federal Repurposed Earmark funding and Local funds in FY 2019. Total programmed amount increases by $765,000, bringing the new total to $21,545,000. San Diego Assocation of Governments San Elijo Lagoon Double Track (SAN73) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – MC funding by transferring funding from the Batiquitos Double Track Project (SAN183), which is included in the Coastal Rail Corridor Grouped Listing (SAN114), shown below. Total programmed amount increases by $4,000,000, bringing the new total to $77,610,000. Grouped Projects for Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of Track Structures, Track and Track bed in Existing Rights-of-Way: Coastal Rail Corridor (SAN114) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – MC funding to transfer funding to SAN73, as discussed above. Total programmed amount decreases by $4,000,000, bringing the new total to $213,916,000. Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility (SAN129) – This amendment proposes to revise TransNet – MC funding between fiscal years. Total programmed amount remains at $45,975,000. Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Coastal Rail Trail (SAN148) – This amendment proposes to revise TransNet – Bicycle Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety (BPNS) funding between fiscal years. Total programmed amount remains at $33,389,000. Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – North Park/Mid-City Bikeways (SAN227) – This amendment proposes to revise TransNet – BPNS funding between fiscal years. Total programmed amount remains at $22,641,000. 4 San Diego County Alpine Boulevard Streetscape Improvements (CNTY82) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – LSI in FY 2018 to fully fund this project. Total programmed amount increases by $500,000, bringing the new total to $5,920,000, with a total project cost of $9,000,000. Ashwood Street Corridor Improvements (CNTY88) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2018 to transfer to CNTY82, as shown above. Total programmed amount decreases by $500,000, bringing the new total to $18,652,000. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Agency Senior Disabled Program (MTS33A) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – American with Disabilities Act funding in FY 2019 through FY 2021 to align with revised revenue estimates. Total programmed amount decreases by $41,000, bringing the new total to $8,613,000. City of Santee Santee Rehabilitation and Major Repair Work (SNT04) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2019 through FY 2021 and increase Local funds in the same years to reflect the addition of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Local Streets and Roads formula funds. Total programmed amount increases by $999,000, bringing the new total to $24,671,000. Santee Slurry Seal and Roadway Maintenance (SNT22) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet – LSI funding in FY 2019 through FY 2021 to align with revised revenue estimates and add Local funds in the same years to reflect the addition of SB 1 Local Streets and Roads formula funds. Total programmed amount increases by $1,097,000, bringing the new total to $4,205,000. Various Agencies State Route 11 (V11) – This amendment proposes to increase federal Corridor Border and Infrastructure funds and state Proposition 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Funds and add federal Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA, also referenced as FASTLANE) Grant funds in FY 2018 as allocated by the California Transportation Commission in January 2018, and approved by the Board of Directors at its March 2018, meeting. This amendment also proposes to reduce Local Funds in FY 2018 and FY 2019. Total programmed amount decreases by $6,901,000, bringing the new total to $681,747,000. Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (V12) – This amendment proposes to revise Active Transportation Program – Regional (ATP-R) funding and Local Funds between fiscal years for the Euclid Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhacements Project included in this grouped listing in order to allocate the funds in FY 2018 instead of FY 2020. Total programmed amount remains at $36,218,000. Grouped Projects for Active Transportation Program (ATP) (V14) – This amendment proposes to reduce ATP – R funding and Local Funding to reflect the removal of West La Mesa Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Project (LAM48) from this grouped listing to program as a stand-alone project, as discussed above. This amendment also includes the addition of the Rock Springs Road Safe Routes to School Sidewalks and Bike Lanes (CNTY93) Project, which was awarded ATP funds in 5 September 2017. Total programmed amount decreases by $1,634,000, bringing the new total to $47,545,000. Fiscal Constraint Analysis Federal regulations require the 2016 RTIP to be a revenue-constrained document with programmed projects based upon available or committed funding and/or reasonable estimates of future funding. Funding assumptions generally are based upon: (1) authorized or appropriated levels of federal and state funding from current legislation; (2) conservative projections of future federal and state funding based upon a continuation of current funding levels; (3) the most current Board approved (February 2018) short-term revenue forecasts for the TransNet Program; and (4) the planning and programming documents of the local transportation providers. Tables 2a through 2c (Attachment 3) provide updated program summaries, including a comparison from the prior approved version. (Chapter 4 of the Final 2016 RTIP discusses, in detail, the financial capacity analysis of major program areas including a discussion of available revenues.) Highlighting in the attachment indicates a change from the previous report. Based upon the analysis, the projects contained within the 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 12, are reasonable when considering available funding sources. Air Quality Analysis On September 23, 2016, SANDAG found the 2016 RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan (SIP) and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy for the San Diego region. All the required regionally significant capacity increasing projects were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and the 2016 RTIP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly approved the conformity determination for the 2016 RTIP and the conformity redetermination for the Regional Plan on December 16, 2016. The proposed amendment does not reflect a change in the design, concept, or scope of the project or the conformity analysis years as modeled for the regional emissions analysis of the 2016 RTIP. Projects in the 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 12 meet the conformity provisions of the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.122(g)). All capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 12 were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the Regional Plan and 2016 RTIP. All other projects not included in the air quality conformity analysis are either non-capacity increasing or are exempt from the requirement to determine conformity in accordance with the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.126). SANDAG followed interagency consultation procedures to determine which projects are exempt. Amendment No. 12 does not interfere with the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures. The 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 12, remains in conformance with the SIP. Performance Management Analysis The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) included provisions for the establishment of a performance and outcome-based program, which includes national performance goals for the Federal-Aid Highway Program in several areas. Signed into law on December 5, 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act continues MAP-21’s overall performance Management Approach. The FHWA has issued three rules related to performance management. The performance management 1 (PM 1) rule focuses on safety. 6 After the two-year phase-in date for highway safety performance measures of May 27, 2018, FHWA and the FTA may only determine conformity of a Transportation Improvement Plan that has been developed according to the provisions and requirements of 23 CFR Part 450. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to establish targets specific to the MPO planning area for five safety performance measures for all public roads in the MPO planning area, or support the statewide safety targets established by Caltrans. On January 26, 2018, the SANDAG Board of Directors voted to approve supporting the 2018 statewide safety targets. In preparation for development of the 2018 RTIP, on January 16, 2018, SANDAG began collecting information on planned investments in the RTIP to improve safety on all public roads. The 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 12 has been developed in accordance with the applicable provisions and requirements of 23 CFR Part 450. This amendment includes projects in categories such as SHOPP Mobility, SHOPP CR, SHOPP Bridge Preservation, SHOPP Roadway Preservation, SHOPP Mandates, Local Pavement Rehabilitation, and Bicycle projects which implement safety projects that will help to support the established statewide safety targets to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 2018-17: Approving Amendment No. 12 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program 2. Table 1: 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment No. 12 3. Tables 2a-2c: Fiscal Constraint Analysis Key Staff Contact: Sue Alpert, (619) 595-5318, [email protected] 7 Attachment 1 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-17 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING AMENDMENT NO.12 TO THE 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 23, 2016, SANDAG adopted the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and found the 2016 RTIP in conformance with the applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), in accordance with California law; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation determined the 2016 RTIP and the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) in conformance to the applicable SIPs in accordance with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93; and WHEREAS, member agencies have requested various changes to existing projects for inclusion into the 2016 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning regulations per 23 CFR Part 450; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Regional Plan, which conforms to the to all applicable SIPs and to the emissions budgets from the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2013, and from the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2008, and from the 2004 Revision to California SIP for Carbon Monoxide, for Ten Federal Planning Areas which was approved as a SIP revision in 2006; and WHEREAS, the regionally significant, capacity increasing projects have been incorporated into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the Regional Plan and the 2016 RTIP; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 12 to the 2016 RTIP continues to provide for timely implementation of transportation control measures contained in the adopted RAQS/SIP for air quality and a quantitative emissions analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the RTIP projects and programs meet all the federally required emissions budget targets; and 8 WHEREAS, projects in Amendment No. 12 satisfy the transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(g) and all applicable transportation planning requirements per 23 CFR Part 450 including the establishment of performance management targets for safety performance measures for all public roads in the planning region; and WHEREAS, all other projects in Amendment No. 12 are either non-capacity increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; and WHEREAS, the projects in 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 12 are fiscally constrained; and WHEREAS, the projects in 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 12 are consistent with the Public Participation Policy adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, that the SANDAG Board of Directors has delegated the approval of RTIP amendments to the Transportation Committee; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SANDAG Transportation Committee, does hereby approve Amendment No. 12 to the 2016 RTIP; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that SANDAG finds the 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 12, is consistent with the Regional Plan, is in conformance with the applicable SIPs, and with the 2016 RAQS for the San Diego region, is consistent with SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures, and is consistent with SANDAG Public Participation Policy, as amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 9 Attachment 2 Table 1 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL09 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Interstate 5 - HOV/Managed Lanes EA NO: 235800 PPNO: 0615CDE, 0615 Project Description: Interstate 5 from La Jolla Village Dr. to Harbor Dr. - construct High RTP PG NO: A-16, B-30 Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Managed Lanes on I-5; construct Phase 1: SANDAG ID: 1200511, Construct HOV from Lomas Santa Fe to Birmingham and replace San 1200501, 1200504, 1200510, Elijo Bridge; Construct Phase 2: construct HOV lanes from Birmingham 1200509 to SR78; Construct Phase 3: Soundwalls on private property from Manchester to SR-78. Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the ROW phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the CON phase Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years RT:5 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $934,486 Open to Traffic: Phase 1: Sep 2020 Phase 2: Sep 2021 Phase 3: Sep 2021 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $157,841 $120,585 $20,884 $6,444 $5,616 $3,125 $1,187 $115,673 $35,653 $6,515 TransNet - MC AC $0 $129,812 $(9,044) $(65,978) $(43,934) $(10,855) CBI $416 $416 $416 CMAQ $73,287 $32,321 $40,967 $23,515 $8,800 $40,972 CMAQ - Conversion $73,488 $9,044 $26,547 $27,042 $10,855 $73,488 Earmark Repurposing $1,220 $1,220 $1,220 IM $3,886 $3,886 $3,886 RSTP $63,180 $32,557 $30,622 $40,991 $6,106 $16,083 RSTP - Conversion $56,323 $39,431 $16,892 $56,323 STP $751 $751 $751 STIP-RIP AC $112,943 $68,943 $44,000 $9,561 $103,382 STIP-RIP State Cash $628 $628 $628 TOTAL $543,963 $260,087 $223,505 $6,444 $5,616 $3,125 $45,187 $196,641 $50,559 $296,763 * $5.324M programmed in CAL46A; $299K provided outside of the RTIP; Demo IDs CA653, CA676 repurposed to FHWA transfer number CAT 16-070 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-09 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $157,841 $120,585 $20,884 $6,444 $5,616 $3,231 $1,081 $115,673 $35,653 $6,515 TransNet - MC AC $0 $129,812 $(23,060) $(68,150) $(28,711) $(9,891) CBI $416 $416 $416 CMAQ $73,287 $32,321 $40,967 $23,515 $8,800 $40,972 CMAQ - Conversion $73,488 $9,044 $26,547 $27,042 $10,855 $73,488 Earmark Repurposing $1,220 $1,220 $1,220 IM $3,886 $3,886 $3,886 RSTP $63,180 $32,557 $30,622 $40,991 $6,106 $16,083 RSTP - Conversion $56,323 $14,016 $41,603 $705 $56,323 STP $751 $751 $751 STIP-RIP AC $112,943 $68,943 $44,000 $9,561 $103,382 STIP-RIP State Cash $628 $628 $628 TOTAL $543,963 $389,899 $93,693 $6,444 $5,616 $2,267 $46,045 $196,641 $50,559 $296,763 Page 1 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL46A RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Safety Improvements - SHOPP Mobility Program Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 93.126 and 93.127 Exempt Tables 2 and 3 categories -railroad/highway crossing, safer non-federal-aid system roads, shoulder improvements, traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects, intersection signalization projects at individual intersections, pavement marking demonstration, truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area, lighting improvements, emergency truck pullovers Change Reason: Revise Lump Sum List - No Change To Programming RT:Var Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Shoulder Improvements Est Total Cost: $59,459 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Mobility $59,459 $818 $12,246 $46,395 $59,459 TOTAL $59,459 $818 $12,246 $46,395 $59,459 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Mobility $59,459 $818 $11,661 $46,980 $59,459 TOTAL $59,459 $818 $11,661 $46,980 $59,459 MPO ID: CAL46B RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Safety Improvements - SHOPP Collision Reduction (CR) Program Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 93.126 and 93.127 Exempt Tables 2 and 3 categories -railroad/highway crossing, safer non-federal-aid system roads, shoulder improvements, traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects, intersection signalization projects at individual intersections, pavement marking demonstration, truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area, lighting improvements, emergency truck pullovers Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement marking demonstration Est Total Cost: $123,657 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Rdside Preserv NHS $868 $304 $564 $868 SHOPP - CR - NHS (AC) $76,694 $11,027 $20,910 $31,996 $12,761 $76,694 SHOPP - CR - STP (AC) $23,637 $8,830 $7,876 $6,931 $23,637 SHOPP STP - Collision Reduction $22,458 $19,791 $2,667 $22,458 TOTAL $123,657 $39,648 $31,453 $32,300 $20,256 $123,657 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP - CR - NHS (AC) $66,731 $11,027 $20,910 $26,514 $8,280 $66,731 SHOPP - CR - STP (AC) $23,637 $8,830 $7,876 $6,931 $23,637 SHOPP STP - Collision Reduction $22,458 $19,791 $2,667 $22,458 TOTAL $112,826 $39,648 $31,453 $26,514 $15,211 $112,826 Page 2 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL46D RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Bridge Preservation Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 category - widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional lanes) Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Non capacity widening or bridge reconstruction Est Total Cost: $82,442 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Brdg Presrv (HBP) $82,442 $46,781 $33,068 $2,593 $82,442 TOTAL $82,442 $46,781 $33,068 $2,593 $82,442 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Brdg Presrv (HBP) $54,312 $46,781 $4,938 $2,593 $54,312 TOTAL $54,312 $46,781 $4,938 $2,593 $54,312 MPO ID: CAL46E RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation - SHOPP Roadway Preservation Program Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 categories – pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation, emergency relief (23 USC 125), widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes) Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $179,868 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Rdway Presrv NHS $179,868 $50,878 $44,248 $6,176 $78,566 $179,868 TOTAL $179,868 $50,878 $44,248 $6,176 $78,566 $179,868 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Rdway Presrv NHS $177,226 $50,878 $44,248 $5,821 $76,279 $177,226 TOTAL $177,226 $50,878 $44,248 $5,821 $76,279 $177,226 Page 3 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL46I RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Safety Improvements - SHOPP Mandates Program Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 93.126 and 93.127 Exempt Tables 2 and 3 categories -railroad/highway crossing, safer non-federal-aid system roads, shoulder improvements, traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects, intersection signalization projects at individual intersections, pavement marking demonstration, truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area, lighting improvements, emergency truck pullovers, hazard elimination program Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Safety Improvement Program Est Total Cost: $45,022 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Mandates $45,022 $4,896 $11,543 $14,272 $14,311 $45,022 TOTAL $45,022 $4,896 $11,543 $14,272 $14,311 $45,022 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-00 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Mandates $35,322 $4,896 $13,513 $5,628 $11,285 $35,322 TOTAL $35,322 $4,896 $13,513 $5,628 $11,285 $35,322 Page 4 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 13 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL75 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: I-5 Genesee Interchange and Widening EA NO: 0223U, 06500 PPNO: 0129P Project Description: From Genesee Avenue to Sorrento Valley Overhead - reconstruct I-5 RTP PG NO: A-28,B-39 Genesee Bridge and interchange including ramps, retaining walls; add SANDAG ID: 1200506 type 1 bicycle facility between Voigt and Sorrento Valley Road EARMARK NO: 3086 Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years RT:5 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $116,435 Open to Traffic: Jul 2018 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $17,255 $7,962 $2,291 $5,657 $879 $449 $17 $1,304 $5,983 $9,968 HPP $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 RSTP $51,284 $47,643 $3,641 $51,284 Prop 1B - SLPP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 SHOPP (AC)-Mobility $12,987 $12,987 $2,467 $500 $10,020 Local Funds $10,198 $10,198 $10 $1,688 $8,500 TOTAL $101,324 $88,390 $2,291 $5,657 $4,520 $449 $17 $3,781 $8,171 $89,372 * $14.4M of City of San Diego contribution programmed under SD103; additional state funds of $711K outside the RTIP PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $19,427 $7,962 $4,277 $4,875 $523 $557 $1,233 $1,342 $5,633 $12,452 HPP $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 RSTP $49,112 $47,643 $1,469 $49,112 Prop 1B - SLPP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 SHOPP (AC)-Mobility $12,987 $12,987 $2,467 $500 $10,020 Local Funds $10,198 $10,198 $10 $1,688 $8,500 TOTAL $101,324 $88,390 $4,277 $4,875 $1,992 $557 $1,233 $3,819 $7,821 $89,684 Page 5 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 14 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL78D RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: 805 South Soundwalls - Unit 1 and Sweetwater River Bridge Upgrade EA NO: 2T260, 43018 SANDAG ID: 1280515 Project Description: From Naples Street to 805/54 Separation - From Naples Street to 805/54 Separation. Construct Soundwalls. Sweetwater River Bridge Upgrade. Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the PE phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the ROW phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the CON phase.. Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the PE phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the ROW phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the CON phase Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years RT:805 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Noise attenuation Est Total Cost: $38,289 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $6,987 $1,082 $10 $2,856 $1,915 $675 $449 $3,430 $249 $3,308 TransNet - MC AC $0 $2,273 $(2,273) RSTP $29,029 $15,013 $14,016 $12,611 $2,402 $14,016 RSTP - AC Conversion $2,273 $2,273 $2,273 TOTAL $38,289 $16,095 $10 $16,872 $4,188 $675 $449 $16,041 $2,651 $19,597 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $6,987 $909 $2,505 $2,232 $795 $546 $3,430 $249 $3,308 TransNet - MC AC $0 $6,429 $9,860 $(16,289) RSTP $15,013 $15,013 $12,611 $2,402 RSTP - AC Conversion $16,289 $16,289 $16,289 TOTAL $38,289 $15,922 $8,934 $12,092 $795 $546 $16,041 $2,651 $19,597 MPO ID: CAL483 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: SHOPP Multiple Objective - Asset Management Program Pilot Project EA NO: 42650 PPNO: 1218 Project Description: From Sorrento Valley Road to Del Mar Heights Road - In the city of San Diego, from Sorrento Valley Road to Del Mar Heights Road, Construct rumble strips on both shoulders, rehabilitate bike path, install fiber optic cable/CCTVs and rehabilitate 48 inch culvert. Asset Management Pilot Project Change Reason: New Project RT:5 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement marking demonstration Est Total Cost: $6,317 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SHOPP (AC)-Rdway Presrv NHS $1,815 $471 $1,344 $1,775 $40 TOTAL $1,815 $471 $1,344 $1,775 $40 Page 6 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 15 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Chula Vista, City of MPO ID: CHV06 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Citywide - AC overlay, chip seals and slurry seal rehabilitation, pavement repairs as well as implementation of the City's pavement management system and pavement inspection. Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $24,542 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $15,900 $15,900 $3,250 $12,650 TransNet - L (Cash) $6,304 $6,304 $1,300 $5,004 TransNet - LSI $748 $75 $51 $301 $321 $326 $422 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $590 $377 $213 $590 Local Funds $1,000 $1,000 $160 $840 TOTAL $24,542 $23,581 $213 $75 $51 $301 $321 $5,626 $18,916 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-04 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $15,900 $15,900 $3,250 $12,650 TransNet - L (Cash) $6,304 $6,304 $1,300 $5,004 TransNet - LSI $948 $75 $111 $361 $401 $386 $562 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $668 $377 $291 $668 Local Funds $1,000 $1,000 $160 $840 TOTAL $24,820 $23,581 $291 $75 $111 $361 $401 $5,764 $19,056 MPO ID: CHV45 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Traffic Monitoring Program TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Citywide - Traffic monitoring to comply with the City's traffic threshold standards, as well as the city's annual traffic count program, which provides data for safety commission studies, capital improvements projects, speed surveys and other traffic uses. Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Non signalization traffic control and operating Est Total Cost: $1,379 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L (Cash) $67 $54 $13 $67 TransNet - LSI $485 $56 $100 $100 $94 $135 $485 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $777 $647 $130 $777 Local RTCIP $50 $50 $50 TOTAL $1,379 $751 $186 $113 $100 $94 $135 $1,379 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-04 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L (Cash) $54 $54 $54 TransNet - LSI $485 $56 $100 $100 $94 $135 $485 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $777 $647 $130 $777 Local RTCIP $50 $50 $50 TOTAL $1,366 $751 $186 $100 $100 $94 $135 $1,366 Page 7 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 16 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Chula Vista, City of MPO ID: CHV48 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Pavement Major Rehabilitation TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Various locations (see list of specific locations);including Brandywine Ave. from Point La Jolla to Mendocino Drive - On-going program of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction which includes overlays (one-inch thick and greater) and street reconstruction. Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $38,532 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L (Cash) $72 $72 $72 TransNet - LSI $16,984 $220 $3,302 $2,505 $3,620 $3,680 $3,656 $2,830 $14,154 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $46 $18 $14 $14 $18 $28 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $21,430 $15,543 $5,887 $2,969 $18,461 TOTAL $38,532 $15,853 $9,203 $2,519 $3,620 $3,680 $3,656 $5,817 $32,715 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L (Cash) $72 $72 $72 TransNet - LSI $17,519 $220 $3,302 $2,505 $3,780 $3,863 $3,848 $2,830 $14,689 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $32 $18 $14 $18 $14 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $21,430 $15,543 $5,887 $2,969 $18,461 TOTAL $39,053 $15,853 $9,203 $2,505 $3,780 $3,863 $3,848 $5,817 $33,236 Page 8 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 17 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Encinitas, City of MPO ID: ENC14A RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Street Overlay Program TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Various locations throughout the City, - in Encinitas, at various locations throughout the City, asphalt grinding, 6" dig outs, 1-1/2" polymer modified asphalt overlay, and preventative maintenance treatments. Change Reason: Reduce funding, Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $28,656 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $600 $600 $600 TransNet - L (Cash) $240 $240 $240 TransNet - LSI $12,940 $4,740 $1,225 $1,702 $1,696 $1,757 $1,820 $12,940 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $253 $253 $253 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $980 $589 $391 $980 Local Funds $13,643 $7,742 $1,141 $1,298 $1,228 $1,155 $1,079 $13,643 TOTAL $28,656 $14,164 $2,757 $3,000 $2,924 $2,912 $2,899 $28,656 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-00 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $600 $600 $600 TransNet - L (Cash) $240 $240 $240 TransNet - LSI $13,164 $4,740 $1,184 $1,702 $1,772 $1,845 $1,921 $13,164 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $253 $253 $253 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $921 $589 $332 $921 Local Funds $13,643 $7,742 $1,141 $1,298 $1,228 $1,155 $1,079 $13,643 TOTAL $28,821 $14,164 $2,657 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $28,821 Page 9 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 18 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Encinitas, City of MPO ID: ENC17 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Program TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Santa Fe Drive from I-5 to El Camino Real near San Dieguito Academy, and portions of Vulcan Avenue adjacent to Paul Ecke Central - in Encinitas, at various locations throughout the City; installation of pathways to include curb, gutter, drainage improvements and landscaping which will provide connectivity Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $5,411 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $900 $900 $900 TransNet - L (Cash) $466 $466 $466 TransNet - LSI $1,007 $624 $383 $1,007 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $830 $657 $173 $830 ATP - S $996 $41 $173 $782 $189 $25 $782 Local Funds $1,212 $1,212 $1,212 TOTAL $5,411 $3,859 $556 $41 $173 $782 $189 $25 $5,197 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-09 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $900 $900 $900 TransNet - L (Cash) $466 $466 $466 TransNet - LSI $1,076 $624 $452 $1,076 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $845 $657 $188 $845 ATP - S $996 $41 $173 $782 $189 $25 $782 Local Funds $1,212 $1,212 $1,212 TOTAL $5,495 $3,859 $640 $41 $173 $782 $189 $25 $5,281 Page 10 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 19 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Encinitas, City of MPO ID: ENC28 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Traffic Signal Modifications TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real; Leucadia Boulevard and El Camino Real; Chesterfield and Highway 101; El Camino Real and Via Molena; Encinitas Boulevard and Delphinium; La Costa and Highway 101; and other circulation element roads within the City - in Encinitas, at various locations on circulation element roads throughout the City, install radio communication to traffic signals, hard wiring system to traffic signals, audible pedestrian signal; install optic fiber for review cameras; replace battery backup units; install pedestrian countdown times; upgrade BiTrans Chip in signal controllers at various traffic signals; traffic signal infrastructure replacement; RAMS support. TransNet - LSI RAMS of $7 is programmed through FY 2021 Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Traffic signal synchronization projects Est Total Cost: $927 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $100 $100 $100 TransNet - L (Cash) $382 $382 $382 TransNet - LSI $270 $233 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $67 $203 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $175 $150 $25 $175 TOTAL $927 $865 $32 $7 $7 $7 $7 $67 $860 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-00 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L $100 $100 $100 TransNet - L (Cash) $382 $382 $382 TransNet - LSI $270 $233 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $67 $203 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $160 $150 $10 $160 TOTAL $912 $865 $17 $7 $7 $7 $7 $67 $845 Page 11 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 20 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) La Mesa, City of MPO ID: LAM48 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: West La Mesa Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Project Project Description: Various streets in the City from to - Enhance safety in West La Mesa by completing more than 4.8 miles of bicycle and pedestrian enhancements linking four schools and a City park. An educational campaign will further promote active transportation as a viable mode. Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $5,351 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - CP $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 ATP - R $1,919 $450 $1,469 $450 $25 $1,444 Local Funds $1,432 $1,432 $1,432 TOTAL $5,351 $450 $4,901 $450 $25 $4,876 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-00 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON ATP - R $1,919 $450 $25 $1,444 $450 $25 $1,444 Local Funds $1,432 $1,432 $1,432 TOTAL $3,351 $450 $25 $2,876 $450 $25 $2,876 Page 12 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 21 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Lemon Grove, City of MPO ID: LG13 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Lemon Grove Avenue Realignment Project RTP PG NO: B-38 RAS (M-41) Project Description: Lemon Grove Avenue at SR-94 - a key project in the redevelopment of TransNet - LSI: CR the city's Downtown Village Specific Plan, this project will realign Lemon Grove Avenue at SR-94 adding traffic lanes and improving access to and from SR-94, reducing motorist delays and emissions Change Reason: Increase funding, Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $4,010 Open to Traffic: Feb 2018 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L (Cash) $1,413 $1,413 $1,413 TransNet - LSI $64 $64 $6 $58 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $1,962 $563 $817 $583 $1,962 Local RTCIP $571 $8 $563 $571 TOTAL $4,010 $2,048 $817 $1,146 $6 $4,004 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - L (Cash) $1,413 $1,413 $1,413 TransNet - LSI $64 $64 $6 $58 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $1,963 $563 $1,000 $400 $1,963 Local RTCIP $525 $8 $517 $525 TOTAL $3,965 $2,048 $1,000 $917 $6 $3,959 MPO ID: LG14 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Traffic Improvements (Preventive Maintenance) TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Citywide - traffic related projects scheduled throughout each fiscal year: traffic loop replacements, traffic signal upgrades, speed survey, street striping improvements, traffic calming studies, and the repair or replacement of street signs; these projects are part of the annual maintenance program established within the City to maintain the operational readiness of the street system Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Non signalization traffic control and operating Est Total Cost: $1,104 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $680 $178 $102 $127 $95 $91 $87 $680 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $424 $399 $25 $1 $423 TOTAL $1,104 $577 $127 $127 $95 $91 $87 $1 $1,103 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $795 $178 $109 $127 $127 $127 $127 $795 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $424 $399 $25 $1 $423 TOTAL $1,219 $577 $134 $127 $127 $127 $127 $1 $1,218 Page 13 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 22 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Lemon Grove, City of MPO ID: LG15 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Storm Drain Rehabilitation (Preventive Maintenance) TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Citywide - improvements or repairs to multiple storm drain facilities such as spot repairs to existing pipes, berms or other diversion devices; attention will be given to the continuous maintenance of Chollas Creek in accordance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which involve debris removal, vegetation control, and/or habitat restoration; city staff/consultant to inventory storm drain system and input into GIS; condition assessment, repair options and strategy report to follow Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Plantings, landscaping, etc Est Total Cost: $733 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $475 $103 $88 $50 $78 $78 $78 $475 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $258 $257 $27 $231 TOTAL $733 $360 $88 $50 $78 $78 $78 $27 $706 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $476 $103 $88 $51 $78 $78 $78 $476 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $258 $257 $27 $231 TOTAL $734 $360 $88 $51 $78 $78 $78 $27 $707 MPO ID: LG16 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Storm Drain Rehabilitation (Congestion Relief) TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Citywide - evaluate, prioritize, and implement improvements to the city's storm drain system by identifying deteriorated or problematic portions of the storm drain system, perform risk assessments to prioritize need, and perform the necessary construction repairs or replacements to avoid roadway flooding Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Hazard elimination program Est Total Cost: $1,202 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $862 $450 $39 $70 $90 $106 $106 $862 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $142 $142 $142 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $198 $138 $60 $198 TOTAL $1,202 $730 $99 $70 $90 $106 $106 $1,202 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $868 $450 $39 $76 $90 $106 $106 $868 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $142 $142 $142 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $198 $138 $60 $198 TOTAL $1,208 $730 $99 $76 $90 $106 $106 $1,208 Page 14 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 23 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Lemon Grove, City of MPO ID: LG17 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Street Improvements (Preventive Maintenance) TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Citywide - maintain city streets and fund costs to survey all streets as part of the pavement management system Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $786 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $575 $362 $50 $43 $55 $65 $15 $560 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $211 $41 $10 $150 $10 $211 TOTAL $786 $403 $60 $150 $53 $55 $65 $15 $771 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $618 $362 $50 $43 $43 $55 $65 $15 $603 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $171 $41 $10 $110 $10 $171 TOTAL $789 $403 $60 $153 $53 $55 $65 $15 $774 MPO ID: LG18 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Traffic Improvements (Congestion Relief) TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Citywide - median installation for safety improvement or left turn movement, new traffic signals, passive permissive left turn installation, signal removal for congestion relief reasons, traffic signal upgrades, intersection lighting, traffic signal coordination, and traffic signal interconnection/optimization Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Intersection signalization projects Est Total Cost: $332 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $292 $152 $20 $60 $20 $20 $20 $4 $288 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $40 $40 $40 TOTAL $332 $152 $60 $60 $20 $20 $20 $4 $328 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $293 $152 $20 $61 $20 $20 $20 $4 $289 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $40 $40 $40 TOTAL $333 $152 $60 $61 $20 $20 $20 $4 $329 Page 15 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 24 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Lemon Grove, City of MPO ID: LG20 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Street Improvements (Congestion Relief - Non CI) TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Citywide - this project involves roadway rehabilitation (grinding and overlay, new structural pavement, or new overlay 1-inch thick or greater) of several streets within the city. Streets were prioritized for work based on levels of deterioration identified in the Pavement Management System; Sidewalk Rehabilitation: this annual project adds sidewalks, widens sidewalks, removes and/or replaces various sidewalk locations and installs Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps throughout the city; Street Improvements: this as needed project would widen or install curb/gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps Change Reason: Increase funding, Revise Fund Source Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $3,813 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $2,219 $228 $404 $409 $387 $387 $406 $2,219 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $147 $147 $147 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $1,294 $1,147 $147 $61 $1,233 Local Funds $153 $153 $153 TOTAL $3,813 $1,522 $404 $709 $387 $387 $406 $61 $3,752 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $2,161 $228 $397 $358 $387 $387 $406 $2,161 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $147 $147 $147 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $1,334 $1,147 $187 $61 $1,273 Local Funds $153 $153 $153 TOTAL $3,795 $1,522 $397 $698 $387 $387 $406 $61 $3,734 Page 16 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 25 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) National City, City of MPO ID: NC03 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Street Resurfacing Project EARMARK NO: CAT 16-065 TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Harding Avenue (north-end to W. 30th St.), Van Ness Avenue(Leonard St. to 200'south), E. 31st St. (B Ave. to D Ave., Roosevelt Avenue (north-end to W. 18th St.), Thelma Way (4th St. to E. 5th St.), E Avenue (E. 20th St. to Cul-de-sac), B Avenue (E. 7th St. to E. 8th St.), E. 5th Street (D Ave. to Highland Ave.), E. 17th St. (N Ave. to Palm Ave.), F Avenue (E. 4th St. to E. 8th St.), Lanoitan Avenue (Division St. to Melrose St.), Burden Dr. (E. 7th St. to E. 8th St.), E. 1st St. (Euclid Ave. to Clairmont Ave.), E. 24th St. (N.C. Blvd. to D Ave.), E. 2nd St. (Valva Ave. to Clairmont Ave.) W. 19th St. (Wilson Ave. to Harding Ave.), E. 3rd St. (Valva Ave. to Clairmont Ave.), W. 16th Street (Hoover Ave. to N.C. Blvd.), Prospect Avenue (E. 20th St. to E. 22nd St.), E. 28th St. (J Ave. to K Ave.), U Avenue (E. 1st St. to E. 4th St.), Paradise Dr. (PCC Fork in Road to E. 10th St.) E. 5th St. (N.C. Blvd. to D Ave.), E. 5th St. (Q Ave. to R Ave.), N Avenue (E. 16th St. to E. 18th St.), E. 15th St. (Highland Ave. to K Ave.), G Ave.(E. 21st St. to E. 22nd St.), E. 7th St. (Palm Ave. to Q Ave.), F Ave. (E. 26th St. to E. 28th St.), E. 18th St. (Highland Ave. to Palm Ave.), Valva Ave. (Melrose S..... Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $21,545 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - CP $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 TransNet - L $5,313 $5,313 $5,313 TransNet - L (Cash) $629 $629 $629 TransNet - LSI $3,822 $2,122 $400 $400 $400 $500 $3,822 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $2,402 $2,402 $2,402 Earmark Repurposing $612 $612 $612 Local Funds $4,267 $4,114 $153 $4,267 TOTAL $21,545 $19,080 $400 $1,165 $400 $500 $21,545 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - CP $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 TransNet - L $5,313 $5,313 $5,313 TransNet - L (Cash) $629 $629 $629 TransNet - LSI $3,822 $2,122 $400 $400 $400 $500 $3,822 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $2,402 $2,402 $2,402 Local Funds $4,114 $4,114 $4,114 TOTAL $20,780 $19,080 $400 $400 $400 $500 $20,780 Page 17 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 26 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN73 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: San Elijo Lagoon Double Track SANDAG ID: 1239806, 3310708 Project Description: On coastal rail corridor in Cardiff and across San Elijo Lagoon from MP 239.2 near Montgomery Ave to MP 241.3 in Solana Beach from MP 239.2 to MP 241.3 - Install 1.5 miles of new double track, replace Bridge 240.4, reconfigure Control Point (CP) Cardiff with double crossovers, install new signals and drainage structures on coastal rail corridor in Cardiff and across San Elijo Lagoon in Solana Beach Change Reason: Increase funding, Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $77,610 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $23,854 $1,789 $5,196 $10,232 $5,934 $664 $40 $2,324 $1,018 $20,512 RSTP $9,413 $9,413 $5,263 $422 $3,728 Prop 1B - TCIF $4,343 $4,343 $4,343 STIP-RIP AC $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 TOTAL $77,610 $55,545 $5,196 $10,232 $5,934 $664 $40 $7,587 $1,440 $68,583 * $761K paid towards OWP 33107.08 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $19,854 $1,789 $6,755 $5,606 $3,186 $2,479 $40 $1,918 $1,008 $16,928 RSTP $9,413 $9,413 $5,263 $422 $3,728 Prop 1B - TCIF $4,343 $4,343 $4,343 STIP-RIP AC $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 TOTAL $73,610 $55,545 $6,755 $5,606 $3,186 $2,479 $40 $7,181 $1,430 $64,999 Page 18 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 27 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN114 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of Track Structures, SANDAG ID: 1239803, Track, and Trackbed in Exisiting Rights-of-Way: Coastal Rail Corridor 1239805, 1239810, 1239813, 1239814, 1239815, 1239816 Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 93.126 and 93.127 Exempt Tables 2 and 3 categories: rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing right-of-way (non-capacity increasing)- from Oceanside to San Diego along the Coastal Rail Corridor; design track improvements Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $213,916 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $102,562 $12,273 $19,420 $9,262 $24,212 $31,503 $5,892 $102,562 CMAQ $64,154 $64,154 $64,154 FTA 5307 $1,765 $1,765 $1,765 FTA 5339 $5,321 $5,321 $5,321 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 Other Fed - ARRA - FRA $3,360 $3,360 $3,360 RSTP $25,136 $10,136 $15,000 $25,136 CAP-TRADE $4,017 $4,017 $4,017 Local Funds $301 $301 $301 TOTAL $213,916 $104,309 $23,738 $24,262 $24,212 $31,503 $5,892 $213,916 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $106,562 $12,273 $19,748 $9,493 $28,228 $32,000 $4,820 $106,562 CMAQ $64,154 $64,154 $64,154 FTA 5307 $1,765 $1,765 $1,765 FTA 5339 $5,321 $5,321 $5,321 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 Other Fed - ARRA - FRA $3,360 $3,360 $3,360 RSTP $25,136 $10,136 $15,000 $25,136 CAP-TRADE $4,017 $4,017 $4,017 Local Funds $301 $301 $301 TOTAL $217,916 $104,309 $24,066 $24,493 $28,228 $32,000 $4,820 $217,916 Page 19 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 28 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN129 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility SANDAG ID: 1201514 Project Description: Downtown San Diego - block between A Street , B Street, State Street and Union Street - Environmental certification and land acquisition for bus stopover facility and multiuse, transit-oriented facility including office, residential and retail space. Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:All Projects - Bus terminal and transfer points Est Total Cost: $45,975 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $45,975 $1,564 $1,154 $41,236 $2,021 $4,935 $41,040 TOTAL $45,975 $1,564 $1,154 $41,236 $2,021 $4,935 $41,040 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $45,975 $1,564 $2,150 $39,800 $2,461 $5,224 $40,751 TOTAL $45,975 $1,564 $2,150 $39,800 $2,461 $5,224 $40,751 MPO ID: SAN148 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities - Coastal Rail Trail SANDAG ID: 1223016, 1223017, 1223018 Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 categories - bicycle and pedestrian facilities (both motorized and non-motorized) Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $33,389 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $29,341 $1,977 $734 $15,465 $10,722 $433 $11 $29,341 ATP - R $1,025 $1,025 $1,025 STIP-RIP STP TE $587 $587 $587 STIP-RIP State Cash $47 $47 $47 Local Funds $250 $250 $250 TDA - Bicycles $2,139 $2,139 $2,139 TOTAL $33,389 $2,611 $734 $16,740 $12,861 $433 $11 $33,389 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-09 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $29,341 $1,977 $961 $14,391 $11,026 $971 $16 $29,341 ATP - R $1,025 $1,025 $1,025 STIP-RIP STP TE $587 $587 $587 STIP-RIP State Cash $47 $47 $47 Local Funds $250 $250 $250 TDA - Bicycles $2,139 $2,139 $2,139 TOTAL $33,389 $2,611 $961 $15,666 $13,165 $971 $16 $33,389 Page 20 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 29 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN227 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities - North Park/Mid-City SANDAG ID: 1223020, Bikeways 1223078, 1223079, 1223080, 1223081, 1223082 Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 categories - bicycle and pedestrian facilities (both motorized and non-motorized) Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $22,641 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $20,034 $1,279 $2,169 $5,525 $9,659 $1,396 $7 $20,034 TDA - Bicycles $2,607 $2,607 $2,607 TOTAL $22,641 $3,886 $2,169 $5,525 $9,659 $1,396 $7 $22,641 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $20,034 $1,279 $2,221 $4,924 $10,255 $1,355 $20,034 TDA - Bicycles $2,607 $2,607 $2,607 TOTAL $22,641 $3,886 $2,221 $4,924 $10,255 $1,355 $22,641 Page 21 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 30 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego County MPO ID: CNTY82 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Alpine Boulevard Streetscape Improvements RTP PG NO: B-37 RAS (M-46) Project Description: Alpine Boulevard from Tavern Road to South Grade Road - In TransNet - LSI: CR unincorporated community of Alpine; Alpine Boulevard Streetscape Improvements - between Tavern Road and South Grade Road, widen from two-lane to three-lane roadway including a median turn-lane with bicycle, parking, and pedestrian improvements Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $9,000 Open to Traffic: Feb 2018 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $2,744 $905 $1,839 $750 $1,994 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Local RTCIP $176 $176 $176 TOTAL $5,920 $1,081 $3,000 $1,839 $926 $4,994 * Total project cost includes prior funding not programmed PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $2,244 $905 $1,339 $750 $1,494 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Local RTCIP $176 $176 $176 TOTAL $5,420 $1,081 $3,000 $1,339 $926 $4,494 MPO ID: CNTY88 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Ashwood Street Corridor Improvements (Mapleview to Willow) RTP PG NO: B-37 TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Ashwood Street/Wildcat Canyon Road from Mapleview Street to 1100 feet north of Willow Road - in the unincorporated community of Lakeside - traffic signal improvements at Mapleview and Ashwood; traffic signal installation at Willow and Ashwood/Wildcat Canyon; and the addition of turn lanes, addition of a passing lane in a non-urbanized area, bike lanes, and pedestrian facilities Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $18,652 Open to Traffic: Jul 2022 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $16,580 $1,641 $2,407 $2,392 $6,360 $3,780 $5,440 $1,000 $10,140 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $209 $209 $209 Local Funds $1,863 $1,863 $1,863 TOTAL $18,652 $1,863 $1,850 $2,407 $2,392 $6,360 $3,780 $7,512 $1,000 $10,140 * additional construction funds are outside of the 5 year RTIP cycle PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $17,080 $1,641 $2,907 $2,392 $6,360 $3,780 $5,940 $1,000 $10,140 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $209 $209 $209 Local Funds $1,863 $1,863 $1,863 TOTAL $19,152 $1,863 $1,850 $2,907 $2,392 $6,360 $3,780 $8,012 $1,000 $10,140 Page 22 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 31 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MPO ID: MTS33A RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Senior Disabled Program Project Description: MTS service area - subsidy for senior and disabled as required by TransNet Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Transit operating assistance Est Total Cost: $8,613 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $8,577 $4,284 $804 $830 $855 $886 $918 $8,577 TransNet - ADA Carryover $36 $36 $36 TOTAL $8,613 $4,320 $804 $830 $855 $886 $918 $8,613 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-03 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - ADA $8,618 $4,284 $804 $830 $865 $899 $936 $8,618 TransNet - ADA Carryover $36 $36 $36 TOTAL $8,654 $4,320 $804 $830 $865 $899 $936 $8,654 Page 23 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 32 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Santee, City of MPO ID: SNT04 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Santee Rehabilitation and Major Repair Work TransNet - LSI: CR Project Description: Multiple locations as recommended by Pavement Management Program report -Pavement Zones: AA, AC, AF, BC, BE, BF, BJ, CC, DA, DB, DD, DE, ED, EE, EF - Reconstruction and rehabilitation in the form of removal and replacement of existing pavement sections 2 inches minimum, 1.5 inch minimum overlay, pedestrian ramps, sidewalk improvements, and drainage improvements as part of the rehabilitation improvements. Change Reason: Increase funding, Revise Fund Source Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $24,671 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - Bond $9,855 $7,459 $2,397 $343 $9,512 TransNet - L $7,729 $7,729 $7,729 TransNet - LSI $1,729 $287 $340 $332 $366 $404 $140 $1,589 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $1 $1 $1 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $3,001 $3,001 $157 $2,844 Local Funds $2,356 $1,186 $279 $416 $475 $15 $2,341 TOTAL $24,671 $19,663 $2,397 $340 $611 $782 $879 $655 $24,016 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-04 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - Bond $9,855 $7,459 $2,397 $343 $9,512 TransNet - L $7,729 $7,729 $7,729 TransNet - LSI $1,900 $287 $340 $383 $423 $467 $140 $1,760 TransNet - LSI (Cash) $1 $1 $1 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $3,001 $3,001 $157 $2,844 Local Funds $1,186 $1,186 $15 $1,171 TOTAL $23,672 $19,663 $2,397 $340 $383 $423 $467 $655 $23,017 Page 24 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 33 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Santee, City of MPO ID: SNT22 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Santee Slurry Seal and Roadway Maintenance TransNet - LSI: Maint Project Description: Various locations as defined in pavement management report, and including neighborhood zones BB, BF, and ED - Maintenance repair in the form of grind and patch failed areas followed by Cape seal or Slurry seal of the street Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est Total Cost: $4,205 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $1,601 $600 $384 $145 $142 $157 $173 $90 $1,511 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $1,434 $904 $530 $78 $1,356 Local Funds $1,170 $279 $416 $475 $1,170 TOTAL $4,205 $1,504 $914 $145 $421 $573 $648 $168 $4,037 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-04 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - LSI $1,674 $600 $384 $145 $164 $181 $200 $90 $1,584 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $1,434 $904 $530 $78 $1,356 TOTAL $3,108 $1,504 $914 $145 $164 $181 $200 $168 $2,940 Page 25 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 34 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Various Agencies MPO ID: V11 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: State Route 11 EA NO: 05631 PPNO: 0999 Project Description: From Border of Mexico east of SR 905/Otay Mesa Border Crossing to RTP PG NO: A-6; B-5 future SR 125/905 junction - Construction of four-lane toll highway SANDAG ID: 1201101 facility, CVEF and POE in three segments: Segment 1: SR-11/905 to EARMARK NO: CA393/740 Enrico Fermi; Segment 2: SR-11 from Enrico Fermi to Siempre Viva; Segment 3: POE from Siempre Viva to Mexico Border. Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the PE phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the ROW phase Change Reason: Add new funding source, Reduce funding RT:11 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $681,747 Open to Traffic: Phase 1: Apr 2016 Phase 2: Nov 2020 Phase 3: Nov 2020 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - Border $6,488 $1,138 $722 $4,628 $1,860 $4,628 TransNet - MC $4,343 $68 $888 $1,527 $1,860 $2,483 $1,860 CBI $127,139 $78,789 $45,000 $3,350 $29,698 $94,091 $3,350 HPP $800 $800 $800 INFRA/FASTLANE $49,278 $49,278 $49,278 ITS $439 $439 $439 Prop 1B - TCIF $74,155 $71,625 $2,530 $74,155 STIP-IIP NHS $6,882 $6,882 $6,882 STIP-IIP Prior State Cash $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 STIP-IIP State Cash $919 $919 $919 Local Funds $406,104 $406,104 $5,657 $400,447 TOTAL $681,747 $164,722 $47,026 $57,407 $412,592 $53,938 $100,579 $527,230 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-07 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - Border $6,488 $3,105 $3,383 $6,488 TransNet - MC $4,343 $68 $3,929 $346 $4,343 CBI $125,395 $80,395 $45,000 $29,700 $95,695 HPP $800 $800 $800 ITS $439 $439 $439 Prop 1B - TCIF $71,625 $71,625 $71,625 STIP-IIP NHS $6,882 $6,882 $6,882 STIP-IIP Prior State Cash $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 STIP-IIP State Cash $919 $919 $919 Local Funds $466,557 $61,000 $405,557 $5,657 $460,900 TOTAL $688,648 $166,328 $52,034 $64,729 $405,557 $53,940$102,183 $532,525 Page 26 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 35 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Various Agencies MPO ID: V12 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. SANDAG ID: 1223036, 1223044, 1223045, 1223054, Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 1223057, 1223058, 1223059, categories - bicycle and pedestrian facilities (both motorized and 1223060, 1223062, 1223063, non-motorized) 1223064, 1223065 Change Reason: Revise funding between fiscal years Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $36,218 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - B $500 $500 $500 TransNet - BPNS $25,639 $2,116 $3,116 $3,329 $9,145 $3,957 $3,976 $25,639 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $980 $980 $980 ATP - R $3,335 $3,335 $3,335 ATP - S $4,450 $4,450 $4,450 Local Funds $1,300 $1,100 $200 $1,300 Local RTCIP $14 $14 $14 TOTAL $36,218 $4,696 $3,130 $6,864 $9,145 $8,407 $3,976 $36,218 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-09 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - B $500 $500 $500 TransNet - BPNS $25,639 $2,116 $3,116 $3,329 $9,145 $3,957 $3,976 $25,639 TransNet - LSI Carry Over $980 $980 $980 ATP - R $3,335 $3,335 $3,335 ATP - S $4,450 $4,450 $4,450 Local Funds $1,300 $1,100 $30 $170 $1,300 Local RTCIP $14 $14 $14 TOTAL $36,218 $4,696 $3,130 $3,359 $9,145 $11,912 $3,976 $36,218 Page 27 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 36 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) Various Agencies MPO ID: V14 RTIP #:16-12 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Active Transportation Program (ATP) SANDAG ID: 1223014 Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 categories - bicycle and pedestrian facilities (both motorized and non-motorized) Change Reason: Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $47,545 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $3,230 $1,659 $1,018 $156 $181 $164 $52 $3,230 ATP - R $17,664 $12,385 $188 $1,035 $880 $1,834 $1,342 $17,664 ATP - S $18,790 $1,955 $3,900 $4,264 $6,993 $1,678 $18,790 Local Funds $7,861 $1,340 $591 $1,518 $4,412 $7,861 TOTAL $47,545 $17,339 $5,697 $6,973 $12,466 $3,676 $1,394 $47,545 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-09 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $3,230 $1,659 $1,018 $156 $181 $164 $52 $3,230 ATP - R $18,423 $12,385 $638 $780 $1,444 $1,834 $1,342 $18,423 ATP - S $18,790 $1,955 $3,900 $4,264 $6,993 $1,678 $18,790 Local Funds $8,736 $1,340 $591 $1,393 $5,412 $8,736 TOTAL $49,179 $17,339 $6,147 $6,593 $14,030 $3,676 $1,394 $49,179 Page 28 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 37 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) RTIP Fund Types Federal Funding ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Federal Stimulus Program) BIP/CBI Border Infrastructure Program/Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality DEMO-Sec 117/STP Surface Transportation Program under FHWA Administrative Program (congressionally directed appropriations) EARREPU Earmark Repurposing FRA-ARRA Federal Railroad Administration (Federal Stimulus) FRA-PRIIA Federal Railroad Administration Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 FTA Section 5307 Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program FTA Section 5339 Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grant Program HBP Highway Bridge Program under SAFETEA-LU HPP High Priority Program under SAFETEA-LU ITS Intelligent Transportation System NHS National Highway System (administered by Caltrans) RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program STP-RL Surface Transportation Program - Highway Railway Crossings Program (Section 130) TE Transportation Enhancement Program CMAQ/RSTP Conversion Reimbursement of advanced federal funds which have been advanced with local funds in earlier years State Funding ATP Active Transportation Program (Statewide and Regional) SLPP State Local Partnership Program (State Prop. 1B) STIP-IIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program STIP-RIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional Improvement Program TCIF Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (State Prop. 1B) Local Funding RTCIP Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program TDA-B Transportation Development Act-Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities TransNet-ADA Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit TransNet-B Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Bike TransNet-Border Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Border TransNet-BPNS Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program TransNet-CP Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Commercial Paper TransNet-L Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Local Streets & Roads TransNet-L (Cash) TransNet - L funds which agencies have received payment, but have not spent TransNet-LSI Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Local System Improvements Page 29 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 38 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s) TransNet-LSI Carry Over TransNet - LSI funds previously programmed but not requested/paid in year of allocation TransNet-LSI (Cash) TransNet - LSI funds which agencies have received payment, but have not spent TransNet-MC Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Major Corridors TransNet-MC AC TransNet - Major Corridors - Advanced Construction; mechanism to advance TransNet funds to be reimbursed at a later fiscal year with federal/state funds Page 30 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 39 Table 2a: Revenues San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Attachment 3 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Prior Years Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Sales Tax $2,293,832 $564,854 $549,008 $628,356 $621,451 $582,335 $591,753 $445,258 $458,388 $550,583 $550,450 $5,065,046 $5,064,882 -- County $2,293,832 $564,854 $549,008 $628,356 $621,451 $582,335 $591,753 $445,258 $458,388 $550,583 $550,450 $5,065,046 $5,064,882 Other Local Funds $428,813 $122,100 $122,100 $144,221 $84,948 $501,409 $501,109 $90,423 $90,253 $80,956 $80,956 $1,367,922 $1,308,179 -- County General Funds -- City General Funds $287,880 $97,904 $97,904 $60,921 $62,648 $63,978 $63,131 $81,176 $81,006 $53,404 $53,404 $645,262 $645,972 -- Street Taxes and Developer Fees $140,934 $24,196 $24,196 $83,300 $22,300 $437,431 $437,978 $9,247 $9,247 $27,552 $27,552 $722,660 $662,207 -- RSTP Exchange funds Other $523,266 $103,609 $103,609 $80,348 $80,395 $91,749 $92,307 $88,018 $88,849 $86,869 $87,820 $973,859 $976,246 Local Total $3,245,912 $790,563 $774,717 $852,925 $786,793 $1,175,492 $1,185,169 $623,698 $637,489 $718,409 $719,227 $7,480,843 $7,349,307 State Highway Operations and Protection Program $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $147,510 $54,562 $98,533 $149,755 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $592,280 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $147,510 $54,562 $98,533 $149,755 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $592,280 SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program $603,307 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $651,622 $651,622 STIP (Including Augmentation) $561,551 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $609,866 $609,866 Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior $41,756 $41,756 $41,756 Transportation Enhancement Proposition 1 A $99,698 $99,698 $99,698 STATE LOCAL Proposition 1 B $709,633 $3,224 $3,224 $2,530 $1,319 $1,319 $714,175 $716,705 GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $155,194 $4,052 $4,052 $159,246 $159,246 State Transit Assistance (e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $96,445 $12,951 $12,951 $8,502 $8,502 $22,246 $22,246 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $170,984 $170,984 Active Transportation Program $14,340 $4,538 $4,538 $12,438 $17,497 $18,125 $17,561 $11,649 $8,314 $3,231 $3,231 $64,321 $65,481 Other $20,720 $56,829 $56,829 $18,672 $18,672 $16,011 $16,011 $11,659 $11,659 $11,659 $11,659 $135,550 $135,550 State Total $1,930,155 $233,603 $233,603 $191,197 $196,816 $112,049 $155,456 $188,483 $196,265 $78,222 $78,222 $2,654,402 $2,790,517 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $524,273 $66,534 $66,534 $71,578 $71,578 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $875,790 $875,790 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,768 $99,768 $99,768 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $123,331 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 100,000 $100,000 100,000 $100,000 100,000 $593,380 $593,380 $1,066,711 $1,066,711 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $57,734 $57,734 $57,734 5310 - Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities $3,391 $3,798 $3,798 $7,189 $7,189 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $6,806 $965 $965 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $11,383 $11,383 5316 - Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 5317 - New Freedom 5337 - State of Good Repair $130,176 $37,939 $37,939 $39,389 $39,389 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $326,988 $326,988 FEDERAL TRANSIT FEDERAL 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $13,417 $4,974 $4,974 $5,648 $5,648 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $40,449 $40,449 Other $93,839 $160 $160 $93,999 $93,999 Federal Transit Total $1,052,736 $164,370 $164,370 $217,517 $217,517 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $710,716 $710,716 $2,580,010 $2,580,010 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) * $340,096 $47,143 $47,143 $15,763 $15,763 $33,531 $33,531 $34,223 $34,223 $34,223 $34,223 $504,977 $504,977 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $192,381 $45,000 $45,000 $3,350 $237,381 $240,731 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $113,582 $5,841 $5,841 $1,307 $1,307 $120,731 $120,731 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $43,955 $11,930 $11,930 $3,317 $3,317 $1,755 $1,755 $14,733 $14,733 $282,416 $282,416 $358,105 $358,105 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,885 $4,750 $4,750 $3,842 $3,842 $12,585 $12,585 $13,231 $13,231 $36,293 $36,293 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $432,594 $39,148 $39,148 $40,826 $40,826 $43,072 $43,072 $44,862 $44,862 $44,862 $44,862 $645,364 $645,364 Other $248,299 $3,667 $3,667 $2,886 $52,164 $1,700 $2,312 $9 $9 $256,560 $306,450 Federal Highway Total $1,372,793 $157,478 $157,478 $67,940 $120,568 $92,642 $93,254 $107,048 $107,048 $361,510 $361,510 $2,158,325 $2,212,651 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 Federal Total $2,452,007 $321,848 $321,848 $285,457 $338,085 $309,978 $310,590 $324,384 $324,384 $1,072,225 $1,072,225 $4,765,900 $4,819,140 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 VE VATI FINA INNO Innovative Financing Total REVENUES TOTAL $7,628,075 $1,346,015 $1,330,168 $1,329,579 $1,321,694 $1,597,518 $1,651,214 $1,136,566 $1,158,139 $1,868,857 $1,869,675 $14,906,436 $14,958,965 Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment *CMAQ revenues reflect updates to final apportionments for FY 2017 and a payback of borrowed apportionment to OCTA in FY 2018 40 Table 2b: Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Prior Years Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Local Total $3,245,912 $763,034 $747,159 $830,297 $764,166 $1,160,767 $1,170,033 $619,087 $632,416 $705,940 $706,237 $7,324,864 $7,265,924 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $147,510 $54,562 $98,533 $149,755 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $592,280 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $149,480 $147,510 $54,562 $98,533 $149,755 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $539,162 $592,280 State Transportation Improvement Program $603,307 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $651,622 $651,622 STIP (Including Augmentation) $561,551 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $1,105 $44,000 $44,000 $609,866 $609,866 Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior $41,756 $41,756 $41,756 Transportation Enhancement Proposition 1 A $99,698 $99,698 $99,698 Proposition 1 B $709,633 $3,224 $3,224 $2,530 $1,319 $1,319 $714,175 $716,705 STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $155,194 $4,052 $4,052 $159,246 $159,246 State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $96,445 $12,951 $12,951 $8,502 $8,502 $22,246 $22,246 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $170,984 $170,984 Active Transportation Program $14,340 $4,538 $4,538 $12,438 $17,497 $18,125 $17,561 $11,649 $8,314 $3,231 $3,231 $64,321 $65,481 Other $20,720 $56,829 $56,829 $18,672 $18,672 $16,011 $16,011 $11,659 $11,659 $11,659 $11,659 $135,550 $135,550 State Total $1,930,155 $233,603 $233,603 $191,197 $196,816 $112,049 $155,456 $188,483 $196,265 $78,222 $78,222 $2,654,402 $2,790,517 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $524,273 $66,534 $66,534 $71,578 $71,578 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $875,790 $875,790 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,768 $99,768 $99,768 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $123,331 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $593,380 $593,380 $1,066,711 $1,066,711 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $57,734 $57,734 $57,734 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program $3,391 $3,798 $3,798 $7,189 $7,189 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $6,806 $965 $965 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $11,383 $11,383 5312 - National Research and Technology Program 5311f - Intercity Bus FEDERAL TRANSIT FEDERAL 5337 - State of Good Repair $130,176 $37,939 $37,939 $39,389 $39,389 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $326,988 $326,988 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $13,417 $4,974 $4,974 $5,648 $5,648 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $40,449 $40,449 Other $93,839 $160 $160 $93,999 $93,999 Federal Transit Total $1,052,736 $164,370 $164,370 $217,517 $217,517 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $710,716 $710,716 $2,580,010 $2,580,010 Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $340,096 $47,143 $47,143 $15,763 $15,763 $33,531 $33,531 $34,223 $34,223 $18,227 $18,227 $488,982 $488,982 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $192,381 $45,000 $45,000 $3,350 $237,381 $240,731 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) Federal Lands Highway Ferry Boat Discretionary High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $113,582 $5,841 $5,841 $1,307 $1,307 $120,731 $120,731 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $43,955 $11,930 $11,930 $3,317 $3,317 $1,755 $1,755 $14,733 $14,733 $282,416 $282,416 $358,105 $358,105 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,885 $4,750 $4,750 $3,842 $3,842 $12,585 $12,585 $13,231 $13,231 $36,293 $36,293 National Scenic Byways Program Projects of National/Regional Significance (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1301) Public Lands Highway FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Railway (Section 130) Recreational Trails Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $432,594 $39,148 $39,148 $40,826 $40,826 $43,072 $43,072 $16,994 $19,166 $3,250 $3,250 $575,884 $578,056 Transportation Improvements (TI) Other $248,299 $3,667 $3,667 $2,886 $52,164 $1,700 $2,312 $9 $9 $256,560 $306,450 Federal Highway Total $1,372,793 $157,478 $157,478 $67,940 $120,568 $92,642 $93,254 $79,180 $81,352 $303,902 $303,902 $2,072,850 $2,129,347 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 Other FRA Federal Railroad Administration Total $26,479 $26,479 $26,479 Federal Total $2,452,007 $321,848 $321,848 $285,457 $338,085 $309,978 $310,590 $296,516 $298,688 $1,014,618 $1,014,618 $4,666,489 $4,735,837 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 INN TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 PROGRAM TOTAL $7,628,075 $1,318,485 $1,302,611 $1,306,951 $1,299,067 $1,582,793 $1,636,078 $1,104,086 $1,127,369 $2,336,265 $2,336,562 $15,276,482 $15,329,762 Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment 41 Table 2c: Revenues versus Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) Prior Y 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Local Total $27,530 $27,558 $22,628 $22,627 $14,725 $15,136 $4,612 $5,073 $12,468 $12,989 $81,963 $83,384 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program SHOPP (Including Augmentation) SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program STIP (Including Augmentation) Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior Proposition 1 A Proposition 1 B STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) Highway Maintenance (HM) Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) Safe Routes to School (SR2S) State Emergency Repair Program Other State Total 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program 5311c - Public Transportation on Indian Reservation 5312 - National Research and Technology Program FEDERAL TRANSIT 5337 - State of Good Repair 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program Other Federal Transit Total Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $15,995 $15,995 $15,995 $15,995 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Recreational Trails FEDERAL HIGHWAY Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $27,868 $25,696 $41,612 $41,612 $69,481 $67,309 Other Federal Highway Total $27,868 $25,696 $57,607 $57,607 $85,476 $83,304 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total Federal Total $27,868 $25,696 $57,607 $57,607 $85,476 $83,304 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) INN TIVE TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total REVENUES - PROGRAM TOTAL $27,530 $27,558 $22,628 $22,627 $14,725 $15,136 $32,480 $30,769 $70,076 $70,597 $167,439 $166,687 42 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-10 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: DISCUSSION SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE 2019-2050 REGIONAL PLAN – DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS File Number 31020 Introduction At its April 6, 2018, meeting, the Transportation Committee provided input on the upcoming development of transportation networks for San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan (2019 Regional Plan). This report summarizes feedback received, describes the proposed process to create transportation network scenarios, and provides information on the public outreach scheduled for April and early May 2018. Discussion What we heard At the April 6, 2018, meeting, staff discussed the development of three funding scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan. These funding scenarios range from more conservative (approximately $100 billion) to more optimistic (approximately $200 billion) based on the year the dollars would be invested1. A list of transportation themes or possible components of the plan, such as investments to maintain the transportation system, build major capital projects, and plan for the integration of technology, among others, were presented. Transportation Committee members discussed their preference for developing multiple transportation network scenarios. For example, one concept was described that emphasizes congestion relief and the efficient movement of people, goods, and services. Another would focus on sustainability and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as is the focus of many local climate action plans. A request also was made to develop more than one transportation network scenario for each of the three funding scenarios. The Regional Planning Committee also provided input at its meeting on April 6, 2018. Members discussed a focus on an efficient transportation network, maintaining the existing transportation system in good repair, considering pricing policies, and establishing an innovation fund for investments in technology, such as smart signals and pilot projects. 1 In year of expenditure (based on the year the dollars would be invested). Proposed Process for Initial Transportation Network Scenarios The proposed process to develop transportation network scenarios outlined below intends to address the comments received by the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees. The goal is to provide decision makers and the public with a range of options and performance results that is comprehensive and at the same time manageable and understandable. Ultimately, this process would lead to the selection of a preferred transportation scenario by the Board of Directors in fall 2018. Step 1: Select a Preferred Funding Scenario To provide information to help the Board of Directors select one funding scenario for development of the 2019 Regional Plan, staff proposes to use the current 2015 Regional Plan network and priorities to develop an initial transportation scenario for each of the three funding scenarios.2 As illustrated below, the most conservative funding scenario would allow inclusion of the fewest number of projects and programs while the most optimistic funding scenario would include the largest number of projects and programs in the 2019 Regional Plan. Step 2: Consider Distinct Transportation Network Scenarios Following the selection of a funding scenario, staff proposes to develop a range of distinct transportation network scenarios that would be based on input from the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees, Board of Directors, and the public. These draft scenarios would each emphasize considerations such as those outlined above (e.g., efficient mobility, sustainability, etc.). The Board-approved performance measures would then be applied to each scenario to help compare and contrast the draft scenarios, as illustrated in the chart below3. 2 The cost of the projects and programs in the 2015 Regional Plan would be updated to 2018 cost estimates. 3 The chart is for illustrative purposes only. There may be more than three distinct transportation network scenarios presented for consideration. 2 Step 3: Select a Preferred Transportation Network Scenario The Board of Directors could choose to select one of the transportation network scenarios as the preferred scenario or direct staff to develop a hybrid or new scenario. Once a preferred transportation network scenario is approved by the Board, a Draft Environmental Impact Report would be prepared. Public Outreach A regional open house and five subregional open houses co-hosted by community-based organizations are scheduled from April 23 through May 3, 2018 (Attachment 1). The open houses are intended both to provide information on components considered in the development of transportation network scenarios and to seek input on transportation priorities, given funding constraints. Information stations will include an overview of the 2019 Regional Plan; components of the Regional Plan such as transit, Managed Lanes/highways, active transportation, goods movement, emerging technologies and services; as well as, considerations related to the environment/climate change, public health, and the economy. A survey in English and Spanish will be available at the open houses and posted on SDForward.com. CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Attachment: 1. Regional Plan Network Themes Outreach Flier (English and Spanish) Key Staff Contacts: Phil Trom, (619) 699-7330, [email protected] Elisa Arias, (619) 699-1936, [email protected] 3 Attachment 1 Help Shape Our Region’s Future The Regional Plan | 2019–2050 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Network Themes Open Houses The open houses will include an interactive tour of components considered Join Us! in the transportation network scenario development process, including for an Open House about the transit, Managed Lanes/highways, emerging technologies and services, future of transportation in the environment/climate change, public health, and the economy. Visit San Diego region information stations to learn more and share your thoughts on the region’s future. You’re invited to speak with staff directly, complete a survey, Advancements in technologies, like smart and/or submit a comment card about what you envision for San phone applications and ridesharing, are Diego's future. rapidly shaping and changing how we travel. As the region evolves, what will San Monday, April 23, 2018 Spanish-speaking staff members will be Diego’s transportation network look like in 11:30 a.m.–2 p.m. and available at the open houses. 30 years? What transportation issues are The surrounding area and Old Town 5:30–8 p.m. Transit Center are accessible via most important for your quality of life? What Amtrak, COASTER, the Green Line should be considered as, together, we build Caltrans District 11 Trolley, and several bus routes. San Diego’s transportation vision for 2050? Garcia Auditorium Call 511 or visit 511sd.com/transit The San Diego Association of Governments 4050 Taylor Street for route information. (SANDAG) wants your input on factors San Diego, CA 92110 Limited parking also available. to consider as we develop transportation network scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan. Draft network scenarios will be RSVPto Ariel Jacome-Lopez, SANDAG Regional Planning, at available for public input in summer 2018 [email protected], (619) 699-7388, or via the SANDAGregion Facebook and a preferred scenario, which will form page by attending the “Network Themes Open House” event. the core of the 2019 Regional Plan, will be selected by the Board of Directors in If you can’t attend an open house, you can still provide your input through fall 2018. an online survey that will be available from April 23-May 10. This is a family-friendly event, and light Subregional Open Houses, April 25–May 3 refreshments will be served. SANDAG is also partnering with several community based organizations to host open houses throughout the region (see reverse for details). For more information, visit SDForward.com SANDAGregion SANDAG SANDAGregion SANDAGregion 4 Subregional Open Houses The Regional Plan | 2019–2050 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Network Themes SANDAG is partnering with 13 Community Based Organizations (CBOs) from around the region to bring the 2019 Regional Plan to the community level. These organizations have created programs to engage stakeholders from low-income communities, limited-English speaking populations, the disabled community, and seniors to ensure that their voices are heard and that San Diego Forward: The 2019–2050 Regional Plan is socially equitable. Everyone is welcome at these subregional open houses hosted in collaboration with SANDAG CBO partners. North County Coastal: Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 5:30–7:30 p.m. Encinitas Public Library, Community Room 540 Cornish Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024 TransNet is undergoing a Hosted by: Alliance for Regional Solutions Ten-Year Review East County: Monday, April 30, 2018, 3:30–5:30 p.m. El Cajon Police Department, Community Room Ten years of the 40-year TransNet 100 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 measure have passed and the Hosted by: El Cajon Collaborative and Nile Sisters Development Initiative voter approved half-cent sales tax South County: Tuesday, May 1, 2018, 5–7 p.m. for transportation improvements is undergoing a comprehensive San Ysidro Civic Center 212 W. Park Avenue, San Diego, CA 92173 review promised to voters. The Hosted by: Chula Vista Community Collaborative, Casa Familiar, and Olivewood Gardens TransNet Ten-Year Review has been aligned with the development of North County Inland: Wednesday, May 2, 2018, 5–7 p.m. the 2019 Regional Plan. The “look Centro Universidad Popular back” report that assesses program 1234 N. Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 100, Vista, CA 92083 performance was presented to the Hosted by: Vista Community Clinic and CSUSM - National Latino Research Center Board in January 2018, and the Central San Diego: Thursday, May 3, 2018, 5:30–7:30 p.m. “look ahead” is underway. Input Jackie Robinson Family YMCA, Community Room gathered through the 2019 Regional 151 YMCA Way, San Diego, CA 92102 Plan network development process Hosted by: Bayside Community Center, City Heights CDC, Operation Samahan, will help inform potential revisions Urban Collaborative Project, and Barrio Logan College Institute to improve TransNet performance going forward. Learn more at About San Diego Forward: The 2019–2050 Regional Plan sandag.org/TransNet10YearReview The 2019 Regional Plan will build upon the 2015 Regional Plan, which merged local In compliance with the Americans planning efforts, emerging issues, and innovative concepts into an overall vision for with Disabilities Act (ADA), this the region’s future, including specific actions to turn that vision into reality. document is available in alternate SANDAG kicked off the 2019 Regional Plan effort in April 2017 and is in the process formats by contacting the SANDAG ADA Coordinator, the Director of of gathering public input on key future decision areas. For more information, visit Administration, at (619) 699-1900 SDForward.com. or (619) 699-1904 (TTY). For more information, visit SDForward.com SANDAGregion SANDAG SANDAGregion SANDAGregion 5 4495 3/18 Ayude a moldear el futuro de nuestra región The Regional Plan | 2019–2050 Reuniones comunitarias de temas comunes de redes de transporte para el Plan Regional 2019 Las reuniones comunitarias incluirán un recorrido interactivo de los componentes ¡Acompáñenos que están siendo considerados durante el proceso del desarrollo de redes viables de en una reunión comunitaria transporte, incluyendo transporte público, carriles/carreteras de acceso controlado, sobre el futuro del transporte tecnologías y servicios emergentes, cambios ambientales/climáticos, salud pública en la región de San Diego! y economía. Visite los puestos de información para obtener más información y compartir sus ideas sobre el futuro de la región. Lo invitamos a platicar Los avances tecnológicos, como las directamente con un miembro del personal, llenar una encuesta y/o entregar aplicaciones de los teléfonos inteligentes y una tarjeta de comentarios con su visión para el futuro de San Diego. los servicios de transporte compartido, están Miembros del personal que hablan español definiendo y cambiando rápidamente cómo Lunes, 23 de abril de 2018 estarán disponibles durante las reuniones nos movilizamos. A medida que la región 11:30 a.m.–2 p.m. comunitarias. evoluciona, ¿cómo será la red de transporte y 5:30–8 p.m. Puede acceder el área y el Centro de de San Diego en unos treinta años? ¿Qué Transporte Público de Old Town a través aspectos del transporte son más importantes Distrito 11 de Caltrans de Amtrak, el COASTER, la Línea Verde del para su calidad de vida? ¿Qué debemos Auditorio García Trolley y varias rutas de autobuses. Llame tomar en cuenta al definir juntos la visión del 4050 Taylor Street al 511 o visite 511sd.com/transit para obtener información sobre las rutas. transporte en San Diego para el año 2050? San Diego, CA 92110 La Asociación de Gobiernos de San Diego Habrá estacionamiento limitado disponible. (SANDAG, por sus siglas en inglés) desea conocer su opinión sobre los factores que deben ser tomados en cuenta a medida que CONFIRME SU ASISTENCIA contactando a Ariel Jácome-López, desarrollamos las redes de transporte viables Planificación Regional, a [email protected], al (619) 699-7388 o a través de la para el Plan Regional 2019. Los borradores página de Facebook de SANDAGregion confirmando su asistencia al evento de redes viables estarán disponibles para “Network Themes Open House”. comentarios públicos en el verano de 2018 y la Mesa Directiva seleccionará en el otoño de Si no puede asistir a una de las reuniones comunitarias, puede expresar su opinión a 2018 la red de preferencia que será el núcleo través de una encuesta que estará disponible en línea entre el 23 de abril y el 10 de mayo. del Plan Regional 2019. Reuniones comunitarias subregionales, 25 de abril – 3 de mayo Este es un evento apto para toda la familia y se SANDAG también está trabajando con varias organizaciones comunitarias para servirá un ligero refrigerio. llevar a cabo reuniones comunitarias en toda la región (puede encontrar los detalles en el reverso). Para más información, visite SDForward.com SANDAGregion SANDAG SANDAGregion SANDAGregion 6 Reuniones comunitarias subregionales The Regional Plan | 2019–2050 Temas comunes de redes de transporte para el Plan Regional 2019 SANDAG está trabajando con trece organizaciones comunitarias (CBO, por sus siglas en inglés) de la región para lograr que el Plan Regional 2019 esté al alcance de las comunidades. Estas organizaciones han creado programas para fomentar la participación de las partes interesadas en las comunidades de bajos recursos, las poblaciones que tienen limitaciones para hablar inglés, la comunidad de personas con discapacidades y las personas mayores, para asegurar que sus voces sean escuchadas y que San Diego Forward: El Plan Regional 2019 – 2050 sea socialmente equitativo. Todos son bienvenidos a estas reuniones comunitarias subregionales organizadas en conjunto con las aliadas CBO de SANDAG. Zona costera del norte del condado: Miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 5:30–7:30 p.m. Encinitas Public Library, Community Room TransNet está pasando por 540 Cornish Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024 Organizado por: Alliance for Regional Solutions una evaluación decenal Este del condado: Lunes, 30 de abril de 2018, 3:30–5:30 p.m. Han pasado diez de los cuarenta años El Cajon Police Department, Community Room de la medida TransNet y el impuesto 100 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 de medio centavo aprobado por los Organizado por: El Cajon Collaborative y Nile Sisters Development Initiative votantes para mejoras en el transporte Sur del condado: Martes, 1 de mayo de 2018, 5–7 p.m. está pasando por una exhaustiva evaluación, tal como se les prometió San Ysidro Civic Center a los votantes. La Evaluación Decenal 212 W. Park Avenue, San Diego, CA 92173 Organizado por: Chula Vista Community Collaborative, Casa Familiar y Olivewood Gardens de TransNet se ha alineado con el desarrollo del Plan Regional 2019. Interior del norte del condado: Miércoles, 2 de mayo de 2018, El informe "retrospectivo", que evalúa 5–7 p.m. el desempeño del programa, fue Centro Universidad Popular presentado ante la Mesa Directiva 1234 N. Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 100, Vista, CA 92083 en enero de 2018 y el informe Organizado por: Vista Community Clinic y National Latino Research Center de CSUSM “anticipatorio” está en proceso. Centro de San Diego: Jueves, 3 de mayo de 2018, 5:30–7:30 p.m. La información recopilada durante el Jackie Robinson Family YMCA, Community Room proceso de desarrollo del Plan Regional 151 YMCA Way, San Diego, CA 92102 2019 ayudará a tomar decisiones Organizado por: Bayside Community Center, City Heights CDC, Operation Samahan, informadas sobre modificaciones Urban Collaborative Project y Barrio Logan College Institute potenciales que mejorarán el desempeño de TransNet en el futuro. Más información en inglés: Sobre San Diego Forward: El Plan Regional 2019 – 2050 sandag.org/TransNet10YearReview El Plan Regional 2019 estará basado en el Plan Regional 2015, el que combinó las iniciativas En cumplimiento con la Ley de locales de planificación, aspectos emergentes y conceptos innovadores en una visión Estadounidenses con Discapacidades general para el futuro de la región, incluyendo acciones específicas para lograr que esta (ADA, por sus siglas en inglés), usted visión sea una realidad. puede solicitar este documento en formatos alternos contactando al SANDAG lanzó la iniciativa del Plan Regional 2019 en abril de 2017 y se encuentra en coordinador de ADA de SANDAG, proceso de recopilar comentarios públicos sobre futuras decisiones clave. Para más el director administrativo, al información, visite SDForward.com. (619) 699-1900 o al (619) 699-1904 (TTY). Para más información, visite SDForward.com SANDAGregion SANDAG SANDAGregion SANDAGregion 7 4495 3/18 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-04-11 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 20, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: DISCUSSION SANDAG CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET: ENVIRONMENTAL File Number 1500000 AND DESIGN WORK SET-ASIDE Introduction Recommendation At its March 23, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors The Transportation Committee is asked directed staff to provide options to include a set-aside to provide feedback on potential options dedicated to environmental and design work for the to include a set-aside dedicated to FY 2019 Program Budget on capital projects. The environmental and design work in the purpose of this set-aside would be to continuously FY 2019 Program Budget. develop a shelf of projects that are “shovel-ready” for future construction funding opportunities. This report outlines the status of environmental and design activities currently included in the SANDAG Capital Program and potential options to expand this effort in the FY 2019 Program Budget. Discussion Completion of environmental and design phases is an important and effective strategy to ensure that a shelf of “shovel-ready” projects is ready to compete when funding opportunities arise. Typically, competitive grant programs only will fund the construction phase of projects. Completion of the environmental and design phases with regional or other funds ensures a steady stream of “shovel-ready” projects. While the Board of Directors has not set aside a specific percentage of funds to complete these activities, it historically has funded these activities to be prepared for future funding opportunities. Two recent examples of this successful approach include the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit and Interstate 5 (I-5) North Coast Corridor (NCC) Projects. Completion of the environmental and design work for the Mid-Coast project allowed the region to successfully compete for more than $1 billion in federal transit funds. Similarly, by completing the environmental clearance and design of Phase 1 of the I-5 NCC project, the region was successful in securing about $160 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds and is well positioned to compete for an additional $195 million in Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding. Other similar instances occurred in the Interstate 15 (I-15), Interstate 805 (I-805), and COASTER corridors. The source of funds for environmental and design completion typically is TransNet, supplemented with some state and federal formula funds. For example, SB 1 provides new formula funds that will be leveraged with other funds to complete environmental work on the I-15/SR 78 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) connector; and design on several high-priority Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor rail projects, the State Route 94 (SR 94)/State Route 125 (SR 125) missing connector, and I-805/State Route 52 auxiliary lanes. Draft FY 2019 Program Budget The draft FY 2019 Program Budget includes more than $218 million to complete environmental clearance and design activities for 30 unique projects (Attachment 1). This includes funding to complete the environmental clearance for 13 capital projects, which includes the I-15/SR 78 HOV lane connectors and SR 78 widening from Twin Oaks Boulevard to I-15, four double track projects along the COASTER corridor, and three bikeway projects, among others.1 In addition, this funding will allow completion of the design phase for 25 projects, including the SR 94/SR 125 missing connector project, 4 double track projects, and 16 bikeway projects, among others. In total, this funding will support environmental clearance and design activities for 35 percent of the capital projects included in the FY 2019 Program Budget. The $218 million budgeted to support these efforts represents nine percent of the total budget moving forward beginning in FY 2019. Future Environmental and Design Work As the Mid-Coast and I-5 NCC projects progress through construction, environmental and design activities for other projects will begin in order to position them for future funding opportunities. The number of projects and start of work will be constrained by the amount and timing of available funds each budget cycle. Consistent with past practice, it is recommended that projects be prioritized for environmental and design work based on the following criteria: 1. Included in the Revenue Constrained Element of the Regional Plan 2. Completed Project Study Report or equivalent feasibility study 3. Included in TransNet Program 4. Completed or funded environmental clearance (for design funds) 5. Support completion of the High Occupancy Vehicle/Managed Lane network 6. Address areas of significant congestion Criteria 1 through 4 have been used as part of previous funding decisions. Criterion 5 is proposed to help finish the HOV and Managed Lane network through the region, as identified in the Regional Plan, in order to maximize the benefits of previous investments. Although there already are completed HOV and Managed Lane sections along various freeways, these are not yet interconnected into a larger, more efficient system. Criterion 6 is proposed to help address areas of significant congestion. Attachment 2 lists the projects that would meet these criteria, which includes the Blue Line Trolley grade separations in Chula Vista and supporting completion of the Express Lane system. Below are options (in no priority order) that could be implemented should the Board of Directors choose to expedite the initiation of environmental and/or design work on these projects. Redirect Funds This option would entail re-directing funds from other ongoing projects. Attachment 3 shows all currently funded projects. This option is not recommended given that significant resources have been expended to get these projects to their current status and interruption of work could cause future re-work at added expense. 1 Some of the projects listed in Attachment 1 were awarded funding after the Board of Directors meeting on March 23, 2018, and will be added into the FY 2019 Program Budget at a later date. 2 Capital Program Reserve This option would include the use of the Capital Program Reserve. This Reserve, which currently has approximately $54 million, was approved by the Board of Directors in FY 2018 to address unforeseen cost increases on ongoing projects, mainly for projects under construction, as well as for unresolved outstanding claims. A portion or all of this Reserve could be used to begin work in FY 2019, with supplemental funds added in FY 2020 as they become available. This option poses the risk that the agency could face unforeseen expenditures in FY 2019 with a reduced Reserve balance to address these issues. Staff recommends not using Reserve funds at this time, until more substantial construction is completed on current major capital projects to reduce the level of risk. Funding from Local Jurisdictions This option would rely on partnerships with local jurisdictions to jump start work on projects a year earlier. For example, this type of partnership could allow SR 78 Corridor preliminary engineering, estimated to cost $3 million, to begin in FY 2019 should the local jurisdictions provide the funding. SB 1 Pending the result of SB 1 awards in May 2017, there is approximately $195 million in TransNet and federal formula funds that could be available to support environmental or design activities. This funding could be added to the budget, with work beginning in FY 2020 or beyond (Attachment 2). This option would be contingent on the preservation of SB 1. If the repeal effort is successful, staff’s recommendation would be to re-direct the $195 million to complete construction of Phase 1 of the I-5 NCC. Recommendation Given the uncertainty associated with the SB 1 repeal effort, staff recommends that action on any of the options above be deferred until the status of SB 1 is known. Should the $195 million not be needed for the I-5 NCC project as a result of SB 1 funds, this funding could be used to support environmental and design activities for $2.5 - $3.5 billion worth of capital projects. If the repeal effort is successful, future funding opportunities would be limited; thereby making any significant expedited investments premature given the risk that environmental or design plans may become stale by the time construction dollars become available. JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director Attachments: 1. Draft FY 2019 Final Program Budget – Projects Funded for Environmental and Design Phases 2. List of Potential Projects to Advance Completion of Environmental and Design Work 3. List of All Capital Improvement Program Projects Currently Underway Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, (619) 699-1908, [email protected] 3 Attachment 1 Draft FY 2019 Final Program Budget - Projects funded for Environmental and Design Phases Total for Segment Project Title Corridor phase ($1000's) Environmental Phase 1 1201514 Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility I-15 487 2 1207802 15/78 Connectors SR 78 7,000 3 1223079 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Howard-Orange Bikeway Bikeway EAP 142 4 1223080 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Monroe Bikeway Bikeway EAP 101 5 1223086 Uptown Bikeways: Park Boulevard Bikeway Bikeway EAP 262 6 1239809 Eastbrook to Shell Double Track COASTER 4,965 7 1239810 Carlsbad Village Double Track COASTER 1,690 8 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 COASTER 2,900 9 1239813 San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Platform COASTER 4,085 10 1239814 COASTER Preliminary Engineering COASTER 857 11 1239818 Signal Respacing and Optimization COASTER 560 12 12805xx I-805 Aux Lanes at SR 52/Nobel Drive I-805 4,000 13 3101800 CV Light Rail Trolley Improvement Study Blue Line Trolley 1,319 Environmental Total 28,368 Design Phase 14 1129900 Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main Street to Palomar Bikeway EAP 717 15 1200503 I-5/SR 56 Interchange I-5 5,162 16 1200504 I-5 HOV: Birmingham Drive to Palomar Airport Drive I-5 62,382 17 1200510 I-5 HOV: Carlsbad I-5 11,350 18 1201101 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry SR 11 44,006 19 1201514 Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility I-15 2,079 20 1212501 SR 94/SR 125 South to East Connector SR 94 7,948 21 1223023 Inland Rail Trail Bikeway EAP 9,038 22 1223053 San Diego River Trail: Carlton Oaks Segment Bikeway EAP 681 23 1223054 Central Avenue Bikeway Bikeway EAP 435 24 1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway Bikeway EAP 822 25 1223078 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Landis Bikeway Bikeway EAP 1,310 26 1223079 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Howard-Orange Bikeway Bikeway EAP 1,416 27 1223080 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Monroe Bikeway Bikeway EAP 305 28 1223081 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: University Bikeway Bikeway EAP 691 29 1223082 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Georgia-Meade Bikeway Bikeway EAP 2,023 30 1223083 Uptown Bikeways: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways Bikeway EAP 1,574 31 1223084 Uptown Bikeways: Washington Street and Mission Valley Bikeways Bikeway EAP 1,691 32 1223085 Uptown Bikeways: Mission Hills and Old Town Bikeways Bikeway EAP 112 33 1223086 Uptown Bikeways: Park Boulevard Bikeway Bikeway EAP 270 34 1239809 Eastbrook to Shell Double Track COASTER 4,417 35 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 COASTER 8,777 36 1239813 San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Platform COASTER 9,296 37 1239816 Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track COASTER 7,325 38 1239818 Signal Respacing and Optimization COASTER 1,050 Design Total 189,743 4 Attachment 2 List of Potential Projects to Advance Completion of Environmental and Design Work COSTS 1. 4. 5. Supports Completion 2. Copmleted PSR 6. Addresses 3. Included in Environmental Completion Route Limits Scope Phase year included or Feasibility significant Annual Costs ($Millions) Total TransNet Phase Cleared of HOV/ML in current Report congestion or Funded network RTP FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 1 Blue Line Trolley Palomar St Trolley Grade Separation Design 2028 Yes Yes Yes No Yes 5.0 5.0 2 Blue Line Trolley E St/F St/H St Trolley Grade Separation Environmental 2028 Yes Yes No No Yes 2.0 3.0 5.0 3 I-5 SR 78 to SR 76 2 HOV/ML Widening Design 2025 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7.0 8.0 15.0 4 I-5/ SR 78 Frwy to Frwy Connector Interchange Improvements Environmental 2025 Yes Yes No No Yes 5.0 6.0 11.0 5 I-15 I-8 to SR 163 2 HOV/ML Widening Environmental/Design 2025 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 5.0 5.0 10.0 I-15/SR 78 HOV/ML Connector I-15/SR 78 I-15/SR 78 to Twin Oaks Blvd Design 2025 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.0 9.9 2.1 17.0 6 and SR 78 Widening 7 SR 52 I-15 to SR 125 Operational Improvements Environmental/Design 2035 Yes No No No Yes 2.9 7.1 10.0 8 SR 78 I-5 to I-15 2 HOV/ML Widening Preliminary Engineering 2025/2030 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 9 SR 78 I-5 to I-15 2 HOV/ML Widening Environmental 2025/2030 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 10.0 12.0 12.0 34.0 10 SR 94/SR 125 Interchange Missing Connector Right of Way 2025 Yes Yes Yes No Yes 7.0 7.0 11 I-805 SR 52 to SR 163 2 HOV/ML Widening Environmental 2030 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3.0 5.0 8.0 HOV/ML Connector at I-805/SR Connector - No I-805 I-805/SR 15 to SR 94 Design/Right of Way 2025 Yes Yes Yes Yes 15.0 5.0 20.0 12 15 and I-805 Widening HOV lanes - Yes Total Costs 3.0 44.0 42.9 47.0 8.1 145.0 REVENUES TransNet, Federal formula (RSTP, CMAQ) 44.0 42.9 4 7.0 6 2.0 195.9 Local 3.0 3.0 Total Revenues 3.0 44.0 42.9 47.0 62.0 198.9 BALANCE (REVENUES minus COSTS) - - - - 53.9 5 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Attachment 3 FY 2019 Capital Program Expenditures ($1,000s) Amount Estimated Remaining Project Approved Funded Per Expended Budget Project Title FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 TOTAL Number Budget FY 2019 Thru June as of Budget 2018 June 2018 TransNet EARLY ACTION PROJECTS 1200503 I-5/SR 56 Interchange 17,957 17,957 13,037 4,920 2,273 2,266 381 17,957 1200504 I-5 HOV: Birmingham Drive to Palomar Airport Drive 369,616 135,778 83,670 52,108 5,818 73,394 18,584 22,906 2,484 206,856 1200507 I-5/Voigt Drive Improvements 28,980 28,980 5,749 23,231 6,191 6,465 5,859 4,716 28,980 1200510 I-5 HOV: Carlsbad 127,261 317 314 3 3 87,363 87,680 1201514 Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility 45,975 45,975 17,797 28,178 27,378 800 45,975 1207802 15/78 Connectors 0 7,000 7,000 1212501 SR 94/SR 125 South to East Connector 0 7,948 7,948 1239807 Sorrento Valley Double Track 32,989 32,989 32,907 82 76 6 32,989 1239809 Eastbrook to Shell Double Track 10,920 10,920 6,221 4,699 2,499 2,200 10,920 1239810 Carlsbad Village Double Track 3,754 3,754 3,674 80 80 3,754 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 14,440 14,440 7,785 6,655 3,240 3,210 205 14,440 1239813 San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Platform 16,445 16,445 9,445 7,000 3,500 3,500 16,445 1239814 COASTER Preliminary Engineering 1,222 1,222 1,005 217 157 60 1,222 1239816 Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track 69,340 33,793 10,199 23,594 3,148 8,228 12,118 80 20 33,793 1239818 Signal Respacing and Optimization 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 1280508 SR 94 Express Lanes: I-805 to Downtown 22,600 22,600 21,297 1,303 3 1,300 22,600 12805xx I-805 Aux Lanes at SR 52/Nobel Drive 0 4,200 4,200 TOTAL TransNet EARLY ACTION PROJECTS 763,499 367,170 213,100 154,070 74,514 102,429 37,147 27,702 89,867 0 0 0 0 544,759 TCIF/GOODS MOVEMENT 1201101 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry 543,273 130,768 122,432 8,336 8,147 189 130,768 TOTAL TCIF/GOODS MOVEMENT PROJECTS 543,273 130,768 122,432 8,336 8,147 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130,768 REGIONAL BIKEWAY PROJECTS 1129900 Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main Street to Palomar 3,193 3,193 1,403 1,790 163 1,612 15 3,193 1223020 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Robinson Bikeway 5,946 5,946 3,370 2,576 91 305 2,087 93 5,946 1223022 Uptown Bikeways: Fourth and Fifth Avenue Bikeways 21,559 21,559 6,328 15,231 416 9,054 5,504 257 21,559 1223023 Inland Rail Trail 56,500 44,245 30,312 13,933 7,390 6,543 44,245 1223052 San Diego River Trail: Stadium Segment 2,684 2,684 681 2,003 1,973 30 2,684 1223053 San Diego River Trail: Carlton Oaks Segment 1,582 1,582 877 705 564 141 1,582 1223054 Central Avenue Bikeway 994 994 623 371 347 24 994 1223055 Bayshore Bikeway: Barrio Logan 17,964 17,964 1,911 16,053 5,457 9,989 607 17,964 1223056 Border to Bayshore Bikeway 12,216 12,216 981 11,235 1,099 2,069 6,443 1,622 2 12,216 1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway 12,314 12,314 1,491 10,823 271 7,873 2,674 5 12,314 1223058 Downtown to Imperial Avenue Bikeway 13,488 13,488 1,973 11,515 1,536 3,703 6,096 180 13,488 1223078 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Landis Bikeway 7,250 7,250 941 6,309 2,835 3,469 5 7,250 1223079 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Howard-Orange Bikeway 1,736 1,736 207 1,529 423 1,003 103 1,736 1223080 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Monroe Bikeway 526 526 196 330 270 60 526 1223081 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: University Bikeway 1,076 1,076 290 786 495 263 28 1,076 1223082 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Georgia-Meade Bikeway 11,282 11,282 2,017 9,265 3,801 4,530 934 11,282 1223083 Uptown Bikeways: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways 3,776 3,776 741 3,035 1,100 769 1,156 10 3,776 1223084 Uptown Bikeways: Washington Street and Mission Valley Bikeways 1,864 1,864 586 1,278 904 374 1,864 1223085 Uptown Bikeways: Mission Hills and Old Town Bikeways 358 358 17 341 181 160 358 1223086 Uptown Bikeways: Park Boulevard Bikeway 688 688 193 495 375 110 10 688 TOTAL REGIONAL BIKEWAY PROJECTS 176,996 164,741 55,138 109,603 29,691 52,081 25,662 2,167 2 0 0 0 0 164,741 6 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FY 2019 Capital Program Expenditures ($1,000s) Amount Estimated Remaining Project Approved Funded Per Expended Budget Project Title FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 TOTAL Number Budget FY 2019 Thru June as of Budget 2018 June 2018 MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS 1130102 Financial System Upgrade Contract Management System 1,250 1,087 758 329 329 1,087 1142600 Joint Transportation Operations Center (JTOC) 2,085 2,085 23 2,062 2,047 5 5 5 2,085 1146100 Del Mar Bluffs IV 3,107 3,107 780 2,327 2,268 59 3,107 1146500 Bridge 257.2 Replacement Project 5,467 4,774 1,019 3,755 1,493 2,262 4,774 1400405 SR 125 Ramps Overlay 14,550 14,550 0 14,550 1,900 900 9,600 2,000 130 20 14,550 TOTAL MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS 26,459 25,603 2,580 23,023 8,037 3,226 9,605 2,005 130 20 0 0 0 25,603 TOTAL ACTIVE PROJECTS (TransNet EAP, GOODS MOVEMENT, REGIONAL BIKEWAY, MAJOR CAPITAL, AND MINOR CAPITAL 1,510,227 688,282 393,250 295,032 120,389 157,925 72,414 31,874 89,999 20 0 0 0 865,871 PROJECTS) 7 Draft FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Report and Responses to Recommendations San Diego Association of Governments Transportation Committee Item 6 | April 20, 2018 Cathy Brady SJOBERGEVASHENK 2018 Performance Audit . Triennial Performance Audits required by TransNet Ordinance . Audit Period: July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017 . 4th Triennial Performance Audit work coincided with TransNet 10-Year Look-Back Review . Audit Scope was set by ITOC and refined with Audit Subcommittee over the course of the audit . Focused on project performance in achieving Ordinance goals, financial management, project delivery and oversight of CMGC method, and efficiency and effectiveness of projects and program areas SJOBERGEVASHENK 2 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 1 April 20, 2018 Report Overview . Short Executive Summary followed by Recommendations . Nine Chapters, each with 1-page Chapter Summary: 1. TransNet Financing 2. Performance Framework 3. Major Corridor Capital Construction 4. Local Streets and Roads 5. Transit Services 6. Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation 7. Environmental Mitigation Program 8. Information and Transparency 9. Conclusions and Summary of Agency Response . Appendices SJOBERGEVASHENK 3 Key Results – Meeting TransNet Goals TransNet Ordinance Goals Goal Met? 1 Relieve Congestion Mixed Results 2 Improve Safety Mixed Results 3 Match State and Federal Funds 4 Expand Freeways 5 Maintain and Improve Roads 6 Increase Transit for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities 7 Expand Commuter Express Bus, Trolley, and COASTER Services SJOBERGEVASHENK 4 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 2 April 20, 2018 Finance Key Results . Financing Strategy • Funds leveraged met the intend of TransNet with SANDAG securing $1.89 in state and federal funds for every $1 of TransNet funds . Revenues • TransNet collections were lower than forecasted but not unlike similar organizations • Updated forecasts show a decline in future revenues that could potentially impact future projects . Costs • Initial cost estimate assumptions were conservative and reasonable but better communication of reasons for project cost changes are needed SJOBERGEVASHENK 5 Finance . Debt Service • Within the Major Corridors Program, annual TransNet revenues are projected to exceed debt service, but periods of higher risk exist $400 $350 Millions) $300 (in $250 $200 Dollars $150 $100 Collection $50 of $0 Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 Major Corridors Annual Debt Service Net Major Corridors Funds SJOBERGEVASHENK 6 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 3 April 20, 2018 Finance . Capacity for Future • Given current revenue projections, SANDAG needs to effectively leverage other funds to deliver major corridor projects by 2048 • Future mix of projects needed may change and affect funding needs . Transit Operations Plan • Assumptions used in the Transit Operations Plan were generally reasonable, but future annual shortfalls exist $20,000 $10,000 $0 ($10,000) ($20,000) ($30,000) 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048 Annual Surplus or Shortfall SJOBERGEVASHENK 7 Performance Key Results . Goals were established in the TransNet Extension Ordinance, but targets were not set and data was not collected to measure progress towards TransNet goals . Performance data was available through a variety of sources, but was not consistently summarized and reported regionally at the SANDAG level . Significant Performance Data is still needed for the Local Street and Road Program . Story Map tracked some outputs and accomplishments, although more is needed SJOBERGEVASHENK 8 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 4 April 20, 2018 Major Corridor Capital Construction Key Results . Congestion: Highways continue to be congested and commutes took longer 30 28.12 28.28 28.45 Alameda County 25 Riverside County (Millions) 20 San Bernadino County VMT 15 10 San Diego County Annual 5 San Francisco (City and) County 0 75% Las Vegas‐‐Henderson, NV Urbanized Area Van took 70% and 67% San Diego, CA Urbanized Area Minutes 65% that 64% 65% 30 Tampa‐‐St. Petersburg, FL Urbanized Area Truck, 60% than Car, Seattle, WA Urbanized Area of 55% Commutes less % Riverside‐‐San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area 50% 2014 2015 2016 San Francisco‐‐Oakland, CA Urbanized Area SJOBERGEVASHENK 9 Major Corridor Capital Construction . Safety: Injuries and fatalities on highways and roadways recently increased 1.40 San Bernardino VMT 1.20 per 1.00 0.88 Riverside 0.81 0.80 0.71 San Francisco Million 0.60 Fatalities San Diego 100 0.40 Alameda 0.20 0.00 2013 2014 2015 . Pavement & Bridge Condition: Highway pavement quality increased, and fewer bridges were in distressed condition . Construction Manager/General Manager: CMGC Project Construction project delivery method employed on I-5 North Coast Corridor and Mid-Coast Corridor report advantages SJOBERGEVASHENK 10 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 5 April 20, 2018 Local Street and Road Key Results . Pavement Condition • Pavement condition has declined since 2014 but recent rehabilitation efforts by the City of San Diego will reverse this trend . 70/30 Congestion Relief & Maintenance Split • 70/30 split requirement may not allow local jurisdictions sufficient flexibility in linking TransNet monies to current infrastructure needs at the local level . Rule 21 – Bike and Pedestrian Accommodation • Compliance with the rule is not regularly monitored and has been deferred to monitoring efforts as part of the Complete Streets policy implementation SJOBERGEVASHENK 11 Transit Services Key Results . Systemwide transit network demonstrated strong performance as compared to peers with results mostly meeting targets . Systemwide transit ridership reached a 10-year high in 2015, but has since declined—similar to national trends of decreased ridership . TransNet goal of increased services to seniors and persons with disabilities was met with 23.9 million riders in 2016—7% more than when TransNet started . Cost of pass subsidy for seniors and persons with disabilities may impact funds available for other transit operations and service improvements . Limits on operating costs may need to be revisited SJOBERGEVASHENK 12 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 6 April 20, 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Key Results . Bike ridership and its share of commute increased since the start of TransNet, but decreased from 2014 to 2016 3% San Francisco‐‐Oakland, CA Urbanized Area Seattle, WA Urbanized Area 2% Commute Bike Tampa‐‐St. Petersburg, FL Urbanized Area of by 1% 0.88% 0.70% 0.74% San Diego, CA Urbanized Area Percent 0% Las Vegas‐‐Henderson, NV Urbanized Area 2014 2015 2016 SJOBERGEVASHENK 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian . Bike Safety improved 2% over last three years, but worsened 21% since start of TransNet . Pedestrian Safety increased 4% over last three years and 18% since start of TransNet 25 or Alameda 20 100 Riverside VMT 15 Injured per San Bernardino 10 Million San Diego Killed 5 3.44 3.74 3.38 Bicyclists San Francisco 0 2013 2014 2015 30 Alameda 100 25 Injured Riverside VMT 20 per 15 San Bernardino 10 Killed Million San Diego 4.07 4.32 4.21 or 5 Pedestrians San Francisco 0 2013 2014 2015 SJOBERGEVASHENK 14 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 7 April 20, 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian . Bike EAP activities recently ramped up, but some projects showed delays. Slower start was due to the newness of the program and learning curve for stakeholders to understand its benefits Status of Bike EAP Projects, January 2018 Not Yet Environmental Design Construction Open to in CIP Public •9 •9 Projects •12 •3 •4 Projects Projects Projects Projects SJOBERGEVASHENK 15 Environmental Mitigation Key Results . EMP processes and agreements were successful and significant progress was made but much work remains as efforts shift towards restoration efforts . Restoration costs are expected to exceed estimates mostly because more wetlands were acquired and restored . Mitigation bank underutilized by local agencies . Habitat conservation performance structure was in place, but communicating complex results to the public remains a challenge SJOBERGEVASHENK 16 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 8 April 20, 2018 Information and Transparency Key Results . Decision makers and the public would benefit from succinct summarized insights from SANDAG staff to navigate voluminous information presented Example of Staff Summary Report for Agenda Item Maricopa Association of Governments, Regional Council Meeting, February 23, 2018. SJOBERGEVASHENK 17 Information and Transparency . Public awareness of TransNet is somewhat unknown . No specific tracking against Ordinance goals is communicated SJOBERGEVASHENK 18 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 9 April 20, 2018 Conclusion of Audit Presentation Next Steps and Questions SJOBERGEVASHENK 19 Next Steps April 20, 2018 Sjoberg Evashenk presents draft report to Transportation Committee June 20, 2018 Sjoberg Evashenk finalizes report July 11, 2018 Sjoberg Evashenk presents final report to ITOC July 27, 2018 ITOC presents final report to SANDAG Board July 2020 Start of 5th Triennial Performance Audit SJOBERGEVASHENK 20 Transportation Committee Item 6 | 10 April 20, 2018 CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXEMPTION Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 POLICY SUPPORT • Regional Bike Plan and Bike EAP • City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan • Climate Action Plan and Vision Zero GObyBIKEsd.com 2 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 1 CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY • City of San Diego • City Heights and Kensington, from Adams Avenue and SR 15 Bikeway to Landis Street GObyBIKEsd.com 3 CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY BICYCLE BOULEVARD • Low-speed, low-volume street optimized for bike traffic • Discourage cut-through motor-vehicle traffic and allow local motor-vehicle traffic • Are designed to give priority to people biking as through- going traffic GObyBIKEsd.com 4 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 2 PROJECT GOALS • Enhance neighborhood connectivity • Make streets safer for all • Promote active and healthy communities • Create a safe route to two major transit centers, among numerous other destinations GObyBIKEsd.com 5 CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS LANDIS STREET TO POLK AVENUE Bike lane and enhanced pavement markings Intersection improvements Bike signal and dual crossing GObyBIKEsd.com 6 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 3 CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS POLK AVENUE TO MEADE AVENUE Intersection improvements Cul de sac, dual crossing and bike signal Crossing enhancements GObyBIKEsd.com 7 CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS MEADE AVENUE TO ADAMS AVENUE/SR 15 BIKEWAY Parking Lot Crossing enhancements Improved pavement markings New separated path GObyBIKEsd.com 8 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 4 PUBLIC OUTREACH PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OPEN HOUSE • Community Planning Groups – City Heights Area Planning Committee (unanimous approval) – Kensington Talmadge Planning Committee (unanimous approval) – Normal Heights Community Planning Group (non-jurisdictional) • Teralta West Neighborhood Association • Two advertised “pop-up” neighborhood meetings at Teralta Park and Kensington Library Park • Open House and Public Hearing at Cherokee Point Elementary School on February 26, 2018 GObyBIKEsd.com 9 CEQA COMPLIANCE COVERED BY THREE CEQA EXEMPTIONS • One Statutory Exemption • Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas • Two Categorical Exemptions • Class 1. Existing Facilities • Class 4. Minor Alterations to Land GObyBIKEsd.com 10 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 5 CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION • The “Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas” statutory exemption covers re-striping for bike lanes consistent with the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan • Staff completed actions required to use the exemption – Published Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment on February 9, 2018 – Held noticed public hearing to accept public comments on February 26, 2018 – Prepared written responses to public comments GObyBIKEsd.com 11 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS • Class 1 and Class 4 cover alterations to existing city streets, curbs, intersections, and related facilities, and creation of bike lanes on existing rights-of-way – Curb extensions, curb ramps, painted bike lanes, shared lane markings, and other similar features • Project has negligible or no expansion of existing uses (Class 1) • Project does not trigger any exceptions to use of categorical exemption (Class 4) GObyBIKEsd.com 12 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 6 CEQA RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • 12 individuals/organizations provided comments • 11 of 12 comments expressed support • Attachment 4 includes written “master responses” to common themes 1. Overarching project design concepts and specific project features 2. Project history 3. On-street parking GObyBIKEsd.com 13 NEXT STEPS • Pending approval of the CEQA exemption, staff would move forward with final design • Schedule – Ready to advertise in August 2019 – Construction to begin in October 2019 – Open to public in August 2020 GObyBIKEsd.com 14 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 7 RECOMMENDATION The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the California Environmental Quality Act exemption for the Central Avenue Bikeway (Attachment 2). GObyBIKEsd.com 15 Transportation Committee Item 7 | April 20, 2018 8 San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan Development of Transportation Networks Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 2019 Regional Plan Development Process Fall 2017 ‐ Summer 2018 Fall 2018 Spring ‐ Fall 2019 Network Development (All Modes) Define Unconstrained Apply Network Performance Measures Vision, Update Draft/Final Goals, and Transit 2019 Policy Strategy Objectives Evaluate Select RP/SCS, Air Revenue Preferred Constrained Revenue Quality Constrained Transportation Conformity, 2050 Scenarios Scenario Regional Evaluate Scenarios and EIR Growth Technologies Forecast Revenue and Cost Draft/Final Projections RHNA Ongoing Public Involvement 2 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 1 Feedback From Transportation and Regional Planning Committees Transportation scenarios • Emphasis on congestion relief, efficient movement of people and goods • Emphasis on sustainability and reduction in greenhouse gases Other considerations • Maintain existing transportation system • Consider pricing • Create Innovation Fund for technology, pilot projects 3 2019 Regional Plan Three Funding Scenarios • Low revenue (approx. $100 billion) in $YOE – Continuation of existing sources only • Medium revenue (approx. $150 billion) in $YOE – Plus SB 1, fuel tax and VMT fees, local sales tax (MTS) • High revenue (approx. $200 billion) in $YOE – Plus future regional funding measure and leveraged funding $ Funding Scenario 1 $ Funding Scenario 2 $ Funding Scenario 3 $YOE: Dollars in Year of Expenditure 4 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 2 Challenges of Multiple Funding and Transportation Scenarios Funding Scenario 1 Funding Scenario 2 Funding Scenario 3 2019 Regional2025 Plan 2019 Regional2025 Plan 2019 Regional2025 Plan Network2035 1 Network2035 1 Network2035 1 Performance2050 Measures Performance2050 Measures Performance2050 Measures 2019 Regional2025 Plan 2019 Regional2025 Plan 2019 Regional2025 Plan Network2035 2 Network2035 2 Network2035 2 Performance2050 Measures Performance2050 Measures Performance2050 Measures 2019 Regional2025 Plan 2019 Regional2025 Plan 2019 Regional2025 Plan Network2035 3 Network2035 3 Network2035 3 Performance2050 Measures Performance2050 Measures Performance2050 Measures 5 2019 Regional Plan Proposed Process: Multiple Transportation Scenarios Under Preferred Funding Scenario STEP 1 Select a Preferred Funding Scenario Preferred Funding Scenario 6 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 3 Proposed Process: Multiple Transportation Scenarios Under Preferred Funding Scenario STEP 1 Select a Preferred Funding Scenario Preferred Funding STEP 2 Scenario Consider Distinct Transportation Network Scenarios 2019 Regional Plan 2019 Regional Plan 2019 Regional Plan Network 1 Network 2 Network 3 Performance Performance Performance Measures Measures Measures 7 2019 Regional Plan Proposed Process: Multiple Transportation Scenarios Under Preferred Funding Scenario STEP 1 Select a Preferred Funding Scenario Preferred Funding STEP 2 Scenario Consider Distinct Transportation Network Scenarios STEP 3 Select a Preferred Preferred 2019 Transportation Regional Plan Network Network Scenario Performance Measures 8 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 4 Public Outreach • Information Stations – Overview of 2019 Regional Plan development – Plan components (transit, roads, active transportation, technologies, operations) – Environment, public health, economy, climate change • Seek input on transportation priorities, given funding constraints 9 2019 Regional Plan Public Outreach • April 23, 2018: Mid‐day and evening open houses • April 25 –May 3, 2018: Subregional open houses co‐ hosted by Community Based Organizations (CBOs) – North County Coastal – East County – South County – North County Inland – Central San Diego • Concurrent survey effort (online and at open houses) 10 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 5 Next Steps • Public outreach and input – Open Houses: April 23 –May 3, 2018 – Survey: April 23 –May 10, 2018 • May 11, 2018: Board of Directors 11 2019 Regional Plan Transportation Committee Item 10 | April 20, 2018 6 Capital Program Budget: Environmental and Design Work Set-Aside Transportation Committee Item 11 | April 20, 2018 Environmental and Design Set-Aside • Why focus on this phase? – Strategic approach to have shelf of shovel-ready projects – Competitive funds focus on construction phase – Take advantage of opportunities (SB 1, STIP, TIGER, Cap and Trade, other) • Recent Examples – Mid-Coast: $1 billion in FTA funds – I-5/North Coast Corridor . $160 million in STIP funds (approved by CTC) . $195 million in SB 1 funds (pending May CTC action) 2 Transportation Committee Item 11 | April 20, 2018 1 Existing Efforts • $218M in Draft FY2019 Budget (9% of total) • 30 Projects (out of 85 CIPs) • 16 Bikeway Projects • 4 Coastal Rail Corridor Double Track Projects • Interchange Improvements – I-5/SR 56 – I-15/SR 78 – SR 94/SR 125 • SR 11 • I-805 Widening – Governor Drive to SR 52 3 Potential Revenues ($millions) FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total TransNet, Federal 44.0 42.9 47.0 62.0 195.9 Formula Funds Local 3.0 3.0 Total Anticipated 3.0 44.0 42.9 47.0 62.0 198.9 4 Transportation Committee Item 11 | April 20, 2018 2 Potential Project Funding Options ($millions) # Project Description FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 1 Blue Line Trolley Palomar Grade Sep, Design 5.0 2 Blue Line Trolley E St/F St/H St Grade Sep, Environmental 2.0 3.0 3 I-5, SR 78 to SR 76 2 HOV/ML, Design 7.0 8.0 4 I-5/SR 78 Connector, Environmental 5.0 6.0 5 I-15, I-8 to SR 163 2 HOV/ML, Environmental/Design 5.0 5.0 6 I-15/SR 78 HOV/ML Connector, Design 5.0 9.9 2.1 Operational Improvements, 7 SR 52, SR 125 to I-15 2.9 7.1 Environmental/Design 8 SR 78, I-5 to I-15 2 HOV/ML, Prelim. Engineering 3.0 9 SR 78, I-5 to I-15 2 HOV/ML, Environmental 10.0 12.0 12.0 10 SR 94/SR 125 Missing Connector, Right of Way 7.0 11 I-805, SR 52 to SR 163 2 HOV/ML, Environmental 3.0 3.0 HOV/ML Connector at SR 15, 12 I-805, SR 94 to SR 15 15.0 5.0 2 HOV/ML Design/Right of Way Total Costs 3.0 44.0 42.9 47.0 8.1 5 Potential Project Funding Options • Blue Line Grade Separations • HOV/Managed Lane Projects – I-5, I-15, SR 78, I-805 • Interchange and Operational Improvements – I-5/SR 78 – I-15/SR 78 – SR 94/SR 125 – SR 52 6 Transportation Committee Item 11 | April 20, 2018 3 Proposed Criteria for Project Recommendations 1. Projects must be included in the Revenue Constrained Element of the Regional Plan 2. Projects must have a completed Project Study Report or equivalent Feasibility study 3. Projects should be included in TransNet 4. Projects with completed or funded environmental clearance are priority for design funds 5. Projects should support completion of High Occupancy Vehicle/Managed Lane network 6. Projects should address areas of significant congestion 7 Financial Considerations • Limited Funds in FY 2019 • About $196 million available FY 2020-FY 2023 • Options to advance start of work earlier – Re-direct from existing projects – Use Capital Program Reserve ($54 million) – Partner with local agencies/others to advance 8 Transportation Committee Item 11 | April 20, 2018 4 Financial Considerations (Cont’d.) • Risks – Potential Repeal of SB 1 in November 2018 . Potential loss of $195 million in SB 1 for I-5/NCC – Potential need to program $196 million in available regional funds to I-5/NCC • Recommend budget action after November election 9 Recommendation The Transportation Committee is asked to provide feedback on potential options to include a set-aside dedicated to environmental and design work in the FY 2019 Program Budget. 10 Transportation Committee Item 11 | April 20, 2018 5 Circulate San Diego 1111 6th Avenue, Suite 402 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-544-9255 Fax: 619-531-9255 www.circulatesd.org April 12, 2018 To: Chairperson Terry Sinnott CC: Regional Planning Committee Members; Transportation Committee Members, Kim Kawada, Interim Executive Director; Keith Greer, Principal Regional Planner; Rachel Kennedy, Senior Transportation Planner From: Circulate San Diego Subject: Development of Efficient People-Moving Transportation Scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan Dear Chairperson Sinnott, On behalf of Circulate San Diego, whose mission is to create excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy neighborhoods, I am writing to request that the SANDAG board direct staff to prepare Efficient People-Moving Transportation Network Scenarios that advance transit more effectively than the existing 2015 Regional Plan. At the February 2nd Transportation Committee meeting, SANDAG staff told Committee members that the SANDAG Board of Directors can direct staff to develop certain Transportation Network Scenarios. Specifically, staff stated that “the discussion on the network scenarios will be coming back to you later this spring, at that time that will be up for all of you to decide as well as the board of directors what different combinations of projects or emphases you want to have in your network scenarios.” Staff would not say if they planned to develop an Efficient People-Moving Transportation Scenario, or any other specific scenario. 1. SANDAG board members must ensure that they maintain authority to determine which transportation scenario is adopted. For the SANDAG board to make a real choice between different transportation scenarios, any Efficient People-Moving Scenario must be fiscally constrained and cost similar to other scenarios. SANDAG staff should prepare Efficient People-Moving Scenarios that advance transit projects that can be implemented relatively quickly and with current best-estimates of available revenues. This process will allow the SANDAG board to make an apples-to-apples comparison of the scenarios presented by staff. Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy communities. 1 Any Efficient People-Moving Scenario must also be analyzed as an alternative in the EIR, so that the board will have an option to select it, after seeing the environmental analyses of the various alternatives. 2. SANDAG must prepare at least two Efficient People-Moving Scenarios, one that amends TransNet, and one that does not. (a) No-Amendment Scenario: The SANDAG board may not be willing to amend TransNet, so at least one People-Moving Scenario should be created that does not require two-thirds vote of the SANDAG board. An Efficient People-Moving Scenario that does not amend TransNet should only advance as much transit as can be accomplished by delaying highways in a manner that is not inconsistent with the text of TransNet. (b) Amendment Scenario: While amending TransNet may be difficult, it is not impossible. The text of TransNet itself requires that SANDAG periodically examine and potentially alter its list of required projects. As SANDAG prepares network scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan, it should also develop at least one scenario that advances priority transit through amendments to TransNet to remove or delay projects. Given the makeup of the SANDAG board, a two-thirds vote to amend TransNet is not likely unless a broad consensus can be found. Therefore, any Efficient People-Moving Scenario that amends TransNet should maintain rough percentages of funding allocated between modes, but may allow amending TransNet to fund different projects within those mode allocations. 3. Preparation of Efficient People-Moving Scenarios should update SANDAG models and assumptions. SANDAG should develop its Efficient People-Moving Scenarios with the following assumptions, among others: (a) Land use models that project more intense uses near transit (b) Aggressive adoption of autonomous vehicles that will enhance highway capacity without significant infrastructure costs (c) Assumption of a half-cent sales tax passed within the Metropolitan Transit System through that agency’s new authority under AB 805 4. Any Efficient People-Moving Scenario should prioritize certain high performing projects. The SANDAG board should direct staff to prioritize advancing certain high-performing transit projects as a part of any Efficient People-Moving Scenario. Attachment A contains potential priority projects that SANDAG staff should consider for advancement. From among these projects, SANDAG staff may also want to prioritize advancing transit projects that are a part of TransNet, because of the obligation to voters to complete them, and the availability of dedicated local funding. Circulate San Diego’s proposed priority projects include: Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy communities. 2 (a) Increasing frequency and service enhancements for all three Trolley lines (b) Planning phase for the Purple Trolley line (c) Upgrading existing successful bus lines into high quality Rapid lines These and the remaining potential priority projects advance transit in a meaningful way that is feasible with current revenue constraints. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Maya Rosas Director of Policy Circulate San Diego Attachment A: Potential Priority Projects for 2019 RTP Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy communities. 3 Attachment A Potential Priority Projects for 2019 RTP Existing In Service Line Description Regional Capital Service Source Jurisdictions Served Line? TransNe Plan Cost Subsidy/ t? Phasing (millions) Year (Y/N) (millions) Y Blue Trolley All 3 Increased Frequencies Blue: NA $5.9 for Measure A El Cajon, La Mesa, Line Lines and Capacity, and Service 2035 Blue Line Lemon Grove, National only. Enhancements City, Chula Vista, Orange: $3.7 for Imperial Beach, San 2035 Orange Line Diego Green: $3.3 for 2050 Green Line Y Y Trolley 510 Blue Line rail grade 2035 $50 NA Chula Vista Imperial Beach, Chula separation at Palomar St. Staff Vista, National City, San Diego Y Y Trolley 510 All Blue Line rail grade 2035 $205 NA 2015 Imperial Beach, Chula separations. Including at Regional Vista, National City, San 28th St, 32nd St, E St, H Plan Diego St, Palomar St, and Blue/Orange Track Connection at 12th/Imperial Y Y Coaster 398 COASTER frequency 2035 $445 $2.6 2015 Oceanside, Carlsbad, enhancements and Regional Encinitas, Solana Beach, Double Tracking Plan San Diego N Y Rapid 680 San Ysidro to Sorrento 2035 $70 $1.5-$5 TransNet San Diego, Chula Vista, Valley (estimated) National City N N Trolley 562 Planning For Purple Line 2035 $132 NA SANDAG San Diego, Chula Vista, Staff National City N N Transit - NA San Ysidro ITC Phase I – $120 NA Measure A Entire Region Multimodal 2035 Phase II - 2050 N N Transit - NA Airport ITC 2035 $343 NA Measure A Entire Region Multimodal Y N Rapid 2 North Park to Downtown 2035 $20 $0.7 Measure A San Diego 1 Existing In Service Line Description Regional Capital Service Source Jurisdictions Served Line? TransNe Plan Cost Subsidy/ t? Phasing (millions) Year (Y/N) (millions) Y N Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach 2035 $89 $4.5 Measure A La Mesa, San Diego Y N Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via 2035 $66 $3.6 Measure A San Diego (County), San Downtown Diego (City) Y N Rapid 28 Pt Loma to Kearny Mesa 2035 $12 $1.3 Measure A San Diego via Old Town Y N Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento 2035 $54 $3.6 Measure A San Diego Mesa via Beaches Y N Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC via 2035 $56 $3.3 Measure A San Diego Linda Vista Y N Rapid 120 Downtown to Kearny 2035 $80 $5.1 Measure A San Diego Mesa N N Rapid 550 SDSU to National City 2035 $60 $3.4 Measure A San Diego, National City Totals: $1,802 $42.5-$46 2 4-20 tg Transportation Committee Meeting 1.0 Roads, Rail, High-Speed Rail, Bridges, Busses, and Bicycle lssues 1.1 Roads Article on Reconstruct's S2.4E6 seed funding led by Serra Ventures, to develop software-as-a-service technology for modeling, building information modeling and scheduling built on a decade of research. Ref: ENR, March L2,2018 pp.40 1.1.2 lnterstate Seattle will renovate the Key Arena area by 2020 and build a S600E6 renovation that will include a hockey arena. Ref: ENR, March 12,2018 pp. 5 L.1.3 State, County, and City A massive makeover of Coast Highway L01 through Leucadia, is headed to the CA Coastal Commission. The Encinitas city council voted, to certify environmental documents for the Leucadia streets cape project last week, which would add up to 6-traffic circle round-abouts among a 2.5-mi stretch of the coastal highway from La Costa Avenue to A street and eliminate a vehicle lane in each direction along much of the route. The changes will make many benefits for pedestrians and cyclists, including new sidewalks, striped crosswalks, buffered bike lanes, and a decomposed granite pathway between the roadway and the railroad tracks to the east. Opponents say the roundabouts could be a problem. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-27-L8 pp. 81 & 83 I.L.2.tTruck lssues ln a robust, bright market, LTL carriers are planning expansion in 2018, coupled with continuing increases in LTL trucking rates. Several LTL carries will add terminals, trucks, traiiers, and employees to the¡r operations in 2018, as industrial and e-commerce freight demand fills more pallets. Those moves will shore up national and regional LTL networks and ensure those carriers can scale, to meet higher freight demands, of the overall U.S. economy, and industrial production as it continues to expand. Manufacturing output rose at aTTo rale in the 4th-Q-2017-the largest since the 2nd-Q-2010, says the U.S. Federal Reserve. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp.72 &74 L.3 High-Speed Rail-HSR- 1.3.2 Higher-Speed Rail-HrSR- L.3.2.L U.5. Systems-in North America-15l-mph to 230-mph. Mercedes Sierra was named CEO of Spanish design firms Sener's U.S. operations-based in Los Angles. She came from the parent firm's head of innovation and served in a top technology role for, Spain's Ministry of Economy. Sierra launched its concentrated solar power business in the U.S. The firm is also involved in segments of the California high Speed Rail Line. L Ref: ENR, 3-I2,2018 pp. 15 2.0 Port and Military lssues 2.1 Ports 2.1.1 Container Ships The top 10-globalcontainer-fleet operators market shares are: Maersk Line2O.7%, MSC-15.5%, CMA-CGM-l2.3o/o,Cosco-g.Oyo, Hapag-Loyd-7.\yo, Evergreen Line5.2o/o,OOCL-3.4%, Yang Ming Line-2.9%, MOL-23%, and NYK Line-2.2.7% totaling 82.2o/o. The other 4O-fleet operators share is from 1.9 to L.t% each, for a total of 17.8%. The L0-top-carriers handle 16,885,472-TEUs and 2O,53L,491on the other !7 .8%-1or a total oî 37 ,416,963-TEUs on 7,592-ships. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5,2Ot7 pp. 32 . SM Line's request for collaboration with Hyundai Merchant Marine was rebuffed in June 2018 and the carrier said it would launch a 2nd Asia-U.S. West Coast service as early as May 2018. The Pacific Northwest Service will connect China to Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle, as SM Line continues to expand its pressure in the Asia-North America trade and meet growing demand for service in the trans-Pacific route. SM line captured t.6% of the 11.9E6-TEUs imported through the U.S. West Coast ports ¡n 2017, which grew 3%. SM Line grew its operations quickly and will offer LO-weakly services, 6-in the intra-Asia trade, 2-in the Asia-lndia trade, and 2-in the Asia-West Coast North America trade. They want to boost the current 50E3-TEU capacity to 200E3-TEU. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 201-8 pp. 42 & 44 . The 201.8 merger of Cosco Shipping Lines and Orient Overseas Container Line will create the largest carrier of U.S. imports. The China based carriers combined share of U.S. imports isat73% and shows how consolidation rather than organic growth captures market share. ln 2Ot7 if Cosco and OOCL were considered, they would have ranked 4th among all lines in the U.S. trades, in overall TEU volumes, and No.L in imports. The 3-largest carriers in the U.S. trades are European Lines, CMA CGM, MSC, and Maersk Line. The carrier mergers in 2018 will reduce the number of individual member lines in two of the vessel- sharing alliances. The THE Alliance of Hapag-Lloyd, NYK, MOL, "K" Line, and Yang Ming will go from 5- lines to 3. The Ocean Alliance of Cosco shipping, OOGL, Evergreen Marine, and CMA CGM will go from 4 to 3-lines. Fewer lines equates to fewer carriers competing for each other's business and could exert more pricing discipline. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 20L8 pp. 58-60 . General Dynamics NASSCO said 0n 3-30-18 that it will hire 800 to 1,000 workers to help the shipyard build a lengthy list of huge Navy supply ships and container vessels worth some S4.0E9 and repair war ships. The company is the last major shipbuilder on the West Coast and the work should continue into 2024. NASSCO is looking for welders, electricians, shipfitters, and "green workers". The Navy wants to add 20-new oilers. Ref: San Diego U-T 3-31-18 pp. A1 & 410 2.1.t.4 Reefers 2 Strong demand for fresh foods and other refrigerated perishables is good for the global reefer market in 2018, but logistics challenges threaten to dr¡ve up prices and make it more difficult to maintain optimum conditions for time-sensitive products with limited shelf life. Peter Friedmann of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, which represents U.S. food exporters and importers, and cold chain interests the industry's challenges, resulting from recent carrier consolidations. Terminal congestion is a chronic problem that is getting worse and the terminals and gates were designed 10 to 2O-years ago. On the West Coast, most reefer containers would be off-loaded and transferred directly to rail, but now there is more truck activity from the bigger ships, that make it worst from congestion. Chilled products cannot afford any delay through terminals. Chilled pork to South Korea is an example, where the product needs to be moved fast to retain shelf life. lf time delays occur the temperature needs to be lowered and frozen causing a loss of value to the pork-25%-less. Onion producers in lD have had problems because of the ELD mandate for truckers and they are an export dependent state. Watco Transportation provides short- line service in lD, but rail service is limited, that makes them dependent on trucks. Demand for the state's food products is growing with demand from Asia and its expanding middle class, says Laura Johnson at the ldaho State Department of Agriculture Market Development Division. Good news is that software and technology solutions aimed at improving visibility and efficiency in the supply chain are available, such as E*Dray, that mitigates inefficient handling of containers, how they are stored on vessels and terminals, to improve container interchange processes to importers and exporters more quickly with reduced truck or rail moves. Another port optimizer portal developed by the Port of Los Angeles with GE Transportation, that aggregates cargo data online for better cargo tracking, projections, and productivity is now available. The Port of Los Angles and Long Beach has made strides in automation at the TraPac terminal on the Port of Los Angles, as does the Port of Long Beach's Middle Harbor Project, but the U.S. lags the rest of the developed world. CMA CGM boosts one of the largest global reefer container fleets with more than 369E3- TEUs is centering to enhance technology and capacity of reefers. Reefer containers will become "e- reefers", repairs and costs will become more predictive, integrating will be enhanced with faster detection of temperature fluctuations and service for 24/7 will be added. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5,2OL8 pp. 80-84 . The reefer shipping sector says there is a shortage of reefer containers. The AgTC says, changes in distribution is the issue. lnbound reefer TEUs for inland points used to be off-loaded from vessels and moved via intermodal to Chicago and Dallas, distributed to population centers from there, and it is common to dray, inbound reefer containers to a near-port facility, trans-load the shipments to a 53-ft reefer trailer, and truck it inland-that exacerbates the reefer truck shortage, driver shortage, and reducing the number of intermodal reefer containers available in the center of the U.S. Railroads, could help reposition reefer containers from where they are too many, to where they are needed. Some carriers lease more than 80% of their equipment, both reefer and dry. Financial fortunes of the industry had been difficult in 2008-2009, but were followed by recovery in 2010, but lackluster until 2Ot7 , and the carriers invested their capital in new vessels that contributed to the container shortage. ln the last L0-years the industry produced 200E3-TEU/yr of reefers. ln 20L6 only L14E3 reefers were produced, and in 20L7 it was some 190E3, but the average went down. Reefer trade was increasing 4%/Vr while reefer cargo continued its migration from specialized vessels to container ships, which caused shortages of reefers. Benefits of digitalization is that improved tacking of the reefer and better control and management of the condition of the cargo inside. Maesk set a higher bar with technology investment in the reefer trade. Seacube is 3 installing GPS tracking devices and smart technology on leased containers with shipping line customers. Security and safety is also improving, as well as getting it there faster. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 84-87 . Reefer shippers are looking to rail, such as Canada's Port of Prince Rupert that is getting investment from Canadian National for reefer plugs, on-dock reefer racks, and are also working with the Port of Vancouver. CN is working with customers for services out of the Port of Prince Rupert to Toronto, Montreal, and Chicago. Cold Connect is a multimodal platform, for distribution of food and beverages of first-and-last-mile trucking delivery, with expedited rail service in between, all while maintaining integrity. t04 Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5,2OI8 pp. 88 & 90 2.1.4 U.S. On January 2018 the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners, approved the Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility, that will enable shipping containers to be placed directly on trains at the marine terminals. At this time building long trains is limited by lack of adequate yard tracks and congestion of mainline tracks. On-dock rail use in the port was24%in2OL7. The S1.5Eg Gerald Desmond Bridge, where in December 2OL7 it was topped off with 2-515-ft tall towers that will allow supersized cargo ships to call at the port, that can now handle 14E3-TEU ships. ln a few years it will be able to receive 22E3-TEU vessels, says Mario Cordero, the ports executive director. Mediterranean Shipping Company took over a former Hanjin Shipping terminal and the port had a LL% increase in volume in 2Ot7 with 7.5E6-TEU-the highest in the ports 107-year history. The Middle Harbor Redevelopment Program is in it's 3'd and final stage of the S1.6E9 program since 2011. The L'L2-phases of the 9-year project involved dredging wider and deeper channels, wharf construction, backlands development, shore-to-ship power, expansion of on-dock railyard, fully automated 304-acre container terminal, and new 4,200-ft concrete pile-supported wharf with 3-deepwater berths that support 18-shore-to-ship gantry cranes. The port will support 18E3-TEU ships. The automated vehicles are guided by transponders in the asphalt, with battery powered vehicles that transport containers from ships to storage areas and can recharge themselves. Phase 3 will renovate existing container terminal and connect ¡t to the new ones with 40-acres of fill and expanding the on-dock rail yard from 10.0E3-liniar-ft to 66E3-liniar-ft. The port aims to reduce GHGs by 40% in 203O, 8Q% by 2050, with a goal of zero emissions. lt will include raising on dock rail volumes to at least 35% of shipments. Ref: ENR, March 12,2078 pp. L4 2.1.4.2 Drayage Truck lssues Calls for more flexible truck-driver work hours are intensifying as the ELD mandate rolls into the trucking operators and supply chains. The Owner-Operator lndependent Drivers Association-opponent of the ELD mandate, petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to change the existing hours at the mercy of shippers, receivers, weather, congestion, and other obstacles to operate safely. They want truckers to be allowed a rest break of up to 3-consecutive hours once a day during a L4-hour on-duty period, stopping the l4-hour clock while the driver is off duty. The current 30- min rest break, mandatory after 7-hours on duty would be eliminated and drivers will still need to log 1.0- off-duty hours before starting the next shift. 4 Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 6 . Enforcement of ELD will cause a shortage of trucking capacity. Sport rates are lower than the 2OL2To 2017 period in the 4th-Q-2017. Service contracts in 2OL7-2OL8 on the 3-West Coast were 51,200 to s1,400/FEU and the East Coast was s2,300 to s2,400/FEU. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5,2OL7 pp. 12 & 16-17 . Harbor trucking companies serving major gateways are increasing their prices and gearing up to charge their customers for excessive waiting times at congested marine terminals. For the first time since 2008 to 2009, drayage companies say they are experiencing little if any pushback from BCOs. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5,20t9 pp.22 &24 Truck capacity is tightening further as the electronic logging era mandate worsen for shippers. The mandate hit on December 18, 2OL7, a period of peak freight demand, sending spot market truckload rates soaring, and pushing up contract pricing across the board. Winter storms tightened capacity further, freight demand remained high in February, as spring imports moved inland, and the U.S. economy keeps a steadygrowth rate. lt is being looked at as one of the most unpredictable and quickly changing freight environments that many have not ever experienced, says Douglas R. Waggoner, Chairman and CEO of EchoGlobal Logistics. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 66, 68-69 2.1.7 Logistics Maersk's CEO Soren Skou is planning to become a global integrator of container logistics with customers using its online platforms to find prices, arrange all documentation, and pay for shipments in one place. He wants customers to be able to deal just with Maersk-to carry the box from one port to another, provide the inland service, provide customs house brokerage, finance the goods, insure the goods, consolidation and all other services. Within Maersk Group are logistics unit Damco, carrier Maeski Line, and port operator APM Terminals. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 6 . INTTRA is confident that its backing network will have a role in Maersk's plan for a one place shipping portal for BCOs. Maersk and IBM were working on the plan to create an end-to-end pipeline using blockchain technology where carriers, terminals, freight forwarders, railroads, and others, submit cargo movement information to provide shippers with the end-to-end record. INTTRA says it would be glad to help. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 55-58 . XPO Logistics will invest S450E6 in technology in 2018 and make acquisitions on a global sale. The company is well positioned to acquire new companies, tap a 5g.Z¡g global sales pipeline, and invest in technology, to deliver more freight, increase revenue in business, and push total revenue for 2017 to S15.4E9. The company will mix asset-based and non-asset operations. XPO has access to capacity through brokerages and freight forwarding, as well as last-mile delivery, less-than-truck load-LTL-, rail intermodal, and logistics operations. They will use drones to help manage warehouse inventory and warehouse robots to move goods. They are developing new, state of the art analytics to capture data by 5 pallets, and analyze thousands of data points, to arrive at optimal workloads for LTL dock workers and drivers. XPO is using predictive analysis to forecast demand, for its contract logistics business, and plans to deploy and use resources. ln the last-mile arena, XPO is offering customers the ability to track shipments online and have delivery appointments sent directly to their online calendars. Robotics is the first segment for spending and the 2nd is Big Data with lO0-full-time data scientists. Today 67% of the goods they move is automatically tracked without human intervention. Ref: The Journalof Commerce, March 5,2OL8pp.7O&72 2.2 Military 2.2.1 Ships and Planes A Marines CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter crashed around 2:35 p.m., 15-mi west of El Centro near Plaster City and the border of Mexico. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-5-18 pp. A2 2.2.2 lnternationa I lssues President Trump ordered expulsion of 60-Russian officials on 3-26-18, joining a campaign by 24- countries to retaliate, for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain in a cold war-style escalation highlighting disparity between words and actions by closing the Seattle Consulate. Sergei Skripal and his daughter, were poisoned in Britain and recovering. Ref: The San Diego U-f 3-27-L8 pp. A1 & A9 . President Trump says lawmakers only appropriated S1.6E9 for the U.S.-Mexican Wall and he wants to push the military to fund the rest of the costs, saying it is a "national security" risk. ln 2016 he said Mexico would pay for the wall. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-28-18 pp. AL& A10 . North Korean Kim Jong-Un and Chinese President Xi Jinping sought to portray strong ties between neighbors and longtime allies as Kim made a trip to Beijing this week from Sunday to Wednesday 3-25 to 3-28-18. That is Kim's first trip to a foreign country since he took power in 20L1. Xi held talks with Kim at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, and he and his wife Ri Sol Ju, and they watched an art performance together. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-28-18 pp. A3 o More on the summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-29-18 pp. A4 . North and South Korea started preparatory talks to setup a summit later this month between Kim Jong un and President Moon Jae-in to resolve tensions over the North's nuclear program. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-5-18 pp. A3 . Kim Jong Un will meet President Moon Jae-in of South Korea for the first time on April 27 ,2018 at the Peace House in Panmunjom South Korea, the 1't North Korean leaderto visit South Korea since the Korean 6 War. Unification Minister Cho Myung-gyon, the South's chief delegate to Panmunjom talks-hinted proposals to denuclearization. Kim's father and Kim Jong ll meet z-South Korean presidents-Kim Dae- jung in 2000 and Roh Moo-hyun in 2007, in Pyongyang. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-30-18 pp. A3 . President Trump said the summit between the president and Kim Jong un will take place in late May or June 2018. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-10-18 pp. A3 . Russian ships are skulking around underground communications cables. ln the oceans. U.S. and Western officials are increasingly troubled by there interest in the 400-fiber optic cables that carry most of the world's calls, e-mails, and texts, as well as StO.O¡tZ worth of daily financial transactions. The Russian ship Yantar has been tracked-a Russian main directorate of deep sea research, surface ships, submarines, underwater drones, and mini-subs conduct reconnaissance under water salvage, and other work. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-1-18 pp. 415 . The U.N. Security Council blacklisted 27-ships, 2L-shipping companies, and 1-individul accused of helping North Korea evade previous sanctions. Oil tankers and cargo ships on the list on Friday were banned from ports worldwide or would have their assets frozen and the shipping companies will face an asset freeze. Most were black listed by the U.S. Treasury last month. The company's blacklist includes 12-based in North Korea, 3-in Hong Kong, and 2-on the Chinese mainland. Kim Jong-un has meet with China's President Xi Jinping in Beijing and North Korea has stopped conducting weapon tests since November 2017. Satellite imagery suggests North Korea is starting a new rector capable of producing plutonium. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-1-18 pp. A5 . President Trump instructed his military commanders to wrap up the American military operations in Syria, so he can bring back troops in a few months. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-5-L8 pp. A3 . Defense Secretary James Mattis sought to slow an imminent strike on Syria over concerns at the Pentagon that a concerted bombing campaign could escalate into a wider conflict between Russia, lran, and the West. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-13-18 pp. A1 & A6 . The U.S. and European allies launched strikes on 4-13-18, on Syrian gas sites, with ship-based cruise missiles and manned aircraft. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-14-78 pp. A1 & A8 . President Trump congratulated Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi on his land-slid re-election with 97o/o of the vote in a turnout of 4I% of voters. President Trump may meet with President Vladimir Putin over issues in Syria, Ukraine, North Korea, and "the arms race". Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-3-18 pp. A3 7 3.0 Water lssues 3.1 Regulation 3.1".2 Conservation Mandates Alexi Schnell of the San Diego County Water Authority says water storage is at 50% of capacity and supplies are sufficient through 2018 regardless of future conditions. Statewide reservoirs storage is above LO6% of normal for this time of year, snow fall tripled in the last month, but is still well below normal. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-30-18pp. 41 & All . San Diego will use a new S400E3 digital "test bench" made by MARS Company that will replace its analogue predecessor, in March of 2018 at the Chollas Operations Yard in Oak Park. lt pumps 22-m3at a time, allowing workers to compare readings on a meter's dial with digitally calculated bench mark. The effort is in response to concerns about unusually high-water bills recently. Ref:The San Diego U-T4-3-18 pp. 81 & 84 3.5 Recycled Water 3.5.2 Desalination The Rosarito desal plant broke ground and Baja CA Gov. Francisco Vega de Lamadrid celebrated the ground breaking on 3-25-18 for the desal plant-envisioned as the largest in the Western Hemisphere. The reverse osmosis facility will convert 100E6-gal-sea-water/d, by the President Juárez Thermoelectric plant in Rosarito Beach. The plant will be twice the size of the Poseidon plant in Carlsbad and supply water for 2.0E6-people. lt is under contract for 37-years by Aguas de Rosarito and comprised of NSC Agua-subsidiary of the Cayman lslands-based Consolidated Water, partnered with French Degremont, and NuWater of Singapore. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-24-18 pp. 413 4.0 Pipelines and Tunnel lssues 4.l Pipelines 4.1.2 Sewer Lines The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board is debating whether to file a lawsuit against the federal government to stem the cross-border flow of sewage, sediment, and other contaminates from Tijuana to San Diego. The cities of lmperial Beach, Chula Vista, and Port of San Diego filed a lawsuit against the U.S. lnternational Boundary and Water Commission, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A bipartisan Congressional group is urging continued funding for the U.S. EPA's Border Water lnfrastructure Program that has been working on projects in the Tijuana River Watershed with Rep. Juan Vargas-D-SD. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-20-18 pp. B1 & 83 4.2 Tunnels 8 An abandoned rock quarry a few miles from Atlanta will soon function as a reservoir for drought. The 5333E6 project, including a 5-mi-long tunnel is being built to connect the 400-ft deep quarry with 2-water treatment facilities and the Chattahoochee River. The project is indicative of the growth of water tunnels across the nation to solve water problems from drought to pollution, flooding or storm surge. Other tunnel projects are in Washington, D.C., Fort Wayne, lN, Charleston, S.C., and Houston, TX. Black & Veatch's says, water tunneling is a S6e9/yr business in North America. Transportation tunnels are being built in New York City-the Gateway Tunnel between NY and NJ. There are some 200 water tunneling projects in various stages in North America. Ref: ENR, March t2,2OL8 pp. t6-24 4.2.L Transportation The Chesapeake Bay Bridge tunnel is set to begin in 2019 and officials are preparing to handle 500E3-yd3's of contaminated soil produced by a 42-ft-dia tunnel-boring machine, currently under construction in Germany. Dragados USA lnc. And Schiavone Construction Company LLC's "worst-case" permitting strategy assumes all bored material will contain levels of petroleum-based TBM lubricants to require disposal at a designated landfill. The efforts will be coordinated with the state EPA officials and the costs are borne by Dragados-Schiavone under the S756E6 contract. Ref: ENR, March 12,2018 pp.5 . President Trump asked Republican leaders to drop funding for the Gateway Tunnel. The S30E9 project would serve Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan. Ref: ENR, March 12,2018 pp. 5 5.0 Transportation Environmental lssues 5.1 Maritime Transportation Emissions 6.0 Transportation Financial lssue The U.S. economy grew at 2.9%o annual rate in the final 3-months of 2OL7 -the fastest growth in more than a decade. The Trump Administration hopes for more in 2018 aided by tax cuts and increased government spending. The Commerce Department says the country's total output of goods and services was up 2.9o/oin4th-Q-2017, 3.2%inthe 3'd-q-2017 and 3.7%in the 2nd-Q-2077.',n2074 it expanded at3.7% in the 3'd-Q-2OO4,3.5% in the 4th-Q-2OL7 and 4.3%in the L'LQ-2005. Growth was mostly in auto repairs. For the year 2OI7 , the GDP expanded 23% up from 15% in 2016-the weakest since 2009. Ref: The San Diego U-T3-29-18 pp.Ca 6.1 Ports Shippers with ample capacity say they only expect a 5% cost increase for surface transportation in 2018. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 18, 20, &.20-22 9 . The Trump Administration wants to reduce the amount of money importers pay for using U.S. ports, that would cut federal aid to those ports, for dredging and jetty maintenance projects. Obama was ignored by the U.S. congress. The Trump Administration's proposal seeks to shift the funding burden to ports and to the initial benefit of importers, even if the president rails against imports, exacerbating the U.S. trade deficit. Ports would then push for higher tariffs from container lines that would pass on the additional costs to shippers. Trump's proposed S4.8E9 civil works budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposes to reduce the Harbor Maintenance Tax rate, to align estimated annual receipts from this tax, with recent appropriations levels for eligible expenditures from the HMT fund. The present tax is about S109/FEU. Trump's budget will lower U.S. ports funding by S37SE6. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 65 6.4 State, County, and City President Trump signed the S1.3E12 funding package to keep the government running, on 3-23-18. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-24-L8 pp. AL & A8 6.4.2 Gasoline Prices Gasoline is going up again and could reach S4.00/galin San Diego. As of 4-2-18 it was an average of 53.S3/gal, with some stations at S4.00/gal. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-3-18 pp. A1 & A7 7.0 Airport and Global Space lssues T.L Airports 7.L4 Air Freight Company aviators are complaining that UPS is turning to 3'd-party cargo airlines to help make up for a shortage of aircraft capacity to handle e-commerce shipments. On February t,2OI8 UPS pledged to spend S7.0E9 through 2O2O on an aggressive expansion and modernization program, that will include automating warehouses and buying additional Boeing 747 and 767 freighters. Using 3'd-party airlines for longer than 45-days in a year, violates UPS labor contracts with pilots known as scope clauses, because it protects their jobs. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-3-L8 pp. Ca 7.1.7 lnternational Air Seoul lnc. the budget unit of Asiana Airlines will launch a new route to Danang, Vietnam in May 2018 to expand services in the Asia-Pacific region. Ref: Google Alert, Danang, Vietnam 4-9-L8 7.2 Global and Space 7.2.7 lnlernational 10 The Chinese space station, the size of a school bus, re-entered Earth's atmosphere at 5:L6 p.m. pacific time, scattering its remaining parts over the South Pacific Ocean, says the U.S. Joint Force Space Component Command. Tiangong-1 may have fell northwest of Tahiti-the spacecraft cemetery where space debris frequently land. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-2-18 pp. A3 8.0 Border and Cultural lssues 8.1 Border 8.1.1 lmport-Export Soybean exporters are capitalizing on plentiful vessel capacity and plunging freight rates on all water services to Asia through U.S. East Coast ports and they are moving to the East Coast. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 34 & 36 . For the L't time in 35-years, the U.S. planted more soybeans than corn, says U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farmers will plant 89E6-aces because of profit issues and 88E6-acres of corn. Corn costs more to plant and demands use of pest and disease control measures, and fertilizer. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-30-18 pp. C4 . Article on the Customs and Border Protection rules on whistle blower cases of not reporting payments in the dutiable value of imported goods, that is defined in "false claims" 31 U.S.C. Section 3729lG), failure to mark foreign-made pipe fittings with the country of origin and falsifying the related customs entry documents to avoid the 10% marking penalty. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5, 2018 pp. 48 . Update on NAFTA-in 2016 U.S. shippers exported 549789 in goods to NAFTA partners-S23lE9 to Mexico and S266E9 to Canada. They are up72.7% from 2006 and dwarf combined U.S. exports of S216E9 to the G-7 countries outside the pact-France, Germany, ltaly, Japan, and the U.K., as well as combined U.S. exports of S184E9 to the countries of China-5116E9 and lndia-S22E9. NAFTA is at risk from the Trump Administration. Article looks at results, if the U.S. leaves NAFTA, if it signals with more talks, and ¡f NAFTA undergoes modernizations. Ref: The Journal of Commerce, March 5,2078 pp. 50-52 & 54 . President Trump imposed a S60E9 tariff on Chinese goods and limited their freedom to invest in the U.S. technology industry that drive down the Dow Jones Stock Market. China responded with a 53.0E9 list of goods, including pork, apples, and steel pipe, that may be hit with higher tariffs. Trump directed U.S. trade reprehensive Robert Lighthizer to propose within 15-days, tariff increases designed to compensate the U.S. for lost profits and jobs. Trump weakened a tariff on industrial metals, exempting the E.U., Brazil, and other countries, accounting for 67% of steel imports and greater than 50% of foreign made aluminum. President Trump also exempted Canada and Mexico from the import levies for the duration of talks over NAFTA. China's tariffs will only touch 3% of total goods imports, says Capital Economics. They are waiting for China's response. The Sino-U.S. trade war would affect economics that account for 40% of global output. LL Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-23-L8 pp. A1 & 410 . President Trump's tough action against China's economic practices has caused the stock markets to plummet and American companies are pushing back. lndustries such as GE, Goldman Sachs, and agricultural firms, have lodged objections with the White House, saying tariffs on both sides of the Pacific, and limits on investments will cut off U.S. companies from the world's most lucrative and rapidly growing market. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-3-18 pp. A1 & A7 and C1 . China will impose tariffs on 128-U.S. products valued at S3.0E9, including CA wines, fruits, and almonds at 15%.The move follows President Trump's S60E9 of tariffs on Chinese goods of steel and aluminum that took effect on 3-23-18. China also could put a 25% tariff on pork and aluminum. China does not want a trade war but is not afraid of one either. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-24-18 pp. A15 . China will start putting tariffs on U.S. meat, fruits, and other products in retaliation against taxes approved by President Trump, on imported steel and aluminum and will began on 4-2-18. lt will be 25% on pork, and L5% on 120-U.S. commodities. President Trump put a 25% charge on steel and L5% on aluminum. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-2-L8 pp. A2 . San Diego will build a modern customs inspection facility at Otay Mesa's Brown Field to meet Federal officials mandated upgrades for the 42-year old building. Mayor said the city will spend S1.0E6 to build a l,200-ft2 facility, after 3-years of negotiations reached a stalemate, and included federal threats by the federal government to shutdown the airport by winter 2018. Closure would force passengers and goods to Lindbergh Field, Calexico Airport, Yuma Airport, or Mclellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-29-18 pp. 81 & 8L4 . President Trump herald a new trade agreement with South Korea. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-30-18 pp. A4 8.1.2 Ports of Entry The Trump Administration says it could fund 100-mi of new and replacement border wall immediately. lt will include 28-mi in San Diego and a 3O-ft-tall barrier in Calexico for 2-mi. ln NM it will replace 20-mi of fencing, add barriers to stop vehicles, and wall construction over the next L0-years could cost S25E9. There are 2,000-miles of border line between the U.S. and Mexico with 650-mi done. The efforts are being done to stop a new gang MS-13 from funds of the Secure Fence Act on the books. Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-3L-18 pp. A4 . San Diego received S251E6 for border wall construction in a spending rule signed by President Trump from an omnibus legislation that allocates Sf.6¡g to various infrastructure projects such as replacement and new fencing on the border. The San Diego funds will replace L4-mi of secondary fencing, steel mesh topped, with razor wire that runs with some gaps from Border Field State Park to Trump's border wall 72 prototypes in Otay Mesa. The new secondary fence must provide "cross-barrier visual situational awareness" which for agents means they want to see through the barrier to know if anyone is coming. Ref:The San Diego U-Ï4-2-18 pp. A1 & A8 . The 4-governors on the U.S.-Mexican border are not united in the use of the National Guard on the border. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-5-18 pp. A1 & A6 . 3-border states committed 1,600-national Guard troops to the U.S. Mexican borders of AZ, NM, and TX. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-10-18 pp. A8 8.2 Culture Refugee resettling in San Diego went up in February 2018 to 68, some 50% from the Democratic Republic of the Congo with others from Afghanistan, Sir Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Eritrea. The report from the State Department mirrors a nationwide trend with 1,927 new arrivals in February, up from L,385 in January. The U.S. has settled 8,63S-refugees in fiscal 20L8 through February 2018. Trump set the annual cap at 45E3 down from 1.10E3 of former President Obama, set in his last year in office. CA has taken the most of any county since people fleeing lraq began in 2OO7 . Ref: The San Diego U-T 3-27-18 pp. 82 . The migrant caravan of over 1,000-people from the southern border of Mexico, say they will stay in Mexico City. The Central American caravan such as Pueblo Sin from TX is attracting President Trump. He says Mexico is not doing enough to stem the flow of people coming through their country's southern border, on their way to the U.S. as they flee violence and poverty back home. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-5-18 pp. AG and 4-3-18 pp. A1 & A6 . TX and some 12-states led by Republican governors, got behind the Trump Administration over its law suit challenging CA's sanctuary laws, that protect people in the U.S illegally. CA laws are designed to interfere with or bloc federal immigration enforcement, but CA does not have authority to do that, says those states. Ref: The San Diego U-f 3-27-Lg pp. A4 . The Escondido City Council and County Board of Supervisors will decide if the city should join a backlash against the state "sanctuary laws". . Kin Jong-un went to a Red Velvet K-Pop girl music group in Pyongyang. Ref: The San Diego U-T 4-2-78 pp. A6 and Google.com: Red Velvet, "bad boy" iohn G Wotzka 72O 4th Ave. San Diego, CA 92L0L, Ph: 619-446-7690,[email protected] 13