San Joaquin Council of Governments

SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SJCOG Conference Room 555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202

Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:00 A.M.

Teleconference Number: 1-650-479-3208 Participant Code: 806 345 047 Attention Callers: Please mute the call unless speaking

The San Joaquin Council of Governments is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will make all reasonable accommodations for the disabled to participate in employment, programs and facilities. Persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aid in order to participate should contact Rebecca Calija at (209) 235-0600 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

PARKING: For your convenience, parking is available at the COG Regional Center. There is additional parking available at Public Parking Lot K, located on American Street, just south of Weber Avenue. Additional meter parking is available on Weber Avenue.

A G E N D A

1. Call to Order / Introductions / Roll Call

2. Minutes: June 13, 2019

3. Public Presentation At this time, the public may address the Technical Advisory Committee on any non-agendized item that is within the subject matter of this agency. If a member of the public wishes to speak on an agenda item he or she is invited to address the Technical Advisory Committee at the time the item is up for consideration. A five-minute maximum time limit for a speaker will apply to all “items from the audience”. The determination of whether an item is within the subject matter of the Committee is a discretionary decision to be made by the chair of the Technical Advisory Committee.

4. Technical Items: B through E are available for action by the committee. The left-hand column identifies only recommendations from staff.

Action A. Consent Calendar Items: F through H

Action B. Local Transportation Fund Policy (Verbal Report) – Chesley

Action C. 2019 MAP-21 Performance Report – Yokoyama

Discussion D. 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program Process – Niblock

Information E. Valley Link Project Feasibility Report – Campos

CONSENT CALENDAR

Information F. Bike Month 2019 – Maynard

Action G. Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Annual Review – Cunningham

Action H. Federal Transit Urbanized Area (UZA) Programming for Manteca and Tracy – Nguyen

5. Other Matters of Business

6. Meeting Adjourned to Thursday, September 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.

AGENDA ITEM 2 P4

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) San Joaquin Council of Governments  555 E. Weber Avenue  Stockton, CA 95202

Thursday, June 13, 2019

MINUTES

Present Member Name Jurisdiction Present Member Name Jurisdiction X Alex Chetley SJC X John Andoh City of Escalon Dave Mendoza SJC X George Lorente SJRTD Eric Alvarez City of Stockton X Juan Villanueva Port of Stockton X Wes Johnson City of Stockton Steven Martinez Caltrans D-10 Robin Borre City of Stockton X Josh Swearingen Caltrans D-10 X Georgia Lantsberger City of Lodi Nicholas Fung Caltrans D-10 Charles Swimley City of Lodi X Jordan Peterson SJRRC X Juan Portillo City of Manteca John Cadrett SJVAPCD Koosun Kim City of Manteca Russell Stark Stk. Metro Airport X Zabih Zaca City of Tracy Ed Lovell City of Tracy X James Pease City of Ripon Michael King City of Lathrop

Alternates/Others: Lyman Chang, City of Lodi; Anju Pillai, City of Tracy; Elizabeth Quilici, City of Ripon; Ray Deyto, City of Stockton; Jay Davidson, City of Lathrop; Miguel Mendoza, City of Stockton; Bella Rajappan, Rem Consulting; Sushil Patil, R&M Consulting.

SJCOG Staff: Diane Nguyen, Deputy Director; Ryan Niblock, Senior Regional Planner; Rob Cunningham; Senior Regional Planner; David Ripperda, Associate Regional Planner; Lynnetta Castle, Staff Accountant; Travis Yokoyama, Associate Regional Planner; Christine Corrales, Associate Regional Planner; Summer Lopez, Assistant Regional Planner; Michelle Prince, Assistant Regional Planner; Katy Castro, Administrative Clerk II.

1. Call Meeting to Order/Introductions: James Pease called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and introductions were made.

2. Meeting minutes from May 9, 2019: It was moved/seconded (Lantsberger/Chang) to approve the meeting minutes from May 9, 2019. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

3. Public Presentation: None. 4. Technical items for discussion and action: B through E

A. Consent Calendar:

F. 2019 Measure K Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Amendment P5

It was moved/seconded (Lantsberger/Peterson) to approve the consent calendar. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

B. Triennial Performance Audits FY 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18: Lynnetta Castle announced that Moore & Associates conducted the audits of the San Joaquin Regional Transit District; the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, the City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Escalon, City of Tracy, City of Ripon and SJCOG itself. She stated that there were no findings and if the committee members have concerns, staff can have Moore & Associates answer questions at the Board meeting.

It was moved/seconded (Zaca/Lorente) recommend to the Board, received and accept the reports and findings. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

C. 2019 Regional Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Conformance Report: Travis Yokoyama presented this item. He stated the biennial RCMP Monitoring and Conformance Report includes: (1) a determination of consistency with RCMP traffic level of service (LOS) standards, and (2) implementation of the gave a presentation on the RCMP land-use analysis program for mitigation of impacts of local land-use decisions on the RCMP network. SJCOG conducted the LOS technical analysis for committee review and found that all jurisdictions are meeting LOS standards.

It was moved/seconded (Andoh/ Peterson) adopt the biennial 2019 RCMP monitoring report & find all the jurisdictions conform to the requirement of RCMP.

D. Transportation Resiliency & Adaptation Defined for San Joaquin County: Summer Lopez reported resilient California, also known as SB 379, requires goals, policies, and objectives for communities based on vulnerability assessments and implementation measures be incorporated into general plans as they are updated. Beyond the new requirements, rates of extreme weather events are both tangible and highly visible.

This item was for discussion only. No action was taken.

E. Election of Officers: It was moved/seconded (Lantsberge/Chang) to nominate George Lorente for chair. It was moved/seconded (Pease/Lantsberger) to nominate John Andoh for vice chair.

5. Other Matters of Business: James Pease announced that Elizabeth Quilici from City of Ripon will be attending TAC.

Georgia Lantsberger asked if there are any updates on the LTF. Diane Nguyen stated that Andrew Chesley is still working on the options. At this time, Mr. Chesley is not prepared to bring a recommendation to the Board. He is working towards making a recommendation to the Board in August and it will go through committees.

Diane also asked for a round of applause to thank James Pease for his year as TAC chair. P6

6. Adjournment: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:19 a.m. to Thursday, August 8, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. P7

AGENDA ITEM 4C P8

August 2019 TAC

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: 2019 MAP-21 Performance Report

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the 2019 MAP-21Performance Report

DISCUSSION:

SUMMARY:

Beginning in 2018, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to report on federal performance measures that pertain to Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21. The 2012 adoption of MAP-21, a federal funding source, came with performance- and outcome-based program, known as “Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP).” Its objective was to invest in projects that will make progress toward the achievement of the national goals for transportation. The most recent federal transportation bill, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2016 (FAST Act), carries forward the same performance management framework. This performance report includes Federal performance measures that are thematically split into three groupings under the rubic of “Performance Management” (PM).

 PM 1: Roadway Safety  PM 2: Transportation Asset Management  PM 3: System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, and Air Quality

Introduced to our committees and board in January 2018, these performance measures will be reported annually as required by MAP-21. Caltrans has not released any additional instructions or information outside of the state targets; thus, staff has applied our “best practices” methodology (based off Caltrans’ methodology) to report on MAP-21 performance measures for San Joaquin County. This performance report is the first of many annual reports. As Caltrans’ guidelines become more clear, “best practices” methodology may be updated and additional information may be included in future performance reports.

Below summarizes the findings of the 2019 Performance Report. Note: Staff was unavailable to access relevant previous data for PM2 at this time.

MOST CURRENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES PREVIOUS YEAR YEAR PM 1 – Safety P9

MOST CURRENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES PREVIOUS YEAR YEAR Number of fatalities 118 116 Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 1.75 1.71 Number of serious injuries 292 353 Rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles 4.33 5.2 traveled Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries 75 94 Non-motorized fatalities 49 64 Non-motorized serious injuries 26 30 PM 2 – Transportation Asset Management Percentage of Interstate pavements in Good condition 33% Percentage of Interstate pavements in Poor condition 7% Percentage of non‐Interstate NHS pavements in Good 31% condition Percentage of non‐Interstate NHS pavements in Poor 7% condition Percentage of NHS bridges in Good condition 61% Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor condition 24% PM 3 – Traffic Congestion Percent of Reliable Person‐Miles Traveled on the Interstate 90.6% 91.6% NHS Percent of Reliable Person‐Miles Traveled on the Non‐ 87.2% 86.6% Interstate NHS Percentage of Interstate System Mileage Providing Reliable 1.49 1.52 Truck Travel Time (Truck Travel Time Reliability Index) Total Emissions Reductions by Applicable Pollutants under

the CMAQ Program Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) (kg/day) 19.32 24.34 Carbon Oxide (CO) (kg/day) 2.84 8.52 Nitrous Oxide (NOX) (kg/day) 20.09 22.91 Particulate Matter (PM)10 (kg/day) 10.28 9.93 Particulate Matter (PM)2.5 (kg/day) 7.79 7.53

RECOMMENDATION:

SJCOG staff recommends the SJCOG Board of Directors adopts the 2019 Performance Report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No impact to 19/20 SJCOG OWP. This activity is budgeted in the Performance-Based Work Element of the OWP.

BACKGROUND:

In 2012, MAP-21 was adopted and established “PBPP,” with the objective to invest in projects that will make progress toward the achievement of the national goals of transportation. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) set the final Federal Rule(s) on expected performance measures reported by the State Department of Transportation (i.e. Caltrans) and MPOs. This performance measure was split into three groups, under the rubic of “Performance Management” (PM). P10

 PM 1 – Safety  PM 2 – Transportation Asset Management  PM 3 – System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, and Air Quality

New federal and state requirements provide emphasis meeting MAP-21’s objective by requiring the identification of short-term targets and standardization of specific performance measures so that MPOs within each state, as well as state DOTs across the country, can be directly compared. Caltrans held workshops and meetings with MPOs in preparation of statewide targets and standardizing the methodology of performance measures. MPOs were asked to support the statewide targets or produce their own region-specific target. SJCOG staff supported the statewide targets.

PM 1 – Safety

PM 1 addresses traffic safety along with the 2018 Target (5‐Yr. Performance Measure roadway system; including a number of Rolling Avg.) fatalities, number of serious injuries, rate of Number of Fatalities 3,590.8 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles Rate of Fatalities (per 100M VMT) 1.029 traveled (100M VMT), rate of serious Number of Serious Injuries 12,823.4 Rate of Serious Injuries (per 100M injuries per 100M VMT, and number of 3.831 VMT) non-motorized fatalities & serious injuries. Number of Non‐Motorized Fatalities 4,271.1 In cooperation with the Office of Traffic and Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries Safety, Caltrans generated Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Strategic Management Plan that set the guidelines to establish statewide targets for PM 1 performance measures. Caltrans released their 2018 statewide target on August 31, 2017.

Caltrans referenced the following data sources while determining their targets for PM 1 performance measures: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), and Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). HPMS supplies the 100M VMT. FARS supplies the fatalities. SWITRS supplies serious injuries and a number of non-motorized fatalities & serious injuries.

PM 2 – Transportation Asset Management

PM 2 addresses the condition of the existing national highway system (NHS); including percent of interstate highway system (IHS) of NHS in “Good” condition, percent of interstate highway system (IHS) of NHS in “Poor” condition, percent of non-IHS NHS pavement in “Good” condition, percent of non-IHS NHS pavement in “Poor” condition, percent of NHS bridges in “Good” P11

condition, and percent of NHS bridges in “Poor” condition. Good condition is defined as, “Suggests no major investment is needed.” Poor condition is defined as, “Suggests major reconstruction investment is needed. Caltrans released their 2-year and 4-year statewide PM 1 targets on May 21, 2018. The review period for 2-year statewide targets are from 1/1/18 to 12/31/19 and from 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2021 for 4-year statewide targets.

Caltrans refers MPOs to http://www.dot.ca.gov/assetmgmt/pm2.html as a data source for pavement and bridge conditions. This website provides bridge conditions for the most current year (2018) via http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/local/localbrlist.pdf, but no pavement conditions. Pavement conditions (2016) was only available upon request from Caltrans.

PM 3 – System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, and Air Quality

PM 3 addresses travel reliability for motorists along NHS and goods movement (referring to the movement of freight by truck), as well as emissions reduction due to congestion mitigation and air quality improvement (CMAQ) program. PM 3 performance measures include the percent of a percent of reliable person-miles traveled on NHS, percentage of interstate system mileage provide reliable truck travel time, total emissions reduced by 5 applicable pollutants under CMAQ program, annual hours of peak-hour excessive delay per capita, and percent of non- single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. Caltrans released their 2-year and 4-year statewide PM 3 targets in 2018.

FHWA published their final rule that repeals the performance measure that assesses the percentage change in tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions on NHS. In addition, SJCOG is exempt from reporting on annual hours of peak-hour excessive delay per capita and percent of non-SOV travel due to no urbanized area in San Joaquin County meeting the 1 million population threshold.

Caltrans released an interactive website, https://npmrds.iteris-pems.com, for MPOs to access monthly statistics on travel reliability for motorists and goods movement. SJCOG referred to CMAQ program manager for pollutant reduction-related performance measure.

2017 Performance Measure Baseline 2‐year Target 4‐year Target Data Percent of Reliable Person‐Miles 64.6% 65.1% (+0.5%) 65.6% (+1%) Traveled on the Interstate Percent of Reliable Person‐Miles Traveled on the Non‐Interstate NHS 73.0% N/A 74.0% (+1%) Percentage of Interstate System Mileage Providing Reliable Truck Travel Time (Truck Travel Time 1.69 1.68 (‐0.01) 1.67 (‐0.02) Reliability Index) Total Emissions Reductions by Applicable Pollutants under the CMAQ Program VOC (kg/day) 951.83 961.35 (+1%) 970.87 (+2%) CO (kg/day) 6,863.26 6,931.90 (+1%) 7,000.54 (+2%) NOx (kg/day) 1,753.36 1,770.89 (+1%) 1,788.43 (+2%) P12

PM10 (kg/day) 2,431.21 2,455.52 (+1%) 2,479.83 (+2%) PM2.5 (kg/day) 904.25 913.29 (+1%) 922.34 (+2%)

In preparation of this report, SJCOG’s FY 18/19 Overall Work Program (OWP) included “Performance-Based Planning” work element, as required by Caltrans. In addition, staff introduced these performance measures to the committees and board in January 2018. SJCOG’s past work program has included performance measurement and target-setting work that is closely related to MAP-21’s “Performance-Based Planning” framework; including the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP), and Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF).

NEXT STEPS:

SJCOG staff anticipates the following tasks during the next fiscal year.  Follow and apply Caltrans’ updates on PM 1 - 3  Generate the next performance report

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2019 Transportation Performance Report

Prepared by: Travis Yokoyama, Associate Regional Planner P13 DRAFT Map-21 Performance Report

A U G U S T 2 0 1 9

ROADWAY SAFETY | TRAFFIC CONGESTION | ASSET MANAGEMENT P14

Contents FINDING SUMMARY ...... iii PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...... 1 Federal Requirements ...... 1 Performance Measure (PM) ...... 1 Caltrans Performance Management (PM) Targets ...... 1 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ...... 2 Regional Roadway Network ...... 2 Transit ...... 2 Bicycle Facilities ...... 2 Goods Movement ...... 3 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 3 Population / Employment ...... 3 Commute Patterns ...... 3 PM 1 ‐ ROADWAY SAFETY ...... 6 SJCOG PM 1 Compliance ...... 6 Findings ...... 6 Importance Of SJCOG Contribution ...... 7 PM 2 – TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT (TAM) ...... 12 Ratingm Syste Explained ...... 12 SJCOG PM 2 Compliance ...... 13 Findings ...... 13 Importance Of SJCOG Contribution ...... 13 PM 3 ‐ SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, and AIR QUALITY ...... 15 Truck Travel Time Reliability Index Explained ...... 15 SJCOG PM 3 Compliance ...... 15 Findings ...... 15 Importance Of SJCOG Contribution ...... 18

Figure 1: Example of Commute Patterns ...... 2 Figure 2: San Joaquin County Population & Employment ...... 3 Figure 3: San Joaquin County Population Growth by Natural Increase, New Immigration, and New Domestic Migration .. 3 Figure 4: San Joaquin County Journey‐To‐ Work Mode Share ...... 4 Figure 5: Change in Number of Commute Trips by Mode since 2006 ...... 4

P15

Figure 6: Historical Number of Fatalities (2005 ‐2017) ...... 8 Figure 7: Fatality Rate per 100 Million VMT (2005 ‐2017) ...... 8 Figure 8: Historical Number of Serious Injuries (2005 ‐2017) ...... 9 Figure 9: Historical Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT (2005 ‐2017) ...... 9 Figure 10: Historical Number of Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries (2005 ‐2017) ...... 10 Figure 11: Pavement Condition Metrics ...... 12 Figure 12:Bridge Condition Metrics ...... 12 Figure 13: 2018 Interstate Travel Time Reliability (Annual/Monthly) ...... 16 Figure 14: 2017 Interstate Travel Time Reliability (Annual/Monthly) ...... 16 Figure 15: 2018 Non‐Interstatee Travel Tim Reliability (Annual/Monthly) ...... 16 Figure 16: 2017 Non‐Interstate Travel Time Reliability (Annual/Monthly) ...... 16 Figure 17: 2018 Truck Travel Reliability (Annual/Monthly) ...... 17 Figure 18: 2017 Truck Travel Reliability (Annual/Monthly) ...... 17 Figure 19: 2017 Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County ...... 19 Figure 20: 2018 Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County ...... 19 Figure 21: 2017 Non‐Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County ...... 20 Figure 22: 2018 Non‐Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County ...... 20 Figure 23: 2017 Truck Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) ...... 21 Figure 24: 2018 Truck Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) ...... 21

Table 1: 2018/2019 Caltrans Adopted Safety Performance Targets ...... 6 Table 2: PM 1 Data Source ...... 6 Table 3: Caltrans Adopted TAM Performance Targets ...... 12 Table 4: Percentage of Interstate Pavements ...... 13 Table 5: Percentage of Non‐Interstate Pavement ...... 13 Table 6: Caltrans PM3 Performance Targets ...... 15 Table 7: PM3 Travel and Freight Reliability ...... 16 Table 8: Pollutant Emission Reduction thru CMAQ Program ...... 17 Table 9: Recommendation #1 of San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan ...... 18

APPENDICES

Appendix A ‐ Safetrek Mapping – PM 1 Appendix B ‐ California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Overview Appendix C ‐ 2018 Local Agency Bridge Inventory List in San Joaquin County Appendix D ‐ SJCOG RCMP Congestion and Travel Time Reliability Assessment

P16 SUMMARY

FINDING SUMMARY PM 1 – Roadway Safety

Base Year 2016 Reported Year 2017 120 118 116 Number of Fatalities 115 2016 2017

1.8 1.75 1.71 Annual Fatality Rate Per 1.7 100 Million VMT 1.6 2016 2017

500 292 353 Number of Serious Injuries 0 2016 2017

5.2 Annual Serious Injury 10 4.33 Rate Per 100 Million 0 VMT 2016 2017

100 49 64 Number of Non‐ 0 26 30 Motorized Fatalities and 2016 2017 Injuries # of Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries

# of Non‐Motorized Fatalities

PM 2 – Transportation Asset Management

Pavement Conditions Base Year 2016 Reported Year 2016 33% Pavement Conditions 50% along Interstate of NHS 0% (“Good”) 2016

10% 7% Pavement Conditions along Interstate of NHS 0% (“Poor”) 2016

50% 31% Pavement Conditions along Non‐Interstate of 0% NHS (“Good”) 2016

10% 7% Pavement Conditions along Non‐Interstate of 0% NHS (“Poor”) 2016

iii

P17 SUMMARY

Bridge Conditions Base Year 2016* Reported Year 2018 61% 1 N/A N/A Bridge Conditions 0 (“Good”) 2016 2017 2018

0.5 24% Bridge Conditions N/A N/A 0 (“Poor”) 2016 2017 2018

* N/A = Unavailable

PM 3 – System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, and Air Quality

System Reliability, Freight, and Congestion Base Year 2017 Reported Year 2018 91.6% 92.0% 90.6% Travel Reliability along Interstate on NHS 90.0% 2017 2018

88.0% 87.2% 86.6% √Travel Reliability along 87.0% 86.0% Non‐Interstate on NHS 2017 2018

1.52 1.55 1.49 1.5 Freight Reliability 1.45 2017 2018

P18 SUMMARY

Air Quality (CMAQ) 2017 Base Year Reported Year 2017/18 (16/17) 50 19.32 24.34 ROG/VOC (kg/day) 0 16/17 17/18

10 2.84 8.52 CO 0 16/17 17/18

25 20.09 22.91 20 NOx 15 16/17 17/18

11 10.28 9.93 10 PM‐10 9 16/17 17/18

8 7.79 7.53 7.5 PM‐2.5 7 16/17 17/18

P19 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT performance measures. These Federal performance measures are thematically split into under the rubric of Monitoring our regional roadway system is important for “Performance Management” (PM): the overall goal of addressing reliability, safety, pavement and bridges maintenance, goods movement,  PM 1: Roadway Safety and environmental issues in San Joaquin County. The  PM 2: Transportation Asset Management Federal Government signed Moving Ahead for Progress  PM 3: System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, in the 21st Century act (MAP 21) into law in 2012, which and Air Quality requires State Department of Transportation (e.g. Caltrans) to establish performance measures targets to For each set of performance measures, Federal Highway achieve national transportation goals.1 This report Administration (FHWA) has issued a Final Federal Rule supplies the most current conditions for each identifying the performance metrics that State DOTs and performance measure. MPOs are responsible to asses. The State DOTs (e.g. Caltrans) are directly responsible to submit performance Federal Requirements targets and periodic reports on progress to those targets MAP‐21 established a performance‐ and outcome‐based to Federal agencies on an annual basis. The first year of program, known as “Performance Based Planning and required target setting for the three performance Programming (PBPP),” with the objective to invest in measure categories (PM 1‐3) is 2018, and FHWA will projects that will make progress toward the achievement review each state DOT’s performance in relation to their of the national goals for transportation. Fixing America’s 2018 targets in 2019. Surface Transportation Act of 2016 (FAST Act) carries forward the same performance management Caltrans Performance Management (PM) Targets framework. The Performance Based Planning Caltrans established multiple workshops and/or advisory framework is closely related to performance committees via in person on phone with MPOs during measurement and target‐setting work that has been part the development of statewide PM targets. MPOs, such as of SJCOG’s work program for many years, including the SJCOG, are required to establish targets for the same Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Congestion performance measures on all public roads in the MPO Management Program (RCMP), and Regional planning area within 180 days after the state establishes Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF). Caltrans has identified each target. The MPO may elect to support the statewide a new requirement for Metropolitan Planning targets, establish numerical targets specific to their 2 Organizations (MPOs) to include Performance Based region, or use a combination of both approaches. SJCOG Planning as a separate work element in the Overall Work elected to support the statewide target rather than Program (OWP), which SJCOG included for FY 18/19.2 establishing a region‐specific numerical target for PM 1 through 3.

Performance Based Planning and Programming These performance measures serve as indicators for (PBPP) provides a greater level of transparency each PM and are updated on an annual basis, but at and accountability, improved project decision‐ present time are not intended to set targets. SJCOG making, and more efficient investment of State reported the region’s performance through the and Federal transportation funds. performance measures of each PM and is not required to directly assess their contribution to statewide targets of Performance Measure (PM) each performance measure. Beginning in 2018, State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and MPOs is required to implement the Federal

1 U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, 2 Caltrans Target Reporting Forms PM1, PM2, & PM3 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ 1

P20 INTRODUCTION

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION and bus service is provided by various providers. Most SYSTEM jurisdictions maintain their own bus service. San Joaquin County’s Transportation system supports Tracer serves City of Tracy personal vehicles, freight trucks, buses, trains, bicyclists, Grapeline serves City of Lodi and pedestrians. Manteca Transit serves City of Manteca Regional Roadway Network San Joaquin County’s regional roadway includes three E‐Trans serves City of Escalon interstate freeways (I‐205, I‐580, and I‐5), six state routes Blossom Express serves City of Ripon (SR‐4, SR‐12, SR‐33, SR‐88, SR‐99, SR‐120, and SR‐132), and numerous local roadways. San Joaquin County Regional Transit District (RTD) serves primarily residents and goods are transported along this regional serves City of Stockton and San Joaquin County roadway network to access within and neighboring while also operating in Cities of Lodi, Lathrop, counties. Neighboring counties can access San Joaquin or Tracy, and Ripon. adjacent county along this regional roadway network. Sacramento County accesses the San Francisco Bay Area, Transit access is also available from/to areas outside of particularly Alameda and Santa Clara County, or vice San Joaquin County; including RTD’s bus service and versa along I‐5, SR‐99, SR‐120, and/or I‐205. Central ACE’s rail service to/from Alameda and Santa Clara Valley accesses Sacramento County along SR‐99 or I‐5. County, bus service to/from Stanislaus County via Central Valley, particularly Stanislaus and Merced Blossom Express and Modesto Area Express (MAX), and Counties, accesses San Francisco Bay Area along SR‐99, bus/rail service to/from various areas outside of San SR‐120, I‐580, I‐5, and I‐205. Joaquin County via Amtrak or Greyhound. Please see the Reference Section for each transit provider’s link. Figure 1: Example of Commute Patterns Rideshare, like Uber or Lyft, are available in or out of San Joaquin County. RTD funds 50% (up to $5.00) of your Uber ride if starting or ending outside of RTD’s service area or at specific transit centers between 4AM & 10AM and 4PM & 10PM.3 In addition, RTD started an on‐ demand service, called “Van Go,” which transports up to 4 people anywhere within a set zone between 6AM to 6PM Monday through Friday and 6AM to 10PM Saturday & Sunday. “Van Go” program has a set fee for one‐way trips and unlimited trips daily, with a transfer to a RTD fixed route being free.4 Bicycle Facilities As of 2018, there are approximately 282 miles of bicycle

Source: Bay Area Economic Institute lanes in San Joaquin County; including bicycle paths (Class 1), bicycle lanes (Class 2), and shared lane (Class 3).

Transit An additional 875 miles of bicycle lanes are planned in the future. Bus and rail service operate in San Joaquin County. Rail service is provided by Altamont Corridor Express (ACE)

3 San Joaquin Regional Transit District, http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/rtdgo/ 4 San Joaquin Regional Transit District, http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/vango/ 2

P21 INTRODUCTION

Goods Movement Figure 2: San Joaquin County Population & Employment Goods movement is vital for economic vitality and growth in San Joaquin County. Goods can be moved along existing roadway system via trucks, along waterways via boats, and along railroad system via train.

Roadway System – Trucks can travel along any roadway/highway, deemed part of Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) route.

Waterways – Boats can travel along waterways between

San Francisco Bay Area and Port of Stockton, northwest Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Series ID: ENU0607710010 & Department of SR‐4 and west of I‐5. Port of Stockton has millions of of Finance E2 ‐ California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year—July 1, 2000–2010 and July 1, 2010 – 2018 Reports square feet of warehousing and has the capability to load or unload Panamax‐sized vessels. Figure 3: San Joaquin County Population Growth by Natural Increase, New Immigration, and New Domestic Migration Rail System – Trains can travel along rail system, owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP). Rail system can transport goods outside San Joaquin County and even California to designations, like New Jersey or Georgia.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS Current and historical population and employment numbers, along with current commute patterns, illustrate the existing conditions and may better foresee future transportation infrastructure projects in San Source: Department of Finance E‐2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2010 – 2018 Report Joaquin County. Employment increased 26,327 between 2006 to 2017. Population / Employment San Joaquin County experienced reduced employment Current data estimates San Joaquin County’s population numbers between 2008 to 2011, which aligns with the was 749,092 and employment was 248,066 in 2017. unemployment rate. Unemployment increased since Population increased 88,207 from 2006 due to the 2006 and spiked at 16.5% in 2010, where unemployment increasing numbers of new births along with new gradually continued to decrease over the years. residents from outside of San Joaquin County and United States. Since July 2013, more people have been entering Commute Patterns rather than leaving San Joaquin County, especially from San Joaquin County residents primarily drove alone out of county or state. (82%) or carpooled (11%) to work. The remainder worked from home (3.82%), walked/biked (20%), used public transit (1.56%), or took taxi/other (0.78%).

P22 INTRODUCTION

Figure 4: San Joaquin County Journey‐To‐Work Mode Share

Source: American Factfinder, B08006 – Sex of Workers By Means of Transportation To Work, 2017.

Number of commute trips to work by driving alone, riding train, working from home, and taxi/other increased while walking, bicycling, riding the bus, and carpooling decrease from 2006 to 2017. Train ridership encountered the highest increase with 150.5% while bus trips reduced by 27.6% and walk trips reduced by 38.3%.

Figure 5: Change in Number of Commute Trips by Mode since 2006

Source: American Factfinder, B08006 – Sex of Workers By Means of Transportation To Work, 2006 & 2017.

P23

ROADWAY SAFETY

PM 1 ‐ ROADWAY SAFETY

P24

ROADWAY SAFETY

PM 1 ‐ ROADWAY SAFETY were reported to Federal Highway Administration on August 31, 2018. Caltrans established statewide performance targets in accordance with FHWA’s Safety Performance SJCOG PM 1 Compliance Management Final Rule as an implementation of the SJCOG simulated Caltrans’ methodology by accessing Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). These the data sources, found in Caltrans’ 2018 California statewide targets address fatalities and serious injuries Performance Management (PM1) Safety MPO Target of motorize and non‐motorized accidents on roads in San Reporting Template, to report the most comparable Joaquin County (Table 1: 2018/2019 Caltrans Adopted Safety stats for San Joaquin County. The three data sources Performance Targets). include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System

Table 1: 2018/2019 Caltrans Adopted Safety Performance (SWITRS), Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), Targets and Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). SHSP 2018 Target 2019 Target Performance It should be noted that there was no mention of FARS Base (5‐Yr. Rolling (5‐Yr. Rolling Measure data being part of the methodology for non‐motorized (2016) Avg.) Avg.) Number of Fatalities 3,680 3,590.8 3,445.4 serious injuries and fatalities in Safety Performance Rate of Fatalities Management Targets for 2018, resulting in SWITRS data 1.057 1.029 0.995 (per 100M VMT) being used for fatalities in lieu of FARS data. Number of Serious 13,017 12,823.4 12,688.1 Injuries Table 2: PM 1 Data Source Rate of Serious Agency Database Performance Measure Injuries (per 100M 3.889 3.831 3.661 Number of Serious Injuries VMT) Rate of Serious Injuries California Highway Number of Non‐ SWITRS Number of Non‐Motorized Motorized Fatalities Patrol 4,485 4,271.1 3,949.8 Fatalities & Serious Injuries and Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries Highway Traffic Number of Fatalities Source: 2018/2019 California Performance Management (PM1) Safety Safety FARS Rate of Fatalities MPO Target Reporting Template, Caltrans Safety Performance Administration Management Targets for 2018 California Rate of Fatalities Department of HPMS Rate of Serious Injuries These performance targets are the result of Safety Transportation Performance Management Workshops in 2017 and 2018 Source: 2018 California Performance Management (PM1) Safety MPO between Caltrans and MPOs, where MPOs supplied Target Reporting Template feedback to Caltrans on PM 1 targets. The results of March 13, 2018 workshop selected a scenario that aligns Findings 2015‐2019 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Aligning with the statewide goal of reaching zero helps California reach zero fatalities by 2050 with 2016 fatalities by 2050, 2016 was selected at the starting as a starting point.5 2020‐2024 SHSP is in development point for this analysis. 2017 was the most current and should instill the same “zero deaths by 2050” goal. observation year reported by all data sources at this time. Caltrans, with help from Office of Traffic Safety, established and reported three performance measures There were 116 fatalities, 353 serious injuries, and 94 (i.e. number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, and non‐motorized serious injuries and fatalities.n Of 94 no ‐ rate of fatalities) to National Highway Safety motorized accidents, 64 were serious injuries and 30 Administration. In addition, rate of serious injuries and were fatalities. Fatality rate (per 100 million vehicle miles number of non‐motorized serious injuries and fatalities traveled (VMT)) was 1.71 and serious injury rate (per 100 million VMT) was 5.20.

5 Caltrans, Safety Performance Management Targets for 2019 6

P25

ROADWAY SAFETY

Compared with 2016, there were 2 less fatalities, 61 more serious injuries, and 19 more non‐motorized fatalities and serious injuries.

Importance Of SJCOG Contribution The increase in serious injuries and non‐motorized fatalities/serious injuries supports the need for SJCOG establishing safety‐related policies and programs, along with improved communication and coordination with stakeholders.

2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for San Joaquin County established one safety‐related policy that includes two strategies.

Strategy #9 – Facilitate projects that reduce the number of and severity of traffic incidents

Strategy #10 – Encourage and support projects that increase safety and security.6

These strategies are captured in SJCOG’s Active Transportation program, Alternative Transportation program, and many other programs. In addition, SJCOG funding of various alternative transportation projects, like active transportation project funding.

6 SJCOG RTP/SCS Executive Summary, https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/3778/Final‐Executive‐ Summary‐ 7

P26

ROADWAY SAFETY

Number of Fatalities

Number of fatalities were accounted annually by FARS. In 2017, the five‐year rolling average was 102 fatalities with 116 observed during the same year. The five‐year rolling average includes two years of decreasing fatalities and three years of increasing fatalities. Figure 6: Historical Number of Fatalities (2005 ‐2017) illustrates annual fatalities in blue and five‐ year rolling average in orange. The number of fatalities decreased by 2 since 2016.

Figure 6: Historical Number of Fatalities (2005 ‐2017)

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

Annual Fatality Rate (per 100 million VMT)

Annual fatality rate accounted for the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven. In 2017, the rolling average was 1.54 of 1.71 annual fatality rate per 100 million VMT (AFT/100M) observed during the same year. AFT/100M was calculated by dividing the number of fatalities by VMT. Number of fatalities can vary yearly while VMT steadily increases over the years. AFT/100M reduced by 0.04 since 2016.

Figure 7: Fatality Rate per 100 Million VMT (2005 ‐2017)

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)

P27

ROADWAY SAFETY

Number of Serious injuries

Number of serious injuries were accounted for annually by SWITRS. In 2017, the rolling average was 261 of 353 serious injuries observed during the same year. The number of serious injuries increased by 61 since 2016.

Figure 8: Historical Number of Serious Injuries (2005 ‐2017)

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)

Annual Serious Injury Rate (per 100 million VMT)

Annual serious injury rate accounted for the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven. In 2017, the rolling average was 3.95 of 5.20 annual fatality rate per 100 million VMT (AFT/100M) observed during the same year. AFT/100M was calculated by dividing the number of fatalities by VMT. Number of fatalities can vary yearly while VMT steadily increases over the years. AFT/100M reduced by 0.87 since 2016.

Figure 9: Historical Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT (2005 ‐2017)

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)

P28

ROADWAY SAFETY

Number of Non‐Motorized Fatalities and Injuries

Number of non‐motorized fatalities and serious injuries were accounted for annually by SWITRS. In 2017, the rolling average was 64.6 of 94 non‐motorized fatalities and serious injuries; of which 64 was serious injuries and 30 were fatalities, observed during the same year. The number of non‐motorized fatalities increased by 4 and number of non‐motorized serious injuries increased by 15 since 2016.

Figure 10: Historical Number of Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries (2005 ‐2017)

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)

P29

TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT

PM 2 – Transportation Asset Management

P30

TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT

PM 2 – TRANSPORTATION ASSET “Poor” condition. 54 lane miles is less than 1% of total MANAGEMENT (TAM) lane miles. Caltrans’ Transportation Asset Management Plan Rating System Explained (TAMP) established national performance measures for Pavement and bridge conditions are rated either a pavement and bridges with statewide targets in “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor.” “Good” suggests no need for accordance with Federal Regulation (23 U.S.C. 150). 10 major investment and “Poor” suggests the need for years of data are assessed, from 2017/18 to 2027/28, major reconstruction investment. Pavement conditions with 2‐year (Table 3) & 4‐year targets to determine its are measured by 1) International Roughness Index progress toward 10‐year. goal 7 The availability of Senate (inches/mil), 2) Cracking (%), 3) Rutting (inches), and 4) Bill 1 (SB1) and local measure funding is anticipated to Faulting (inches) (Figure 11: Pavement Condition improve current pavement and bridge conditions along Metrics). National Highway System (NHS) per Caltran’s TAMP.8 Figure 11: Pavement Condition Metrics NHS includes interstates and other roadways of national importance to mobility, defense, and economy.

Table 3: Caltrans Adopted TAM Performance Targets Current 2016 2‐Year Target 4‐Year Target Performance (Pavement) / (1/1/18 – (1/1/20 – Measure 2017 (Bridge) 12/31/19) 12/31/21) Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Pavement on NHS Interstate 47.9% 3.1% 45.1% 3.5% 44.5% 3.8% Non‐Interstate 43.5% 2.5% 28.2% 7.3% 29.9% 7.2% Bridges on NHS 69.4% 3.7% 69.1% 4.6% 70.5% 4.4% Source: 2018 Caltrans Target Setting Methodology for PM2 – National Highway System Pavement & Bridge Targets, 5/21/18 Caltrans Statewide Caltrans Pavement & Bridge Target Setting Webinar (3/29/18) PM2 Target Letter Bridge conditions rates the 0 to 9 the conditions of deck, Caltrans held a workshop with MPOs to introduce a superstructure, substructure, and culvert. 0‐4 are rated preliminary methodology for establishing 10‐year NHS “Poor” and 7‐9 are rated “Good.” pavement and bridge targets in August 2017. A follow‐up letter requested MPOs select a target methodology in Figure 12:Bridge Condition Metrics September 2017. Caltrans accessed 2017 State Highway System Management Plan (SHSMP) deterioration rates and unit costs from 2016 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment as factors in determining the targets, based on level of available funding.

5/21/18 PM2 Caltrans statewide target letter included current pavement conditions (2016) and bridge conditions (2017) with 2‐year targets (1/1/18‐12/31/19) and 4‐year targets (1/1/20‐12/31/21). It should be noted that “other non‐interstate” was not calculated into “non‐ Caltrans Pavement & Bridge Target Setting Webinar (3/29/18) interstate” for current pavement conditions due the low quality (54 lane miles) and lack of lane miles in “Good” or

7 Caltrans, 8 Caltrans’ 2018 PM2 Pavement and Bridge Target Setting Methodology http://www.dot.ca.gov/assetmgmt/documents/Webinar_Slides.pdf 12

P31

TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT

For more information on rating system, please refer to March 29, 2018 Webinar for PM2 on NHS Bridge Condition http://www.dot.ca.gov/assetmgmt/pm2.html. 2018 “Local Agency Bridge Inventory List” was filtered to SJCOG PM 2 Compliance only include bridges on “NHS Hwy.” Appendix C lists all Caltran’s Transportation Asset Management website, bridges with bridges on “NHS Hwy” highlighted. Of http://www.dot.ca.gov/assetmgmt/pm2.html, provided bridge conditions along “NHS Hwy,” 24% were rated the guidance on pavement and bridge measures. Pavement data was unavailable online and had to be Note: League of California Cities generated California Statewide requested from Caltrans. Caltrans provided Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides a general overview of pavement and bridge conditions and costs. “2016_NHS_CA_2” dataset. Bridge data was found San Joaquin County overview can be found in Appendix B. online, under “Local Agency Bridge Inventory List” for 2018. “Poor,” 15% “Fair,” and 61% “Good” in 2018.

Findings Bridge Condition As dictated by in Caltrans statewide 2018 target letter, Jurisdiction Good % Fair % Poor % Total 2016 was selected as the starting point for this analysis. Lathrop 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 2 Stockton 16 59% 4 15% 7 26% 27 Bridge data, via Caltrans’ “Local Agency Bridge San Inventory List,” was available for 2018 and not 2017 or Joaquin 3 75% 0 0% 1 25% 4 before. Pavement data was only available for 2016 and County County only available from Caltrans staff. SJCOG staff can only 20 61% 5 15% 8 24% 33 Total report 2018 bridge conditions and 2016 pavement Note: Jurisdictions not listed do not have any bridges on the NHS. conditions at this time. A comparative assessment may be performed in the next performance report. Importance Of SJCOG Contribution There is no previous or future data to compare with the Pavement Conditions reported bridge and pavement conditions; however, Caltrans “2016_NHS_CA_2” was augmented to separate SJCOG took preventive measures that may reduce the interstate from the remainder of NHS on‐file. Only percentage of “Poor” rated bridge and pavement interstates in San Joaquin County include I‐5, I‐205, and conditions in San Joaquin County. I‐580. The results found 33% of pavement conditions RTP/SCS for San Joaquin County established one along NHS to be “Good,” 61% “Fair,” and 7% “Poor.” transportation asset management‐related policy that Table 4: Percentage of Interstate Pavements includes one strategy. Performance Metric Percentage Good 33% Strategy #13 – Support the Continued Fair 61% Maintenance and Preservation of the Existing Poor 7% Transportation System.

This strategy is captured in a number of SJCOG Of pavement conditions along non‐interstate NHS, 31% administered funding sources, like SB 1 and Regional was found “Good,” 62% “Fair,” and 7% “Poor” in 2016. Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).

Table 5: Percentage of Non‐Interstate Pavement Performance Metric Percentage Good 31% Fair 62% Poor 7%

P32

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

PM 3 ‐ System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, and Air Quality

P33

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Source: Caltrans 2018 Target Reporting Form Performance Management PM 3 ‐ SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, (PM3) System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Targets CONGESTION, and AIR QUALITY These targets are the result of Performance Measure Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) set a final ruling (PM) 3 Technical Advisory Group meetings and webcast that establishes “performance measures for the workshops in 2017 and 2018 with Caltrans and MPOs, performance of Interstate and Non‐Interstate National resulting in the establishing the 2‐year and 4 ‐year PM3 Highway System (NHS), freight movement on Interstate performance targets along with current conditions system to carry out on the National Highway Freight (2017). Program (NHFP), and traffic congestion and on‐road mobile sources emissions for the purpose of carrying out Truck Travel Time Reliability Index Explained the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Under the federal final rule, FHWA preserved the level of (CMAQ) program.”9 travel time reliability (LOTTR) for freight trucks. In addition, FHWA set the truck travel time reliability Three performance measures are not in this report due to: threshold at 1.50, which signifies truck travel times below 1.50 are deemed reliable. 1.50 truck travel time In 2018, The Greenhouse Gas performance metric that reliability occurs when the travel time exceeds 50% of analyzes submit the percentage change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was repealed. expected travel during non‐commute (i.e. 7‐9 AM, 4‐6 PM) times. For more information, please refer to There are no urbanized area in San Joaquin County that https://www.federalregister.gov, under “national‐ meets the 1 million resident threshold, requiring the reporting of: performance‐management ‐measures‐assessing‐ performance‐of‐the‐national‐highway‐system.” 1) Annual hours of peak‐hour excessive delay per capita SJCOG PM 3 Compliance

2) Percent of non‐single occupancy vehicle (SOV) Caltrans established a website (https://npmrds.iteris‐ travel pems.com/npmrds/) for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to access monthly reliability percentages for commuters and freight truck drivers. The Table 6: Caltrans PM3 Performance Targets average of monthly reliability percentages between Current 2‐Year 4‐Year January and December generated the annual reliability Performance Measure Conditions Target Target (2017) percentage. Percent of Reliable Person‐ Miles Traveled on the 64.6% 65.1% 65.6% CMAQ pollution reduction statistics account for the Interstate categories within the target. These statistics are Percent of Reliable Person‐ Miles Traveled on the Non‐ 73.0% N/A 74.0% provided by CMAQ program manager at SJCOG, found in Interstate NHS https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/cmaq_pub/search. Percentage of Interstate System Mileage Providing Reliable Truck Travel Time 1.69 1.68 1.67 Findings (Truck Travel Time Reliability As dictated in 2018 Caltrans PM3 Targeting Form, 2017 Index) was selected as the starting point for this analysis. 2018 Total Emissions Reductions by Applicable Pollutants under the CMAQ Program was the most current observation year reported by all VOC (kg/day) 951.83 961.35 970.87 data sources at this time. CO (kg/day) 6,863.26 6,931.90 7,000.54 NOx (kg/day) 1,753.36 1,770.89 1,788.43 PM10 (kg/day) 2,431.21 2,455.52 2,479.83 PM2.5 (kg/day) 904.25 913.29 922.34

9 2018 Caltrans Target Reporting Form – PM3 (System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Targets) 15

P34

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Table 7: PM3 Travel and Freight Reliability Travel Reliability: Non‐Interstate NHS Annual Average 2017 2018 Travel reliability along non‐interstate of NHS was 86.6% Interstate Reliability 90.6% 91.6% in 2018, with September being the most reliable month Non‐Interstate Reliability 87.2% 86.6% Freight Reliability 1.49 1.52 and May being the most unreliable month. Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org Figure 15: 2018 Non‐Interstate Travel Time Reliability Travel Reliability: Interstate NHS (Annual/Monthly)

Travel reliability along interstate of NHS was 91.6% in 2018, with January being the most reliable month and September being the most unreliable month.

Figure 13: 2018 Interstate Travel Time Reliability (Annual/Monthly)

Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org

Travel reliability along non‐interstate of NHS was 87.2% in 2017, with January being the most reliable month and May being the most unreliable month. Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org Figure 16: 2017 Non‐Interstate Travel Time Reliability Travel reliability along interstate of NHS was 90.6% in (Annual/Monthly) 2017, with January being the most reliable month and September being the most unreliable month.

Figure 14: 2017 Interstate Travel Time Reliability (Annual/Monthly)

Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org

Annual travel reliability along non‐interstate of NHS decreased between 2017 and 2018 in San Joaquin

Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org County. SJCOG RTP/SCS supplied policies that support the improvement of travel reliability in San Joaquin County. Additional information about those strategies Travel reliability along interstate of NHS improved can be found in the next section (i.e. Importance of between 2017 and 2018 in San Joaquin County, with SJCOG Contribution). strategies in the next section (i.e. Importance of SJCOG Contribution) supporting the need for improving travel reliability into 2019 and beyond. Note: Appendix C is provided as an additional assessment that presents NPMRDS in form of buffer time index (BTI) along congested/uncongested corridors.

P35

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Travel Reliability: Truck Travel Time (LOTTR) Bay Area due to the “relatively inexpensive land and low cost labor, good access to the national retail and Truck travel reliability was 1.52 in 2018, with March interstate highway networks, connections to major being the most reliable month and March being the deepwater ports in Oakland, and proximity to major most unreliable month. consumer markets.”10 Figure 17: 2018 Truck Travel Reliability (Annual/Monthly) Pollution Reduction – CMAQ

SJCOG, as administrator of CMAQ program, funds transportation projects for the purpose of relieving traffic congestion and reducing car/truck emissions in San Joaquin County. SJCOG’s fiscal year starts July 1st and end June 30th.

There were 12 program/projects in 17/18 fiscal year. Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org SJCOG’s DIBs program, Travel Demand Management (TDM) program for San Joaquin and Merced County, Truck travel reliability was 1.49 in 2017, with April being received CMAQ funding. The remainder of the projects the most reliable month and February being the most lie within the City of Stockton. A complete summary of unreliable month and March being the most unreliable emission reductions, except Carbon Oxide (CO), was month. generated. Only a few jurisdictions reported CO emission reductions. Figure 18: 2017 Truck Travel Reliability (Annual/Monthly) Table 8: Pollutant Emission Reduction thru CMAQ Program Emission Reduction FY 16/17 FY 17/18 ROG/VOC kg/day 19.32 24.34 CO kg/day 2.84 8.52 NOx kg/day 20.09 22.91 PM ‐ 10 kg/day 10.28 9.93

PM ‐ 2.5 kg/day 7.79 7.53

Source: https://npmrds.ritis.org Note: CO was reported by many of jurisdictions.

Annual freight reliability decreased between 2017 and 2018 in San Joaquin County, warranting the need for Total emission reductions thru CMAQ program reported investments into goods movement system. Additional a reduction of 24.34 kilograms per day (kg/day) in information about strategies that improve the goods volatile organic compound (VOC), 8.52 kg/day in carbon movement system can be found in the next section (i.e. oxide (CO), 22.91 kg/day in nitrous oxide (NOx), 9.93 Importance of SJCOG Contribution). kg/day in particulate matter (PM) 10, 7.53 kg/day in PM 2.5 in fiscal year 2017/18. That is a2 5.0 kg/day less of San Joaquin County, along with other counties within VOC, 5.68 kg/day less of CO, 2 kg/day less of NOx, 0.35 San Joaquin Valley, is one of nation’s largest agricultural kg/day more of PM 10, and 0.26 kg/day more of PM 2.5 producers. In addition, San Joaquin Valley plays a vital since last fiscal year (2016/17). role in logistics for many companies in San Francisco

10 San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies, http://sjvcogs.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2016/01/2013‐05‐30‐Exec‐Summ‐Goods.pdf 17

P36

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Importance Of SJCOG Contribution “mega region,” which improves the chance of receiving Annual travel reliability along non‐interstates reducing funding from the state. SJCOG is part of two “mega by 0.6% and 0.03 increase for annual freight unreliability regions.” First “mega region” consists of Sacramento supports the need for SJCOG establishing safety‐related Council of Governments (SACOG), SJCOG, Metropolitan policies and programs, along with improved Transportation Commission (MTC), and Association of communication and coordination with stakeholders. Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). Second “mega region’ consists of 8 counties of San Joaquin 2018 RTP/SCS for San Joaquin County established Valley; including SJCOG, Stanislaus COG, Kern COG, multiple travel reliability and pollutant‐related policies Tulare COG, Fresno COG, Kings County Association of with multiple strategies: Governments (KCAG), Madera County Transportation Strategy #3 – Improve Air Quality by Reducing Commission (MCTC), and Merced County Association of Transportation‐Related Emissions Governments (MCAG).

Strategy #4 – Improve Regional Transportation San Joaquin Valley “Mega Region” produced the 2013 System Efficiency San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan provides a priority list of highway capacity projects Strategy #8 – Improve Major Transportation along with set a recommendation to prepare for MAP‐ Corridors to Minimize Impacts on Rural Roads 21 actions; including:

Strategy #12 – Optimize Existing Transportation Table 9: Recommendation #1 of San Joaquin Valley Interregional System Capacity through Available and/on Goods Movement Plan Innovative Strategies Provision Action Establishes National Establishes a national freight policy, including Freight Policy establishing goals for national investment into Strategy #14 – Encourage System Efficiency freight infrastructure. with Transportation Improvements that National Freight Calls for development of a National Freight Strategic Plan Strategic Plan, that would assess the condition Facilitate Improvements in the Jobs/Housing and performance of the national freight highway Balance network. This requires the USDOT to identify highway bottlenecks, issues, and major trade Strategy #15 – Improvement Transportation corridors. State Freight Encourages states to establish freight advisory Options Linking Residents to Employment Advisory Committee committees, and develop state freight plans. Centers within and out of the County and State Freight Plans Strategy #16 – Improve Freight Access to Key National Freight Calls for the establishment of a National Freight Strategic Economic Centers Network Network. This network would consist of a primary network established by the FHWA, but also portions of the interstate system and critical These strategies are applied to all projects that SJCOG rural freight corridors. reviews and supplies funding toward. For example, SR‐ Source: 2013 San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan 120 and SR‐99 interchange project has the ability to Executive Summary apply all the above strategies.

In relation to Goods Movement, SJCOG holds a multitude of private and public partnerships to be stay ahead of the growing demands of an everchanging goods movement industry. A couple examples of those partnerships includes SJCOG’s Goods Movement Task Force and West Coast Corridor Coalition.

In addition, SJCOG has partnered with other neighboring MPOs for the purpose of generating this 18

P37

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Figure 19: 2017 Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County

Figure 20: 2018 Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County

P38

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Figure 21: 2017 Non‐Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County

Figure 22: 2018 Non‐Interstate NHS in San Joaquin County

P39

SYSTEM RELIABILITY, FREIGHT, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY

Figure 23: 2017 Truck Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR)

Figure 24: 2018 Truck Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR)

P40

REFERENCES

P41

Prepared by:

Travis Yokoyama, Associate Regional Planner

Rob Cunningham, Senior Regional Planner

Design by:

Michelle Price, Assistant Regional Planner

Technical Assistance by:

Jim Damkowitch, GHD, Inc.

References

Structure / Outline of Report:

2016 Performance Report: State of the Transportation System in Alameda County, Alameda County Transportation Commission

Annual FY 2018 Transportation Systems Monitoring Program (TSMP) Draft Report, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Introduction:

Bureau of Labor Statistics, ENU0607710010, United States Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, United States Department of Labor

Department of Finance, E‐2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2010 – 2018, State of California < http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E‐2/index.html>

Department of Finance, E‐2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000 – 2010, State of California < http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E‐2/2000‐10/>

Local Truck Routes, Caltrans

Transit Providers:

Altamont Corridor Express (ACE)

Amtrak

E‐Trans

Grapeline

Grayhound

Manteca Transit

Modesto Area Express (MAX)

Regional Transit District (RTD)

Tracer

P42

Safety (PM 1):

2015‐2019 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Caltrans

Metropolitan Planning Agreement Appendix: Draft 2018 California Performance Management 1 (PM1) Safety MPO Target Reporting Template, Caltrans

Metropolitan Planning Organization Agreement 2019 California Safety Performance Management 1 (PM1) Targets MPO Target Reporting Template, Caltrans

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), United States Department of Transportation

Policy and Government Affairs: Office of Highway Policy Information, California Public Road Data ‐ Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), United States of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration

Safety Performance Management Targets for 2018, Caltrans

Safety Performance Management Targets for 2019, Caltrans

Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

Transportation Asset Management (PM 2):

“NHS_CA_2” data set from Caltrans

Pavement and Bridge Performance Management (PM2), Caltrans

Target Setting Methodology Performance Management (PM2) National Highway System Pavement & Bridge Targets, Caltrans, 2018

System Reliability, Freight, Congestion, and Air Quality (PM 3):

2018 Target Reporting Form Performance Management (PM3) System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Targets, Caltrans

Air Quality CMAQ Public Access System, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

CMAQ data from Ryan Niblock, SJCOG Senior Regional Planner

CMAQ website (for reference purposes)

Inter‐Regional Goods Movement, San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council < https://sjvcogs.org/valleywide_activities/good‐movement/>

National Performance Management Research Data Set, Caltrans

Regional Integrated Transportation Information System, RITIS < https://www.ritis.org>

Appendix A ‐ Safetrek Mapping – PM 1:

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safetrek

Appendix B ‐ California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Overview:

P43

2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, League of California Cities

Appendix C – 2018 Local Agency Bridge Inventory List in San Joaquin County:

Pavement and Bridge Performance Management (PM2), Caltrans

Appendix D ‐ SJCOG RCMP Congestion and Travel Time Reliability Assessment: Data from and analysis produced by GHD, Inc.

P44

APPENDICES Appendix A ‐ Safetrek Mapping – PM 1 Appendix B ‐ California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Overview Appendix C ‐ 2018 Local Agency Bridge Inventory List in San Joaquin County Appendix D ‐ SJCOG RCMP Congestion and Travel Time Reliability Assessment

P45

APPENDIX A – Safetrek Mapping – PM 1

P46 University of California Berkeley established SafeTrec, or Safe Transportation Research and Education Center in 2000. SafeTrec’s emphasis is on 1) Data Analysis and Data Tools, 2) Technology for Road Safety, and 3) Policy Analysis and Community Outreach.1 SafeTrec’ Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) illustrates Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data. TIMS allows the user to filter criteria, like collision severity, with some limitations. One important limitation is TIMS inability to filter more than three criteria of a specific type at one time.

SJCOG staff accessed SafeTrec’ TIMS to TIMS Limitations: Unable to generate results when applying compare severe injuries from 2017 to 2018 and specific time frame(s) with another set of criteria. For instance, was able to generate four scenarios in San severe injuries along interstates, US highways, & state routes in Joaquin County (for comparison purposes): 1) San Joaquin County during weekdays between 15:00 – 17:59 and Severe injuries (SI) collisions, 2) Motorized SI 6:00 – 8:59. This error will hopefully be corrected at the time of collisions, 3) Motorized SI collisions along next performance report interstates, United States (US) highways, & state routes in San Joaquin County, and 3) Motorized SI collisions on weekdays along interstates, US highways, & state routes in San Joaquin County. Heat maps, illustrating the results of the above queries, are shown below. These heat maps illustrate the density of occurrences per each query. For instance, heat maps for 2017 serious injuries in San Joaquin County illustrate most collisions occurred in City of Stockton. Note: Heat maps do not include collisions where there was no indication of what the motor vehicle was involved.

2017 2018 Diff. Severe Injuries Collisions in SJC County 287 362 75 Severe Injuries between a motor vehicle (MV) and non‐pedestrian/bicyclist 228 308 80 (NPB) in SJ County Severe Injuries between a motor vehicle (MV) and non‐pedestrian/bicyclist (NPB) along interstates, US highways, & state routes (I‐USH‐SR) in SJ County 91 140 49 Severe Injuries between a motor vehicle (MV) and non‐pedestrian/bicyclist (NPB) on weekdays along interstates, US highways, & state routes (I‐USH‐SR) in SJ County 71 88 17

Between 2017 and 2018, there were 75 more SI collisions in San Joaquin County, 80 more SI collisions between a motor vehicle (MV) and non‐pedestrian/bicyclist (NPB), 49 more SI collisions between a MV and NPB along interstates, US highways, & state routes (I‐USH‐SR), and 17 more SI collisions between MV and NPB on weekdays along I‐USH‐SR. Maps illustrate growing concentrations of SI collisions period that is observed through any scenario.

2017 2018 Diff. Severe Injuries in SJC County 287 362 75 Severe Injuries between a motor vehicle (MV) and pedestrian/bicyclist (PB) in 59 54 5 SJ County Severe Injuries between a motor vehicle (MV) and pedestrian/bicyclist (PB) on weekdays in 45 38 7 SJ County

In addition, SJCOG staff performed a three‐tier assessment of San Joaquin County that includes Scenarios: 1) SI collisions, 2) SI collisions between MV and pedestrian/bicyclist (PB), and 3) SI collisions between MV and pedestrian/bicyclist (PB) on weekdays.

Between 2017 and 2018, there were 75 more SI collisions in San Joaquin County, 5 more SI collisions between a motor vehicle MV and PB in SJ County, and 7 more SI collisions between a motor vehicle (MV) and non‐pedestrian/bicyclist

It should be noted that this analysis focus on severe injuries, not fatalities, for motorized collisions due to Caltrans’ dictating Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was the source of fatality data for motorized collisions.

1 SafeTrek, https://safetrec.berkeley.edu/ P47 (NPB) on weekdays in SJ County. Maps, below, show these accidents centralize in Stockton and fluctuate in the southern portion of San Joaquin County that includes Cities of Tracy, Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon.

2017 (Jan. – Dec.) Serious Injuries in San Joaquin County (262 of 287 Mapped)

2017 – 287 collisions Selection Factors:

2018 – 362 collisions Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: A – Non‐ Collision, B – Pedestrian, C – Other Motor Locations Not Mapped: Vehicle, D – Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway, E – Parked Motor Vehicle, F‐ Train,  I‐5 SB & Shimizu Dr H – Animal, G – Bicycle, I – Fixed Object, J –  Eight Mile Rd & N SR 99 W Frontage Other Object Rd  Eight Mile Rd & Route 99 W Frontage Road  SR‐99 SB & Morada Ln  W Grantline Rd & W Grantline 2753  Peltier Rd & UPRR Tracks  Harlan Rd & Harland Rd 15600  I‐5 SB from SR‐12 EB & SR‐12  I‐5 SB & Benjamin Holt Dr  E Frontage Rd & Gilbert Dr  I‐5 SB & Hammer Ln  SR‐4 & Middle River Bridge  I‐5 NB & Walnut Grove Dr Locations Not Mapped:  I‐5 SB & SR‐33 U/C  Walnut Grove Rd & I‐5  Baker Rd & SR‐88  th 11 St & Kasson Rd  Martin Luther King Bl & Turnpike Rd  Private Dirt Rd & Peltier Rd  Jack Tone Rd & Marie Baker Rd  Howard Rd & San Joaquin River  I‐5 NB & San Joaquin River  W Legacy Dr & S. Curioso St  SR‐99 W Frontage Rd & SR‐99 SB to  Byron Rd & Reeves Rd Jahant Rd P48 2018 (Jan. – Dec.) Serious Injuries in San Joaquin County (346 of 362 Mapped)

Locations Not Mapped: Selection Factors:

 2nd St & Alley Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)  SR‐88 WB & Pezzi Rd  Byron Rd & Reeve Rd Motor Vehicle Involved with: A – Non‐  I‐5 NB & Calaveras River Collision, C – Other Motor Vehicle, D –  I‐5 SB & San Joaquin River Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway, E –  W Turner Rd & California St Parked Motor Vehicle, F‐ Train, H – Animal, I  I‐5 NB & I‐5 SB from El Dorado St O/C – Fixed Object, J – Other Object  Ray Rd & Peltier Rd  W Turner Rd & Woodhaven Ln  11th St & Grantline Rd  Turner Rd & Harvest Crossing  W Hertiage Dr & Curioso St  West Ln Frontage Rd & Stadium Dr  March Ln & Padley Ln  Wilson Wy & E St  Peltier Rd & Devries Rd

2017 (Jan. – Dec.) Motorized Serious Injuries in San Joaquin County (206 of 228 Mapped)

2017 – 228 collisions Selection Factors:

2018 – 308 collisions Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: A – Non‐ Collision, C – Other Motor Vehicle, D – Locations Not Mapped: Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway, E – Parked Motor Vehicle, F‐ Train, H – Animal, I  I‐5 SB & Shimizu Dr – Fixed Object, J – Other Object  Eight Mile Rd & N SR 99 W Frontage Rd  Eight Mile Rd & Route 99 W Frontage Road  Peltier Rd & UPRR Tracks  Harlan Rd & Harland Rd 15600  I‐5 SB from SR‐12 EB & SR‐12  I‐5 SB & Benjamin Holt Dr  E Frontage Rd & Gilbert Dr  I‐5 SB & Hammer Ln  SR‐4 & Middle River Bridge  I‐5 NB & Walnut Grove Dr  I‐5 SB & SR‐33 U/C  Walnut Grove Rd & I‐5  11th St & Kasson Rd  Private Dirt Rd & Peltier Rd  Howard Rd & San Joaquin River Locations Not Mapped:  Byron Rd & Reeves Rd  Baker Rd & SR‐88  I‐5 NB & San Joaquin River  Martin Luther King Bl & Turnpike Rd  SR‐99 W Frontage Rd & SR‐99 SB to  Jack Tone Rd & Marie Baker Rd Jahant Rd

P49 2018 (Jan. – Dec.) Motorized Serious Injuries in San Joaquin County (296 of 308 Mapped)

Locations Not Mapped: Selection Factors:

 SR‐88 WB & Pezzi Rd Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)  Byron Rd & Reeve Rd  I‐5 NB & Calaveras River Motor Vehicle Involved with: A – Non‐  I‐5 SB & San Joaquin River Collision, C – Other Motor Vehicle, D –  W Truner Rd & California St Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway, E –  I‐5 NB & I‐5 SB from El Dorado St O/C Parked Motor Vehicle, F‐ Train, H – Animal, I  Ray Rd & Peltier Rd – Fixed Object, J – Other Object  W Truner Rd & Woodhaven Ln  11th St & Grantline Rd  Turner Rd & Harvest Crossing  March Ln & Padley Ln  Peltier Rd & Devries Rd

2017 (Jan. – Dec.) Motorized Serious Injuries along Interstates, US Highways, and State Routes in San Joaquin County (89 of 96 Mapped)

2017 – 96 collisions Selection Factors:

2018 – 140 collisions Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Road Type: 1 – Interstate, 2 – US Highway, 3 – State Route, 6 – US Highway (Contract City), 7 – State Route (Contract City)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: A – Non‐ Collision, C – Other Motor Vehicle, D – Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway, E – Parked Motor Vehicle, F‐ Train, H – Animal, I – Fixed Object, J – Other Object

Locations Not Mapped:

 I‐5 SB & Shimizu Dr  I‐5 SB from SR‐12 EB & SR‐12  I‐5 SB & Benjamin Holt Dr  I‐5 SB & Hammer Ln  I‐5 SB & Walnut Grove Dr  I‐5 SB & SR‐33 CU/  I‐5 NB & San Joaquin River

P50 2018 (Jan. – Dec.) Motorized Serious Injuries along Interstates, US Highways, and State Routes in San Joaquin County (136 of 140 Mapped)

Selection Factors:

Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Road Type: 1 – Interstate, 2 – US Highway, 3 – State Route, 6 – US Highway (Contract City), 7 – State Route (Contract City)

Locations Not Mapped:

 SR‐88 & Pezzi Rd  I‐5 NB & Calaveras River  I‐5 SB & San Joaquin River  I‐5 NB & I‐5 SB from El Dorado St O/C

2017 (Jan. – Dec.) Motorized Serious Injuries on Weekdays along Interstates, US Highways, and State Routes in San Joaquin County (67 of 71 Mapped)

2017 – 71 collisions Selection Factors:

2018 – 88 collisions Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Road Type: 1 – Interstate, 2 – US Highway, 3 – State Route, 6 – US Highway (Contract City), 7 – State Route (Contract City)

Day of Week: 1 – Monday, 2 – Tuesday, 3 ‐ Wednesday, 4 ‐ Thursday, 5 ‐ Friday

Locations Not Mapped:

 I‐5 SB & Shimizu Dr  I‐5 SB & Hammer Ln  I‐5 NB & Walnut Grove Dr  I‐5 SB & SR‐33 U/C

P51 2018 (Jan. – Dec.) Motorized Serious Injuries on Weekdays along Interstates, US Highways, and State Routes in San Joaquin County (86 of 88 Mapped)

Selection Factors:

Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Road Type: 1 – Interstate, 2 – US Highway, 3 – State Route, 6 – US Highway (Contract City), 7 – State Route (Contract City)

Day of Week: 1 – Monday, 2 – Tuesday, 3 ‐ Wednesday, 4 ‐ Thursday, 5 ‐ Friday

Locations Not Mapped:

 I‐5 NB & Calaveras River  I‐5 SB & San Joaquin River

2017 (Jan. – Dec.) Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries in San Joaquin County (56 to 59 Mapped)

2017 – 59 collisions Selection Factors:

2018 – 54 collisions Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: B – Pedestrian, G – Bicycle

Locations Not Mapped:

 SR‐99 S/B & Morada Ln  W. Grantline Rd & W. Grantline Rd 2753  W. Legacy Dr. & S. Curioso St.

P52 2018 (Jan. – Dec.) Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries in San Joaquin County (50 to 54 Mapped)

Selection Factors:

Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: B – Pedestrian, G – Bicycle

Locations Not Mapped:

 2nd St & Alley  W. Heritage Dr & Curioso St  West Ln Frontage Rd & Stadium Dr  Wilson Wy & E St

2017 (Jan. – Dec.) Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries on Weekdays in San Joaquin County (42 to 45 Mapped)

2017 – 45 collisions Selection Factors:

2018 – 38 collisions Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: B – Pedestrian, G – Bicycle

Day of Week: 1 – Monday, 2 – Tuesday, 3 ‐ Wednesday, 4 ‐ Thursday, 5 ‐ Friday

Locations Not Mapped:

 SR‐99 S/B & Morada Ln  W. Grantline Rd & W. Grantline Rd 2753  W. Legacy Dr. & S. Curioso St.

P53 2018 (Jan. – Dec.) Non‐Motorized Serious Injuries on Weekdays in San Joaquin County (34 to 38 Mapped)

Selection Factors:

Collision Severity: 2 – Injury (Severe)

Motor Vehicle Involved with: B – Pedestrian, G – Bicycle

Day of Week: 1 – Monday, 2 – Tuesday, 3 ‐ Wednesday, 4 ‐ Thursday, 5 ‐ Friday

Locations Not Mapped:

 2nd St & Alley  W. Heritage Dr & Curioso St  West Ln Frontage Rd & Stadium Dr  Wilson Wy & E St

P54

APPENDIX B – California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Overview

P55 League of California Cities generated biennial California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment report(s). Started in 2008, these reports were meant to determine the funding needed to maintain the roadways and bridges over the next 10 years. This appendix summarizes the findings of 2018 report; in relation to:

 Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for San Joaquin County  San Joaquin County PCI in comparison to neighboring counties  10‐year funding need for pavement and bridge in San Joaquin County  Compare San Joaquin County’s 10‐year funding need for pavement and bridge to neighboring counties  Sufficiency RatingR) (S for San Joaquin County

For more information, please refer to http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org.

Pavement Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is the rating system for pavement conditions, 0 being the worst condition and 100 being the best condition. A rating of 25 or less PCI requires reconstruction of street. A rating of 25 to 69 PCI requires a thin or thick overlay of hot mix asphalt (HMA). Lastly, a rating of 70 or over PCI means preventive measures were invoked to ensure the longevity of pavement. This report includes the average PCI for San Joaquin County and even each jurisdiction after 2014.

For more information, please refer to Source: Save California Streets http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org/read‐the‐report/.

Summary

2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment report indicates the average PCI for San Joaquin County was 70 in 2018; which means no action is needed. Neighboring counties require thin HMA overlay; including Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, and Stanislaus. Only Contra Costa County received a similar average PCI (71). Other than Stanislaus County (5,989 lane miles (LM)), San Joaquin County has the lowest number of LM of previously named counties at 6,773 LM. Sacramento County has the highest number of LM (11,041), followed by Alameda (8,088 LM) and Contra Costa (7,159 LM). These factors are accounted in the estimated funding needed to preserve the existing pavement conditions per County. San Joaquin County needs the least amount at approximately $1,226 million.

PCI (2018) 10 Year Funding Needs (in Millions) 72 71 $3,000 70 $2,582 70 68 $2,500 68 66 $2,000 $1,678 $1,638 64 63 $1,500 $1,324 62 $1,226 60 60 $1,000 58 $500 56 54 $‐ San Joaquin Alameda Contra Costa Sacramento Stanislaus San Joaquin Alameda Contra Costa Sacramento Stanislaus

Bridges Sufficiency Rating (SR) is the rating system for “bridge's fitness for the duty that it performs based on factors derived from multiple NBI data fields, including fields that describe its structural evaluation, functional obsolescence, and its P56 essentiality to the public. 100 is entirely sufficient bridge. 0 is entirely insufficient or deficient bridge.”2 Structurally Deficient (SD) describes one or more defects at bridge deck, substructure, or superstructure. SR with SD may increase a bridge’s eligibility for rehabilitation or replacement.

Bridge Replacement Eligibility – SR less than 50 that is structurally or geometrically deficient Bridge Rehabilitation Eligibility – SR between 50 and 80 that is structurally or geometrically deficient

For more information, please refer to http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org/read‐the‐report/.

Summary

2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment report indicates the SR for San Joaquin County at 85 in 2018 and one of the highest of neighboring counties; including Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, and Stanislaus. Next to Sacramento County (403 bridges), San Joaquin County has the highest number of bridges at 324. Alameda County has the lowest number of bridges at 205, followed by Stanislaus (247) and Contra Costa County (294). San Joaquin County has the lowest estimated funding needs in the next 10 years at $56 million. Alameda County is second lowest at $60 million. Stanislaus County is third lowest at $94 million, followed by Contra Costa ($118 million) and Sacramento ($201 million).

2 2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, page 56. P57

APPENDIX C – 2018 Local Agency Bridge Inventory List in San Joaquin County

Appendix C – 2018 Local Agency Bridge InventoryJuly 2018 List in San Joaquin County LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P58 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

Click to Update Contact Information City of Lathrop Primary Contact: Patrick Flynn, Director Of Public Works / [email protected] - (209) 941-7430 390 Town Center Drive Click to update contacts Bridge Contact: [bridge contact name?], [title?] / [email?] - [phone?] Lathrop, CA 95330 Click to update ADT data District 10 San Joaquin County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

29C0118 PARADISE CUT PARADISE ROAD 0.5 MI N OF DELTA AVE NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1988 2 61 8.7 288 1985 Off Off PPPPP 29C0119 PARADISE CUT PARADISE ROAD 0.4 MI N DELTA AVE NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1988 2 67 8.7 288 1985 Off Off PGGGG 29C0122 PARADISE CUT MANTHEY ROAD 1.2 MI S/W STEWART RD NBI Bridge 70.4 Fair 1932 2 135 10.4 50 1982 Off Off PPPPP 29C0127 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER MANTHEY ROAD 0.2 MI NE OF STEWART RD NBI Bridge SD 46.9 Poor 1926 2 164 7.4 750 1987 On Off XXXXX 29C0429 UP RR & SSJID CANAL LATHROP RD 0.5 MI W AIRPORT WY NBI Bridge 91.9 Fair 2005 2 72 19.6 14498 1999 On On PPPPP 29C0462 UPRR LATHROP ROAD 0.8 MILE EAST OF I-5 NBI Bridge 95.3 Good 2015 4 84 20.3 14498 1999 On On PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 209 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P59 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

Click to Update Contact Information City of Lodi Primary Contact: Charles Swimley Jr., Director Of Public Works / [email protected] - (209) 333-6706 P O Box 3006 Click to update contacts Bridge Contact: [bridge contact name?], [title?] / [email?] - [phone?] Lodi, CA 952411910 District 10 San Joaquin County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

29C0009 TURNER ROAD UP RR, BNSF,AMTRAK 0.2 MI EST CHURCH ST NBI Under 1962 25 Off Off

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 214 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P60 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

Click to Update Contact Information City of Ripon Primary Contact: Kevin Werner, Deputy City Administrator/City Engineer / [email protected] - (209) 599-2108 259 North Wilma Avenue Bridge Contact: Barbara Schneider, Secretary to City Engineer / [email protected] - (209) 599-0233 Ripon, CA 95366 District 10 San Joaquin County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

29C0006 UP RR MAIN ST 0.07 MI S/W OF S.H. 99 NBI Bridge 94.8 Fair 1967 4 80 18.9 2600 2010 Off Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 340 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P61 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

Click to Update Contact Information City of Stockton Primary Contact: Gordon Mackay, Director / [email protected] - (209) 937-8400 22 E. Weber Ave RM 301 Click to update contacts Bridge Contact: [bridge contact name?], [title?] / [email?] - [phone?] Stockton, CA 95202 Click to update ADT data District 10 San Joaquin County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

29C0002 FRESNO AVENUE BNSF RY & AMTRAK 0.25 MI N NAVY RD NBI Under 1972 37 Off Off 29C0058L CALAVERAS RIVER PACIFIC AVE 0.25 MI N FULTON ST NBI Bridge 53.7 Good 1921 2 77 7.3 18350 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0058R CALAVERAS RIVER PACIFIC AVE 0.25 MI N FULTON ST NBI Bridge 72.3 Good 1952 2 78 7.9 18350 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0066 MOSHER SLOUGH 99 FRONTAGE RD W 0.8 MI S OF 8 MILE ROAD NBI Bridge 82.4 Good 1964 2 25 7.9 2000 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0086 MOSHER SLOUGH WEST LANE 0.5 MI N HAMMER LANE NBI Bridge 81.4 Good 1966 4 19 21.4 27300 2007 On On PPPPP 29C0088 MORMON SLOUGH WEBER ST 0.3 MI W LINCOLN ST NBI Bridge 96.6 Good 1969 2 46 28.7 6100 2005 On Off PPPPP 29C0090 FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH AIRPORT WAY 17.52 MI N STNLAUS CO LI NBI Bridge 92.2 Good 1968 4 65 28.7 12716 2011 On Off PPPPP 29C0091L NORTH BRANCH WEBER CREEK AIRPORT WAY JUST NORTH OF SPERRY NBI Bridge 83.7 Good 1961 2 12 9.7 12000 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0091R NORTH BRANCH WEBER CREEK AIRPORT WAY W/O DRAPER RD NBI Bridge 88.6 Good 1968 2 12 11.6 9868 2011 On On PPPPP 29C0092L NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK AIRPORT WAY 0.15 MI N INDUSTRIAL WAY NBI Bridge 69.1 Good 1961 2 22 9.7 13100 2015 On Off GGGGG 29C0092R NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK AIRPORT WAY 0.15 MI N INDUSTRIAL WAY NBI Bridge 88.7 Good 1968 2 22 11.6 9277 2011 On On PPPPP 29C0093L DUCK CREEK AIRPORT WAY 1 MI N INDUSTRIAL DR NBI Bridge SD 68.0 Poor 1968 2 20 11.6 5300 2010 On On PPPPP 29C0093R DUCK CREEK AIRPORT WAY 1 MI N INDUSTRIAL DR NBI Bridge SD 67.0 Poor 1968 2 20 11.6 5300 2010 On On PPPPP 29C0094 MORMON SLOUGH LINCOLN ST 0.1 MI N CHURCH ST NBI Bridge 97.2 Good 1972 4 38 19.5 5400 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0096 MOSHER SLOUGH DON AVE 0.1 MI S WAUDMAN AVE NBI Bridge SD 57.1 Poor 1976 2 22 9.7 10641 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0134 MOSHER SLOUGH LOWER SACTO RD N. OF MACDUFF AVE NBI Bridge SD 53.7 Poor 1972 4 20 23.2 19600 2015 On On PPPPP 29C0136 PIXLEY SLOUGH EIGHT MILE ROAD E. OF LOWER SACTO RD. NBI Bridge 90.8 Good 1969 2 20 12.2 9510 2013 On On PPPPP 29C0140 CALAVERAS RIVER EL DORADO ST 0.5 MI N FULTON ST NBI Bridge 56.9 Fair 1962 4 101 15.8 32411 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0141 BIANCHI ROAD EL DORADO ST OVER BIANCHI RD NBI Bridge SD 33.9 Poor 1962 4 38 15.8 31000 2005 Off Off PPPPP 29C0142 MORMON SLOUGH WILSON WAY 0.2 MI N DR MLK JR BLVD NBI Bridge 78.3 Good 1964 4 39 15.8 22900 2009 On On PPPPP 29C0145 BEAR CREEK EIGHT MILE RD 0.1 MI W/O SR 99 NBI Bridge 80.5 Fair 1961 2 37 9.7 1900 2015 On On PPPPP 29C0153 WILSON WAY BNSF,WORTH,SCOTTS 0.2 MI S OF HAZELTON AVE NBI Bridge SD 49.0 Fair 1937 4 20 22.2 9300 2010 On On OOOOO 29C0154 S BR WEBER CREEK AIRPORT WAY 1.2 MI N FRENCH CAMP RD NBI Bridge 84.5 Fair 1961 4 7 25.6 8754 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0155 HARDING WAY UP RR & BNSF RY 0.5 MI E CALIFORNIA ST NBI Under 1963 24 Off Off 29C0156 MINER AVENUE UP RR, BNSF,AMTRAK 0.1 MI E OF AURORA ST NBI Under 1980 32 Off Off 29C0157L CALAVERAS RIVER WEST LANE 0.5 MI N FULTON ST NBI Bridge SD 52.3 Poor 1966 2 87 11.0 41000 2007 On On PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 431 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P62 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0157R CALAVERAS RIVER WEST LANE 0.5 MI N FULTON ST NBI Bridge SD 52.3 Poor 1966 2 87 11.0 41000 2007 On On PPPPP 29C0165 MINER AVENUE ABANDONED RR ROW 0.2 MI E AURORA ST NBI Under 1980 32 Off Off 29C0169 MORMON SLOUGH AIRPORT WAY 0.2 MI N DR MLK JR BLVD NBI Bridge 75.1 Good 1957 4 24 16.9 4500 2007 On On PPPPP 29C0173 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK MARIPOSA ROAD 0.5 MI W AUSTIN RD NBI Bridge 76.1 Good 1934 2 9 12.0 3500 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0188 MINER AVENUE UNION STREET AT MINER AVE NBI Bridge 90.5 Fair 1980 2 32 12.2 4500 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0189 STOCKTON CHANNEL CENTER ST N OF WEBER ST NBI Bridge SD 43.0 Poor 1949 5 51 18.3 7000 2013 On On PPPPP 29C0191 BEAR CREEK THORNTON RD 1.4 MI N DAVIS RD INTRX NBI Bridge SD 54.3 Poor 1960 3 51 27.4 23500 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0209 NAVY DRIVE BNSF RY & AMTRAK 1 MI W FRESNO AVE NBI Under 1945 17 Off Off 29C0232 MORMON SLOUGH SUTTER STREET 0.5 MI N CHARTER WAY NBI Bridge 90.7 Good 1915 2 62 10.6 2700 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0233 BNSF,AMTRAK,HAZELTON,ETC EL DORADO STREET SOUTH OF CHURCH ST NBI Bridge 93.9 Good 1959 3 349 14.6 11700 2013 On On PPPPP 29C0234 BNSF,AMTRAK,HAZELTON,ETC CENTER STREET SOUTH OF CHURCH ST NBI Bridge 96.3 Good 1959 3 339 14.6 7000 2003 On On PPPPP 29C0235 MORMON SLOUGH AURORA STREET 0.35 MI N CHARTER WAY NBI Bridge 84.5 Fair 1957 2 33 15.2 2978 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0236 MORMON SLOUGH CALIFORNIA STREET SOUTH HAZLETON AVE NBI Bridge 81.0 Good 1958 4 36 15.8 4700 2003 On Off PPPPP 29C0237 MORMON SLOUGH SAN JOAQUIN ST 0.1 MI S HAZLETON AVE NBI Bridge 70.4 Fair 1958 4 36 15.8 2700 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0238 MORMON SLOUGH DIAMOND STREET 0.1 MI N OF DR MLK JR BL NBI Bridge 82.5 Fair 1960 2 28 15.9 2164 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0239 MOSHER SLOUGH EL DORADO ST 0.2 MI N GLENCANNON ST NBI Bridge 96.1 Fair 1969 4 19 19.6 9676 2011 On Off PPPPP 29C0240 MOSHER SLOUGH SANTA PAULA WAY JUST N MACDUFF AVE NBI Bridge 88.7 Fair 1972 2 18 8.5 1800 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0242 SMITH CANAL PERSHING AVE JUST NORTH HARDING WAY NBI Bridge 62.7 Fair 1952 4 44 14.6 29100 2003 On Off PPPPP 29C0243 CALAVERAS RIVER PERSHING AVE JUST N TELEGRAPH AVE NBI Bridge SD 43.4 Poor 1959 4 122 15.8 29900 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0334 DUCK CREEK STAGECOACH ROAD 0.1 MI N OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 88.3 Fair 1972 2 13 13.4 11300 2007 On On PPPPP 29C0340 N BR FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH MCKINLEY ROAD 1.0 MI N FRENCH CAMP/RD NBI Bridge 88.7 Good 1923 2 21 10.1 4300 2012 Off Off PPPPP 29C0366 WEBER CREEK ARCH ROAD 0.3 MI W OF NEWCASTLE NBI Bridge 93.2 Good 1966 2 8 21.8 6200 2012 On Off PPPPP 29C0384 BEAR CREEK DAVIS ROAD 1.0 MI N OF THORNTON RD NBI Bridge 81.9 Fair 1963 3 37 19.6 10200 2010 On Off PPPPP 29C0391 WINEDRAW SLOUGH LOWER SACRAMENTO R JUST SOUTH EIGHT MILE RD NBI Bridge 60.7 Good 1957 4 7 13.9 11122 2008 On Off PPPPP 29C0394 MOSHER SLOUGH TAM O'SHANTER DR 0.5 MI N HAMMER LANE NBI Bridge 94.9 Good 1981 2 9 10.4 7968 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0395 MOSHER SLOUGH CHERBOURG WAY 0.6 MI S MORASA LANE NBI Bridge 96.6 Fair 1981 2 10 10.4 2500 2013 Off Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 432 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P63 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0399 WALKER SLOUGH TURNPIKE RD 1/4 MI N DOWNING AVE NBI Bridge SD 67.2 Poor 1971 2 36 11.0 2100 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0400 WALKER SLOUGH MANTHEY ROAD 1/4 MI N DOWNING AV NBI Bridge SD 66.3 Poor 1971 2 36 11.0 4600 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0401 FOURTEEN MILE SLOUGH FEATHER RIVER DR 1.0 MI N OF MARCH LANE NBI Bridge SD 61.8 Poor 1992 2 111 12.2 8300 2003 Off Off PPPPP 29C0402 MOSHER SLOUGH MARINERS DR 0.1 KM W OF RTE 5 NBI Bridge 96.7 Good 1975 2 40 9.8 3300 2003 Off Off PPPPP 29C0407 FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH CAROLYN WESTON BLV 0.7 mi West of Manthey Rd NBI Bridge SD 41.6 Poor 1997 6 107 19.5 16700 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0417 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BL UP RR, BNSF RY 0.2 MI WEST OF AIRPORT WY NBI Bridge 41.6 Fair 1937 2 20 6.1 150 2005 On On OOOOO 29C0418 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BL UP RR, BNSF,AMTRAK 0.1 MI W N AIRPORT WAY NBI Bridge SD 45.4 Poor 1937 2 20 6.1 30 2005 On On GGGGG 29C0419 MOSHER SLOUGH HOLMAN ROAD N OF MORADA LANE NBI Bridge 92.6 Fair 2006 6 14 29.3 8000 2009 On Off PPPPP 29C0424 MOSHER SLOUGH MORADA LANE 1 MILE W OF ROUTE 99 NBI Bridge SD 64.0 Poor 2007 4 14 27.4 13800 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0425 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK POCK LANE N OF INDUSTRIAL DRIVE NBI Bridge 97.8 Good 1993 2 8 0.0 1500 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0426 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK INDUSTRIAL DRIVE JUST E OF POCK LANE NBI Bridge 92.5 Good 1996 3 14 0.0 200 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0427 PIXLEY SLOUGH RIVERMONT DRIVE SOUTH OF W EIGHT MILE RD NBI Bridge 98.0 Good 2008 2 28 10.7 1000 2009 Off Off PPPPP 29C0428 PIXLEY SLOUGH WHISTLER WAY EAST OF THORNTON ROAD NBI Bridge 99.9 Fair 1991 2 26 15.8 1597 2003 On Off PPPPP 29C0431 MORMON SLOUGH DR MLK JR BLVD 0.3 MI EAST OF MARIPOSA NBI Bridge 78.0 Good 1949 2 36 12.2 12500 2007 On On GGGGG 29C0432 DR MLK JR BLVD BNSF RY & AMTRAK SOUTH OF ANDERSON STREET NBI Under Good 1949 14 Off Off 29C0434 MOSHER SLOUGH KELLEY ROAD EAST OF I-5 PM 33.5 NBI Bridge 84.5 Fair 1980 2 17 12.2 9100 2005 On Off PPPPP 29C0435 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK PRODUCERS DRIVE NEAR INDUSTRIAL DRIVE NBI Bridge SD 69.7 Poor 1982 2 18 16.9 5000 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0436 BEAR CREEK TRINITY PARKWAY S OF W EIGHT MILE ROAD NBI Bridge 90.0 Good 2008 4 59 16.0 6 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0437 PIXLEY SLOUGH MARLETTE ROAD S OF 8 MI RD, E OF RR TRK NBI Bridge 81.4 Fair 2007 3 23 14.6 2000 2006 Off Off PPPPP 29C0440 PIXLEY SLOUGH DAVIS ROAD SOUTH OF WEST 8 MILE ROAD NBI Bridge 87.6 Fair 2011 4 22 19.5 8200 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0444 UP RAILROAD TRACKS EIGHT MILE ROAD EAST OF LOWER SAC. ROAD NBI Bridge 90.2 Good 2013 2 74 29.9 15100 2007 On On PPPPP 29C0445 UP RAILROAD TRACKS EIGHT MILE ROAD WEST OF LOWER SAC. ROAD NBI Bridge 93.8 Good 2013 4 75 29.9 15100 2007 On On PPPPP 29C0446 LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD UP RAILROAD TRACKS SOUTH OF 8 MILE ROAD NBI Under Good 2013 39 Off Off PPPPP 29C0452 FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH ARCH AIRPORT ROAD 0.34 MI EAST OF ROUTE 5 NBI Bridge 90.2 Good 2013 4 47 33.3 20818 2015 On On PPPPP 29C0453 EL DORADO STREET ARCH AIRPORT ROAD 0.46 MI EAST OF ROUTE 5 NBI Bridge 89.1 Good 2013 4 115 17.7 20818 2015 On On PPPPP 29C0454 UP RAILROAD TRACKS ARCH AIRPORT ROAD 0.56 MI EAST OF ROUTE 5 NBI Bridge 89.1 Good 2013 4 131 17.7 20818 2015 On On PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 433 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P64 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0455 MCKINLEY, UPRR, PANATONI ARCH AIRPORT ROAD 0.81 MI EAST OF ROUTE 5 NBI Bridge 89.1 Good 2013 4 127 17.7 20818 2015 On On PPPPP 29C0456 UP RAILROAD TRACKS ARCH AIRPORT ROAD 0.97 MI EAST OF ROUTE 5 NBI Bridge 89.1 Good 2013 4 56 17.7 20818 2015 On On PPPPP 29C0458 MARCH LANE UP RAILROAD TRACKS WEST OF WEST LANE NBI Under 2003 43 Off Off 29C0459 MARCH LANE UP RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF WEST LANE NBI Under Good 2003 47 Off Off 29C0460 EAST HAMMER LANE UP RAILROAD TRACKS WEST OF WEST LANE NBI Under 2001 46 Off Off 29C0461 EAST HAMMER LANE UP RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF WEST LANE NBI Under 2001 43 Off Off

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 434 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P65 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

Click to Update Contact Information City of Tracy Primary Contact: Don Scholl, Director of Public Works / [email protected] - (209) 831-6300 520 Tracy Blvd, Gate #3 Click to update ADT data Bridge Contact: Mr. Andrew Malik, Development & Engineering Services / [email protected] - (209) 831-6400 Tracy, CA 95376 District 10 San Joaquin County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

29C0185 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT CORRAL HOLLOW RD 0.9 MI N OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge SD 82.6 Poor 1967 2 52 9.8 550 1982 On Off PPPPP 29C0335 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL MOUNTAIN HOUSE RD 0.8 MI S OF I-205 NBI Bridge 73.7 Fair 1993 2 52 9.1 7819 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0346 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL SCHULTE ROAD 0.2 MI W HANSEN RD NBI Bridge 94.8 Fair 1993 2 48 14.0 6662 2013 On Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 447 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P66 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

Click to Update Contact Information County of San Joaquin Primary Contact: Kris Balaji, Director / [email protected] - (209) 468-3100 1810 E. Hazelton Click to update ADT data Bridge Contact: Mahmoud Saqqa, Senior Bridge Engineer / [email protected] - (209) 468-8924 Stockton, CA 95205 District 10 San Joaquin County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

29 0321 INTERSTATE ROUTE 205 MOUNTAINHOUSE PKWY 10-SJ-205-1.36 NBI Bridge 86.7 Fair 2007 6 82 29.7 7819 2007 On Off PPPPP 29C0008 MOKELUMNE RIVER OVERFLOW LOWER SACRAMENTO R 0.7 MI N TURNER RD NBI Bridge 91.3 Good 1969 2 48 9.8 9943 2008 On Off PPPPP 29C0010 SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIV WALNUT GROVE ROAD 3.3 MI WEST OF I 5 NBI Bridge 78.0 Fair 1958 2 120 9.8 2987 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0012 BEAVER SLOUGH THORNTON RD 1 MI N PELTIER RD NBI Bridge 75.4 Fair 1958 2 12 10.2 1232 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0022 GRANT LINE CANAL TRACY BOULEVARD 3 MI N OF S.H. 205 NBI Bridge 44.1 Fair 1959 2 144 8.5 4513 2015 On Off XXXXX 29C0028 OLD RIVER S. TRACY BOULEVARD 3 MI NORTH OF S.H. 205 NBI Bridge 58.0 Fair 1956 2 101 8.5 7008 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0033 FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH MCKINLEY RD 0.3 MI NE FRENCH CAMP RD NBI Bridge 83.8 Fair 1970 2 33 12.2 3303 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0035 MOKELUMNE RIVER ELLIOT RD 1.0 MI S PELTIER RD NBI Bridge 67.3 Good 1955 2 106 7.9 2513 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0037 MOKELUMNE RIVER PELTIER ROAD 1.5 MI W LOWER SACRMTO RD NBI Bridge 66.9 Good 1947 2 269 7.3 2972 2015 On Off PPPPG 29C0038 LITTLEJOHNS CREEK ESCALON-BELLOTA RD 0.3 MI SOUTH OF S.H. 4 NBI Bridge 53.7 Fair 1948 2 42 7.3 3681 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0039 ROCK CREEK SONORA RD 1.5 MI SOUTHEAST S.H. 4 NBI Bridge 96.4 Good 1970 2 42 9.8 196 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0048 STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL WILSON WAY 0.1 MI N ALPINE AVE NBI Bridge 94.3 Good 1971 4 86 23.0 13193 2013 On On PPPPP 29C0051 MORMON SLOUGH ESCALON BELLOTA RD S/E OF S.H. 26 NBI Bridge SD 61.5 Poor 1966 2 68 12.2 2430 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0052 MOSHER SLOUGH THORNTON ROAD S DAVIS RD IN TX NBI Bridge 64.2 Good 1931 5 17 25.6 26616 2013 On On OOOOO 29C0057 STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL WATERLOO RD 0.2 MI S/W OF S.H. 99 NBI Bridge 95.9 Good 1967 4 69 19.5 13366 2013 On On PPPPP 29C0061 MOKELUMNE RIVER MACKVILLE ROAD 0.1 MI S JAHANT RD NBI Bridge SD 94.5 Poor 1976 2 111 9.8 1202 2016 Off Off PPPPP 29C0063 DUCK CREEK JACK TONE RD 0.8 MI N OF S.H.4 NBI Bridge 91.9 Good 1961 2 22 9.8 3392 2009 On Off PPPPP 29C0067 MOSHER SLOUGH 99 FRONTAGE RD E 0.8 MI S OF 8 MILE RD NBI Bridge 98.0 Good 1964 2 25 12.7 4312 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0068 BEAR CREEK 99 FRONTAGE RD W 0.4 MI N OF 8 MILE RD NBI Bridge 77.2 Good 1964 2 50 7.9 3737 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0069 BEAR CREEK 99 FRONTAGE RD E 0.4 MI N EIGHT MILE RD NBI Bridge 80.5 Good 1964 2 51 7.9 1018 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0070 PIXLEY SLOUGH 99 FRONTAGE RD W 0.6 MI S ARMSTRONG RD NBI Bridge 76.3 Good 1964 2 18 7.9 3498 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0071 PIXLEY SLOUGH 99 FRONTAGE RD E 0.6 MI S ARMSTRONG RD NBI Bridge 78.0 Good 1964 2 18 8.0 2155 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0073 MIDDLE RIVER TRACY BOULEVARD 2 MI SOUTH OF S.H. 4 NBI Bridge 81.7 Fair 1977 2 142 9.8 1347 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0074 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK JACK TONE RD 1.2 MI N MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 93.3 Good 1961 2 35 9.8 3202 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0076 LONE TREE CREEK JACK TONE ROAD 0.7 MI N LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge 80.6 Fair 1962 2 18 9.8 3015 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0077 BEAR CREEK JACK TONE RD 0.3 MI S BRANDT RD NBI Bridge 91.1 Good 1962 2 45 9.8 2514 2013 On Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 708 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P67 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0078 PADDY CREEK NORTH JACK TONE ROAD NEAR KETTLEMAN LANE NBI Bridge 96.6 Good 1962 2 20 12.2 2471 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0079 PADDY CREEK (MIDDLE) JACK TONE RD 0.5 MI N HARNEY LANE NBI Bridge 96.0 Good 1962 2 21 9.7 2311 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0080 PADDY CREEK SOUTH JACK TONE RD 1 MI N LIVE OAK RD NBI Bridge 95.7 Good 1962 2 17 9.8 2715 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0081 MOSHER SLOUGH JACK TONE RD 1 MI N OF 8-MILE RD NBI Bridge 90.6 Good 1962 2 20 9.7 2752 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0082 CALAVERAS RIVER JACK TONE RD 0.5 MI N OF 8-MILE RD NBI Bridge 85.2 Good 1962 2 28 9.5 2752 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0083L CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT MOUNTAIN HOUSE RD 0.1 MI S. SCHULTE RD NBI Bridge SD 77.7 Poor 1993 2 69 9.1 4403 2003 Off Off PPPPP 29C0083R CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT MOUNTAIN HOUSE RD 0.1 MI S SCHULTE RD NBI Bridge SD 75.3 Poor 1967 2 48 9.8 4403 2003 Off Off PGGGO 29C0087 MORMON SLOUGH GOLDEN GATE AVENUE 1/2 MI N/W OF S.H. 99 NBI Bridge 95.8 Good 1966 2 37 9.8 2469 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0098 WALKER SLOUGH O'DELL AVENUE N/O SR 50 NBI Bridge 95.8 Fair 1970 2 22 9.8 1814 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0099 DUCK CREEK POCK LANE 0.1 MI S OF LOOMIS AVE NBI Bridge 95.6 Good 1963 2 20 9.8 1688 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0100 CALAVERAS RIVER TULLY ROAD 0.7 MI N 8 MI RD NBI Bridge 96.9 Good 1973 2 27 9.8 268 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0101 CALAVERAS RIVER MCALLEN RD AT HOLMAN RD NBI Bridge 86.0 Good 1970 2 28 9.7 8606 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0103 MORMON SLOUGH WALKER LANE 0.3 MI S MAIN ST NBI Bridge 96.6 Good 1974 2 22 12.2 1615 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0104 MOKELUMNE RIVER NEW HOPE ROAD SACRAMENTO CO LINE NBI Bridge 95.4 Good 1969 2 49 12.2 1361 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0105 MORMON SLOUGH FLOOD ROAD 0.9 MI WEST OF FINE ROAD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1973 2 58 9.8 401 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0106 MORMON SLOUGH MILTON ROAD 0.3 MI E DUNCAN RD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1974 2 62 9.8 301 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0107 CALAVERAS RIVER SHELTON ROAD 0.6 MI S WIMER RD NBI Bridge 94.9 Good 1976 2 63 9.8 122 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0108 MIDDLE RIVER BACON ISLAND ROAD 1.3 MI N/O W LOW JONES RD NBI Bridge 70.9 Fair 1995 2 297 8.5 480 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0109 MIDDLE RIVER UNDINE ROAD 2.1 MI W OF HOWARD RD NBI Bridge 96.9 Good 1975 2 63 9.8 152 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0110 MORMON SLOUGH FINE ROAD 0.2 MI SOUTH OF SH 26 NBI Bridge 96.7 Good 1972 2 63 9.8 801 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0111 MORMON SLOUGH DUNCAN ROAD 0.6 MI N COPPEROPOLIS RD NBI Bridge 94.5 Good 1973 2 52 9.7 1839 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0112 LITTLEJOHNS CREEK STANLEY ROAD 0.6 MI SOUTH OF SH4 NBI Bridge 96.9 Good 1974 2 26 9.7 132 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0113 CALAVERAS RIVER MESSICK ROAD 0.2 MI EAST OF DUNCAN RD NBI Bridge 97.0 Good 1977 2 22 9.7 139 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0114 BISHOP CANAL EIGHT MILE ROAD W OF RIO BLANCO RD NBI Bridge 67.3 Fair 1989 2 98 11.0 1000 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0115 SOUTH LITTLEJOHNS CREEK VAN ALLEN ROAD 1.4 MI S SH 4 NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1973 2 22 9.7 350 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0116 BEAVER SLOUGH BLOSSOM RD 1 MI N OF PELTIER NBI Bridge 85.1 Fair 1980 2 69 8.5 251 2013 Off Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 709 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P68 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0117 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK VAN ALLEN ROAD 1.0 MI S SH 4 NBI Bridge 99.8 Good 1969 2 21 9.7 350 2010 Off Off PPPPP 29C0120 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL CHRISMAN ROAD 1.2 MI NORTH OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 84.6 Fair 1948 2 35 12.2 617 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0123 BEAR CREEK WEST LANE 1.6 MI N HAMMER LANE NBI Bridge SD 40.6 Poor 1966 4 50 21.4 14064 2015 On On PGGGG 29C0124 FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH EL DORADO STREET 0.3 MI N FRENCH CAMP RD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1958 4 41 19.5 4924 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0129 DRY CREEK DUSTIN RD 0.8 MI N LIBERTY ROAD NBI Bridge 90.2 Good 1974 2 127 8.5 846 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0130 SOUTH BRANCH DUCK CREEK HEWITT ROAD 0.7 MI N SH 4 NBI Bridge 96.9 Good 1963 2 27 9.7 270 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0131 MOKELUMNE RIVER WALNUT GROVE ROAD AT SJ & SAC COUNTY LINE NBI Bridge 56.1 Fair 1955 2 73 7.3 2084 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0132 LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD UP RR & BNSF RY 0.4 MI S/O COLLIER RD NBI Under 1925 11 Off Off 29C0133 BEAVER SLOUGH THORNTON RD 0.75 MI S KILE RD NBI Bridge 53.6 Fair 1941 2 41 7.3 1232 2013 Off Off GGGGG 29C0135 BEAR CREEK LOWER SACTO RD 0.5 MI N/O ROYAL OAKS DR NBI Bridge 88.5 Good 1963 2 39 9.7 12932 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0137 PIXLEY SLOUGH LOWER SAC RD N OF 8 MILE RD NBI Bridge 53.1 Fair 1926 2 18 8.2 11122 2013 On Off GGOOO 29C0138 MOKELUMNE RIVER LOWER SACRAMENTO R 0.9 MI N TURNER RD NBI Bridge 90.4 Good 1969 2 56 9.8 9943 2008 On Off PPPPP 29C0139 PIXLEY CREEK EIGHT MILE ROAD AT WEST LANE. NBI Bridge 69.1 Fair 1963 4 8 0.0 14064 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0143 PIXLEY SLOUGH WEST LANE 0.7 MI N/O EIGHT MI RD NBI Bridge 86.3 Fair 1962 4 8 33.1 12583 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0144 WOODBRIDGE S MAIN CANAL WEST LANE 0.7 MI S ARMSTRONG RD NBI Bridge 93.9 Fair 1963 4 9 26.2 13343 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0146 MOSHER SLOUGH EIGHT MILE RD 2.5 MI E OF SH 99 NBI Bridge 88.2 Good 1962 2 24 9.7 5003 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0147 CALAVERAS RIVER EIGHT MILE RD 1.4 MI WEST OF SH 88 NBI Bridge 96.7 Good 1963 2 26 12.2 4504 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0148 CHANNEL C ESCALON-BELLOTA RD 0.8 MI S OF S.H. 26 NBI Bridge 99.4 Good 1965 2 20 12.2 2430 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0149 CHANNEL A ESCALON-BELLOTA RD 1.0 MI S OF FLOOD RD NBI Bridge 98.8 Good 1965 2 20 12.2 1119 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0151 N OVFLOW MOKELUMNE RIVER ELLIOT RD 0.7 MI NW OF SH 88/12 NBI Bridge 83.4 Good 1955 2 33 8.5 2513 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0152 MIDDLE RIVER HOWARD ROAD JUST EAST WING LEVEE ROAD NBI Bridge 98.9 Good 1968 2 69 12.2 1801 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0158 LONE TREE CREEK JACK TONE ROAD 1.2 MI N LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge 87.2 Fair 1962 2 8 10.0 1761 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0159 TEMPLE CREEK JACK TONE ROAD 1.9 MI N. LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge SD 65.3 Poor 1962 2 18 9.8 1761 2010 On Off PPPPP 29C0160 N FK S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK S ACCESS RD 1 MI S MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 88.2 Good 1954 2 11 12.2 3202 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0161 DUCK CREEK S BRANCH MARIPOSA ROAD 0.8 MI S/E OF S.H. 99 NBI Bridge 85.9 Good 1934 2 13 12.2 5449 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0162 CHANNEL A JACK TONE RD 1 MI N MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 89.6 Good 1960 2 22 9.7 3213 2013 On Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 710 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P69 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0163 MORMON SLOUGH JACK TONE RD 0.4 MI S COPPEROPOLIS RD NBI Bridge 88.8 Good 1960 2 41 9.7 3577 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0166 SSJID CANAL MCHENRY AVE JUST SOUTH MEYERS RD NBI Bridge SD 38.1 Poor 1931 2 19 7.9 12274 2005 On Off PPPPP 29C0167 TEMPLE CREEK ESCALON-BELLOTA RD NORTH OF SKIFF RD NBI Bridge 67.3 Fair 1925 2 9 9.8 2194 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0168 TEMPLE CREEK BRANCH ESCALON-BELLOTA RD 0.2 MI N OF SKIFF RD NBI Bridge 69.4 Good 1926 2 10 10.2 2194 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0171 DUCK CREEK ESCALON-BELLOTA RD 0.4 MI NORTH OF S.H. 4 NBI Bridge 61.2 Good 1928 2 10 7.3 1607 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0174 WEBER CREEK MARIPOSA ROAD 0.8 MI W OF JACK TONE RD NBI Bridge 77.6 Good 1934 2 9 10.4 4138 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0175 WEBER CREEK BRANCH MARIPOSA ROAD 0.5 MI E JACK TONE RD NBI Bridge 87.5 Good 1934 2 8 12.2 6626 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0176 S BR S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK MARIPOSA ROAD 0.3 MI NW GAWNE RD NBI Bridge 92.5 Good 1971 2 23 12.4 6253 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0177 S BR S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK MARIPOSA ROAD 0.8 MI N/W WAGNER RD NBI Bridge 97.7 Good 1934 2 16 12.4 4995 2011 On Off PPPPP 29C0178 TEMPLE CREEK MARIPOSA RD 0.8 MI N/W CARROLTON RD NBI Bridge 94.0 Good 1934 2 13 11.8 5528 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0179 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CORRAL HOLLOW RD 3.3 MI SW OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 82.2 Good 1959 2 18 9.3 1006 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0180 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CORRAL HOLLOW RD 2.8 MI SW OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 82.2 Fair 1959 2 16 9.3 1006 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0181 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CORRAL HOLLOW RD 2.6 MI SW OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 79.1 Good 1959 2 18 9.3 1006 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0182 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CORRAL HOLLOW RD 2.1 MI SW OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 81.2 Fair 1959 2 16 9.3 1006 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0183 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CORRAL HOLLOW RD 1.5 MI SW OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 82.2 Fair 1959 2 18 9.3 1006 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0184 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CORRAL HOLLOW RD 0.9 MI SW OF S.H. 580 NBI Bridge 82.2 Fair 1959 2 16 9.3 1006 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0186 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL CORRAL HOLLOW ROAD 1.5 MI N OF SH 580 NBI Bridge 51.0 Fair 1947 2 33 7.3 1006 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0187 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 06 AIRPORT WAY 0.5 MI NE OF KASSON RD NBI Bridge 79.8 Fair 1965 2 166 9.8 2042 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0193 S FK S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK JACK TONE ROAD 1.7 MI S MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 96.6 Good 1955 2 13 12.2 2204 2006 On Off PPPPP 29C0197 LONE TREE CREEK LONE TREE RD 2.2 MI W OF CO LINE NBI Bridge 91.2 Good 1922 2 12 9.8 1022 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0198 LONE TREE CREEK LONE TREE RD 0.3 MI W OF STA CO LINE NBI Bridge 86.8 Good 1922 2 15 9.8 1022 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0199 CALAVERAS RIVER PEZZI RD 0.8 MI S/O EIGHT MI RD NBI Bridge 56.9 Good 1926 2 20 5.5 402 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0200 WOODBRIDGE ID MAIN CANAL ORANGE ST 0.05 MI S OF INDIANA ST NBI Bridge 86.0 Fair 1980 2 17 9.8 95 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0205 PIXLEY CREEK ALPINE RD 0.4 MI N LIVE OAK RD NBI Bridge 96.6 Fair 1977 2 8 9.8 1032 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0206 STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL CHEROKEE RD 0.5 MI S/W OF S.H. 99 NBI Bridge 71.4 Good 1948 2 65 7.3 6863 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0207 CALAVERAS RIVER ALPINE RD 0.2 MI S FOPPIANO LN NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1977 2 22 9.7 706 2013 Off Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 711 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P70 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0210 DUCK CREEK B STREET 0.2 MI N RALPH RD NBI Bridge 97.5 Good 1965 2 21 15.7 2040 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0211 LONE TREE CREEK LONE TREE RD 1.4 MI WEST MURPHY RD NBI Bridge 77.8 Good 1928 2 9 9.8 1104 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0212 MORMON SLOUGH COPPEROPOLIS RD 1.5 MI EAST MILTON RD NBI Bridge 76.5 Fair 1966 2 49 9.8 2249 2013 On Off PPGGG 29C0213 NORTH BRANCH CHANNEL A COPPEROPOLIS RD 0.5 MI EAST OF DRAIS RD NBI Bridge 99.3 Good 1965 2 20 12.2 1088 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0214 CALAVERAS RIVER CLEMENTS RD 0.4 MI N COMSTOCK RD NBI Bridge 96.7 Good 1969 2 32 12.2 1146 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0215 BRANCH MOSHER SLOUGH CLEMENTS RD 0.5 MI N COMSTOCK RD NBI Bridge 96.7 Good 1969 2 16 12.2 1146 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0216 NORTH PADDY CREEK CLEMENTS RD 0.6 MI N KETTLEMAN LANE NBI Bridge 96.3 Good 1967 2 19 12.2 945 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0217 BRANCH BEAR CREEK CLEMENTS RD 0.3 MI N ACAMPO RD NBI Bridge 97.1 Good 1966 2 18 12.2 1407 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0218 BRANCH BEAR CREEK CLEMENTS RD 0.7 MI N ACAMPO RD NBI Bridge 96.1 Good 1966 2 21 12.2 1407 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0219 WHITE SLOUGH (HONKER CUT EIGHT MILE RD 5 MI WEST OF I-5 NBI Bridge 29.8 Fair 1936 2 146 6.1 958 2013 On Off XXXXX 29C0221 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK CHRISMAN RD 0.9 MI N DURHAM FERRY RD NBI Bridge 94.3 Good 1960 2 13 12.2 3000 2009 On Off PPPPP 29C0222 BEAR CREEK ATKINS RD 2.1 MI N OF BRANDT RD NBI Bridge 97.9 Good 1971 2 17 9.7 150 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0223 SOUTH BRANCH CHANNEL A DRAIS RD 0.8 MI S COPPEROPOLIS RD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1972 2 17 9.7 314 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0225 KETTLEMAN SLOUGH DAVIS ROAD 1.0 MI N OF 8 MILE ROAD NBI Bridge 60.1 Good 1928 2 9 7.3 5015 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0226 BANTA-CARBONA IRR CANAL DURHAM FERRY ROAD 0.3 MI E BIRD RD NBI Bridge 92.1 Good 1947 2 7 8.1 495 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0227 DUCK CREEK BUCKMAN RD 0.2 MI N OF SR 4 NBI Bridge SD 39.7 Poor 1931 2 16 6.1 179 2015 Off Off XXXXX 29C0228 CHANNEL B FINE RD 0.2 MI S FLOOD RD NBI Bridge 96.4 Good 1972 2 22 9.8 801 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0229 CHANNEL A FINE RD 0.01 MI N FLOOD RD NBI Bridge 96.4 Good 1972 2 20 9.8 801 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0230 GOOSE CREEK ELLIOTT RD 0.6 MI N OF LIBERTY RD NBI Bridge 94.7 Good 1977 2 22 9.8 1120 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0231 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 01 HOWARD ROAD 1.6 MI W OF S WOLFE RD NBI Bridge 94.4 Good 1975 2 111 9.8 1482 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0244 DRAIN B GAWNE ROAD 0.3 MI E NELSON RD NBI Bridge 63.6 Fair 1935 2 20 9.1 709 2005 Off Off OOOOO 29C0245 DRAIN A GAWNE RD 0.7 MI E MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 74.4 Good 1935 2 20 9.7 427 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0246 SOUTH FORK COYOTE CREEK LIBERTY RD 0.2 MI E OF JACK TONE RD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1964 2 20 12.2 2563 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0247 SOUTH FORK COYOTE CREEK COLLIER RD 1.3 MI E OF TULLY RD NBI Bridge 97.9 Good 1963 2 20 9.8 514 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0248 SOUTH FORK COYOTE CREEK COLLIER ROAD 1.7 MI E OF JACK TONE RD NBI Bridge 97.7 Good 1964 2 20 9.8 514 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0249 DRY CREEK ELLIOTT RD SJ/SAC COUNTY LINE NBI Bridge 86.9 Good 1990 2 196 8.5 1120 2013 On Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 712 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P71 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0252 DRAIN DITCH COLLIER RD 0.3 MI E OF SOWLES RD NBI Bridge 89.2 Fair 1972 2 7 9.8 1084 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0253 DRY CREEK OVERFLOW ELLIOTT RD 1 MI N OF LIBERTY RD NBI Bridge SD 59.3 Poor 1972 2 7 9.8 1120 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0254 COYOTE CREEK ELLIOTT RD 0.5 MI N OF LIBERTY RD NBI Bridge SD 64.0 Poor 1972 2 26 9.8 1120 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0255 NORTH BRANCH CHANNEL A DRAIS RD 0.4 MI S COPPEROPOLIS RD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1976 2 17 9.7 314 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0256 BEAR CREEK BRANDT RD 0.5 MI E JACK TONE RD NBI Bridge 83.6 Fair 1973 2 37 9.8 1270 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0257 MOSHER SLOUGH COLE DRIVE N OF ASHLEY LANE NBI Bridge 86.7 Good 1977 2 12 12.2 566 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0258 MOKELUMNE RIVER BRUELLA RD 1.5 MI N SH 12 IN VICTOR NBI Bridge 88.0 Good 1958 2 205 8.5 1205 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0259 N FK S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK AUSTIN RD 2.9 MI N FRENCH CAMP RD NBI Bridge 85.6 Good 1954 2 11 8.3 1033 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0260 N FK S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK KAISER ROAD 1.5 MI S MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 84.0 Good 1954 2 11 7.9 276 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0262 LONE TREE CREEK BRENNAN RD 0.1 MI S OF LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge 75.7 Good 1926 2 10 6.1 289 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0264 PIXLEY SLOUGH ANGIER RD 0.4 MI N LIVE OAK RD NBI Bridge 89.5 Good 1970 2 8 9.9 127 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0265 PIXLEY SLOUGH FURRY RD 0.7 MI N LIVE OAK RD NBI Bridge 89.4 Good 1970 2 9 9.7 220 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0266 PIXLEY SLOUGH MICKE GROVE RD 0.5 MI S ARMSTRONG RD NBI Bridge 89.1 Good 1970 2 8 12.8 1079 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0267 PIXLEY SLOUGH PEARSON RD 0.7 MI N MORSE RD NBI Bridge 89.3 Good 1970 2 8 10.2 415 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0268 BEAR CREEK BRANCH CORD RD 0.2 MI S OF SR 12 NBI Bridge 79.1 Good 1978 2 11 6.2 50 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0271 BEAR CREEK BRANCH CORD RD .5 MI S OF SR 12 NBI Bridge 66.4 Fair 1968 2 9 5.9 15 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0272 MOSHER CREEK FRAIZER ROAD 1.5 MI W OF CLEMENTS RD NBI Bridge 60.6 Fair 1956 2 9 6.0 221 2013 Off Off GGGGG 29C0273 BEAR CREEK JOHNSON RD .1 MI S OF SR 12 NBI Bridge 98.0 Good 1982 2 21 7.3 68 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0274 MOSHER SLOUGH MESSICK ROAD 0.6 MI W OF CLEMENTS RD NBI Bridge 47.7 Fair 1931 2 16 6.0 150 2015 Off Off XXXXX 29C0275 MOSHER SLOUGH TULLY ROAD 0.1 MI S FRAZIER RD NBI Bridge 96.9 Good 1989 2 21 9.9 268 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0276 COYOTE CREEK DRY CREEK ROAD 1 MI N OF E. LIBERTY RD Non NBI 91.9 Good 1995 1 6 5.9 14 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0278 JAHANT SLOUGH WOODSON RD 0.4 MI NE OF JAHANT & 99 NBI Bridge 66.4 Fair 1930 2 8 10.4 700 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0279 GOOSE CREEK PROUTY RD 2 MI N OF LIBERTY RD NBI Bridge 93.5 Good 1981 2 14 6.1 50 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0280 NORTH FORK COYOTE CREEK JACK TONE RD .4 MI N OF LIBERTY RD NBI Bridge 92.4 Good 1959 2 12 7.4 117 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0281 BEAR CREEK BRANCH ATKINS RD 1.8 MI N OF BRANDT RD NBI Bridge 85.3 Fair 1971 2 19 9.8 150 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0282 BEAR CREEK KETTLEMAN LANE 0.1 MI E OF S.R. 88 NBI Bridge 98.3 Good 1964 2 32 9.8 1253 2013 Off Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 713 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P72 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0284 WALTHALL SLOUGH WILLIAMSON RD 0.4 MI E OF OAK STREET NBI Bridge 91.3 Good 1988 2 30 9.1 398 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0285 BEAVER SLOUGH KILE RD 3.2 MI N PELTIER RD NBI Bridge 96.9 Fair 1941 2 13 8.5 478 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0286 SOUTH PADDY CREEK HIBBARD ROAD 0.4 MI N OF ATKINSON NBI Bridge 87.9 Fair 1964 2 22 9.7 205 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0287 TEMPLE CREEK S BRANCH VAN ALLEN ROAD 0.6 MI S OF GAWNE RD NBI Bridge 73.6 Fair 1927 2 11 7.3 641 2009 Off Off PPPPP 29C0288 SOUTH FORK COYOTE CREEK JACKTONE RD 0.2 MI N OF LIBERTY ROAD NBI Bridge 97.9 Good 1976 2 19 8.5 117 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0289 NORTH BRANCH PADDY CREEK TULLY ROAD 0.2 MI N SARGENT RD NBI Bridge 84.5 Fair 1971 2 19 9.8 403 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0290 TELEPHONE CUT RIO BLANCO RD 1.0 MI N. 8 MI RD NBI Bridge 16.9 Fair 1953 1 76 4.8 160 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0291 SOUTH FORK COYOTE CREEK MACKVILLE ROAD 0.9 MI S OF LIBERTY ROAD NBI Bridge 85.7 Fair 1969 2 15 9.8 239 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0292 UPLAND CANAL COTTA ROAD 1.0 MI W OF I-5 NBI Bridge 66.0 Good 1974 2 12 5.6 138 2009 Off Off OOOOO 29C0293 TEMPLE CREEK N BRANCH VAN ALLEN ROAD 0.3 MI S OF GAWNE RD NBI Bridge 76.8 Good 1927 2 11 7.3 641 2009 Off Off PPPPP 29C0299 PIXLEY SLOUGH HAM LANE 0.1MI S/O WEST LANE NBI Bridge 72.5 Good 1926 2 16 6.1 457 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0300 PIXLEY SLOUGH LIVE OAK RD 0.1 MI EAST OF S.H. 99 NBI Bridge 99.9 Good 1993 2 11 9.1 488 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0301 CALAVERAS RIVER ASHLEY RD 0.2 MI S FOPPIANO LANE NBI Bridge 96.3 Good 1979 2 18 9.7 802 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0303 INDIAN CREEK N BRANCH WIMAR RD 1.2 MI S OF SR 26 NBI Bridge 84.0 Fair 1956 2 18 6.0 34 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0304 CHANNEL A MILTON ROAD 0.5 MI W OF FINE RD NBI Bridge 56.8 Fair 1927 2 9 6.7 301 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0305 CHANNEL A BRANCH MILTON ROAD 0.6 MI W OF FINE RD NBI Bridge 66.4 Fair 1927 2 17 6.7 301 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0307 DUCK CREEK BRANCH BUCKMAN RD 0.8 MI N OF SR 4 NBI Bridge 78.4 Fair 1931 1 13 5.6 13 2015 Off Off GGGGG 29C0312 TOM PAINE SLOUGH PARADISE ROAD 0.1 MI S OF CANAL BLVD NBI Bridge 75.8 Fair 1980 2 47 8.7 912 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0313 TOM PAINE SLOUGH MACARTHUR DRIVE 0.1 MI S OF CANAL BLVD NBI Bridge 92.6 Good 1987 2 45 9.3 1036 2004 Off Off PPPPP 29C0314 TOM PAINE SLOUGH CALIFORNIA AVE 0.2 MI S OF CANAL BLVD NBI Bridge 46.5 Fair 1957 2 24 5.9 748 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0315 LONE TREE CREEK VAN ALLEN RD 0.5 MI S OF LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge 62.6 Fair 1928 2 8 7.3 573 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0317 SSJID CANAL HENRY RD AT N INTERSECT W RIVER RD NBI Bridge 45.9 Fair 1945 2 13 7.3 2375 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0318 SSJID CANAL VAN ALLEN RD 0.2 MI N OF RIVER RD NBI Bridge SD 45.2 Poor 1928 2 15 7.3 240 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0319 SSJID CANAL SEXTON RD 0.2 MI N OF RIVER RD NBI Bridge SD 43.0 Poor 1941 2 10 7.3 210 2015 Off Off XXXXX 29C0320 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK TRACY BOULEVARD 1.3 MI N OF SR 580 NBI Bridge 80.0 Fair 1990 2 18 9.1 999 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0321 SSJID CANAL WAGNER RD .01 MI N OF RIVER RD NBI Bridge 57.6 Good 1928 2 10 6.6 328 2008 Off Off OOOOO

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 714 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P73 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0322 ROADSIDE DRAIN MURPHY ROAD 0.1 MI S OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 61.0 Good 1926 2 7 6.1 520 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0323 ROADSIDE DRAIN MURPHY ROAD 0.7 MI S OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 61.1 Good 1926 2 7 6.1 520 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0324 IRRIGATION DITCH MURPHY ROAD 1.0 MI S OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 63.1 Good 1926 2 7 6.1 520 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0327 S BR S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK MURPHY ROAD 0.2 MI S OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 77.7 Good 1926 2 16 6.1 520 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0328 TEMPLE CREEK MURPHY ROAD 1.6 MI S OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 77.7 Good 1926 2 11 6.1 520 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0329 DRAIN CANAL MURPHY ROAD 2.8 MI S OF MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 69.4 Good 1926 2 7 8.2 520 2013 Off Off GGGGG 29C0330 LONE TREE CREEK MURPHY ROAD 0.6 MI N OF LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge 76.7 Good 1926 2 11 6.1 380 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0332 BEAR CREEK ALPINE RD 0.4 MI S LIVE OAK RD NBI Bridge 95.0 Good 1963 2 37 9.7 1239 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0333 BEAR CREEK LIVE OAK RD 0.7 MI E ALPINE RD NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1963 2 49 9.7 431 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0336 CALAVERAS RIVER SOLARI RANCH RD 0.5 MI N OF CHEROKEE RD NBI Bridge 97.0 Good 1965 2 20 9.7 238 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0337 NORTH BRANCH PADDY CREEK LINN RD 0.4 MI S BRANDT RD NBI Bridge 97.9 Good 1967 2 20 9.7 199 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0338 MORMON SLOUGH ORO AVENUE 0.3 MI SOUTH MAIN ST NBI Bridge 97.4 Good 1988 2 21 13.4 4300 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0339 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK MCKINLEY ROAD 0.04 MI N INDUSTRIAL DR NBI Bridge 92.4 Good 1972 2 21 9.7 4300 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0341 NORTH PADDY CREEK HARNEY LANE 0.5 MI E OF S.H.88 NBI Bridge 95.9 Good 1964 2 26 9.7 1882 2011 Off Off PPPPP 29C0342 BEAR CREEK HARNEY LANE 0.03 MI E OF S.H. 88 NBI Bridge 94.9 Good 1964 2 35 9.7 1882 2011 Off Off PPPPP 29C0343 SSJID CANAL HARROLD RD 0.5 MI N OF RIVER RD NBI Bridge 83.9 Fair 1962 2 20 9.7 1041 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0344 DUCK CREEK HOLLENBECK 0.1 MI N OF SH 4 NBI Bridge 91.4 Good 1968 2 22 9.7 68 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0345 CHANNEL B MILTON ROAD 0.9 MI E DUNCAN RD NBI Bridge 96.0 Good 1968 2 22 9.7 301 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0347 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL HANSEN ROAD 0.3 MI S SCHULTE RD NBI Bridge SD 90.0 Poor 1993 2 48 13.4 2119 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0348 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL LAMMERS ROAD 0.8 MI S VALPICO ROAD NBI Bridge 34.0 Fair 1950 2 34 6.1 1439 2013 On Off OOOOO 29C0349 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL MACARTHUR DRIVE 2.6 MI S LINNE ROAD NBI Bridge 38.2 Fair 1950 2 33 6.2 2165 2013 Off Off OGGGG 29C0350 SOUTH BRANCH DUCK CREEK DRAIS ROAD N EVANS-REIMER RD NBI Bridge 96.3 Good 1961 2 17 9.7 231 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0351 NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK KAISER ROAD 0.6 MI N MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 95.9 Good 1961 2 17 9.7 235 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0352 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL BIRD ROAD 0.2 MI N OF S.H. 132 NBI Bridge 44.4 Fair 1950 2 33 6.1 471 2013 Off Off GOOOO 29C0353 DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL KOSTER ROAD 1.6 MI N GAFFERY RD NBI Bridge 47.6 Fair 1950 2 33 6.1 400 2013 Off Off PPGGG 29C0354 S FK S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK AUSTIN ROAD 2 MI N FRENCH CAMP RD NBI Bridge 95.1 Good 1969 2 23 12.2 594 2015 Off Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 715 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P74 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0355 LONE TREE CREEK AUSTIN ROAD 0.6 MI N OF FRENCH CAMP NBI Bridge 96.6 Good 1969 2 18 9.8 442 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0356 LONE TREE CREEK VICTORY ROAD 1.5 MI N OF S.R. 120 NBI Bridge 49.6 Fair 1928 2 7 6.9 464 2015 Off Off OOOOO 29C0358 SSJID CANAL CARROLTON ROAD 0.2 MI N OF RIVER RD NBI Bridge 63.5 Fair 1940 2 10 9.8 545 2013 Off Off OOOOO 29C0359 LONE TREE CREEK CARROLTON RD 0.5 MI S OF LONE TREE RD NBI Bridge 63.9 Good 1928 2 7 7.3 304 2013 On Off XXXXX 29C0361 LONE TREE CREEK SEXTON RD 1.9 MI N OF S.H. 120 NBI Bridge 89.4 Fair 1963 2 9 9.8 203 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0363 MURPHY CREEK BUENA VISTA ROAD 2.1 MI EAST TO S.H. 88 NBI Bridge 83.6 Good 1960 2 8 9.8 91 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0364 SOUTH BRANCH WEBER CREEK KAISER ROAD 0.5 MI S MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 82.7 Good 1970 2 9 9.7 276 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0365 NORTH BRANCH WEBER CREEK KAISER ROAD 0.2 MI S MARIPOSA RD NBI Bridge 83.1 Good 1970 2 8 9.6 235 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0368 CHANNEL B WAVERLY RD 0.2 MI N OF FLOOD RD NBI Bridge 70.2 Good 1961 2 9 5.9 249 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0369 CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK MAC ARTHUR DR 1.1 MI S LINNE RD NBI Bridge 76.1 Good 1967 2 13 12.2 2165 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0370 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT BIRD ROAD 0.5 MI N BLEWETT RD NBI Bridge SD 68.2 Poor 1966 2 46 9.8 3491 2001 Off Off GOOOO 29C0371 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT BLEWETT ROAD 1.3 MI W KOSTER RD NBI Bridge 78.2 Fair 1967 2 44 9.8 200 1982 Off Off PGGGG 29C0373 HOSPITAL CREEK KOSTER RD 0.9 MI N GAFFERY RD NBI Bridge 69.6 Good 1947 2 13 6.1 400 2013 Off Off GOOOO 29C0374 HOSPITAL CREEK OVERFLOW KOSTER RD 0.5 MI N GAFFERY RD NBI Bridge 47.9 Fair 1947 2 10 6.1 400 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0375 PIXLEY CREEK MICKE GROVE RD 0.7 MI S ARMSTRONG RD NBI Bridge 91.0 Good 1970 2 11 9.8 1079 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0376 PIXLEY CREEK PEARSON RD 0.6 MI N EIGHT MILE RD NBI Bridge 92.3 Fair 1966 2 9 10.0 415 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0377 DUCK CREEK S BRANCH MUNFORD AVENUE 0.2 MI W OF E. MARIPOSA NBI Bridge 96.8 Good 1964 2 17 13.4 323 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0378 WEBER CREEK AUSTIN ROAD 4.3 MI N FRENCH CAMP RD NBI Bridge 94.2 Fair 1973 2 7 10.2 1947 2007 Off Off PPPPP 29C0379 CHANNEL B FLOOD ROAD 1.6 MI W ESCALON-BELTA RD NBI Bridge 95.2 Good 1967 2 19 9.8 166 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0380 MIDDLE BR PADDY CREEK TULLY RD 0.5 MI S KETTLEMAN LANE NBI Bridge 96.9 Good 1971 2 17 9.7 402 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0381 NORTH BRANCH PADDY CREEK SARGENT RD 0.6 MI E JACKTONE RD NBI Bridge 98.0 Good 1965 2 22 9.8 110 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0382 TEMPLE CREEK WILDWOOD ROAD 1.0 MI E JACK TONE RD NBI Bridge SD 35.6 Poor 1930 2 9 7.2 253 2015 Off Off OOOOO 29C0386 DUCK CREEK S BRANCH CARPENTER ROAD AT MARIPOSA ROAD NBI Bridge 84.0 Fair 1974 2 12 34.7 841 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0387 DUCK CREEK S BRANCH MARIPOSA RD DRIVWY DRIVEWAY SE CARPENTER RD NBI Bridge 88.4 Fair 1974 2 7 9.1 60 2003 Off Off PPPPP 29C0389 CHANNEL B DUNCAN RD 0.3 MI N COPPEROPOLIS RD NBI Bridge 89.4 Good 1963 2 8 9.7 353 2015 Off Off PPPPP 29C0390 STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL MAIN STREET JUST NORTH GILLIS ROAD NBI Bridge 93.5 Good 1969 2 95 10.8 4729 2013 On Off PPPPP

*ADT Year must not exceed 10 years old. Data presented herein is strictly informational and should not be utilized to determine funding eligibility. localbrlist.rdf - Aprl 2018 Click to update ADT data Page 716 July 2018 LocalLocal AgencyAgency BridgeBridge ListList P75 Structure Maintenance & Investigations

29C0393 DRY CREEK LINCOLN WAY LWER SAC RD SAC/SJ CO LN NBI Bridge 79.9 Fair 1958 2 243 11.1 6877 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0396 SOUTH PADDY CREEK CADLE RD 0.1 MI N OF GREENLAND RD. NBI Bridge 99.0 Good 1983 2 7 7.3 19 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0398 WOODBRIDGE ID MAIN CANAL CHESTNUT STREET NORTH OF W TURNER ROAD NBI Bridge 97.6 Good 1989 2 18 19.5 7617 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0411 N FK S LITTLEJOHNS CREEK JACK TONE ROAD 0.4 MI N/O E VERDON RD NBI Bridge 92.4 Good 2004 2 217 12.2 3684 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0412 WEBER CREEK S BRANCH QUANTAS LANE W OF RTE 99, S OF AIRPORT NBI Bridge 99.8 Fair 2001 2 14 0.0 4000 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0413 BEAR CREEK BOLLEA ROAD NEAR CALAVERAS CO LINE NBI Bridge 45.6 Fair 1997 2 17 5.9 26 2013 Off Off XXXXX 29C0414 AUSTIN ROAD & BNSF RY MARIPOSA ROAD OH 1 MILE WEST OF KAISER RD NBI Bridge SD 90.3 Poor 2002 2 214 12.2 6397 2015 On Off PPPPP 29C0421 W. SIDE IRRIGATION CANAL BETHANY ROAD 0.6 MI EAST OF BYRON ROAD NBI Bridge 99.0 Fair 2005 2 33 9.8 271 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0422 SSJID CANAL RIVER ROAD AT VICTORY ROAD NBI Bridge 97.9 Good 2005 2 7 19.9 2272 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0423 DUCK CREEK BRANCH WAVERLY RD 1.2 MI N OF SR 4 NBI Bridge 98.9 Good 2004 2 22 8.6 71 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0430 WOODBRIDGE ID MAIN CANAL LOWERSACRAMENTO RD 0.5 MI S OF WOODBRIDGE RD NBI Bridge 96.1 Fair 2005 2 10 11.6 9116 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0438 WOODBRIDGE ID MAIN CANAL LILAC STREET 0.4 MI N OF TURNER ROAD NBI Bridge 97.8 Good 1993 2 10 13.4 3784 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0441 TOM PAINE SLOUGH EL RANCHO ROAD N OF ROUTE 205 NBI Bridge 98.2 Good 2011 2 32 8.5 258 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0447 MIDDLE RIVER WOODWARD FERRY RD 0.1 MI W OF BACON ISL. RD NBI Bridge 61.8 Fair 1936 2 19 7.3 42 2013 Off Off XXXXX 29C0448 MIDDLE RIVER WOODWARD FERRY RD 0.3MI W OF BACON ISL RD NBI Bridge 63.9 Fair 1936 2 53 6.9 42 2013 Off Off XXXXX 29C0449 SSJD CANAL MCBRIDE ROAD AT RIVER ROAD NBI Bridge 98.0 Fair 2008 2 9 15.2 94 2013 Off Off PPPPP 29C0450 BEAR CREEK NORTH TULLY ROAD 1 MILE SOUTH OF ROUTE 12 NBI Bridge 99.8 Good 2011 2 34 11.0 1055 2013 On Off PPPPP 29C0451 DUCK CREEK MARIPOSA ROAD 0.25 MI S/E OF SR 99 NBI Bridge 92.5 Good 2016 5 20 28.2 4642 2013 On Off PPPPP Stanislaus County Bridge Road On/Off On/Off Bridge NBI Suff Health Year Length Width ADT Fed Aid NHS Permit Number Feature Intersected Facility Carried Location Bridge SD Rating Rating Built Lanes (m) (m) ADT Year* System Hwy Rating

38C0032 STANISLAUS RIVER MCHENRY AVENUE AT SAN JOAQUIN CO LINE NBI Bridge 72.6 Good 1959 2 346 9.1 7907 2011 On Off PPPPP 38C0040 STANISLAUS RIVER FIRST ST STANLS-SAN JOAQIN CO LINE NBI Bridge 86.9 Good 1967 2 307 9.8 11900 2008 On Off PPPPP 38C0264 S SAN JOAQUIN MAIN CANAL VICTORY AVENUE 0.4 MI N STATE RTE 120 NBI Bridge 78.9 Fair 1931 2 16 12.3 550 2009 Off Off GGGGG

APPENDIX D ‐ SJCOG RCMP Congestion and Travel Time Reliability Assessment

Appendix D - SJCOG RCMP Congestion and Travel Time Reliability Assessment P77 Memorandum

May 22, 2019

To: Rob Cunningham/Travis Yokoyama Project: Technical and Analytical Services for SJCOG 2019 Regional Congestion San Joaquin Council of Governments Management Program’s Monitoring Report and Performance Report

From: GHD Inc. Ref/Job No.: CC: File No.: SJCOG_CMP_MEM001.DOCX

Subject: SJCOG RCMP Congestion and Travel Time Reliability Assessment

1. Introduction

This memorandum details the Congestion Level and Travel Time Reliability analysis performed as part of SJCOG” 2019 Regional Congestion Management Program for San Joaquin County. This analysis supports SJCOG’s RCMP which recommends the incorporation of travel time reliability and speed-based congestion measures to support the quantification of both passenger vehicle as well as goods movement performance metrics. It is also consistent with new requirements for State DOTs and MPOs to assess the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) per the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). Specifically, this entails assessing freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program.

As part of performance management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds, such as SJCOG, would make transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make progress toward the following national goals:

 Congestion reduction: to achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS.  System reliability: to improve the efficiency on the NHS.  Freight movement and economic vitality: to improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.  Environmental sustainability: to enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Data Source and Data Reduction

Per and the National Performance Management Measures Final Rule, the preferred data for complying with the National Highway Performance Program is the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) from FHWA. The NPMRDS provides average speed data (five-minute averaging time) for federally defined roadway segments designated as part of the National Highway System (NHS). A map of the designated NHS in San Joaquin County is provided in Figure 1.

GHD 943 Reserve Drive Roseville California 95678 United States T +1 916 782 8688 F +1 916 782 8689 W www.ghd.com P78

NPMRDS data for January through December 2018 (12-months) was downloaded for analysis1. Given the desire to reflect annual average weekday conditions, the data was filtered to isolate average weekday conditions - Tues-Thurs AM/PM peak periods for passenger vehicles and heavy-duty truck vehicles separately. To identify the AM/PM peak hour, the peak periods between 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM and 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM were analyzed to identify the most congested continuous 60-minute span for both passenger vehicles and trucks.

After filtering the data to isolate average peak hour conditions, a total of 5,831,898 individual data records were processed to yield 5,924 averaged observations for 998 segments (reflecting both directions of travel) for both passenger vehicles and heavy duty trucks respectively. The only data “cleansing” applied was to filter/remove extreme high speed outliers (e.g., 90+ mph) from the free flow speed, congestion and reliability calculations. All data was processed and summarized based on the NPMRDS segmentation.

Overlay NHS and NPMRDS networks

To report and display the NPMRDS data graphically, NRMRDS segment coordinates were matched and overlaid with the NHS layer.

Performance Measure Definitions (Congestion and Reliability)

Federal definitions from the National Performance Management Measures Rule were used to define congestion and reliability. Both the 80th and 95th percentile travel times were computed. The 95th percentile travel time is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and NCHRP Research on Travel Time Reliability. Conversely, the Federal Rule proscribes the 80th percentile. For purposes of this analysis the 95th percentile travel time based BTI statistic was considered more representative and is reported herein. Thresholds reflect heavy congestion (with observed average speed less than 60 percent of the free-flow speed) and unreliable road segments (with an 95th percentile travel time more than 1.5 times longer than the 50th percentile travel time (Level of Travel Time Reliability or LOTTR). Given that Free Flow speed is a key variable for calculating both Congestion Level and LOTTR, free flow speed was empirically estimated for each individual segment using NPMRDS data between the hours of midnight and 3 AM.

Table 1. Congestion and Reliability Thresholds Congested Conditions Reliable Travel Time Moderately Reliable Travel Time Unreliable Travel Time Travel Speed BTI1 < 0.25 BTI1 0.25 - <0.5 BTI1 > = 0.5 Not always predictable, but usually Unpredictable, but not often Uncongested2 (>= 60 % of free-flow) Predictable and efficient efficient congested Not always predictable, but usually Congested2 (< 60% of free-flow) Predictable and In-efficient Unpredictable, but often congested inefficient 2 .Level of Travel Time Reliability 3 .Free flow speeds was estimated for each segment based on NPMRDS data during the hours of midnight and 3 AM

Results For a given segment, the direction of travel demonstrating the highest congestion or reliability was used as the basis for illustrating/reporting conditions for a given segment for each peak hour respectively. Maps displaying AM/PM peak hour Congestion and LOTTR results for Passenger Vehicles and Heavy-duty Trucks on the designated NHS in San Joaquin County is provided in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. The congestion results are reflected by the width/thickness of a given segment and reliability by color.

1 The National Performance Measurement Rule recommends using 12 months of data to reflect a “true” annual average.

2 P79

For comparative purposes, Figure 6 shows segments operating deficiently (LOS E or F) based on 2017 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Baseline LOS deficient conditions are denoted by blue segments. Although the RCMP network is more expansive than the NHS – there is considerable network overlap. A comparison of congested condition results indicates that the annual average weekday passenger vehicle speed-based NPMRDS data and Federal definitions for congestion generate results fairly congruent but less conservative results relative to the static operational level of service results and LOS thresholds used in SJCOG’s RCMP. Conversely, the analysis of truck congestion based on speeds generates slightly more conservative results that are more in line with the static operational level of service results and LOS thresholds used in SJCOG’s RCMP.

3 P80

Figure 1. National Highway System in San Joaquin County

4 P81

Figure 2. AM Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Results

5 P82

Figure 3. PM Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Results

6 P83

Figure 4. AM Peak Hour Heavy-Duty Truck Results

7 P84

Figure 5. PM Peak Hour Heavy-Duty Truck Results

8 P85

Figure 6. RTIF Deficient Segments (AM/PM Combined)

9 P86

AGENDA ITEM 4D P87

August 2019 TAC

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program Process

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion Only

SUMMARY:

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a five-year capital improvement program of transportation projects, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) released a draft 2020 STIP fund estimate at its June 26 meeting and has since circulated a fund estimate revision. The 2020 STIP will cover Fiscal Years 2020/21 through 2024/25, however, nearly all of the funding capacity will be in Fiscal Years 2022/23 through 2024/25.

RECOMMENDATION:

Discussion Only.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None at this time.

BACKGROUND:

The CTC adopts a new STIP every two years. The STIP is a five-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources. As part of the STIP development process, each region in California is required to develop a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which consists of the region’s priorities for funding through the STIP. Concurrent with the RTIP development at the regional level, Caltrans works to put together the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), consisting of interregional priorities set by Caltrans in collaboration with the regions. Caltrans merges the region’s RTIPs and Caltrans’ ITIP into the statewide document, the STIP, and submits it to the CTC for approval.

The STIP is generally our region’s largest source of capital funding besides the Measure K program. STIP funding may be used for highway/roadway widening, traffic operational improvements, and transit capital improvements. All project development phases from environmental through construction are eligible for funding. A new project must have a Project Study Report (PSR) or equivalent to support the programming of project costs.

P88

2020 STIP Fund Estimate Expectations

The CTC released a draft 2020 STIP fund estimate at its June 26 meeting and has since circulated a fund estimate revision. The 2020 STIP fund estimate will be finalized at the CTC’s August 14 meeting. The 2020 STIP will cover Fiscal Years 2020/21 through 2024/25, however, nearly all of the funding capacity will be in Fiscal Years 2022/23 through 2024/25.

Per the revised 2020 STIP fund estimate, San Joaquin County will receive between $2,275,000 (minimum) and $13,619,000 (maximum) in new funds for projects. Please note that this range means that $2,275,000 is new funds available to the program. The $13,619,000 represents an option for regions to advance future year STIP funds and program them now. It will be the maximum amount CTC will allow for new programming. Carryover STIP programming from prior STIP cycle and programming for PPM (Project Planning, Programming up to a limitation of 5% per year) will also comprise the 2020 STIP per adopted STIP Policies and Procedures by the California Transportation Commission. These figures are therefore not reflected in the new programming capacity.

It should also be noted that in May, the SJCOG Board approved a recommendation to advance the PA&ED phase of the I-205 Widening Project using approximately $12.359 million in other federal, state, and local funds. As such, the $12.359 million in STIP funds previously programmed for this project in Fiscal Year 2020/21 would be available for discussion. Those funds could be assigned to the PS&E phase of the I-205 Widening Project or could be applied to a different project. See below

Tentative 2020 STIP Schedule

The 2020 STIP final schedule and fund estimate are planned for adoption by the CTC at their August 14-15, 2019 meeting. SJCOG staff will be evaluating project candidates for the 2020 STIP shortly after the CTC adoption of the fund estimate. The intention is to have projects selected by October 2019, with SJCOG Board adoption of the 2020 RTIP in November 2019, and submission to the CTC by the December 2019 deadline. A tentative schedule of the 2020 STIP development process is shown below:

AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCT/NOV DECEMBER MARCH

STIP Committee SJCOG Staff COG CTC Update & Board Recommen‐ Board Finalizes Announced Discussion dations Adoption 2020 STIP

P89

Milestone Anticipated Date CTC Adopts Fund Estimate August 14, 2019 Development of SJCOG Staff Recommendations August 15 - October 15, 2019 Preparation of Draft RTIP document September - November 2019 30-Day Public Notice of Comment Period to Newspapers October 9, 2019 30-Day Public Comment Period Begins October 16, 2019 TAC Adoption of Draft RTIP November 4, 2019 Public Hearing and SJCOG Board Adoption of Draft RTIP November/December 2019 RTIPs and ITIPs due to Caltrans December 13, 2019 CTC publishes staff recommendations February 28, 2020 CTC adopts STIP March 2020

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Prepared by: Ryan Niblock, Senior Regional Planner P90

AGENDA ITEM 4E P91

August 2019 TAC

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Valley Link Project Feasibility Report

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information

DISCUSSION:

SUMMARY:

On June 12, the Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority (Authority) took action to accept the Draft Valley Link Feasibility Report and open a public comment period until July 31. Following the public comment period, the Board anticipates taking further action to approve the Final Project Feasibility Report addressing the comments. The full report is available at https://www.valleylinkrail.com.

SJCOG wrote a comment letter on the Draft Feasibility Report (see attachment). The comment letter expresses SJCOG’s support of the Authority’s efforts addressing the congestion on I-580 within the Altamont Pass corridor. SJCOG wishes to have an engaged dialogue with the Authority and make every effort to support the project scope, with the aim to ensure successful implementation. SJCOG offered comments on the following topics as a supportive partner in the project:

 Remedy the overreach in identification of likely San Joaquin fund sources.  Explore other agencies more experienced at delivering and operating the proposed project.  Clarify the makeup of Valley Link ridership, specifically, the proportion of riders diverted from other transit.  Develop a realistic Project Delivery Schedule that is aligned with a funding plan.  Elaborate on Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR) position on the project and use of the UP right of way and develop an alternative in the event UPRR chooses not to participate.

RECOMMENDATION:

Information.

P92

FISCAL IMPACT:

While there are no direct impacts to the current SJCOG OWP, there are financial implications in the foreseeable future due to the size of this project.

BACKGROUND:

The Authority was created under AB 758 (2017) and is tasked with the mission:

“to plan and help deliver a cost-effective connection from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s rapid transit system and the Altamont corridor express in the Tri-Valley to address regional and economic and transportation changes.” (Section of AB 758)

In July 2018, the Authority approved the project concept “Valley Link,” a seamless rail transit connection to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station in the Tri-Valley area. Phase I would include stops in Mountain House, Tracy, River Islands, and North Lathrop, with a future Phase II stop in downtown Stockton. The service would operate from San Joaquin County every 24 minutes during peak period (meeting every other BART train) and every 60 minutes off-peak (meeting every 4th BART train). Travel time is expected to be 47 minutes from Mountain House to Dublin/Pleasanton BART, which is competitive with the automobile during peak congestion.

Source: Valley Link Project Feasibility Report

P93

The Authority is governed by a board of directors composed of 15 members, 7 of whom represent San Joaquin County jurisdictions:

 Vice Chair Veronica Vargas (Mayor Pro Tem, City of Tracy)  Board member Paul Akinjo (Councilmember, City of Lathrop)  Board member Bob Elliott (Supervisor, County of San Joaquin)*  Board member Sol Jobrack (Councilmember, City of Stockton)*  Board member Debby Moorhead (Vice Mayor, City of Manteca)  Board member Bernice Tingle (Director, Mountain House)  Board member Leo Zuber (Commissioner, ACE)*

* Denotes members of the SJCOG Board of Directors

SJCOG staff serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and Executive Steering Committee for the project and frequently meet with the Authority staff to collaborate on shared objectives.

NEXT STEPS:

The Authority plans to complete the environment review process within upcoming months. SJCOG staff will review the environmental documents and submit our comments. At the same time, SJCOG staff will continue to engage with the Authority by attending Board meetings and directly communicating with TV-SJVRRA staff.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. SJCOG Comment Letter

Prepared by: Joel Campos, Assistant Regional Planner

P94 P95 P96 P97 P98 P99

AGENDA ITEM 4F P100

August 2019 TAC

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Bike Month 2019

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information

SUMMARY:

dibs’ annual Bike Month kicked off in May across Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin counties. In total 11 Bike Month events were held during this month with 1,553 trips logged and 4,459 miles travelled. We saw a nearly 300% increase in bike and walking trips logged in our system in May over previous month – a fantastic result as one of our primary goals is to use Bike Month to increase use of our travel log system.

Bike Month serves as an annual reminder to “get in gear” and use smart travel options that can save money, provide health benefits, alleviate congestion, and reduce CO2 emissions. Each of these metrics are tracked with a mixture of data from the dibs trip logging system and post-event survey to get feedback from the community on their experiences.

San Joaquin County participation was strong - nearly half of all logged trips were in San Joaquin! The county boasted events in Escalon, Stockton, Manteca, Lodi, and Tracy.

To encourage participation, tiered raffle prizes were offered to commuters who logged trips in the dibs system. Overall, nearly 2/3 of participants logged enough trips to qualify them for the top raffle prize and 80% of those participants have continued to bike or walk since the event ended. This falls in line with our survey results where the #1 motivation for biking was its health benefits. Money and the environment represented the #2 and #3 motivator. In that regard, the 4,459 miles travelled saved participants a combined close to $8,000 in gas and the equivalent of 488 cars off the road. P101

The dibs team helped cities and employers organize on- “I enjoy the money site and community events provided promotional items and goodies, delivered presentations and coordinated bike I save by riding my month proclamations. The cities of Stockton, Lodi, bike instead of Manteca, Escalon and Tracy held community events. joining a gym.” Also a big thank you to our annual sponsor & partner, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District!

BACKGROUND:

The dibs program was established by the San Joaquin Council of Governments to shift from driving alone to a more sustainable transportation and to an option such as carpooling, using transit, vanpooling, biking and biking work to improve air quality and reduce congestion in the valley. The program expanded to include the counties of Stanislaus and Merced through contracts with the transportation planning agencies. For a larger impact, dibs partners with cities, employers and community organizations to encourage participation and engagement.

Statistics for this report was pulled via data from the dibs trip logging system, which generates trip reports for distance travelled, calories burned, gas money saved, and CO2 saved. This data is able to be isolated by county, time frame, and individual users. Further data was collected through a post-Bike Month survey.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Bike Month 2019 Infographic

Prepared by: Stephanie Maynard, Administrative Analyst 2019 Bike MonthP102 was a SUCCESS!

super

Who is riding where? Merced Stanislaus COUNTY PROFILES San Joaquin

5 overall average 4 4.5 miles 20% 22%

1,553 45% 4,459 2 49% Total trips Total miles walked logged during or biked during 1 Bike Month Bike Month 31% 5.5 miles 3.9 miles 4.6 miles 33% 0 Average Biking Distance

How often do you dib? TRIPS LOGGED PER PERSON Did someone 2% say prizes?!?! Congrats to all of our 2019 Dibs Day winners! super 17% 1 Trip We hope you are enjoying 2 – 3 Trips your RAD winnings! dibbers 4 – 9 Trips 17% 10+ Trips More chances to win prizes and incentives all year-round. Follow us to stay in the know. 64% Estaban Negrete, Stanislaus Winner P103

Why do you Gear Up? SURVEY RESULTS

Saving the world one ride at a time PRIZES RELAXING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ENERGIZING 5,070,511 NOT HAVING TO GAS UP POUNDS OF BEAUTIFUL WEATHER FRIENDS MEDITATION GROUP RIDES that’s equivalent MOTIVATION SAVING MONEY EXERCISE C 2 to removing SAVED FROM THE 0% 20 40 60 80 100% ATMOSPHERE cars488 from the road Health Benefits Saving Money

The Environment Convenience and the survey says... The Prizes Total trips logged over the previous month No Vehicle 132% Other

Bike trips logged over Riders have kept the previous month 80% biking & walking 281% since Bike Month

Bike Month events MAY Dollars saved on gas $7,780 11

Calories burned 233,794

DibsMyWay.com Prize Sponsor: 800-52-SHARE P104

AGENDA ITEM 4G P105

August 2019 TAC

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Annual Review

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend to the Board make the best use for unexpended STA funds that were reserved for NEMT DISCUSSION:

SUMMARY:

In June 2017, the Board adopted the finding that Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) from San Joaquin County to medical facilities outside the region is an Unmet Transit Need that is “Reasonable to Meet.” In November 2017, the Board approved a service implementation plan presented by San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) and approved the expenditure of $250,000 from the section 99313 regional portion of the State Transit Assistance (STA) Program for the first year of operations. After an extensive research and marketing effort, RTD launched a website and limited introduction of NEMT services on existing RTD and ACE lines in April 2018, followed by a full launch with a connection to the Stanislaus Regional Transit District (StaRT) Medivan in June 2018. This staff report serves as the first annual review of the NEMT service and will provide the Board an opportunity to consider whether to allocate STA funds (that have been held in reserve for operations of NEMT) beyond the first year of service.

June 2017 Nov. 2017 April 2018 June 2018 Aug. 2019 Board makes Board Soft launch Full launch of UTN Finding Review of approves (website + NEMT with of NEMT as service plan commuter connection to NEMT "Reasonable and funding routes) Medivan Service to Meet"

P106

On July 31, RTD submitted a NEMT Year-End Report to SJCOG covering the beginning of the program to July 2019, containing the following key information:  Ridership: There have been 28 completed roundtrips on NEMT service to date, averaging 2 roundtrips/month since the full program launch on June 2018. The highest single month was July 2019 with 10 roundtrips; while there were several months during that timeframe when no rides were taken.  Costs: To date, $37,775 has been spent on the program. This breaks down to $29,985 spent on startup, marketing, and database development, and $7,790 on transit operation, fuel, customer service, and trip planning. The cost is slightly offset by $198 collected in fares.

RECOMMENDATION: Based on the ridership and cost figures as reported by RTD, SJCOG staff recommends canceling the current NEMT service. SJCOG will be making a recommendation on the best use of the NEMT unexpended funding after taking into account input from the August 5, 2019, ITC/SSTAC meeting. Potential uses of the funds could include but are not limited to investigating other options for NEMT and/or reallocating the funds to other transit services.

FISCAL IMPACT: The NEMT service has been apportioned $325,000 of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds ($250,000 (authorized for expenditure) in August 2017 and $75,000 (held in reserve) in August 2018). RTD indicated that $37,775 was spent from Year 1 funding ($250,000). Year 2 funding ($75,000) has not been spent pending the results of Year 1 of operations. SJCOG staff will make recommendations to the Board related to future funding apportionments from this revenue source and the unspent balance that exists of the funds previously authorized for expenditure.

BACKGROUND:

NEMT Service Plan as Approved by SJCOG Board of Directors

Non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) is defined as transportation that enables patients to travel to and from medical appointments, the pharmacy, urgent care, specialized treatment, or the hospital. RTD’s service proposal uses existing transit service offered by RTD, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT), ACE and other operators to provide NEMT service to medical facilities outside San Joaquin County, specifically in the Bay Area and Sacramento. These options are described in further detail below:

Bay Area service via StaRT Medivan Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) has offered an NEMT service to medical facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area for approximately 20 years. The service, known as “Medivan,” departs from downtown Modesto in the morning and serves various destinations depending on passenger reservations, including but not limited to: Livermore Veterans Administration Hospital, Oakland

P107

Children’s Hospital, UCSF Medical Center, Menlo Park Veterans Administration Hospital, Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, and Palo Alto Veterans Administrations Hospital. Fares are $11 per passenger or $4 for an attendant.

RTD worked with StaRT to add a connection stop in Tracy on the Medivan route. San Joaquin County passengers pay the same fare as Stanislaus County passengers. Passengers can access the stop in Tracy either by using RTD Go or Van Go connecting services or by their own means (e.g. be dropped off by a friend/family member).

Bay Area Service via RTD Commuter Route 150 and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) RTD developed a plan to provide NEMT services via existing interregional transportation routes between San Joaquin County and the Bay Area on RTD Commuter Route 150 and ACE train routes. Passengers would need to arrange connecting transportation from the station stops in the Bay Area to medical facilities.

Sacramento Service via RTD Routes 163 and 165 RTD runs two commuter routes from Stockton to Downtown Sacramento, 163 (via SR 99) and 165 (via I-5). RTD’s service plan allows NEMT passengers to access medical destinations within 2 miles of the existing terminus in Sacramento after the commuting passengers have been dropped off. Medical destinations include Kaiser Medical Center, Sutter Medical Center, UC Davis Medical Center, Cares Community Health, C.O.R.E. Medical Clinic, Inc. and Sacramento Naturopathic Medical Center. Passengers would request NEMT service in advance and pay the regular fare of $7 per trip for the commuter bus.

Dispatch, Connecting Services, and Marketing To coordinate the various NEMT services offered, RTD established a centralized booking and dispatch system. San Joaquin County residents who wish to request NEMT service call RTD in advance to book the service. RTD assist the passengers in identifying the appropriate service based on the desired origin and destination (e.g. StaRT service, RTD/ACE to Bay Area, or RTD to Sacramento), and arrange connecting service if needed.

RTD conducted surveys, reached out to medical providers, and developed and implemented marketing campaigns (social media, radio, TV, newspaper) for the service. RTD staff’s extensive outreach efforts included presentations at the annual California Community Care Coordination Collaborative (5Cs) meeting, a wide variety of medical facilities within the county, community centers and town hall meetings, human services agencies and more.

Ridership Challenges

In summer 2018 it was recognized that the service was slow in building ridership. SJCOG formed a subcommittee consisting of SJCOG, RTD, and San Joaquin County Public Health staff to share information and develop new ideas for the service. The group met four times from September 2018 to January 2019 but failed in generating ridership for the service.

In January 2019 RTD reported to the SSTAC that there had been a total of 15 sign-ups on the website and 4 roundtrip rides. In July 2019, RTD provided a year-end update as described in the summary section, indicating a total of 28 roundtrip rides today.

P108

Staff Analysis

With the information to date on only 28 round trip rides and a total program cost of $37,775 (including startup and marketing efforts), SJCOG staff does not find it economically feasible to continue operations of the service. Staff recommends canceling the service and reallocating the unexpended funds to other transit services. Staff will provide a more detailed recommendation for unexpended funds after discussions with the ITC.

NEXT STEPS:

Pending further discussions with the ITC, SJCOG staff will make a recommendation to the Board regarding NEMT service and funding at the August 22, 2019 Board meeting.

Report prepared by Rob Cunningham, Senior Regional Planner

P109

AGENDA ITEM 4H P110

August 2019 TAC

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Federal Transit Urbanized Area (UZA) Programming for Manteca and Tracy

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Section 5307 transit programming for Manteca and Tracy UZAs as shown in Table 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION:

SUMMARY:

The federal transit program entitled, Section 5307, apportions funds to urbanized areas. This staff report discusses the cooperative planning process to identify transit project priorities for the use of these funds in the Manteca and Tracy urbanized areas, totaling $12.896 million over two fiscal years. This involved convening eligible transit operators that currently provide service to those areas. This process is established through federal guidelines in order to program federal dollars to the highest priorities in the UZA(s) through a transparent and deliberative process with clear criteria. The guiding principle in this process is to ensure existing transit operations are not adversely impacted before considering funding for new capital projects or expanded service. SJCOG staff facilitated the discussion among the transit operators and the proposed programming for Fiscal Year 2018/19 and 2019/20 are a result of that collaborative process. Table 1 and 2 identify the proposed programming which is the work product of this effort and therefore supported by all the transit operators involved (RTD, ACE, Ripon Transit, and Tracy Transit).

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Fiscal Year 2018/19 and 2019/20 cooperative planning and programming process for Section 5307 Manteca and Tracy UZA funds as shown in Table 1 and 2, respectively.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action would result in the programming of 2018/19 and 2019/20 federal transit funding for both Manteca and Tracy UZA, totaling $12.896 million. It should be emphasized that FY 19/20 figures are projected figures of the amount to be available. Should the actual apportionment be lower, the stakeholders will be reconvened to discuss the appropriate actions.

P111

BACKGROUND:

The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes Federal resources available to urbanized areas and to Governors for transit capital and operating assistance and for transportation related planning in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is a Census-designated area with a population of 50,000 or more as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. In San Joaquin County, there are four urbanized areas which are Stockton, Manteca, Tracy and Lodi UZAs. The topic of this staff report discusses federal programming in the Manteca and Tracy UZAs which are mapped in Exhibit A and B.

Under the Section 5307 Program, the state or designated recipient is responsible for “receiving and apportioning” the amounts made available by Congress and apportioned by the Federal Transit Administration to an urbanized area. The state or designated recipient receives and apportions the amounts within the UZA to the state, regional authorities, or to other public agencies. In California, this role for the Manteca and Tracy UZA is performed by the California Department of Transportation. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303(d), a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), which in some cases may also serve as the designated recipient, is the forum for cooperative decision making to carry out the transportation planning process. In San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) provided this forum.

SJCOG, through individual Memorandums of Understands with each transit operator in San Joaquin, outlines a Cooperative Planning Process in accordance with federal regulations to establish project priorities and program federal dollars apportioned directly to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307 Program to the Tracy and Manteca Urbanized Areas (UZAs). In June 2019, SJCOG convened transit operators eligible to be direct recipients of the Manteca and Tracy UZA funding and facilitated correspondence and discussion through a cooperative planning process to review project priorities and funding needs.

For the Manteca UZA, the eligible direct recipients which collaborated included City of Manteca, City of Ripon, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, and San Joaquin Regional Transit District. For the Tracy UZA, the eligible direct recipients which collaborated included City of Tracy, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, and San Joaquin Regional Transit District.

The guiding principles used in the cooperative planning and programming process were:

1. Ensure that existing transit service is the highest priority and to make those needs “whole” before consideration of new projects or service expansion. 2. Consider prior history of commitments & programming of Section 5307 funding to new service and consider whether a second year of the service is warranted. 3. Similar to the above, consider prior history of commitments to capital projects which may have unfunded future phases. 4. Overall, identify the best package of projects that provides transit mobility and accessibility to transit riders. P112

5. Consider matching funds, or conversely, unfunded phases to gauge project feasibility and readiness.

At the conclusion of this process, the transit operators were supportive of the programming of projects identified in Table 1 and Table 2. This programming proposal for the various transit projects was the best strategy in meeting the above criteria.

NEXT STEP

The SJCOG Board will consider action on the proposed UZA programming, along with an amendment to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, at its August 22nd Board meeting.

Prepared by: Diane Nguyen, Deputy Director P113 EXHIBIT A

2010 Census: Urbanized Area Reference Map - Manteca, CA (includes Ripon, CA) P114 EXHIBIT B

2010 Census: Urbanized Area Reference Map - Tracy, CA TABLE 1 P115 SUMMARY OF DRAFT FUNDING PROPOSAL DISCUSSED AT JUNE 13, 2019 MEETING Federal Funding for the Manteca Urbanized Area (UZA)

Previous Carryover Balance FY 18/19 FY 19/20 $ 800,734 $ 2,350,574 $ 2,395,894 $800,734 held for future Manteca station needs

GRAND TOTAL: $ 5,547,202 Draft Funding Proposal - only federal UZA funds shown

Manteca Transit Operating Cost $ 2,701,444 See Note #1 Ripon Multimodal Station Construction $ 2,000,000 See Note #2 Operating cost for Van Go (assumes year 2 of existing service: $ 250,000 See Note #3 Manteca Transit Capital - 2 bus spares (Assumes total cost of one bus is $400,000; federal share would be 80% - $320,000 each bus). $ 595,758 See Note #4

GRAND TOTAL: $ 5,547,202

Notes: 1. Operating cost is for FY 18/19 ($1,340,667) and 19/20 ($1,360,777). Cost is for existing service and includes operations for one new route. Manteca plans to submit grant to capture funds in one month. It is anticipated there may be cost savings of $300-400K (estimate only) from prior years programmed for operations that can carry over in case these estimates are below actuals. Also, the $800K carryover is no longer reserved for future Manteca stations.

2. City of Ripon's construction cost is ballparked at $7 million. $2 Million is to reserve funds as the City pursues other grant/funding opportunities. The stakeholders in this UZA cooperative plannig process will meet next quarter (September timeframe) to look at the status of City's efforts to move UZA funds forward through a grant led by RTD and whether there is project momentum to justify the reserve.

3. One year of continued service of the Van Go service to Manteca UZA.

4. The 2 Spares have a UZA funding eligibility of $640,000. Only approx $600,000 (rounded) was remaining in the projected apportionment so the shortfall would need to be addressed with other funding.

5. Other needs identified and not funded were as follows: Manteca Maintenanance Facility - cost of $2.6 Million; need more elaboration on scope and tie in with transit use only Van Go - request to use toll credits to 100% fund operations in lieu of 50/50 match and to address future capital/operating needs.

Prepared by: Diane Nguyen, SJCOG Deputy Director TABLE 2 P116

SUMMARY OF DRAFT FUNDING PROPOSAL DISCUSSED AT JUNE 11, 2019 MEETING

Federal Funding Available for the Tracy Urbanized Area (UZA)

Previous Carryover Balance FY 18/19 FY 19/20 $ 2,412,890 $ 2,444,598 $ 2,491,731

GRAND TOTAL: $ 7,349,219

Draft Funding Proposal

Tracer Operating (& Capital Cost of Contracting) for FY 18/19 and 19/20 $ 4,976,732 See Note #1 Tracer Bus Replacement Cost $ 1,700,000 See Note #1 Tracer Operating Cost Deficit for FY 20/21 $ 300,000 See Note #1 Placeholder Funding TBD for SJRTD (Mountainhouse & Van Go) and SJRRC (Tracy ACE Station Improvements) $ 372,487 See Note #2 GRAND TOTAL: $ 7,349,219

Notes:

1. Funding identified for City of Tracy's transit system may have cost savings if actual costs needs are lower and if City secures other grant funds for capital replacement buses. Should there be savings in the above-identified UZA funds, City of Tracy will propose how savings should be reprogrammed for consideration by all stakeholders in the cooperative process.

2. At the time of the June 11th meeting, neither the Mountainhouse Transit Service nor the Van Go serving Tracy had completed its first year of operations. Next step is -- in 3 months (early September), a status report on ridership and expended costs will be shared with all stakeholders. From this information in Sept., it will be determined what is the best date to reconvene to discuss the placeholder funding. Topics include: Mountainhouse/Van Go service continuation (?), consolidating/eliminating service (?), future needs for year 2 (?) Discussion also will include funding needs, if any, for Tracy Station Improvements which is anticipated to have a better engineering estimate within 6 months. A target date to reconvene could be as early as Fall 2019 and no later than December 2019.

Material Prepared by: Diane Nguyen, Deputy Director, SJCOG