The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About06 June 01, 2012 SR-91 Advisory AGENDA State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Page 1 of 4 Committee Members Bill Campbell, OCTA, Chairman Bob Magee, RCTC, Vice Chairman Jerry Amante, OCTA Bob Buster, RCTC Carolyn V. Cavecche, OCTA Lorri Galloway, OCTA Michael Hennessey, OCTA Berwin Hanna, RCTC Karen Spiegel, RCTC John Tavaglione, RCTC Ed Graham, SANBAG, Ex-Officio Ron Roberts, RCTC, Alternate Orange County Transportation Authority Headquarters 600 South Main Street, First Floor - Room 154 Orange, California Friday, June 1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting should contact the OCTA Clerk of the Board, telephone (714) 560-5676, no less than two (2) business days prior to this meeting to enable OCTA to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. Agenda descriptions are intended to give members of the public a general summary of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Com mittee may take any action which it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. All documents relative to the items referenced in this agenda are available for public inspection at www.octa.net or through the Clerk of the Board’s office at the OCTA Headquarters, 600 South Main Street, Orange, California. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Member Buster 1. Public Comments Special Calendar There are no Special Calendar matters. AGENDA State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Page 2 of 4 Consent Calendar (Items 2 through 5) All items on the Consent Calendar are to be approved in one motion unless a Committee Member or a member of the public requests separate action or discussion on a specific item. 2. Approval of Minutes Of the March 2, 2012, State Route 91 Advisory Committee meeting. 3. Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Account Management Software System Kirk Avila, General Manager of 91 Express Lanes, Orange County Transportation Authority Overview In July 2009, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) entered into an amended agreement for Cofiroute to develop, build, design, implement, install and maintain a new back-office/account management system for the 91 Express Lanes. Cofiroute developed and installed the Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) system on June 19, 2011. In December 2011, an agreement was executed between the OCTA and Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, and Associates P.C., to conduct a s ystem performance audit of RAMS. A copy of the staff report regarding the results of the performance audit to the Board of Directors is attached. Recommendation Receive and file as an information item. 4. 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Kirk Avila, General Manager of 91 Express Lanes, Orange County Transportation Authority Overview On April 9, 2012, the Orange County Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors approved extending the current lease for the 91 Express Lanes office in Anaheim. The existing lease expires on June 30, 2012. The leased space accommodates the traffic operations center, data center, and administrative offices. Staff retained the brokerage services of CB Richard Ellis to negotiate with the landlord, FKC Properties, Inc, for a five -year extension. A copy of the staff report recommending the lease extension to the Board of Directors is attached. AGENDA State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Page 3 of 4 4. (Continued) Recommendation Receive and file as an information item. 5. 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Kirk Avila, General Manager of 91 Express Lanes, Orange County Transportation Authority Overview The 91 Express Lanes status reports for the months of February 2012 through April 2012 have been prepared for State Route 91 Advisory Committee review. The reports highlight operational and financial activities. Recommendation Receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports for the months of February 2012 through April 2012. Regular Calendar 6. Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Alison Army, Senior Transportation Analyst, Orange County Transportation Authority Overview The Orange County Transportation Authority annually prepares a long-range plan for improvements along the State Route 91 corridor between State Route 57 and Interstate 15 in Riverside County. The plan includes a listing of potential improvements, preliminary cost estimates, and implementation time frames. The Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan is provided for review and approval. Recommendation Approve the Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. AGENDA State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Page 4 of 4 Discussion Items 7. General Manager’s Report 8. Committee Members' Reports 9. Adjournment The next regularly scheduled meeting of this Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, August 3, 2012, at the City of Corona – City Hall, Council Chambers, First Floor, 400 South Vicentia, Corona, California. MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting March 2, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Committee Members Present Bob Magee, RCTC, Vice Chair Jerry Amante, OCTA Carolyn V. Cavecche, OCTA Lorri Galloway, OCTA Berwin Hanna, RCTC Karen Spiegel, RCTC John Tavaglione, RCTC Ed Graham, SANBAG, Ex-Officio Cindy Quon, Caltrans Dist. 12, Ex-Officio Ron Roberts, RCTC, Alternate Staff Present Will Kempton, OCTA, Chief Executive Officer John Standiford, RCTC, Deputy Executive Director for Anne Mayer, RCTC, Executive Director Kirk Avila, OCTA, General Manager of 91 Express Lanes Laurena Weinert, OCTA, Assistant Clerk of the Board Allison Cheshire, OCTA, Deputy Clerk of the Board Kennard R. Smart, Jr., OCTA, General Counsel Steve DeBaun, RCTC, Legal Counsel Committee Members Absent Bill Campbell, OCTA, Chair Bob Buster, RCTC Shawn Nelson, OCTA Ray W. Wolfe, Caltrans Dist. 8, Ex-Officio Call to Order The March 2, 2012, regular meeting of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee was called to order by Committee Chair Spiegel at 9:05 a.m. at the City of Corona – City Hall, Council Chambers – First Floor, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California. Pledge of Allegiance Member Cavecche led in the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. Public Comments No public comments were received. Special Calendar 2. Election of New State Route 91 Advisory Committee Chair Committee Chair Spiegel opened nominations for the office of Committee Chair. A motion was made by Member Cavecche, seconded by Member Magee, and declared passed by those present, to approve Bill Campbell as the Committee Chair for the State Route 91 Advisory Committee. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting March 2, 2012 Page 2 of 5 3. Election of New State Route 91 Advisory Committee Vice Chair Since Committee Chair Campbell was absent, previous Chair Spiegel opened nominations for the office of Committee Vice Chair. A motion was made by Member Hanna, seconded by Member Tavaglione, and declared passed by those present, to approve Bob Magee as the Committee Vice Chair for the State Route 91 Advisory Committee. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. Newly-elected Committee Vice Chair Magee served as the Chairman for th e balance of this meeting. Consent Calendar (Items 4 through 8) 4. Approval of Minutes – August 5, 2011 A motion was made by Member Hanna, seconded by Member Galloway, and declared passed by those present, to approve minutes of the August 5, 2011, meeting. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. 5. Approval of Minutes – December 16, 2011 A motion was made by Member Hanna, seconded by Member Galloway, and declared passed by those present, to approve minutes of the December 16, 2011, meeting. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. 6. Proposed State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Calendar for the Year 2012 A motion was made by Member Hanna, seconded by Member Galloway, and declared passed by those present, to adopt the 2012 State Route 91 Advisory Committee meeting calendar. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting March 2, 2012 Page 3 of 5 7. 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports A motion was made by Member Hanna, seconded by Member Galloway, and declared passed by those present, to receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports for the months of July 2011 through January 2012. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. 8. Fiscal Year 2010-11 91 Express Lanes Annual Financial Statements A motion was made by Member Hanna, seconded by Member Galloway, and declared passed by those present, to receive and file the fiscal year 2010 -11 91 Express Lanes Annual Financial Statement. Member Roberts was not present to vote on this item. Regular Calendar There were no Regular Calendar matters. Discussion Items 9. State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project Update Michael Blomquist, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), presented an update on the State Route (SR) 91 Corridor Improvement Projects, as follows: RCTC 91 Express Lanes update: o Agencies agreements o Federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant award o Draft environmental document timelines o Public Hearing was held in June 9, 2011 o Measure A and loan Fitch Ratings o Property acquisitions o Reviewing advancing the design-build procurement o Caltrans and RCTC design-build and toll facilities agreements o Environmental approval SR-91/SR-71 Interchange Project update: o Scope and schedule o Funding and costs There was no additional discussion by staff and the Members. MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting March 2, 2012 Page 4 of 5 10. 91 Express Lanes Toll Gantry Update Myung Park, OCTA Information Systems Project Manager, 91 Express Lanes, provided an update on the 91 Express Lanes toll gantry replacement project. The current gantry system needs to be replaced due to the general purpose lane additions on State Route 91 in the same area. The project is scheduled for completion in April of this year. Member Quon reiterated the weekend closures and that Caltrans District 8 and 12, and OCTA are collaborating with the outreach efforts to the SR-91 corridor users regarding the closures and detours. Ms. Quon also thanked the cities of Corona and Riverside for the email commuter alert blast. Member Galloway inquired as to the look of the new gantry signs. Mr. Park responded and showed slide 14 of the PowerPoint on how the new signs will look. 11. General Manager’s Report General Manager of 91 Express Lanes, Kirk Avila, reported that: The general purpose lanes widening on SR-91 corridor between the SR-241 and SR-71 opened in December 2010 and since then traffic volumes on the 91 Express Lanes declined for 13 straight months. In January 2012, traffic volumes increased 0.8 percent for the first time in over a year compared to the same period in 2011. First 25 days in February 2012, traff ic volumes increased by three percent. Toll revenues are still lower than the prior year because of the various toll decreases in 2011. The recent increase in traffic volumes could decrease over the next several months, due to the increase in gasoline prices. 12. Committee Members’ Reports There were no Committee Members' reports. MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting March 2, 2012 Page 5 of 5 13. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of this Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 1, 2012, at the OCTA Headquarters, Board Room – First Floor, 600 South Main Street, Orange, California. ATTEST Laurena Weinert OCTA Assistant Clerk of the Board Bob Magee Committee Vice Chair ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Account Management Software System Staff Report Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) June 1, 2012 To: State Route 91 Advisory Committee From: Kirk Avila, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes Subject: Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Account Management Software System Overview In July 2009, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) entered into an amended agreement for Cofiroute to develop, build, design, implement, install and maintain a new back-office/account management system for the 91 Express Lanes. Cofiroute developed and installed the Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) system on June 19, 2011. In December 2011, an agreement was executed between the OCTA and Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, and Associates P.C., to conduct a system performance audit of RAMS. A copy of the staff report regarding the results of the performance audit to the Board of Directors is attached. Recommendation Receive and file as an information item. Attachment A. Performance Audit of the Revenue and Account Management Software System Item to the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors meeting dated May 25, 2012. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Account Management Software System Attachment A ATTACHMENT A OCTA May 23, 2012 To: From: Will Kempton, Chj Subject: Overview Finance and Administration Committe Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Account Management Software System A performance audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Account Management Software system has been completed by Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, & Associates, P.C. Based on the procedures performed, controls over transaction processing are adequate, resulting in accurate and complete reporting of financial transactions to the Orange County Transportation Authority. The report offered five recommendations to improve internal controls. Recommendation Direct staff to implement recommendations in the Performance Audit of the Revenue and Account Management Software System. Background In December 2011, the Internal Audit Department of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) contracted with Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, & Associates, P.C. (TCBA) to conduct a system performance audit of the Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) system, which was developed and is currently being operated and maintained by Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute). Discussion TCBA conducted a performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards and relevant best practices. The primary objectives of the RAMS system audit was to test the system for integrity and accuracy, assess the adequacy of system security, and validate that the system provided met the requirements of the agreement between OCTA and Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/ P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Page 2 Account Management Software System Cofiroute. Overall, TCBA concluded that controls over transaction processing are adequate; however, five recommendations were made to further enhance internal controls, TCBA noted that Cofiroute does not provide OCTA with a Service Organization Controls (SOC) report, as recommended by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (ALCPA) in Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) 16. These reports include a detailed description of system controls, along with a written assertion by management of the service organization, that the environment exists as described in the report. In an SOC Type II report, an independent accounting firm will provide an opinion as to whether the description of the system is fairly stated by management, whether the controls are suitably designed, and whether the controls were operating effectively during the period under review. TCBA recommended that Cofiroute consider conducting an SSAE 16 engagement and making the results available to OCTA. Cofiroute responded that, while recommended by the AJCPA, this is not a mandatory requirement, and the benefits of such a report do not justify the cost to Cofiroute. However, Cofiroute agreed to enter negotiations with OCTA specific to this goal. OCTA management indicated that an amendment to the Cofiroute agreement would be negotiated to include a requirement for Cofiroute to provide a SOC, Type H report and periodic updates. With respect to system change control procedures, Cofiroute had not yet developed and documented "major" versus "minor" source code changes. Because major source code changes are usually processed differently and require a different level of testing, TCBA recommended that Cofiroute develop descriptions of each and outline the requirements for implementing each type of change. Cofiroute responded that policies and procedures have been updated to include this information. Also, Cofiroute had not yet performed a risk assessment for the RAMS system. A formal documented risk assessment outlines and ranks vulnerable areas within a system and provides a mechanism for management to ensure high -risk areas are addressed before low -risk areas. Management responded that a risk assessment will be performed prior to the end of the fiscal year. Employees working in the 91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center (CSC) have access to customer credit card numbers throughout the day. TCBA recommended, in accordance with best practices, that Cofiroute consider enhancing controls to restrict or limit CSC employees' ability to record and remove credit card information by installing security cameras and/or requiring staff to store personal belongings in lockers outside the area. Cofiroute Performance Audit of the 91 Express Lanes Revenue and Page 3 Account Management Software System responded that enhanced controls will be discussed with OCTA management and implemented as deemed appropriate. Finally, TCBA noted that OCTA management is not involved in the periodic review and approval of RAMS system user access. Specifically, TCBA recommended that, since OCTA is the data owner, OCTA management should be included in the process for evaluating the appropriateness of users assigned access privileges in the RAMS system. Cofiroute management agreed to include OCTA management in the quarterly review and approval of RAMS system access privileges. Summary A performance audit of the 91 Express Lanes RAMS system has been completed. TCBA has concluded that system controls are adequate to ensure accurate and complete reporting of financial transactions to OCTA; however, TCBA has provided five recommendations to enhance the control environment. Attachment A. Orange County Transportation Authority Performance Audit of the Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) System Prepared by: Ricca Bonelli Senior Auditor 714-560-5384 Approved by: Janet Sutter Executive Director, Internal Audit 714-560-5591 ATTACHMENT A ORFNGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Performance Audit of the Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) System April 20, 2012 FINAL REPORT TC THOM PSON, COBB, BAZ 1L1© & ASSOCIATES,P.C. Certified Public Accountants 4C. Management Systems and Financial Consultants 21250 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 150 Torrance, CA 90503 PH 310. 792. 4640 . FX 310. 792 4140 . www.tcba.rom Revenue and Account Management Software EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................<......<.<.. METHODOLOGY,...<.......,.... 2 CRITERIA 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ___________ ........................o.. ...... ...... _...... 4 DETAILED AUDIT RESULTS-- ........................ ................... ...... ..... 5 Task One — Testing of System Integrity and Accuracy 5 Task Two — Assessing Adequacy of System Security 8 Task Three — Validating That Deliverables Meet Scope of Work 13 APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT AL REPOPT Revenue read Account Management Software X.ECUTTV RAY The Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Internal Audit Department contracted with Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, & Associates P.C. (TCBA) in December 201 1 to conduct a system performance audit of the Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) system, which was developed and is being operated and maintained by Cofiroute USA (Cofiroute). In July 2009, OCTA and Cofiroute entered into an amended agreement for Cofiroute to develop, build, design, implement, install, and maintain a new primary back office software system to replace OCTA's legacy toll processing system, TollPro. Prior to June 201 1, OCTA utilized TollPro software to manage the 91 Express Lanes. TCBA conducted the performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) and relevant best practices. GAGAS requires that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. TCBA believes that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and recommendations based on the audit objectives. The audit objectives were clearly defined in the Scope of Work for this performance audit. The scope of the audit was captured in the following three tasks: Task 1 - Testing of System Integrity and Accuracy Evaluate and test the accuracy and integrity of the RAMS system and migrated database and ensure that revenues and expenses are being accurately accounted for. Task 2 - Assessing Adequacy of System Security Evaluate and test controls in place to safeguard information against unauthorized use, disclosure, modification, damage or loss. Task 3 - Validating that Deliverables Meet Scope of Work Review and verify that the system provided meets the requirements set forth in the Scope of Work for the RAMS system, including the back office system, public access systems and external interfaces. The three tasks above formed the basis for the audit procedures outlined in the methodology section of this executive summary. The RAMS system was brought online in June of 2011. Our review of the RAMS system included all data from the time the system was brought online in June 2011 through January 201 2. TCBA FINAL REPORT Page Revenue and Account Management Software This section contains the methodology used to assess the RAMS system based on the three tasks outlined above: Observations and Reviews We observed and/or reviewed application of specific control structure activities, including the existence and availability of specific, written control structure policies and procedures, or application of specific control structure activities to ascertain whether current practices comply with applicable standards, control policies and procedures and best practices. We observed numerous operational procedures to determine compliance with applicable standards and best practices. ►nquiry We made inquiries of management and corroborated responses with appropriate operations personnel. We also conducted inquiries of personnel responsible for carrying out distinct control policies and procedures in the specific units and areas, and corroborated responses with other personnel responsible for carrying out these procedures. Our inquiries inc►uded interviews with the third party developer, TollPlus, regarding program controls within the software development process. Examinations and Walk- Throughs We inspected documents and reports addressing design and performance of control techniques, policies, or procedures, and a selection of system input, output and edit reports to ascertain whether controls were operating as described and the control policies and procedures were operating effectively. We also determined whether the transactions and associated reports and de►iverables were prepared, approved, and maintained in accordance with specific control policies and procedures, and evaluated whether the control policies and procedures were operating effectively. Our examination process involved reviewing and analyzing datasets from within the RAMS system (Transactions, Violations). We performed a walk- through of the specific control activities on current data to ascertain whether the control policies and procedures were implemented and operating effectively. Substantive Testing We tested a sample of transactions processed by the RAMS system to ensure accuracy and consistency with the system control structure identified through observations, examinations, and walkthroughs. Transactions were traced from capture by the system through to posting to the OCTA general ledger. TCBA f [NAL REPORT Page 2 Revenue and Account Management Software CRITER To guide our audit and to adequately assess RAMS system performance, our criterion was based on the requirements outlined in the agreement between TCBA and OCTA, industry "Best Practices", the Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT) 4.1, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISI) Special Publications (SP). TCBA used these criteria as the framework for the development of our audit methodology, findings and recommendations. The audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Acceptable Government Auditing Standards. Below is a pictorial representation of the criteria used. Uli1 /i rantawork SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Overall, we found that controls over transaction processing were adequate, resulting in accurate and complete reporting of financial transactions to OCTA. We assessed and tested transactions initiated from inception (reading of the transponder) to reporting by Cofiroute to OCTA's Finance Department. However, we identified the following five (5) findings that we believe, if corrected, will result in improved internal controls: 1. Cofiroute does not provide OCTA with a Service Organization Controls (SOC) report, as recommended by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) in Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) 1 6. 2. There is no formal definition of "major" and "minor" source code changes for the RAMS system. 3. Cofiroute has not yet performed a risk assessment for the RAMS system. 4. RAMS users in Cofiroute's Customer Service Center (CSC) have access to multiple customers' credit cards numbers throughout the business day without the presence of additional preventative or detective control measures (e.g. security cameras or lockers for storage of personal items, including cell phones and/or personal writing material) in accordance with best practices. 5. OCTA does not currently review and sign -off on super users' access to the RAMS system. These findings are discussed in more detail in the Detailed Audit Results section of this report along with our recommendations and management response. Appendix A of the report provides a summary reference table of these five (5) findings, recommendations, and management responses. %KA FINAL REPORT Pezge 3 Revenue and Account tant/gement Software INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In December 201 1, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) contracted with Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, & Associates P.C. (TCBA) to conduct a system performance audit of their Revenue and Account Management Software (RAMS) system, which was developed and is being operated and maintained by Cofiroute USA (Cofiroute). in July 2009, OCTA and Cofiroute entered into an amended agreement for Cofiroute to develop, build, design, implement, install, and maintain a new primary back office software system to replace OCTA's legacy toll processing system, TollPro. Prior to June 201 1, OCTA utilized TollPro software to manage the 91 Express lanes. Cofiroute outsourced the development of the RAMS system to TollPlus. TollPlus developed a customized software package that was formally called the "T-Bos derivative", (meaning a derivative of the original baseline software developed by TollPlus), but it is now called RAMS. In June 2011, the RAMS system was brought online. Cofiroute provides management and operation for the OCTA's 91 Express Lanes using the RAMS system. Cofiroute is responsible for toll calculation, prepaid account management, violations management, customer service, and software management and maintenance. The RAMS system is used to collect and manage over $40 million annually. On June 24, 201 1, Cofiroute certified that the development of the new RAMS software for the 91 Express Lanes was complete, installed, operating in the production environment, and met all the requirements of "Substantial Completion" as agreed to by both parties. TCBA FINAL REPORT Page 4 Revenue (snd Account Mancsgemerwt Software DETAILED AUDIT RESULTS This section contains our detailed audit results. Our audit was conducted using a phased approach, incorporated within the three tasks outlined by OCTA. On This section outlines the methodology, work performed and results of our Testing of System Integrity and Accuracy. Our objective in this task was to determine whether the RAMS system integrity and accuracy is adequate in processing all 91 Express Lanes related data. In order to accomplish this task, TCBA assessed the following five operational areas: 1) data migration, 2) technical documentation, 3) system change controls, 4) accuracy of reporting, and 5) accuracy of transaction processing. Each of these areas is discussed below. 1. Data Migration We evaluated the system implementation and test plans used to load the RAMS system into production. Cofiroute developed these plans in conjunction with TollPlus. We also reviewed migration documents for accuracy and adequacy, verifying whether there were any errors in the data migrated from the old (TollPro) system to the new RAMS system (TollPlus). This migrated data included customer data, trip data, and interoperability files. Results: No exceptions were noted. 2. Technical Documentation We reviewed RAMS system technical and functional documentation for adequacy. This review provided insight into the design and operation of the RAMS system. We focused our assessment on applicable system components, namely the Message Queue (MQ)1, Financial Management Control (FMC), and the Customer Service Center (CSC). 1 MO is a messaging protocol that allows applications running on separate servers to communicate in a failsafe manner. TCEA. FINAL REPORT Puce Revenue and Account Management Software Results: No exceptions were noted, however, we made one recommendation as follows: Finding No. 1 — Cofiroute Should Provide a Service Organization Controls Report Cofiroute does not provide OCTA with a Service Organization Controls (SOC) report as recommended by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) In Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) 1 6. The AICPA issued SSAE 16 in 2010 and it became effective on June 15, 2011. One of the most effective ways a service organization such as Cofiroute can communicate information about its controls is through a Service Organization Controls (SOC) Report. SSAE 16 describes three types of SOC Reports; SOC 1, 2 and 3. A SOC 2 report describes the overall operating environment; related system controls and includes written assertion by management that the environment exists as stated within the SOC Report. Recommendation We recommend that Cofiroute consider conducting its own SSAE 16 attestation engagement and make the resulting SOC 1, Type 2 report available to OCTA and their auditors. Cofiroute's Management Response: We concur that Cofiroute has not performed an SSAE Attestation Engagement. The performance of an SSAE Attestation Engagement is recommended by the AICPA for service organizations, but is not mandatory. We do not believe an SSAE Attestation Engagement would be of significant enough benefit to Cofiroute to justify the cost. However, if OCTA desires Cofiroute to perform an SSAE Attestation Engagement specific to the 91 Express Lanes environment, and make the resulting SOC 1, Type 2 report available to OCTA for review, Cofiroute is willing to enter into negotiations with OCTA specific to this goal. Making such a report available to "...other applicable third parties" would need to be considered on a case by case basis. OCTA's Management Response: OCTA's current agreement for operational services on the 91 Express Lanes with Cofiroute does not require providing a SOC 1, Type 2 report. OCTA will negotiate an amendment to the Cofiroute agreement requiring Cofiroute to provide a SOC 1, Type 2 report and to provide periodic updates. 3. System Change Control TollPlus has developed a custom application for Cofiroute and continues to provide updates and fixes through changes to the programming of the software. Whenever a system change is made, it is tested by TollPlus and migrated to the test environment at Cofiroute where the changes are evaluated. Once approved, these changes are applied to production. We were able to review the coding standards and code review methodologies used by TollPlus in developing and testing programming changes to the RAMS system software. TCBA FINAL REPORT Page 6 Revenue and Account Management SoFtw re Results: Finding No. 2 - Change Control Procedures Could be Improved There is no formal definition of "major" and "minor" source code changes for the RAMS system. During our fieldwork, we discovered that there is not a common understanding of what constitutes "major" or "minor" change to the RAMS system and the relative testing that should be performed. The criteria used for this finding is NISI 800-53 CM -3 Configuration Change Control, which states that the organization should: a. Determine the types of changes to the information system that are configuration controlled; b. Approve configuration -controlled changes to the system with explicit consideration for security impact; c. Document approved configuration -controlled changes to the system; d. Retain and review records of configuration -controlled changes to the system; e. Audit activities associated with configuration -controlled changes to the system; and f. Coordinate and provide oversight for configuration change control activities. "Major" changes are typically processed differently from "minor" changes and the distinction should be clear. Recommendation We recommend that Cofiroute develop descriptions for "major" and "minor" changes and define the required level of testing for each type of change. Cofiroute"s Management Response: We concur. Although Cofiroute does have a schema to distinguish between major and minor changes, such distinction was not specifically included in the relevant IT Policy and Procedure, Configuration Management version 1.0. Cofiroute has since updated the relevant IT Policy and Procedure and such update is included in Configuration Management version 2.0. 4. Accuracy of Reporting During the initial launch of the RAMS system, there were reconciling issues that caused discrepancies in transactions reported to OCTA. These reconciling issues have since been resolved and Cofiroute resolves issues as they arise. Results: Currently there are several small dollar reconciling items that appear in each month's report to OCTA. Both Cofiroute and OCTA are aware of these reconciling items. These small reconciling items are due to processing time differences. In order to better track the reconciliations, Cofiroute has agreed to provide daily reconciliation reports outlining each day's anomalies with each monthly entry. TCBA FINAL REPORT Page 7 Revenue and Account Management Software 5. Accuracy of Transactions One of the more important steps in completing Task One was ensuring that the system is accurately and completely processing transactions from beginning to end. The life cycle of each transaction starts at the recording of license plates or transponders in the 91 Express Canes. This information is then forwarded to the RAMS system for processing. After processing, Cofiroute prepares journal entries and forwards these to OCTA for recording. To verify the accuracy of transactions, we selected a random sample of 45 transactions using our Data Analysis tool, IDEA. Our sample included both regular toll transactions and violations processing. The regular toll samples were stratified according to pricing; i.e., we selected 4 days and selected the off-peak, mid -peak and peak times for each of those days. We also tested both east bound and west bound lanes. We tested regular customer accounts as well as interoperability agencies' accounts. For violations, we retrieved all violations captured since inception of the system and randomly selected a sample for testing. Sampling guidelines are based on guidance found in the U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) Financial Audit Manua! (FAM), Volume 1, Sections 450 to 480. The FAM provides sampling guidance for large populations (Le. occurring daily or multiple times per day) using a 90% confidence level. A 90% confidence level gives the assurance that the tester can be 90% confident that the sample reflects results of the population. We verified that each transaction was accurately recorded and processed in the RAMS system and was recorded by OCTA. All 45 transactions were accurately processed by the RAMS system. In addition, we conducted a drive -through test using an actual transponder to test processing through the system. We tested the transaction from the gantry through to Cofiroute's RAMS system. We verified that the transaction was recorded in OCTA's general ledger. Results: No exceptions were noted. e s This section outlines the work performed on Assessing the Adequacy of System Security. For this task, TCBA's objective was to properly assess the general and application controls surrounding the RAMS system. We reviewed policies and procedures, conducted a data center walkthrough, and reviewed access controls (physical and logical). Our objective in this task was to determine whether the RAMS system has adequate system security. In order to accomplish this task, TCBA assessed the following seven areas: 1) IT security plan, 2) access controls, 3) security change control, 4) configuration management, 5) encryption standards, 6) correction of system flaws, and 7) system maintenance. Each of these areas is discussed below. 1. IT Security Plan TOE.A TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that all RAMS -related information systems are documented in the Information Technology Security Plan (ITSP), and that it includes requirements to assess security risks periodically, establish a security management structure, clearly assign security responsibilities, implement effective security -related personnel policies, monitor FINAL ?EPORF Page 8 Revenue and Account Management Software the security programs effectiveness and ensure security officer training, employee security awareness, business security needs, and segregation of application user activity from system administrator activity. TCBA confirmed that the ITSP was approved by the appropriate Cofiroute officials and that Cofiroute's management periodically assesses the appropriateness of the ITSP. Results: Finding No. 3 - A Formal Risk Assessment Should be Performed Cofiroute has not performed a risk assessment for the RAMS system. The criteria used for this finding is NIST 800-53 — RA -1 Risk Assessment Policy and Procedures which dictates that the organization develop, disseminate, and review/update: a. A formal, documented risk assessment policy that addresses purpose, scope, roles, responsibilities, management commitment, coordination among organizational entities, and compliance; and b. Formal, documented procedures to facilitate the implementation of the risk assessment policy and associated risk assessment controls. In addition, a risk assessment is considered a best practice for all major IT systems. A risk assessment documents the vulnerable areas within a system or operations. This process is the first step in the risk management life cycle. The risk assessment's process and resulting report provide the opportunity for management to address the high -risk areas before spending time and resources on low -risk areas. The RAMS system was implemented less than a year ago and Cofiroute's management has not yet performed a risk assessment. Recommendation We recommend that Cofiroute perform a risk assessment of the RAMS system before the end of the first anniversary of the RAMS implementation. Cofiroute's Management Response: We agree and will perform a risk assessment as a part of Purchase Card Industry (PCI) Compliance activities to be conducted prior to the end of the fiscal year. Finding No. 4 - Preventative Control Measures Can be Improved RAMS users in Cofiroute's Customer Service Center (CSC) have access to multiple customers' credit cards numbers throughout the business day without the presence of additional preventative or detective control measures (e.g., security cameras or lockers for storage of personal items, including cell phones and/or personal writing material) in accordance with best practices. Best practices dictate that management restrict or limit CSC employees' ability to record and remove Personally Identifiable Information (P11) or other sensitive information including credit card numbers. Currently, Customer Service Representatives are allowed to have their personal items such as pocketbooks and cell phones in their possession while assisting customers and interfacing with RAMS and there are no security cameras in place. TCBA FtNAt REPORT Page 9 Revenue and Account Managerrien4 Software Recommendation We recommend that management consider implementing preventative or detective control measures in accordance with best practices. Cofiroute's Management Response: We concur. Cofiroute will discuss appropriate controls with OCTA and implement as applicable. 2. Access Controls TCBA verified through interview with Cofiroute management and review of supporting documentation that policies and procedures have been established to determine and review access to information systems. Security agreements were required to be signed by employees and contractors assigned to work with mission critical information, prior to them gaining access to systems. TCBA also obtained the supporting documentation and confirmed that Cofiroute developed formal transfer procedures, and that the procedures addressed the following: Re -issuing appropriate organizational information system -related property (e.g., keys, identification cards, building passes); b. Notification to security management; c. Closing obsolete accounts and establishing new accounts; and d. Revocation of all information systems access privileges (if applicable), Results: Finding No. 5 - Access Controls Over RAMS Could be Improved OCTA does not currently review and sign -off on super users' access to the RAMS system. OCTA is the data owner and should implement monitoring controls to safeguard RAMS data. Cofiroute has implemented an approval process for all RAMS users, however, super users are not reviewed periodically by OCTA. The criteria used to determine this finding is NIST 800-53 (AC -2 (7)) which states that the organization should: a. Establish and administer privileged user accounts in accordance with a role -based access scheme that organizes information system and network privileges into roles; and b. Track and monitor privileged role assignments. Privileged roles include, for example, key management, network and system administration, database administration, and web administration. TCBA fINA.f{EPORT Page 10 Revenue and Account Management Software OCTA does not actively participate in periodically reviewing super users of the RAMS system. In this case, super users are defined as administrators and power users. This situation increases the risk of inappropriate access and activity. Recommendation We recommend that OCTA and Cofiroute develop and implement a procedure to periodically review and monitor super users' access profiles and activity within RAMS. Cofiroute's Management Response: Cofiroute is contractually obligated to manage the 91 Express Lanes operation including providing a secure, protected environment for customer confidential data. Accordingly, Cofiroute is careful to ensure only highly trained, competent IT professionals are granted super user access. We agree that access controls over RAMS would be strengthened if OCTA is included in Cofiroute's quarterly review of access privileges. Accordingly, Cofiroute will update the appropriate policy and procedure to provide OCTA with a current list of users with privileged access on a regular basis for review, discussion, and approval. 3. Security Change Control TCBA obtained supporting documentation and confirmed that Cofiroute performs a security impact analysis prior to approving changes to security features. TCBA verified that security changes were checked after the changes were made to confirm the features were still functioning as intended, We confirmed through inquiry and a review of supporting documentation that management is considering the impact of changes to internal controls. Results: No exceptions were noted. 4. Configuration Management TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of documentation that Cofiroute develops and documents configuration management policy and procedures. Policies and procedures are reviewed and/or updated every 365 days. We confirmed through inquiry and review of documentation that policies and procedures are in place governing documented baseline configurations. TCBA inspected policies and procedures over baseline configurations, and determined that the procedures address the following: a. Responsible parties for creation, update, review and approval; b. Processes for updating the baseline configuration, if necessary; and c. Identification and documentation of exceptions; We also verified that current configuration management policies and procedures address the following: a. Responsible parties for creation, update, review, and approval; TCBA FINAL REPORT Revenue card Account Management Software b. Process for updating the baseline configuration, if necessary; c. Identification and documentation of exceptions; d. Systems are configured in compliance with the documented baselines; e. Configuration monitoring tools used; f. How often reviews are performed; and g. Follow up on identified misconfigurations. Results: No exceptions were noted. 5. Encryption Standards TCBA verified through inquiry and review of documentation that the encryption standards in the RAMS system meet approved (NIST validated module) encryption standards. We verified through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that policies and procedures exist to properly dispose of data. TCBA confirmed that data stored in the information system k protected with system access controls and is encrypted when residing in non -secure areas. Results: No exceptions were noted. 6. Correction of System Flaws TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that Cofiroute used a test environment to test information system patches, services packs, and hot fixes for effectiveness and potential side effects before installation. We confirmed through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that flaws rated cis High severity are corrected within seven (7) calendar days; Medium severity within fifteen (15) calendar days; and all others within thirty (30) calendar days. Results: No exceptions were noted. 7. System Maintenance TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of documentation that Cofiroute develops and documents information system maintenance policy and procedures. We verified that policies and procedures are reviewed/updated every 365 days. We confirmed through inquiry and review of documentation that Cofiroute has regularly scheduled system maintenance addressing critical aspects of hardware and software maintenance. TCEA FENAL REPORT Page Revenue a d Account Ma Results: No exceptions were noted. ge nt Software Task Three. This section outlines the work done to Validate Deliverables Meet the RAMS System Scope of Work. For this task, TCBA's objective was to validate that the RAMS system meets the requirements set forth in the Scope of Work. Our review included review of relevant documentation including Cofiroute's contract with OCTA, Cofiroute's RAMS system policies and procedures, a data center walk-through, and test results from Tasks One and Two. In order to accomplish this task, TCBA assessed the following nine areas: 1) completeness of transaction processing, 2) identification of trips, 3) policies and procedures, 4) toll calculations, 5) interface verification, 6) RAMS data retrieval, 7) interoperability verification, 8) violations processing, and 9) PCI compliance. Each of these areas is discussed below. 1. Completeness of Transaction Processing TCBA confirmed that the RAMS system processes for retrieving trip data from transponder and license plate reads are complete and provide the functionality required by the Scope of Work. We reviewed documentation and interviewed appropriate Cofiroute staff to understand the process. We performed walk-throughs to verify the process. We reviewed the testing results from Tasks One and Two as they relate to transactions and violations processing. Results: No exceptions were noted. 2. Identification of Trips TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that the RAMS process of identifying trips belonging to 91 Express Lanes customers with valid accounts, and interoperability customers listed on the interoperability file, are operating as intended. We reviewed documentation and interviewed appropriate Cofiroute staff to understand the process. We performed walk-throughs and testing to verify the process. Results: No exceptions were noted. 3. Policies and Procedures TCBA obtained and inspected Cofiroute's policies and procedures related to the delivery of the RAMS system. We performed walk-throughs of the transactions processing, violations processing, CSC operations, data center operations and financial reporting. We reviewed documentation and interviewed appropriate Cofiroute staff to understand the process. We performed walk-throughs to verify the processes and to determine compliance with the signed agreement between Cofiroute and OCTA, applicable standards and best practices. Results: Refer to report findings 1 through 5 above. TCBA FINAL REPORT Account Management Software 4. Toll Calculations TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that the RAMS system process calculated tolls accurately. We reviewed documentation and interviewed Cofiroute staff to understand the process. We performed a walk-through to verify the process and conducted substantive testing of transactions. Results: No exceptions were noted. 5. Interface Verification TCBA confirmed through inquiry and review of supporting documentation that the RAMS interface process with the customer service telephone system, the 91 Express Lanes website, and the systems of other interoperability agencies are working as intended. We reviewed documentation and interviewed Cofiroute staff to understand the process. We performed a walk-through and testing to verify the process. Results: No exceptions were noted. 6. RAMS Data Retrieval TCBA obtained the population of trip data for the period of our review and, for a sample of trip data, verified that RAMS accurately retrieved data from transponders and license plate reads. Results: No exceptions were noted. 7. Interoperability Verification For a population of 91 Express Lanes customers, TCBA verified that they are not listed on the list of interoperability customers. For the population of interoperability customers, TCBA verified that they are not on the list of 91 Express Lanes customers. Results: No exceptions were noted. 8. Violations Processing From the population of the list of possible violators for the period of our review, TCBA verified that the possible violators are not on the list of 91 Express Lanes customers or the interoperability file. Results: No exceptions were noted. 9. PCI Compliance TCBA reviewed all available Purchase Card Industry (PCI) documentation including the Self - Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) prepared by Cofiroute. We interviewed relevant Cofiroute TCBA FINAL REPORT Page 14 Revenue and Account Management Software personnel regarding PCI compliance. Our review of relevant documentation and discussions with key stakeholders were limited to the components and processes provided by Cofiroute regarding PCI compliance. We reviewed the results of our data center walk-through in relation to PCI compliance. Results: No exceptions were noted. TCBA FINAL REPORT Page 5 Reve nu e and Accou nt Mctn agDmerat Softwar e APPENDIX A — SUM ARY OF FINDINGS, REC OMMENDATI ONS, AND MANA GEMENT RESP ONSES FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 1. Cofiro ute Should Provid e a Servic e Orga niz atio n Co ntrols We recommend th at Cofiro ute Manaagement R esponse: We concur Report Cofiroute consider that Cofiroute USA has not performed an SSAE conducting its own Att est ation Engagement_ The performanc e of an Cofiroute doe s not prov ide OCT A with a Servic e Organi zation SSAE 16 attest atio n SS AE Attestation Engageme nt is r ecommended Controls (SOC) repo rt as recommend ed by the American institute of engag ement and m ak e by the AICPA for service organizati ons, but is Certified Public Accou ntan ts (AICPA) in Statem ent on St and ards for th e r esulti ng SOC I, not mand atary . We do not belie ve an SSAE A ttestation Engagements (SSAE) 16. Type 2 report Att estati on Engagement would be of significant availabl e to OCTA enough benefit to C ofiroute USA to justify th e cost. H ow ever, if OCTA desires Cofiroute USA to The A ICPA issued SSAE 16 in 2010 and it became effective on Ju ne and th eir a uditors. perform an SSAE Attestati on Eng agem ent 15, 2011. One of the most effe ctive ways a servic e organization, such as Cofiroute , can communica te information about its contr ols is specific to the 91 Express Lan es environm ent, and mak e the r esulting SOC 1, Type 2 report through a Service Organization Controls (SOC) Report. SSAE 16 av ail able to OCTA for re view, C ofiroute US A is describe s thre e types of SOC Repo rts; SOC 1, 2 an d 3. A SOC 2 willing to enter into negotiations with OCTA report describe s the overa ll operating environment; related system specific to this g oal. Making such a r eport contro ls and includes written a sse rtion by manage ment that the available to "...other applicabl e third parti es" e nvironment exists as state d within the SO C Re port. would need to be considered on a case by case b asis . OCTA M anag em ent R esp ons e: OCTA's curr ent agreement for operati onal services on the 91 Express Lanes with Cofirout e d oes not require pr oviding a SOC 1, Type 2 r ep ort . OCTA will negotiate an ame ndm ent to the Cofirout e agr eement requiring C ofirute to provide a SOC 1, Typ e 2 r eport and to provide periodic updates . TCEA FINAL REPORT Page 16 Rev enue and Acc ount Man ageme nt Softw re FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 2. Change C ontr ol Pr oc edur es Could be Improved We recommend that Cofir out e Ma nagement R espons e: We concur. Cofir oute d evel op Although Cofirout e USA does hav e a sch em a to There is no formal defi nition of "m ajor" and "minor" s ource cod e cha nges fo r the RAMS syst em. Duri ng our fieldw ork, we discover ed d escripti ons for =m aj or" and "min or " distinguish between major and min or chang es, s uch distinctio n was riot sp ecific ally included in tha t there is not a common und erstanding of what constitutes "m aj or" or "minor" chan ges to RAMS and the r el ative testing that should be ch ang es and th e required l evel of th e relev ant IT Policy and Procedur e, Configur ation M anagement versi on l .fl. pe rfo rme d. testing for each type Cofir oute has since updated the relevant IT The criteria use d for this finding is NISI 800-53 CM -3 Configuration of change. Policy and Proc edure and such updat e is Change Control which dictates that the organizati on: included in Configuration Manag em ent version a. De termine the types of changes to the information syst em that a re co nfigura tion contro lled; b. Approv e configuration -co ntrolled changes to the system with explicit consideration fo r se curity impact; c. Do cume nt a ppro ved configuration -co ntrolled chang es to th e syste m; d. Reta in and review records of co nfiguration -controlled ch anges to the syste m; e. Audit activities associated with configura tion -controlled changes to the system; and f. Coordin ate and prov ide ove rsight for configura tio n change con tro l a ctivities. 2 .0 . "Major" change s are u sually processe d diffe re ntly from "mino r" changes a nd the distinction should be clear. 3. A Formal Risk Asse ssment Shou ld be Performed We re commend that Cofir oute M an agement Respo nse: We agr ee Cofiro ute perform a and will perform risk assessm ent as a p art of PCI Co firoute has not performe d a risk assessment for the RAMS system. risk assessment of Compli anc e acti vities to be conducted prior to the The criteria used for this finding is NISI 800-53 — RA -1 Risk RAMS be fore the first end of th e fiscal y ear. Asse ssme nt Po licy a nd Proce dures which dictates tha t the anniversary of RAMS orga niza tion de velop, disseminate, a nd review/update: a. A formal, documen ted risk assessment policy that addresse s purpose, sco pe, role s, responsibilitie s, mana geme nt commitme nt, coo rdination among organiza tional e ntities, and compliance; and implementation . TCBA F It, =A REPORT Page 17 Reven ue and Account Ma nag em ent S oftw ar e FINDINGS REC OMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESPONSE b. Formal, documented procedures to facilit ate the implem ent ation of the risk assessment policy and associ ated risk assessment co ntrols. In a dditio n, a risk assessm ent is c onsidered a best practic e for all major IT syste ms. A risk ass essment docum ents the vulnerable areas within a system or ope rations . This process is the first step in the risk ma na gemen t life cycle. The risk ass essme nt's proc ess a nd resulting re po rt provide the opportunity for m an agem ent to address high -risk a reas befo re spe nding time a nd resources on l ow -risk ar eas. The RAMS system was impleme nted less th an a ye ar ag o and Cofiroute 's management has not yet pe rformed a risk assessment. 4. Pre ventative Control Measure s Can be Improv ed RAMS use rs in Cofiroute 's Custo me r Service Center (CSC) hav e access to multiple custo mers' cre dit ca rds numbers throughout th e business day without the pre sence of a dditio na l preventative or dete ctive control me asure s (e .g., security came ras or lockers for storage of personal items, including cell phones an d/or personal writing mate rial) in a ccordance with best pra ctice s. Best practice s dicta te that management restrict or limit CSC employe es' ability to re cord and remove Pe rsona lly Identifiable Informa tio n (P11) or other sensitiv e information including credit card numbers. Currently, Custome r Service Re prese nta tives are allowe d to have the ir perso nal items such as pocke tbo oks a nd cell pho nes in their possessio n while a ssisting custo me rs and interfa cing with RAMS a nd the re a re no se curity cameras in place. We r ecommend that management consider implementing preventative or d etective contr ol meas ures in accordance with best practic es. Cofiroute Man agement Response: We concur_ Cofiroute will discuss appr opri at e c ontrols with OCTA and impl ement cis applicable . 5. Acce ss Con trols Ov er RAMS Could be Improved OCTA does n ot currently review and sign -off on supe r users' We reco mmend tha t OCTA and Co firoute deve lop and Cofiroute Man agem ent Response: Cofiroute is contractu ally obligat ed to manage th e 91 Express Lanes operation i ncluding providing a TCBA. FINAL REPORT Pag e 1 B Reve nue sand Acco unt M 0sg era FINDINGS REC OMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESP ONSE access to the RAMS system. OCTA is th e d ata own er and sh ould impl ement a s ecur e, protected environment for cust omer imple ment monitoring controls to saf eg uard RAMS dat a. Cofiroute procedure to confid enti al data. Acc ordingly, Cofiroute is has implemented an approv al process f or all RAMS users, ho wev er, super users ar e not re vi ewed periodically by OCTA . p eri odically r eview and monitor super careful to ensure only highly tr ained, c ompetent IT professionals ar e gr ant ed sup er us er access . us ers' access profil es We agr ee that acc ess c ontrols over RAMS would The criteria use d to determine this finding is NISI 800-53 ( AC -2 and activity within be strength ened if OCTA is included in (7)) which dicta tes that the organizati on: R AMS . Cofiroute's quarterly r evi ew of access a. Esta blish a nd administer privileg ed user acc ounts in privileges. Accordingly, Cofiroute will upd ate a ccordance with a ro le -based access scheme th at organi zes the appr opriat e policy a nd pr ocedure to informatio n system and network privil eg es int o roles; and pro vide OCTA with a curr ent list of users with b. Track and monitor privile ged role assignments. Privil eg ed roles include, for example, key management, network a nd system administration, da taba se a dmin istration, web administr ation . privil eg ed access on a regular basis for review, discussion, and approval. OCTA do es no t actively participate in periodically reviewing super users of the RAMS system. In this ca se, super us ers ar e defined as administrato rs a nd power users. This situation increas es the risks of ina ppropria te a cce ss a nd activ ity. TCBA P l# L REPORT Page 1 9 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Staff Report Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) June 1, 2012 To: State Route 91 Advisory Committee From: Kirk Avila, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes Subject: 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Overview On April 9, 2012, the Orange County Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors approved extending the current lease for the 91 Express Lanes office in Anaheim. The existing lease expires on June 30, 2012. The leased space accommodates the traffic operations center, data center, and administrative offices. Staff retained the brokerage services of CB Richard Ellis to negotiate with the landlord, FKC Properties, Inc, for a five -year extension. A copy of the staff report recommending the lease extension to the Board of Directors is attached. Recommendation Receive and file as an information item. Attachment A. Amendment to Agreement with FKC Properties, Inc., for the 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Item to the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors meeting dated April 9, 2012. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Attachment A ATTACHMENT A OCTA BOARD COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL April 9, 2012 To: Members of the Board of Directors i✓C.�.. From: Wendy Knowles, Clerk of the Board Subject: 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Finance and Administration Committee Meeting of March 28, 2012 Present: Directors Amante, Bates, Campbell, Cavecche, Hennessey, and Moorlach Absent: Directors Hansen and Pulido Committee Vote This item was passed by the Members present. Committee Recommendation Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute Amendment No. 12 to Agreement No. C-0-1412 with FKC Properties, Inc., to cover the five-year lease extension for the 91 Express Lanes Anaheim office, in an amount not to exceed $1,105,165. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street /P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) OCTA March 28, 2012 To: Finance and Administ tjon From: Will Kempton, Subject: 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Overview f Executive Officer The current lease for the 91 Express Lanes office in Anaheim expires June 30, 2012. The leased space accommodates the traffic operations center, data center, and administrative offices. Staff has retained the brokerage services of CB Richard Ellis and has been in negotiations with the landlord, FKC Properties, Inc., for a proposed five-year lease extension. The terms of the proposed lease amendment include the five-year lease extension, as well as an additional five-year lease option. Recommendation Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute Amendment No. 12 to Agreement No. C-0-1412 with FKC Properties, inc., to cover the five-year lease extension for the 91 Express Lanes Anaheim office, in an amount not to exceed $1,105,165. Background The 91 Express Lanes Anaheim office accommodates the traffic operations center, data center; as well as the office space for administrative employees who handle the day-to-day functions of the 91 Express Lanes. The traffic operations center is directly connected to the toll road gantries via fiber optic cabling, making the location's proximity to the median of the 91 Express Lanes ideal. The data center contains the hardware and equipment necessary to support the Electronic Traffic and Toll Management system, the 91 Express Lanes back office/account management system, and other ancillary systems that support the 91 Express Lanes computing environment and operation. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/ P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 32863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Page 2 Since 1993, the administrative office, data center; and traffic operations center have been located at the 180 North Riverview Drive office. This location has proven to be desirable because of the proximity to the 91 Express Lanes corridor (Attachment A). Since taking ownership of the 91 Express Lanes in January 2003, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has invested more than $780,000 in infrastructure improvements to the 180 North Riverview Drive location, primarily on updates to the data center and the traffic operations center. Discussion CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) conducted a property search along the State Route 91 (SR -91) corridor to determine what was available for lease and sale that fit within OCTA's needs. Potential lease properties were identified and requests for proposals were sent out to landlords of those properties. Three responses for properties were received, including one from the current landlord. While the two other properties each proposed lease rates approximately $340,000 less over a five-year period, infrastructure and move costs more than offset the proposed savings. Additionally, the locations were class B and C buildings, so were not truly comparable to the class A facility at the 180 North Riverview Drive building. CBRE also conducted a property search along the SR -91 corridor for buildings that were available for purchase. Given the availability of properties for sale and the uncertainty of the needs and timing of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's extension of the 91 Express Lanes in the next few years, it was determined that the purchase of a building at this time was not in the best interest of OCTA. The current monthly lease rate is $2.35 per square foot on a total of 9,346 square feet occupied at the 180 North Riverview Drive location. The 91 Express Lanes occupies approximately 16 percent of the 57,000 square foot building. After months of negotiations, FKC Properties, Inc. (FKC), the property's landlord, has proposed to lower the monthly rental rate of $2.35 per square foot to $2.05 per square foot for the first year, and escalate at the rate of $0.05 per square foot per year thereafter. FKC has also offered one month of free rent for each year of the lease in months two, 13, 25, 37, and 49. After considering the one month of free rent, the effective starting lease rate is only $1.88 per square foot for the first year. The proposed rates are comparable to other leases advertised and recently leased facilities of similar space in the area. 91 Express Lanes Anaheim Facility Lease Renewal Page 3 The landlord is also offering a onetime $5.00 per square foot tenant improvement allowance to be used anytime during the lease period. At the end of the initial five-year term, an additional five-year option is available. The lease rate will be based on 95 percent of the fair market lease value at the time of renewal for the Anaheim Hills area. Fiscal Impact Funds for the first year of the office lease are included in the Fund 36 fiscal year 2012-13 proposed budget. Summary Staff is recommending the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute Amendment No. 12 to Agreement No. C-0-1412 with FKC Properties, Inc., to cover the five-year lease extension for the 91 Express Lanes Anaheim office, in an amount not to exceed $1,105,165. Attachment A. Map of the 91 Express Lanes Office location. Prepared by: Christina Runge Haidi Senior Financial Analyst Treasury/Toll Roads 714-560-5634 Approved by: Kenneth Phipps Executive Director, Finance and Administration 714-560-5637 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Staff Report Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) June 1, 2012 To: State Route 91 Advisory Committee From: Kirk Avila, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes Subject: 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Overview The 91 Express Lanes status reports for the months of February 2012 through April 2012 have been prepared for State Route 91 Advisory Committee review. The reports highlight operational and financial activities. Recommendation Receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports for the months of February 2012 through April 2012. Background Monthly status reports are prepared to document 91 Express Lanes activity and are provided for State Route 91 Advisory Committee review. Discussion The February 2012 status report for the 91 Express Lanes is provided in Attachment A. In February 2012, traffic volume in the 91 Express Lanes increased 9.3 percent over the same period in 2011 and gross potential toll revenue increased by 5.2 percent as compared to the prior year. The March 2012 status report is provided in Attachment B. In March 2012, traffic volume increased by 2.1 percent over the same period in 2011 while gross potential toll revenue decreased by 0.3 percent. The April 2012 status report for the 91 Express Lanes is provided in Attachment C. As compared to the same period last year, in April 2012 traffic volume and gross potential toll revenue increased by 4.3 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Page 2 Fiscal year 2011-12 year-to-date (YTD) traffic volume and toll revenue as of the end of April 2012 were down with YTD traffic volume decreasing by 2.1 percent and YTD potential toll revenue down by 5.1 percent. Staff will continue to closely monitor traffic and revenue data and report back to the State Route 91 Advisory Committee regularly. Summary The 91 Express Lanes status report for the months of February 2012 through April 2012 are provided for review. The report highlights operational and financial activities. Attachments A. 91 Express Lanes Status Report – As of February 29, 2012 B. 91 Express Lanes Status Report – As of March 31, 2012 C. 91 Express Lanes Status Report – As of April 30, 2012 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Attachment A ATTACHMENT A Orange County Transportation Authority SSttaattuuss RReeppoorrtt FFeebbrruuaarryy 22001122 As of February 29, 2012 2 . . . . . . . . . Operations Overview Traffic and Revenue Statistics Total traffic volume on the 91 Express Lanes for February 2012 was 958,855. This represents a daily average of 33,064. This is a 9.3% increase in total traffic volume from the same period last year when traffic levels totaled 877,170. Potential toll revenue for the month was $2,807,433 which represents an increase of 5.2% from the prior year’s total of $2,667,421. Carpool percentage for the month was 23.2% as compared to the previous year’s rate of 22.6%. Month-to-date traffic and revenue data are summarized in the table below. The following trip and revenue statistics tables represent all trips taken on the 91 Express Lanes and associated potential revenue for the month of February 2012. Current Month-to-Date (MTD) as of February 29, 2012 (Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 data is for the corresponding month in that fiscal year) Trips Feb-12 MTD Actual Stantec MTD Projected # Variance % Variance Feb-11 MTD Actual Yr-to-Yr % Variance Full Toll Lanes 736,160 737,842 (1,682)(0.2%)678,959 8.4% 3+ Lanes 222,695 251,472 (28,777)(11.4%)198,211 12.4% Total Gross Trips 958,855 989,314 (30,459)(3.1%)877,170 9.3% Revenue Full Toll Lanes $2,739,478 $2,652,085 $87,393 3.3%$2,592,765 5.7% 3+ Lanes $67,955 $68,937 ($982)(1.4%)$74,656 (9.0%) Total Gross Revenue $2,807,433 $2,721,022 $86,411 3.2%$2,667,421 5.2% Average Revenue per Trip Average Full Toll Lanes $3.72 $3.59 $0.13 3.6%$3.82 (2.6%) Average 3+ Lanes $0.31 $0.27 $0.04 14.8%$0.38 (18.4%) Average Revenue Per Trip $2.93 $2.75 $0.18 6.5%$3.04 (3.6%) 3 . . . . . . . . . The 2012 fiscal year-to-date (YTD) traffic volume is 3.4% lower than the same period last year. The 2012 fiscal year-to-date revenue is 6.5% lower than for the same period last year. Year-to- date average revenue per-trip is $2.88 and 4.3% higher than Stantec’s projections. Fiscal year-to-date traffic and revenue data are summarized in the table below. The following trip and revenue statistics tables represent all trips taken on the 91 Express Lanes and associated potential revenue for the months of July 2011 through February 2012. FY 2011-12 to Date as of February 29, 2012 (FY 2011-12 data is for the period July 1, 2011 through February 29, 2012; FY 2010-11 data is for the corresponding period in that fiscal year.) Trips FY 2011-12 YTD Actual Stantec YTD Projected # Variance % Variance FY 2010-11 YTD Actual Yr-to-Yr % Variance Full Toll Lanes 5,931,238 5,981,971 (50,733)(0.8%)6,169,831 (3.9%) 3+ Lanes 1,897,031 2,086,686 (189,655)(9.1%)1,936,323 (2.0%) Total Trips 7,828,269 8,068,657 (240,388)(3.0%)8,106,154 (3.4%) Full Toll Lanes $21,973,935 $21,670,754 $303,181 1.4%$23,450,446 (6.3%) 3+ Lanes $571,945 $570,880 $1,065 0.2%$666,351 (14.2%) Total Revenue $22,545,880 $22,241,634 $304,246 1.4%$24,116,797 (6.5%) Full Toll Lanes $3.70 $3.62 $0.08 2.2%$3.80 (2.6%) 3+ Lanes $0.30 $0.27 $0.03 11.1%$0.34 (11.8%) Revenue Per Trip $2.88 $2.76 $0.12 4.3%$2.98 (3.4%) 4 . . . . . . . . . Traffic and Revenue Summary The chart below reflects the total trips breakdown between Full Toll trips and HOV3+ trips for FY 2011-12 on a monthly basis. 724,753 793,176 745,803 757,185 711,450 743,688 719,199 736,160 271,673 255,204 224,985 225,500 225,749 250,951 220,294 222,695 175,000 350,000 525,000 700,000 875,000 1,050,000 1,225,000 1,400,000 Jul-11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec -11 Jan -12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun -12 Vo l u m e Month FY 2011-12 Traffic Volume Overview 3+ Lanes Full Toll Lanes The chart below reflects the gross potential revenue breakdown between Full Toll trips and HOV3+ trips for FY 2011-12 on a monthly basis. 2,628,028 2,917,855 2,826,509 2,768,314 2,638,808 2,762,232 2,676,584 2,739,478 76,846 80,028 73,313 67,105 62,838 73,916 70,655 67,955 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $3,100,000 Jul-11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan -12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun -12 Re v e n u e Month FY 2011-12 Revenue Summary Full Toll Lanes 3+ Lanes 5 . . . . . . . . . One peak traffic hour in the eastbound direction reached or exceeded 90% or more of defined capacity during the month of February 2012. As demonstrated on the next chart, westbound peak hour traffic volumes top out at 75% of defined capacity. EASTBOUND PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 207 1,608 47%$4.25 223 1,848 54%$3.10 319 2,693 79% 1500 - 1600 $3.95 490 2,611 77%$4.95 485 2,694 79%$9.75 593 2,972 87% 1600 - 1700 $7.30 449 2,666 78%$8.95 457 2,633 77%$8.85 484 3,011 89% 1700 - 1800 $7.50 441 2,605 77%$8.80 504 2,776 82%$7.00 464 2,777 82% 1800 - 1900 $3.60 504 2,524 74%$4.40 545 2,649 78%$5.35 565 2,493 73% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 349 1,512 44%$4.55 336 1,490 44%$5.00 425 1,842 54% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 223 1,447 43%$4.15 164 1,388 41%$4.15 200 1,583 47%$4.25 251 1,923 57%$3.10 355 2,655 78% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 473 2,254 66%$3.70 435 2,332 69%$3.95 456 2,501 74%$4.95 467 2,659 78%$9.75 616 2,770 81% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 484 3,041 89%$6.80 384 2,387 70%$7.30 449 2,648 78%$8.95 454 2,708 80%$8.85 229 1,103 32% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 295 1,832 54%$6.25 460 2,430 71%$7.50 443 2,692 79%$8.80 476 2,666 78%$7.00 542 2,937 86% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 532 2,444 72%$3.60 463 2,195 65%$3.60 491 2,512 74%$4.40 544 2,695 79%$5.35 587 2,835 83% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 257 975 29%$3.15 211 955 28%$3.15 327 1,480 44%$4.55 347 1,583 47%$5.00 450 1,898 56% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 247 1,437 42%$4.15 189 1,707 50%$4.15 220 1,742 51%$4.25 283 2,286 67%$3.10 437 3,034 89% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 487 2,385 70%$3.70 484 2,781 82%$3.95 455 2,727 80%$4.95 497 2,850 84%$9.75 580 2,713 80% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 407 2,395 70%$6.80 456 2,904 85%$7.30 474 2,707 80%$8.95 444 2,795 82%$8.85 577 3,093 91% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 429 2,381 70%$6.25 465 2,971 87%$7.50 527 3,037 89%$8.80 453 2,787 82%$7.00 468 2,672 79% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 481 1,954 57%$3.60 486 2,586 76%$3.60 505 2,930 86%$4.40 544 2,747 81%$5.35 571 2,342 69% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 267 1,066 31%$3.15 314 1,415 42%$3.15 314 1,802 53%$4.55 404 2,117 62%$5.00 439 1,644 48% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 342 1,584 47%$4.15 227 1,827 54%$4.15 263 1,788 53%$4.25 268 2,082 61%$3.10 396 2,793 82% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 470 1,832 54%$3.70 491 2,707 80%$3.95 524 2,857 84%$4.95 540 2,946 87%$9.75 662 2,902 85% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 408 2,065 61%$6.80 442 2,588 76%$7.30 467 2,742 81%$8.95 468 2,751 81%$8.85 457 2,865 84% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 440 2,236 66%$6.25 473 2,629 77%$7.50 499 2,681 79%$8.80 476 2,686 79%$7.00 472 2,737 81% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 402 1,448 43%$3.60 483 2,305 68%$3.60 494 2,501 74%$4.40 507 2,501 74%$5.35 489 2,413 71% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 307 912 27%$3.15 300 1,288 38%$3.15 322 1,337 39%$4.55 354 1,506 44%$5.00 430 1,926 57% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 262 2,049 60%$4.15 209 1,521 45%$4.15 239 1,717 51% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 497 2,813 83%$3.70 476 2,442 72%$3.95 483 2,583 76% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 462 2,768 81%$6.80 454 2,658 78%$7.30 487 2,658 78% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 434 2,690 79%$6.25 414 2,591 76%$7.50 457 2,533 75% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 438 2,295 68%$3.60 455 2,291 67%$3.60 446 2,243 66% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 237 1,138 33%$3.15 304 1,230 36%$3.15 264 1,323 39% Thursday 03/01/12 Friday 03/02/12 Thursday 02/23/12 Friday 02/24/12 Monday 02/27/12 Tuesday 02/28/12 Wednesday 02/29/12 Thursday 02/16/12 Friday 02/17/12 Monday 02/20/12 Tuesday 02/21/12 Wednesday 02/22/12 Thursday 02/09/12 Friday 02/10/12 Monday 02/13/12 Tuesday 02/14/12 Wednesday 02/15/12 Thursday 02/02/12 Friday 02/03/12 Monday 02/06/12 Tuesday 02/07/12 Wednesday 02/08/12 Monday 01/30/12 Tuesday 01/31/12 Wednesday 02/01/12 6 . . . . . . . . . WESTBOUND PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 324 670 20%$2.45 338 697 21%$2.45 289 620 18% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 701 1,888 56%$4.00 775 1,994 59%$3.85 696 1,868 55% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 761 2,421 71%$4.15 781 2,398 71%$4.00 655 2,091 62% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 675 2,503 74%$4.60 687 2,486 73%$4.45 560 1,871 55% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 278 1,781 52%$4.15 245 1,725 51%$4.00 288 1,403 41% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 228 1,270 37%$3.30 215 1,354 40%$3.30 222 1,120 33% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 286 670 20%$2.45 305 655 19%$2.45 342 701 21%$2.45 343 718 21%$2.45 170 467 14% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 692 1,976 58%$4.00 738 1,979 58%$4.00 799 2,037 60%$4.00 733 2,056 60%$3.85 465 1,649 49% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 744 2,403 71%$4.15 801 2,515 74%$4.15 789 2,496 73%$4.15 725 2,352 69%$4.00 511 2,106 62% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 622 2,325 68%$4.60 519 2,033 60%$4.60 566 2,239 66%$4.60 703 2,553 75%$4.45 399 1,814 53% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 262 1,570 46%$4.15 253 1,492 44%$4.15 241 1,498 44%$4.15 305 2,010 59%$4.00 215 1,385 41% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 215 1,214 36%$3.30 188 1,148 34%$3.30 250 1,636 48%$3.30 269 1,637 48%$3.30 177 1,132 33% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 225 626 18%$2.45 224 583 17%$2.45 224 590 17%$2.45 244 581 17%$2.45 194 508 15% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 453 1,745 51%$4.00 508 1,810 53%$4.00 500 1,783 52%$4.00 493 1,787 53%$3.85 460 1,572 46% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 445 2,008 59%$4.15 531 2,175 64%$4.15 525 2,244 66%$4.15 490 2,122 62%$4.00 452 1,923 57% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 399 2,015 59%$4.60 426 2,116 62%$4.60 437 2,205 65%$4.60 455 2,227 66%$4.45 389 1,669 49% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 210 1,472 43%$4.15 186 1,848 54%$4.15 188 1,614 47%$4.15 224 1,831 54%$4.00 234 1,262 37% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 175 1,112 33%$3.30 148 1,210 36%$3.30 154 1,208 36%$3.30 188 1,328 39%$3.30 228 1,111 33% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 152 422 12%$2.45 231 626 18%$2.45 272 620 18%$2.45 265 609 18%$2.45 216 530 16% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 297 1,036 30%$4.00 541 1,777 52%$4.00 697 2,017 59%$4.00 530 1,904 56%$3.85 518 1,692 50% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 225 982 29%$4.15 542 2,272 67%$4.15 708 2,446 72%$4.15 554 2,268 67%$4.00 510 2,052 60% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 211 910 27%$4.60 443 2,239 66%$4.60 605 2,389 70%$4.60 456 2,177 64%$4.45 418 1,913 56% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 184 813 24%$4.15 234 1,916 56%$4.15 381 2,016 59%$4.15 238 1,765 52%$4.00 227 1,499 44% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 230 899 26%$3.30 202 1,424 42%$3.30 192 1,356 40%$3.30 198 1,346 40%$3.30 187 1,183 35% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 219 626 18%$2.45 254 643 19%$2.45 235 606 18% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 497 1,781 52%$4.00 476 1,644 48%$4.00 474 1,613 47% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 482 2,162 64%$4.15 521 2,132 63%$4.15 523 2,219 65% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 445 2,101 62%$4.60 458 2,142 63%$4.60 493 2,313 68% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 187 1,766 52%$4.15 208 1,796 53%$4.15 207 1,858 55% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 146 1,305 38%$3.30 177 1,360 40%$3.30 167 1,408 41% Thursday 03/01/12 Friday 03/02/12 Thursday 02/23/12 Friday 02/24/12 Monday 02/27/12 Tuesday 02/28/12 Wednesday 02/29/12 Thursday 02/16/12 Friday 02/17/12 Monday 02/20/12 Tuesday 02/21/12 Wednesday 02/22/12 Thursday 02/09/12 Friday 02/10/12 Monday 02/13/12 Tuesday 02/14/12 Wednesday 02/15/12 Thursday 02/02/12 Friday 02/03/12 Monday 02/06/12 Tuesday 02/07/12 Wednesday 02/08/12 Monday 01/30/12 Tuesday 01/31/12 Wednesday 02/01/12 7 . . . . . . . . . Transponder Distribution Status Tags % of Total Tags % of Total Issued To New Accounts 757 34.9%687 35.9%652 35.0% Additional Tags to Existing Accounts 371 17.1%387 20.3%382 20.5% Replacement Transponders 1,044 48.1%837 43.8%830 44.5% Total Issued 2,172 1,911 1,864 Returned Account Closures 483 33.2%803 42.8%537 36.8% Accounts Downsizing 153 10.5%247 13.2%156 10.7% Defective Transponders 817 56.2%827 44.1%766 52.5% Total Returned 1,453 1,877 1,459 FY 2011-12TRANSPONDER DISTRIBUTION February-12 January-12 Average To-Date At the end of February 2012, the 91 Express Lanes had 111,935 active customer accounts, with 167,025 transponders assigned to those accounts. Number of Accounts by Fiscal Year As of February 29, 2012 97,001 98,569 100,528 106,280 113,263 118,416 119,992 117,888 114,556 114,138 112,584 111,935 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Fiscal Year 8 . . . . . . . . . Operational Highlights On-road Operations Customer Assistance Specialists (CAS) responded to 98 calls during February. The CAS team received 51 calls to assist disabled vehicles, 21 calls to remove debris and conducted 19 assists or traffic breaks. The CAS provided assistance to 4 accidents in the Express Lanes and 3 accidents in the general-purpose lanes. Gantry Relocation Project Update One of the projects identified in the State Route (SR) 91 Implementation Plan is the SR-91 Westbound and Eastbound Lane Addition Project which adds a fifth general purpose lane in each direction between the SR-55 and SR-241. Given the current gantries span across the toll lanes and the general purpose lanes, the gantries will need to be torn down in order to accommodate the new general purpose lanes. In December 2011, an agreement was executed with Federal Signal Technologies (Federal Signal) to relocate and install the Electronic Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM) system equipment onto the new gantries. In February 2012, Federal Signal completed installation of the ETTM equipment onto the westbound gantry and commence work in the eastbound direction. Performance testing of the westbound gantry took place and Federal Signal was given the approval to proceed with decommissioning the old westbound gantry equipment to be relocated to the new eastbound gantry. Testing of the eastbound equipment is estimated to begin in March with the project anticipated to be completed in April 2012. 9 . . . . . . . . . Financial Highlights 91 Express Lanes Operating Statement Description Actual (1)Budget (1)Dollar $Percent (%) Operating revenues: Toll revenue 21,368,847.68 22,819,222.00$ (1,450,374.32)$ (6.4) Fee revenue 4,364,923.67 3,746,028.00 618,895.67 16.5 Total operating revenues 25,733,771.35 26,565,250.00 (831,478.65) (3.1) Operating expenses: Contracted services 4,773,600.84 5,087,766.00 314,165.16 6.2 Administrative fee 1,136,801.76 1,535,752.00 398,950.24 26.0 Other professional services 410,204.19 956,774.00 546,569.81 57.1 Credit card processing fees 634,433.44 752,244.00 117,810.56 15.7 Toll road account servicing 182,855.71 703,128.00 520,272.29 74.0 Other insurance expense 205,618.98 166,500.00 (39,118.98) (23.5) Toll road maintenance supply repairs 173,355.19 176,490.00 3,134.81 1.8 Patrol services 245,426.44 266,400.00 20,973.56 7.9 Building equipment repairs and maint 251,394.31 438,129.00 186,734.69 42.6 Other services 16,255.43 79,275.00 63,019.57 79.5 Utilities 10,162.66 11,988.00 1,825.34 15.2 Office expense 27,841.47 103,728.00 75,886.53 73.2 Bad debt expense 4,564.21 - (4,564.21) N/A Miscellaneous (2)126,753.30 184,866.00 58,112.70 31.4 Leases 275,301.94 276,390.00 1,088.06 0.4 Total operating expenses 8,474,569.87 10,739,430.00 2,264,860.13 21.1 Depreciation and amortization (3)5,723,326.54 - (5,723,326.54) N/A Operating income (loss)11,535,874.94 15,825,820.00 (4,289,945.06) (27.1) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 509,904.62 1,153,173.00 (643,268.38) (55.8) Interest expense (4,324,008.64) (4,410,752.00) 86,743.36 2.0 Other 71,824.02 - 71,824.02 N/A Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(3,742,280.00) (3,257,579.00) (484,701.00) (14.9) Transfers in - - - N/A Transfers out (101,715.79) - (101,715.79) N/A Net income (loss)7,691,879.15$ 12,568,241.00$ (4,876,361.85)$ (38.8) ¹Actual amounts are accounted for on the accrual basis of accounting in an enterprise fund. Budget amounts are accounted for on a modified accrual basis of accounting. ²Miscellaneous expenses include: Bond Insurance Costs, Bank Service Charge, Transponder Materials. ³Depreciation and amortization are not budgeted items. YTD as of February 29, 2012 YTD Variance Capital Asset Activity During the eight months ending February 29, 2012, capital asset activities included approximately $208,340 for the purchase of transponders. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Attachment B ATTACHMENT B Orange County Transportation Authority SSttaattuuss RReeppoorrtt MMaarrcchh 22001122 As of March 31, 2012 2 . . . . . . . . . Operations Overview Traffic and Revenue Statistics Total traffic volume on the 91 Express Lanes for March 2012 was 1,013,841. This represents a daily average of 32,705. This is a 2.1% increase in total traffic volume from the same period last year when traffic levels totaled 992,572. Potential toll revenue for the month was $3,013,284 which represents a decrease of 0.3% from the prior year’s total of $3,022,371. Carpool percentage for the month was 22.7% as compared to the previous year’s rate of 22.5%. Month-to-date traffic and revenue data are summarized in the table below. The following trip and revenue statistics tables represent all trips taken on the 91 Express Lanes and associated potential revenue for the month of March 2012. Current Month-to-Date (MTD) as of March 31, 2012 (Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 data is for the corresponding month in that fiscal year) Trips Mar-12 MTD Actual Stantec MTD Projected # Variance % Variance Mar-11 MTD Actual Yr-to-Yr % Variance Full Toll Lanes 783,889 788,729 (4,840)(0.6%)769,113 1.9% 3+ Lanes 229,952 268,814 (38,862)(14.5%)223,459 2.9% Total Gross Trips 1,013,841 1,057,543 (43,702)(4.1%)992,572 2.1% Revenue Full Toll Lanes $2,938,927 $2,834,987 $103,940 3.7%$2,935,198 0.1% 3+ Lanes $74,357 $73,691 $666 0.9%$87,173 (14.7%) Total Gross Revenue $3,013,284 $2,908,678 $104,606 3.6%$3,022,371 (0.3%) Average Revenue per Trip Average Full Toll Lanes $3.75 $3.59 $0.16 4.5%$3.82 (1.8%) Average 3+ Lanes $0.32 $0.27 $0.05 18.5%$0.39 (17.9%) Average Gross Revenue $2.97 $2.75 $0.22 8.0%$3.04 (2.3%) 3 . . . . . . . . . The 2012 fiscal year-to-date (YTD) traffic volume is 2.8% lower than the same period last year. The 2012 fiscal year-to-date revenue is 5.8% lower than for the same period last year. Year-to- date average revenue per-trip is $2.89 and 4.7% higher than Stantec’s projections. Fiscal year-to-date traffic and revenue data are summarized in the table below. The following trip and revenue statistics tables represent all trips taken on the 91 Express Lanes and associated potential revenue for the months of July 2011 through March 2012. FY 2011-12 to Date as of March 31, 2012 (FY 2011-12 data is for the period July 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012; FY 2010-11 data is for the corresponding period in that fiscal year.) Trips FY 2011-12 YTD Actual Stantec YTD Projected # Variance % Variance FY 2010-11 YTD Actual Yr-to-Yr % Variance Full Toll Lanes 6,715,127 6,770,700 (55,573)(0.8%)6,938,944 (3.2%) 3+ Lanes 2,126,983 2,355,500 (228,517)(9.7%)2,159,782 (1.5%) Total Gross Trips 8,842,110 9,126,200 (284,090)(3.1%)9,098,726 (2.8%) Revenue Full Toll Lanes $24,912,862 $24,505,741 $407,121 1.7%$26,385,644 (5.6%) 3+ Lanes $646,302 $644,571 $1,731 0.3%$753,524 (14.2%) Total Gross Revenue $25,559,164 $25,150,312 $408,852 1.6%$27,139,168 (5.8%) Average Revenue per Trip Average Full Toll Lanes $3.71 $3.62 $0.09 2.5%$3.80 (2.4%) Average 3+ Lanes $0.30 $0.27 $0.03 11.1%$0.35 (14.3%) Average Gross Revenue $2.89 $2.76 $0.13 4.7%$2.98 (3.0%) 4 . . . . . . . . . Traffic and Revenue Summary The chart below reflects the total trips breakdown between Full Toll trips and HOV3+ trips for FY 2011-12 on a monthly basis. 724,753 793,176 745,803 757,185 711,450 743,688 719,199 736,160 783,889 271,673 255,204 224,985 225,500 225,749 250,951 220,294 222,695 229,952 175,000 350,000 525,000 700,000 875,000 1,050,000 1,225,000 1,400,000 Jul-11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan -12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May -12 Jun -12 Vo l u m e Month FY 2011-12 Traffic Volume Overview 3+ Lanes Full Toll Lanes The chart below reflects the gross potential revenue breakdown between Full Toll trips and HOV3+ trips for FY 2011-12 on a monthly basis. 2,628,028 2,917,855 2,826,509 2,768,314 2,638,808 2,762,232 2,676,584 2,739,478 2,938,927 76,846 80,028 73,313 67,105 62,838 73,916 70,655 67,955 74,357 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $3,100,000 Jul-11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan -12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun -12 Re v e n u e Month FY 2011-12 Revenue Summary Full Toll Lanes 3+ Lanes 5 . . . . . . . . . One peak traffic hour in the eastbound direction reached or exceeded 90% or more of defined capacity during the month of March 2012. As demonstrated on the next chart, westbound peak hour traffic volumes top out at 72% of defined capacity. EASTBOUND PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.25 246 1,181 35%$3.10 355 2,734 80% 1500 - 1600 $4.95 492 1,887 56%$9.75 585 2,786 82% 1600 - 1700 $8.95 339 2,686 79%$8.85 518 2,830 83% 1700 - 1800 $8.80 537 2,046 60%$7.00 441 2,650 78% 1800 - 1900 $4.40 579 3,182 94%$5.35 461 2,203 65% 1900 - 2000 $4.55 328 3,002 88%$5.00 378 1,458 43% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 248 1,600 47%$4.15 233 1,647 48%$4.15 223 1,689 50%$4.25 284 2,066 61%$3.10 384 2,906 85% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 518 2,531 74%$3.70 504 2,523 74%$3.95 507 2,640 78%$4.95 519 2,826 83%$9.75 654 2,932 86% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 435 2,606 77%$6.80 488 2,783 82%$7.30 451 2,725 80%$8.95 482 2,821 83%$8.85 472 2,856 84% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 432 2,474 73%$6.25 452 2,491 73%$7.50 417 2,510 74%$8.80 466 2,613 77%$7.00 427 2,698 79% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 438 1,902 56%$3.60 468 2,198 65%$3.60 515 2,468 73%$4.40 529 2,569 76%$5.35 502 2,404 71% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 255 1,123 33%$3.15 278 1,186 35%$3.15 307 1,417 42%$4.55 404 2,182 64%$5.00 408 1,635 48% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 204 1,477 43%$4.15 210 1,754 52%$4.15 226 1,841 54%$4.25 257 2,231 66%$3.10 368 2,729 80% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 449 2,441 72%$3.70 493 2,739 81%$3.95 518 2,818 83%$4.95 499 2,771 82%$9.75 609 2,899 85% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 409 2,560 75%$6.80 473 2,722 80%$7.30 461 2,740 81%$8.95 538 2,942 87%$8.85 454 2,917 86% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 400 2,437 72%$6.25 424 2,552 75%$7.50 467 2,683 79%$8.80 491 2,726 80%$7.00 434 2,634 77% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 439 2,055 60%$3.60 421 2,314 68%$3.60 455 2,473 73%$4.40 506 2,568 76%$5.35 441 2,113 62% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 268 1,090 32%$3.15 297 1,309 39%$3.15 324 1,422 42%$4.55 320 1,566 46%$5.00 355 1,398 41% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 194 1,453 43%$4.15 216 1,561 46%$4.15 224 1,762 52%$4.25 249 2,119 62%$3.10 360 2,788 82% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 478 2,494 73%$3.70 503 2,761 81%$3.95 497 2,784 82%$4.95 525 2,885 85%$9.75 590 2,884 85% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 402 2,492 73%$6.80 473 2,700 79%$7.30 477 2,800 82%$8.95 520 2,912 86%$8.85 479 2,924 86% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 406 2,452 72%$6.25 438 2,581 76%$7.50 431 2,616 77%$8.80 449 2,580 76%$7.00 482 2,683 79% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 397 1,796 53%$3.60 453 2,252 66%$3.60 450 2,350 69%$4.40 491 2,782 82%$5.35 444 2,228 66% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 238 1,082 32%$3.15 297 1,315 39%$3.15 304 1,520 45%$4.55 385 1,911 56%$5.00 335 1,461 43% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 230 1,390 41%$4.15 265 1,930 57%$4.15 274 1,873 55%$4.25 291 2,023 60%$3.10 433 2,683 79% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 482 2,571 76%$3.70 574 2,866 84%$3.95 544 2,829 83%$4.95 567 2,873 85%$9.75 589 2,774 82% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 452 2,524 74%$6.80 530 2,645 78%$7.30 536 2,858 84%$8.95 539 2,917 86%$8.85 502 2,894 85% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 384 2,318 68%$6.25 471 2,546 75%$7.50 519 2,607 77%$8.80 513 2,710 80%$7.00 486 2,604 77% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 393 1,833 54%$3.60 445 2,240 66%$3.60 485 2,428 71%$4.40 497 2,415 71%$5.35 479 2,203 65% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 269 1,061 31%$3.15 310 1,286 38%$3.15 344 1,416 42%$4.55 346 1,503 44%$5.00 415 1,520 45% 03/23/1203/19/12 03/20/12 03/21/12 03/22/12 Friday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 03/16/1203/12/12 03/13/12 03/14/12 03/15/12 FridayTuesdayWednesdayThursday 03/07/12 03/08/12 FridayMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 03/09/1203/05/12 03/06/12 Wednesday Thursday 03/02/1202/27/12 02/28/12 02/29/12 03/01/12 Friday Monday 03/26/12 Tuesday 03/27/12 Monday Tuesday Monday Monday Wednesday 03/28/12 Thursday 03/29/12 Friday 03/30/12 6 . . . . . . . . . WESTBOUND PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 243 579 17%$2.45 220 549 16% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 491 1,897 56%$3.85 452 1,712 50% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 530 2,463 72%$4.00 488 2,074 61% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 507 2,288 67%$4.45 441 2,040 60% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 222 1,889 56%$4.00 217 1,670 49% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 182 1,296 38%$3.30 173 1,100 32% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 253 667 20%$2.45 245 613 18%$2.45 250 605 18%$2.45 257 663 20%$2.45 212 567 17% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 538 1,900 56%$4.00 502 1,784 52%$4.00 535 1,852 54%$4.00 530 1,817 53%$3.85 501 1,722 51% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 496 2,188 64%$4.15 543 2,230 66%$4.15 524 2,266 67%$4.15 562 2,266 67%$4.00 520 2,143 63% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 485 2,201 65%$4.60 489 2,221 65%$4.60 473 2,257 66%$4.60 483 2,233 66%$4.45 491 2,089 61% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 223 1,742 51%$4.15 230 1,888 56%$4.15 199 1,597 47%$4.15 234 1,726 51%$4.00 233 1,562 46% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 168 1,236 36%$3.30 207 1,494 44%$3.30 195 1,294 38%$3.30 182 1,291 38%$3.30 184 1,083 32% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 224 615 18%$2.45 261 626 18%$2.45 250 596 18%$2.45 262 613 18%$2.45 198 495 15% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 453 1,472 43%$4.00 521 1,749 51%$4.00 537 1,794 53%$4.00 546 1,792 53%$3.85 463 1,615 48% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 519 2,202 65%$4.15 482 1,876 55%$4.15 563 2,160 64%$4.15 562 2,186 64%$4.00 519 1,974 58% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 500 2,199 65%$4.60 473 2,092 62%$4.60 468 2,187 64%$4.60 479 2,257 66%$4.45 404 1,671 49% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 226 1,795 53%$4.15 245 1,946 57%$4.15 206 1,555 46%$4.15 231 1,711 50%$4.00 206 1,248 37% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 170 1,133 33%$3.30 176 1,538 45%$3.30 158 1,107 33%$3.30 186 1,271 37%$3.30 166 1,078 32% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 235 604 18%$2.45 249 566 17%$2.45 256 600 18%$2.45 243 564 17%$2.45 222 522 15% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 538 1,759 52%$4.00 559 1,857 55%$4.00 530 1,706 50%$4.00 520 1,768 52%$3.85 475 1,625 48% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 519 2,168 64%$4.15 538 2,171 64%$4.15 572 2,237 66%$4.15 537 2,160 64%$4.00 461 1,770 52% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 425 1,905 56%$4.60 455 2,157 63%$4.60 479 2,252 66%$4.60 468 2,152 63%$4.45 424 1,823 54% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 198 1,315 39%$4.15 234 1,725 51%$4.15 244 1,669 49%$4.15 220 1,638 48%$4.00 228 1,503 44% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 143 1,142 34%$3.30 162 1,277 38%$3.30 164 1,305 38%$3.30 131 1,321 39%$3.30 156 1,041 31% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 218 632 19%$2.45 260 615 18%$2.45 264 596 18%$2.45 254 601 18%$2.45 294 578 17% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 469 1,639 48%$4.00 541 1,827 54%$4.00 523 1,780 52%$4.00 568 1,857 55%$3.85 625 1,750 51% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 467 2,018 59%$4.15 593 2,157 63%$4.15 582 2,301 68%$4.15 560 2,128 63%$4.00 734 2,179 64% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 468 2,134 63%$4.60 472 2,043 60%$4.60 484 2,106 62%$4.60 497 2,185 64%$4.45 554 1,750 51% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 285 1,950 57%$4.15 255 1,673 49%$4.15 226 1,430 42%$4.15 239 1,600 47%$4.00 293 1,249 37% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 200 1,506 44%$3.30 239 1,174 35%$3.30 235 1,202 35%$3.30 264 1,253 37%$3.30 302 1,176 35% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 03/19/12 03/20/12 03/21/12 03/02/1203/01/12 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday03/12/12 03/13/12 03/14/12 Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday03/05/12 03/06/12 03/07/12 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 02/27/12 02/28/12 02/29/12 Thursday 03/29/12 03/08/12 03/22/12 03/15/12 Monday 03/26/12 Tuesday 03/27/12 Wednesday 03/28/12 Friday 03/30/12 Friday 03/09/12Friday 03/23/12Friday 03/16/12 7 . . . . . . . . . Transponder Distribution Status Tags % of Total Tags % of Total Issued To New Accounts 732 30.3%757 34.9%759 34.1% Additional Tags to Existing Accounts 414 17.1%371 17.1%449 20.2% Replacement Transponders 1,268 52.5%1,044 48.1%1,015 45.7% Total Issued 2,414 2,172 2,222 Returned Account Closures 526 28.9%483 33.2%615 35.5% Accounts Downsizing 151 8.3%153 10.5%179 10.3% Defective Transponders 1,144 62.8%817 56.2%939 54.2% Total Returned 1,821 1,453 1,733 Average To-Date FY 2011-12TRANSPONDER DISTRIBUTION March-12 February-12 At the end of March 2012, the 91 Express Lanes had 112,097 active customer accounts, with 167,074 transponders assigned to those accounts. Number of Accounts by Fiscal Year As of March 31, 2012 97,001 98,569 100,528 106,280 113,263 118,416 119,992 117,888 114,556 114,138 112,584 112,097 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Fiscal Year 8 . . . . . . . . . Operational Highlights On-road Operations Customer Assistance Specialists (CAS) responded to 111 calls during March. The CAS team received 53 calls to assist disabled vehicles, 21 calls to remove debris and conducted 23 assists or traffic breaks. The CAS provided assistance to 11 accidents in the Express Lanes and 3 accidents in the general-purpose lanes. Gantry Relocation Project Update One of the projects identified in the State Route (SR) 91 Implementation Plan is the SR-91 Westbound and Eastbound Lane Addition Project which adds a fifth general purpose lane in each direction between the SR-55 and SR-241. Given the current gantries span across the toll lanes and the general purpose lanes, the gantries will need to be torn down in order to accommodate the new general purpose lanes. In December 2011, an agreement was executed with Federal Signal Technologies (Federal Signal) to relocate and install the Electronic Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM) system equipment onto the new gantries. In March 2012, Federal Signal installed the ETTM equipment onto the eastbound gantry and completed the performance testing. After Federal Signal decommissioned the old gantry equipment, Caltrans removed both sets of the old gantries. In April, Federal Signal will complete the punch list items and is anticipated to submit to OCTA for approval the final acceptance of the project. 9 . . . . . . . . . Financial Highlights 91 Express Lanes Operating Statement Description Actual (1)Budget (1)Dollar $Percent (%) Operating revenues: Toll revenue 23,902,084.85 25,843,223.00$ (1,941,138.15)$ (7.5) Fee revenue 5,065,250.83 4,296,706.00 768,544.83 17.9 Total operating revenues 28,967,335.68 30,139,929.00 (1,172,593.32) (3.9) Operating expenses: Contracted services 5,370,847.60 5,659,877.00 289,029.40 5.1 Administrative fee 1,278,901.98 1,727,721.00 448,819.02 26.0 Other professional services 438,065.24 1,102,255.00 664,189.76 60.3 Credit card processing fees 663,670.02 847,122.00 183,451.98 21.7 Toll road account servicing 245,573.10 791,811.00 546,237.90 69.0 Other insurance expense 205,618.98 687,500.00 481,881.02 70.1 Toll road maintenance supply repairs 190,896.39 221,250.00 30,353.61 13.7 Patrol services 276,364.99 300,000.00 23,635.01 7.9 Building equipment repairs and maint 281,642.79 502,319.00 220,676.21 43.9 Other services 18,007.22 90,575.00 72,567.78 80.1 Advertising fees - - - N/A Utilities 11,266.37 13,500.00 2,233.63 16.5 Office expense 28,212.88 116,811.00 88,598.12 75.8 Bad debt expense 4,413.50 - (4,413.50) N/A Miscellaneous (2)139,542.48 207,472.00 67,929.52 32.7 Leases 282,092.94 311,250.00 29,157.06 9.4 Total operating expenses 9,435,116.48 12,579,463.00 3,144,346.52 25.0 Depreciation and amortization (3)6,437,106.37 - (6,437,106.37) N/A Operating income (loss)13,095,112.83 17,560,466.00 (4,465,353.17) (25.4) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Federal assistance grants - - - N/A Interest income 424,663.67 1,266,379.00 (841,715.33) (66.5) Interest expense (4,861,900.93) (4,964,540.00) 102,639.07 2.1 Other 71,824.02 - 71,824.02 N/A Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(4,365,413.24) (3,698,161.00) (667,252.24) (18.0) Transfers in - - - N/A Transfers out (101,715.79) - (101,715.79) N/A Net income (loss)8,627,983.80$ 13,862,305.00$ (5,234,321.20)$ (37.8) ¹Actual amounts are accounted for on the accrual basis of accounting in an enterprise fund. Budget amounts are accounted for on a modified accrual basis of accounting. ²Miscellaneous expenses include: Bond Insurance Costs, Bank Service Charge, Transponder Materials. ³Depreciation and amortization are not budgeted items. YTD as of March 31, 2012 YTD Variance Capital Asset Activity During the nine months ending March 31, 2012, capital asset activities included approximately $208,340 for the purchase of transponders. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports Attachment C ATTACHMENT C Orange County Transportation Authority SSttaattuuss RReeppoorrtt AApprriill 22001122 As of April 30, 2012 2 . . . . . . . . . Operations Overview Traffic and Revenue Statistics Total traffic volume on the 91 Express Lanes for April 2012 was 1,001,667. This represents a daily average of 33,389. This is a 4.3% increase in total traffic volume from the same period last year when traffic levels totaled 960,296. Potential toll revenue for the month was $2,829,125 which represents an increase of 2.1% from the prior year’s total of $2,770,489. Carpool percentage for the month was 24.1% as compared to the previous year’s rate of 24.3%. Month-to-date traffic and revenue data are summarized in the table below. The following trip and revenue statistics tables represent all trips taken on the 91 Express Lanes and associated potential revenue for the month of April 2012. Current Month-to-Date (MTD) as of April 30, 2012 (Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 data is for the corresponding month in that fiscal year) Trips Apr-12 MTD Actual Stantec MTD Projected # Variance % Variance Apr-11 MTD Actual Yr-to-Yr % Variance Full Toll Lanes 760,210 759,214 996 0.1%726,560 4.6% 3+ Lanes 241,457 258,743 (17,286)(6.7%)233,736 3.3% Total Gross Trips 1,001,667 1,017,957 (16,290)(1.6%)960,296 4.3% Revenue Full Toll Lanes $2,764,743 $2,715,305 $49,438 1.8%$2,698,313 2.5% 3+ Lanes $64,382 $70,943 ($6,561)(9.2%)$72,176 (10.8%) Total Gross Revenue $2,829,125 $2,786,248 $42,877 1.5%$2,770,489 2.1% Average Revenue per Trip Average Full Toll Lanes $3.64 $3.58 $0.06 1.7%$3.71 (1.9%) Average 3+ Lanes $0.27 $0.27 $0.00 0.0%$0.31 (12.9%) Average Revenue Per Trip $2.82 $2.74 $0.08 2.9%$2.89 (2.4%) 3 . . . . . . . . . The 2012 fiscal year-to-date (YTD) traffic volume is 2.1% lower than the same period last year. The 2012 fiscal year-to-date revenue is 5.1% lower than for the same period last year. Year-to- date average revenue per-trip is $2.88 and 4.7% higher than Stantec’s projections. Fiscal year-to-date traffic and revenue data are summarized in the table below. The following trip and revenue statistics tables represent all trips taken on the 91 Express Lanes and associated potential revenue for the months of July 2011 through April 2012. FY 2011-12 to Date as of April 30, 2012 (FY 2011-12 data is for the period July 1, 2011 through April 30, 2012; FY 2010-11 data is for the corresponding period in that fiscal year.) Trips FY 2011-12 YTD Actual Stantec YTD Projected # Variance % Variance FY 2010-11 YTD Actual Yr-to-Yr % Variance Full Toll Lanes 7,475,337 7,529,914 (54,577)(0.7%)7,665,504 (2.5%) 3+ Lanes 2,368,440 2,614,243 (245,803)(9.4%)2,393,518 (1.0%) Total Trips 9,843,777 10,144,157 (300,380)(3.0%)10,059,022 (2.1%) Full Toll Lanes $27,677,605 $27,221,046 $456,559 1.7%$29,083,957 (4.8%) 3+ Lanes $710,684 $715,514 ($4,830)(0.7%)$825,700 (13.9%) Total Revenue $28,388,289 $27,936,560 $451,729 1.6%$29,909,657 (5.1%) Full Toll Lanes $3.70 $3.62 $0.08 2.2%$3.79 (2.4%) 3+ Lanes $0.30 $0.27 $0.03 11.1%$0.34 (11.8%) Revenue Per Trip $2.88 $2.75 $0.13 4.7%$2.97 (3.0%) 4 . . . . . . . . . Traffic and Revenue Summary The chart below reflects the total trips breakdown between Full Toll trips and HOV3+ trips for FY 2011-12 on a monthly basis. 724,753 793,176 745,803 757,185 711,450 743,688 719,199 736,160 783,889 760,210 271,673 255,204 224,985 225,500 225,749 250,951 220,294 222,695 229,952 241,457 175,000 350,000 525,000 700,000 875,000 1,050,000 1,225,000 1,400,000 Jul-11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec -11 Jan -12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun -12 Vo l u m e Month FY 2011-12 Traffic Volume Overview 3+ Lanes Full Toll Lanes The chart below reflects the gross potential revenue breakdown between Full Toll trips and HOV3+ trips for FY 2011-12 on a monthly basis. 2,628,028 2,917,855 2,826,509 2,768,314 2,638,808 2,762,232 2,676,584 2,739,478 2,938,927 2,764,743 76,846 80,028 73,313 67,105 62,838 73,916 70,655 67,955 74,357 64,382 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $3,100,000 Jul-11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan -12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun -12 Re v e n u e Month FY 2011-12 Revenue Summary Full Toll Lanes 3+ Lanes 5 . . . . . . . . . One peak traffic hour in the eastbound direction reached or exceeded 90% or more of defined capacity during the month of April 2012. As demonstrated on the next chart, westbound peak hour traffic volumes top out at 78% of defined capacity. EASTBOUND PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 241 1,609 47%$4.15 306 1,799 53%$4.15 248 1,782 52%$4.25 296 2,053 60%$3.10 438 2,575 76% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 528 2,502 74%$3.70 608 2,908 86%$3.95 552 2,755 81%$4.95 638 3,003 88%$9.75 632 2,655 78% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 484 2,552 75%$6.30 556 2,858 84%$6.80 533 2,869 84%$8.95 571 2,969 87%$8.85 496 2,463 72% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 448 2,359 69%$5.75 502 2,541 75%$7.00 476 2,611 77%$8.30 484 2,717 80%$6.50 449 2,191 64% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 405 1,800 53%$3.60 494 2,415 71%$3.60 515 2,481 73%$4.40 496 2,455 72%$5.35 408 1,596 47% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 271 1,076 32%$3.15 345 1,407 41%$3.15 350 1,482 44%$4.55 378 1,601 47%$5.00 369 1,148 34% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 251 1,601 47%$4.15 262 1,727 51%$4.15 222 1,603 47%$4.25 293 2,152 63%$3.10 388 2,630 77% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 519 2,548 75%$3.70 482 2,584 76%$3.95 425 2,433 72%$4.95 508 2,819 83%$9.75 490 2,680 79% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 435 2,439 72%$6.30 475 2,657 78%$6.80 393 2,474 73%$8.95 470 2,953 87%$8.85 425 2,876 85% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 431 2,492 73%$5.75 400 2,618 77%$7.00 386 2,375 70%$8.30 457 2,921 86%$6.50 372 2,417 71% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 398 1,895 56%$3.60 429 2,337 69%$3.60 336 1,859 55%$4.40 433 2,506 74%$5.35 375 1,897 56% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 273 1,042 31%$3.15 296 1,269 37%$3.15 246 1,143 34%$4.55 290 1,644 48%$5.00 281 1,181 35% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 238 1,835 54%$4.15 229 1,718 51%$4.15 262 2,016 59%$4.25 287 2,247 66%$3.10 391 2,689 79% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 483 2,537 75%$3.70 499 2,729 80%$3.95 507 2,874 85%$4.95 569 2,991 88%$9.75 619 2,948 87% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 446 2,612 77%$6.30 467 2,635 78%$6.80 427 2,754 81%$8.95 489 2,904 85%$8.85 516 3,012 89% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 402 2,498 73%$5.75 456 2,709 80%$7.00 325 2,352 69%$8.30 475 2,776 82%$6.50 456 2,711 80% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 408 1,989 59%$3.60 468 2,444 72%$3.60 532 2,844 84%$4.40 456 2,529 74%$5.35 505 2,444 72% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 238 1,086 32%$3.15 292 1,381 41%$3.15 318 1,432 42%$4.55 350 1,778 52%$5.00 379 1,825 54% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 213 1,508 44%$4.15 226 1,592 47%$4.15 199 1,646 48%$4.25 252 1,807 53%$3.10 365 2,627 77% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 480 2,308 68%$3.70 480 2,445 72%$3.95 424 2,495 73%$4.95 486 2,591 76%$9.75 552 2,763 81% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 439 2,579 76%$6.30 461 2,675 79%$6.80 435 2,613 77%$8.95 459 2,766 81%$8.85 528 3,074 90% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 420 2,428 71%$5.75 434 2,552 75%$7.00 443 2,429 71%$8.30 440 2,653 78%$6.50 446 2,762 81% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 373 1,744 51%$3.60 412 2,045 60%$3.60 381 2,066 61%$4.40 445 2,428 71%$5.35 428 2,263 67% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 227 974 29%$3.15 259 1,163 34%$3.15 252 1,133 33%$4.55 316 1,393 41%$5.00 385 1,752 52% PM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 1400 - 1500 $4.15 237 1,541 45% 1500 - 1600 $4.45 497 2,430 71% 1600 - 1700 $4.55 457 2,716 80% 1700 - 1800 $4.85 425 2,594 76% 1800 - 1900 $4.45 461 2,036 60% 1900 - 2000 $3.15 235 1,034 30% Thursday 05/03/12 Friday 05/04/12 Thursday 04/26/12 Friday 04/27/12 Monday 04/30/12 Tuesday 05/01/12 Wednesday 05/02/12 Thursday 04/19/12 Friday 04/20/12 Monday 04/23/12 Tuesday 04/24/12 Wednesday 04/25/12 Thursday 04/12/12 Friday 04/13/12 Monday 04/16/12 Tuesday 04/17/12 Wednesday 04/18/12 Thursday 04/05/12 Friday 04/06/12 Monday 04/09/12 Tuesday 04/10/12 Wednesday 04/11/12 Monday 04/02/12 Tuesday 04/03/12 Wednesday 04/04/12 6 . . . . . . . . . WESTBOUND PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 331 691 20%$2.45 273 594 17%$2.45 238 528 16%$2.45 252 578 17%$2.45 204 458 13% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 664 1,816 53%$4.00 522 1,814 53%$4.00 489 1,693 50%$4.00 528 1,814 53%$3.85 414 1,481 44% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 656 2,270 67%$4.15 520 2,133 63%$4.15 445 2,095 62%$4.15 534 2,217 65%$4.00 368 1,450 43% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 630 2,198 65%$4.60 414 2,018 59%$4.60 444 2,318 68%$4.60 433 1,994 59%$4.45 288 1,150 34% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 299 1,518 45%$4.15 252 1,607 47%$4.15 262 1,841 54%$4.15 243 1,328 39%$4.00 255 1,348 40% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 290 1,170 34%$3.30 282 1,491 44%$3.30 258 1,286 38%$3.30 272 1,317 39%$3.30 232 984 29% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 243 615 18%$2.45 275 622 18%$2.45 224 643 19%$2.45 258 589 17%$2.45 194 479 14% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 481 1,759 52%$4.00 539 1,824 54%$4.00 487 1,669 49%$4.00 529 1,912 56%$3.85 417 1,433 42% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 467 2,117 62%$4.15 506 2,207 65%$4.15 478 2,148 63%$4.15 470 2,112 62%$4.00 358 1,470 43% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 339 1,619 48%$4.60 390 2,046 60%$4.60 319 1,867 55%$4.60 332 1,839 54%$4.45 254 1,395 41% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 217 1,439 42%$4.15 221 1,534 45%$4.15 188 1,504 44%$4.15 210 1,528 45%$4.00 194 1,234 36% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 185 1,218 36%$3.30 207 1,293 38%$3.30 161 1,133 33%$3.30 203 1,293 38%$3.30 140 950 28% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 188 487 14%$2.45 281 661 19%$2.45 265 604 18%$2.45 297 705 21%$2.45 229 547 16% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 556 2,021 59%$4.00 529 1,859 55%$4.00 570 1,879 55%$4.00 530 1,777 52%$3.85 496 1,697 50% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 515 2,318 68%$4.15 543 2,276 67%$4.15 574 2,344 69%$4.15 522 2,098 62%$4.00 464 1,952 57% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 464 2,177 64%$4.60 468 2,159 64%$4.60 463 2,115 62%$4.60 448 2,136 63%$4.45 445 1,875 55% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 213 1,744 51%$4.15 236 1,771 52%$4.15 198 1,501 44%$4.15 255 2,022 59%$4.00 220 1,345 40% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 165 1,236 36%$3.30 148 1,360 40%$3.30 188 1,221 36%$3.30 200 1,577 46%$3.30 170 1,065 31% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 227 623 18%$2.45 187 453 13%$2.45 248 566 17%$2.45 253 589 17%$2.45 216 525 15% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 513 1,815 53%$4.00 547 1,842 54%$4.00 523 1,850 54%$4.00 485 1,733 51%$3.85 486 1,649 49% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 473 2,086 61%$4.15 521 2,245 66%$4.15 554 2,159 64%$4.15 861 2,638 78%$4.00 481 1,897 56% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 457 2,123 62%$4.60 461 2,092 62%$4.60 400 2,031 60%$4.60 765 2,606 77%$4.45 410 1,605 47% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 236 1,825 54%$4.15 214 1,757 52%$4.15 187 1,422 42%$4.15 233 1,853 55%$4.00 184 1,242 37% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 207 1,686 50%$3.30 180 1,390 41%$3.30 132 1,052 31%$3.30 190 1,664 49%$3.30 143 907 27% AM Time Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap.Price HOV Vol. Cap. 0400 - 0500 $2.45 254 638 19% 0500 - 0600 $4.00 497 1,594 47% 0600 - 0700 $4.15 524 2,109 62% 0700 - 0800 $4.60 471 2,142 63% 0800 - 0900 $4.15 230 1,810 53% 0900 - 1000 $3.30 174 1,292 38% Thursday 05/03/12 Friday 05/04/12 Thursday 04/26/12 Friday 04/27/12 Monday 04/30/12 Tuesday 05/01/12 Wednesday 05/02/12 Thursday 04/19/12 Friday 04/20/12 Monday 04/23/12 Tuesday 04/24/12 Wednesday 04/25/12 Thursday 04/12/12 Friday 04/13/12 Monday 04/16/12 Tuesday 04/17/12 Wednesday 04/18/12 Thursday 04/05/12 Friday 04/06/12 Monday 04/09/12 Tuesday 04/10/12 Wednesday 04/11/12 Monday 04/02/12 Tuesday 04/03/12 Wednesday 04/04/12 7 . . . . . . . . . Transponder Distribution Status Tags % of Total Tags % of Total Issued To New Accounts 744 31.5%732 30.3%692 33.8% Additional Tags to Existing Accounts 530 22.4%414 17.1%414 20.3% Replacement Transponders 1,090 46.1%1,268 52.5%939 45.9% Total Issued 2,364 2,414 2,046 Returned Account Closures 453 28.7%526 28.9%541 34.6% Accounts Downsizing 124 7.9%151 8.3%160 10.2% Defective Transponders 1,002 63.5%1,144 62.8%865 55.2% Total Returned 1,579 1,821 1,566 FY 2011-12TRANSPONDER DISTRIBUTION April-12 March-12 Average To-Date At the end of April 2012, the 91 Express Lanes had 112,131 active customer accounts, with 167,046 transponders assigned to those accounts. Number of Accounts by Fiscal Year As of April 30, 2012 97,001 98,569 100,528 106,280 113,263 118,416 119,992 117,888 114,556 114,138 112,584 112,131 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Fiscal Year 8 . . . . . . . . . Operational Highlights On-road Operations Customer Assistance Specialists (CAS) responded to 95 calls during April. The CAS team received 58 calls to assist disabled vehicles, 17 calls to remove debris and conducted 7 assists or traffic breaks. The CAS provided assistance to 6 accidents in the Express Lanes and 7 accidents in the general-purpose lanes. Gantry Relocation Project Update One of the projects identified in the State Route (SR) 91 Implementation Plan is the SR-91 Westbound and Eastbound Lane Addition Project which adds a fifth general purpose lane in each direction between the SR-55 and SR-241. Given the current gantries span across the toll lanes and the general purpose lanes, the gantries will need to be torn down in order to accommodate the new general purpose lanes. In December 2011, an agreement was executed with Federal Signal Technologies (Federal Signal) to relocate and install the Electronic Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM) system equipment onto the new gantries. This project was successfully completed in April 2012. 9 . . . . . . . . . Financial Highlights 91 Express Lanes Operating Statement Description Actual (1)Budget (1)Dollar $Percent (%) Operating revenues: Toll revenue 26,574,479.05 28,822,042.00$ (2,247,562.95)$ (7.8) Fee revenue 5,883,278.18 4,864,722.00 1,018,556.18 20.9 Total operating revenues 32,457,757.23 33,686,764.00 (1,229,006.77) (3.6) Operating expenses: Contracted services 5,968,094.36 6,275,178.00 307,083.64 4.9 Administrative fee 1,421,002.20 1,919,690.00 498,687.80 26.0 Other professional services 564,024.93 1,355,430.00 791,405.07 58.4 Credit card processing fees 731,776.05 940,870.00 209,093.95 22.2 Toll road account servicing 358,338.96 879,438.00 521,099.04 59.3 Other insurance expense 256,711.10 708,250.00 451,538.90 63.8 Toll road maintenance supply repairs 214,594.46 243,245.00 28,650.54 11.8 Patrol services 307,303.54 333,200.00 25,896.46 7.8 Building equipment repairs and maint 309,458.26 570,079.00 260,620.74 45.7 Other services 19,759.01 101,750.00 81,990.99 80.6 Utilities 12,403.53 14,994.00 2,590.47 17.3 Office expense 28,613.10 129,738.00 101,124.90 77.9 Bad debt expense 4,363.54 - (4,363.54) N/A Miscellaneous (2)152,472.73 226,499.00 74,026.27 32.7 Leases 290,755.26 345,695.00 54,939.74 15.9 Total operating expenses 10,639,671.03 14,044,056.00 3,404,384.97 24.2 Depreciation and amortization (3)7,296,374.60 - (7,296,374.60) N/A Operating income (loss)14,521,711.60 19,642,708.00 (5,120,996.40) (26.1) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Federal assistance grants - - - N/A Interest income 530,905.64 1,348,473.00 (817,567.36) (60.6) Interest expense (5,394,356.07) (5,511,736.00) 117,379.93 2.1 Other 71,824.02 - 71,824.02 N/A Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(4,791,626.41) (4,163,263.00) (628,363.41) (15.1) Transfers in - - - N/A Transfers out (101,715.79) - (101,715.79) N/A Net income (loss)9,628,369.40$ 15,479,445.00$ (5,851,075.60)$ (37.8) ¹Actual amounts are accounted for on the accrual basis of accounting in an enterprise fund. Budget amounts are accounted for on a modified accrual basis of accounting. ²Miscellaneous expenses include: Bond Insurance Costs, Bank Service Charge, Transponder Materials. ³Depreciation and amortization are not budgeted items. YTD as of April 30, 2012 YTD Variance Capital Asset Activity During the ten months ending April 30, 2012, capital asset activities included approximately $285,966 for the purchase of transponders and $379,535 for the gantry relocation project. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Staff Report Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) June 1, 2012 To: State Route 91 Advisory Committee From: Will Kempton, Chief Executive Officer Subject: Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Overview The Orange County Transportation Authority annually prepares a long-range plan for improvements along the State Route 91 corridor between State Route 57 and Interstate 15 in Riverside County. The plan includes a listing of potential improvements, preliminary cost estimates, and implementation time frames. The Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan is provided for review and approval. Recommendation Approve the Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. Background AB 1010 (Chapter 688, Statutes 2002) requires the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to annually prepare a plan and a proposed schedule for improvements along State Route 91 (SR-91) between Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 55 (SR-55). The preparation of the plan is conducted in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). On September 30, 2008, SB 1316 (Chapter 714, Statutes 2008) was signed into law. This bill built upon AB 1010 to: extend the limits of the corridor to State Route 57 (SR-57), authorize RCTC to operate a toll facility along the portion of SR-91 in Riverside County, and extend the timeframe for the operations of the toll lanes to 2065. Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Page 2 The intent of the plan is to outline planned improvements that complement operation of toll facilities in the SR-91 corridor. The SR-91 Implementation Plan (Plan) describes projects and transportation benefits, anticipated implementation schedules by milestone year, and costs for major projects through 2035. Discussion The projects for the Plan have been updated based on the latest Measure M2 Program information, RCTC’s ten-year delivery plan, and the Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account information. To update the Plan, OCTA collaborated with Caltrans, RCTC, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), and corridor cities. OCTA also retained professional services to assist in data collection, information review, and report preparation. The draft Plan, which included input from the stakeholders, is provided in Attachment A. The projects are organized by readiness and logical sequencing; however, full funding for all projects has not been secured. Several projects have been advanced through the project development process and new information has been incorporated into the Plan. The projects which have advanced since the completion of the 2011 Plan include the State Route 71 (SR-71)/SR-91 interchange improvements, the State Route 241 (SR-241)/SR-91 Express Lanes connector, and improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. Early improvements in the corridor, estimated to cost approximately $170.5 million, are anticipated to be completed by 2015. The planned projects include: new travel lanes between SR-55 and SR-241 a new westbound lane at Tustin Avenue short-term Metrolink improvements Several other projects are slated for implementation between 2016 and 2025, including: interchange improvements at the SR-71/SR-91 interchange. Phase 1 of Riverside County 91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) to: widen SR-91 by one general purpose lane (GP) in each direction east of the county line: add collector-distributor roads, add I-15/SR-91 direct south connectors, extend the 91 Express Lanes to the I-15, and provide system/local interchange improvements. Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Page 3 Other improvements anticipated in this time frame include express bus service in the corridor; widening between SR-57 and SR-55, and construction of Express Lanes direct connectors at the SR-241/SR-91 junction. Work on the SR-241/91 Express Lanes direct connectors project is occurring in coordination with the 91 CIP. OCTA, RCTC, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary planning activities for the SR-241/SR-91 connectors to ensure readiness as funding becomes available. While the estimated funding of approximately $2 billion for these improvements is not readily available, project development is progressing to ensure that projects are ready as funding becomes available to implement , and, if possible, to advance the projects. Improvements for 2035 implementation focus on longer lead time concepts and include: Phase 2 of the 91 CIP which includes: widening SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR-241 to SR-71, adding I-15/SR-91 direct north connectors, extending the express lanes on I-15, and improving SR-91 east of I-15. Expanding Metrolink service and making station improvements along the SR-91 and Inland Empire - Orange County rail lines. The 2035 list of improvements also envisions an elevated four-lane facility between SR-241 to I-15 (Corridor A), an Anaheim to Ontario International Airport high-speed ground transportation system, and the Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) from the SR-241/State Route 133 to I-15/Cajalco Road. The cost of these mega projects is in excess of $12 billion and the implementation will require a significant amount of planning, design, external funding, and future policy and public input. While both Corridor A and ICE are still concepts, the introduction of potential new corridors identified in the major investment study by 2035 offer the potential for additional capacity to manage future SR-91 demand. The 2012 Plan includes updated traffic analysis which indicates that planned improvements will decrease congestion and improve peak hour travel speeds. Specifically, in the eastbound direction, average travel times through the corridor decrease by 20 percent in 2025 (from 53 minutes currently to 42 minutes). Moving westbound, the travel times decrease by 11 percent in 2015. When the full scope of the Riverside County improvements for SR-91 is implemented by 2035, further traffic improvements in both directions would be seen. Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Page 4 Staff continues to monitor the financial viability of the ICE project as requested by the SR-91 Advisory and Riverside Orange Corridor Authority committees. The current economic climate, lack of state and federal transportation funding, and the high construction cost is hampering the implementation of this project. Until considerable advancements are made in regards to efficient and affordable tunneling technology, and more state and federal funding is made available, the project will be a challenge to complete. Summary The Orange County Transportation Authority has completed the Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan required by AB 1010 and subsequently SB 1316 legislation. Updates include project schedules, project descriptions, costs, and traffic analysis. The Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan is presented for review and approval. The final document will be transmitted to appropriate members of the state legislature. Attachment A. Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan - June 2012 Prepared by: Approved by: Alison Army Kia Mortazavi Senior Transportation Analyst, Project Development (714) 560-5537 Executive Director, Planning (714) 560-5741 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Attachment A DDRRAAFFTT 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I SECTION 1: 2012 STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE ............................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 8 BY YEAR 2015 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 BY YEAR 2025 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 BY YEAR 2035 ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 SECTION 3: COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS APPENDIX ............................................................................ 26 SECTION 4: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 30 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1 SECTION 1: 2012 Status Report and Update INTRODUCTION Previous law authorized the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into franchise agreements with private companies to construct and operate four demonstration toll road projects in California. This resulted in the development of the 91 Express Lanes facility in Orange County. The four-lane, 10-mile toll road runs along the median of the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) in northeast Orange County between the Orange/Riverside County Line and the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55). Since the 91 Express Lanes carried its first vehicle on December 27, 1995, the facility has saved users tens of millions of hours of commuting time. While the 91 Express Lanes facility has improved travel time along the State Route 91 (SR-91) corridor, provisions in the franchise agreement between Caltrans and the private franchisee, the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), prohibited Caltrans and county transportation agencies from adding transportation capacity or operational improvements to the SR-91 corridor from the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) in Riverside County to the Orange/Los Angeles Counties border through the year 2030. Consequently, the public agencies were barred from adding new lanes, improving interchanges, and adding other improvements to decrease congestion on the SR-91 freeway. Recognizing the need to eliminate the non-compete provision of the franchise agreement, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1010 (Lou Correa) (AB 1010) into law in September 2002, paving the way for much- needed congestion relief for thousands of drivers who use SR-91 to travel between Riverside and Orange Counties each day. The bill allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise and eliminate the existing clause that prohibited any capacity-enhancing improvements from being made to SR-91 until the year 2030. The purchase agreement for the 91 Express Lanes was completed in January 2003, placing the road in public hands at a cost of $207.5 million. With the elimination of the non-compete provision through AB 1010 and the subsequent 91 Express Lanes purchase by the OCTA, Orange County and Riverside County public officials and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating improvement plans for SR-91. Senate Bill 1316 (Lou Correa) (SB 1316) was signed into law in August 2008 as an update to the provisions of AB 1010. SB 1316 authorizes OCTA to transfer its rights and interests in the Riverside County portion of SR-91 toll lanes by assigning them to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and authorizes RCTC to impose tolls for 50 years. SB 1316 also requires OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and RCTC, to annually issue a SR-91 Implementation Plan (Plan) and a proposed completion schedule for SR-91 improvements from State Route 57 (SR-57) to Interstate 15 (I-15). The Plans prior to adoption of SB 1316 included a westerly project limit of State Route 55 (SR-55). The Plan establishes a program of projects eligible for funding by the use of potential excess toll revenue and other funds. This 2012 Plan is the result of the requirement to provide the State Legislature with an annual Implementation Plan for SR-91 improvements and builds on the 2011 report, which was a major update of the previous annual Implementation Plans. This year’s update includes projects identified in the Riverside County – Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) as well as other project development efforts and funding programs such as the RCTC 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan that outlines a number of projects such as the extension of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes from the Orange/Riverside County Line to I-15, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) that provides a funding source for transportation projects, the extension of the Measure A program that provides funding for transportation projects in Riverside County, and the Renewed Measure M program that provides funding for transportation projects in Orange County. The 2012 Plan includes an overview, identification of issues and needs, time frames for project packages to improve mobility on 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 SR-91, and are listed based on a logical sequence for implementation. Project descriptions include conceptual lane diagrams (as appropriate), cost estimates (in 2012 dollars, or as noted), and discussion of key considerations that need to be addressed in the planning and development of each project. This Plan will provide OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans with a framework to implement SR-91 and other related improvements. Future annual Plan updates will continue to refine the scope, cost, and schedule of each project included in this version of the Plan. SR-91 CORRIDOR CONDITIONS Project Limits The project study limits encompass the segment of SR-91 from west of the junction of SR-57 and SR-91 in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, to east of the junction of SR-91 and I-15 in the City of Corona in Riverside County. The freeway segment is approximately 20.3 miles long, and includes approximately 12.7 miles within Orange County and approximately 7.6 miles within Riverside County. Traffic Conditions Summary A review of traffic conditions in the Corridor indicates that the existing carrying capacity of the facility is inadequate to accommodate current and future peak demand volumes, and that Level of Service (LOS) F prevails in the peak direction during the entire peak period, where LOS F is defined as the worst freeway operating condition and is defined as a density of more than 45 passenger cars/lane/mile. The results also indicate that there are several physical constraints that generate unacceptable traffic queues. The following list summarizes the deficiencies identified along the SR-91 Corridor:  Heavy traffic volumes from I-15 (North and South) converge with SR-91. The weaving and merging condition is complicated by the close proximity of the Westbound (WB) Main Street off-ramp.  High demand from several on-ramps within the eastern segment exacerbates traffic conditions during peak hours.  High traffic volumes from Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road contribute to congestion on the mainline.  The Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) merges with SR-91 causing additional congestion in the EB direction. One of the two EB lanes from State Route 241 (SR-241) is dropped at the merge to State Route 91 (SR-91).  Heavy traffic reentering the freeway merges at slow speeds from existing WB and EB truck scales, impacting the general-purpose lanes.  SR-55 merges with SR-91. An EB lane on SR-91 is dropped at Lakeview Avenue and a second EB lane is dropped at Imperial Highway creating a severe merge condition.  WB SR-91 drops a GP lane and a 91 Express Lane to SB SR-55, which contributes to mainline congestion. This drop also occurs on the left-hand side of SR-91 as opposed to the typical right-hand exit.  High demand from Weir Canyon Road, Imperial Highway and Lakeview Avenue increases delay during the peak hours.  WB traffic entering SR-91 at Lakeview Avenue to southbound (SB) SR-55 contributes to mainline congestion by weaving through three lanes from WB SR-91. PROJECT SUMMARY Many of the projects identified in this 2012 Plan are based on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The projects are presented based on potential implementation schedules and priorities established in the MIS as well as through subsequent project development. Table 1 summarizes the various projects in the 2012 Plan, and they are outlined below by implementation schedule (see Section 2 for detailed project summaries):  The first set of projects is anticipated to be completed by 2015 and includes three improvements at a total cost of approximately $170.5 million. The projects include new travel lanes between SR-55 and SR-241, the Metrolink short-term expansion plan, and a new WB lane at Tustin Avenue. These projects are in the process of final design, construction, or procurement and implementation, as noted in the project summaries.  Five projects for implementation by 2025 include interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91; the Initial SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) that will 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3 widen SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction east of the County Line, add collector-distributor (CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR- 91, and extend the 91 Express Lanes to I-15, and provide system/local interchange improvements; Express Bus improvements; a SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes connector; and SR-91 widening improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary planning activities for these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Preliminary engineering has been initiated for the highway improvement projects. Consequently, there may be opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2025 would cost approximately from $1.86 billion up to $2.08 billion.  Projects for implementation by 2035 focus on longer-lead time projects and include: a potential new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont Boulevard; the Ultimate CIP that widens SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-91 improvements east of I-15; a significant expansion of Metrolink service; an elevated 4-lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15; the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail; and Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) 4-lane facility from SR-241/SR- 133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS Corridor B). The Fairmont Boulevard interchange project and the other four, multi-billion dollar potential projects require a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. In some cases, these projects may include previous projects as project components, such that all projects may not be implemented within this project summary. Traffic Analysis For the 2012 Plan, the traffic analysis for major SR-91 capacity projects has been updated from the 2011 Plan. This analysis used the latest freeway operations software model available from UC Berkeley and traffic data calibrated to reflect new traffic patterns since the 2011 Plan. This freeway operations model provides a better depiction of actual travel delays experienced by motorists compared to traditional travel demand models. The model can be used to analyze freeway bottlenecks sometimes neglected in traditional travel demand models. This approach is especially important given high SR-91 traffic volumes and the potential for relatively few vehicles to significantly slow down traffic. For example, a minor freeway merging area can cause many vehicles to slow, cascading delay through the traffic stream, and suddenly both speed and volume rapidly decrease for major segments of the freeway. Table 1 – SR-91 Implementation Plan Projects Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M) By Year 2015 1 Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction (2012) 85.2 2 Metrolink Short-Term Expansion Plan (2014) 35.4 3 SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 49.9 SUBTOTAL 170.5 By Year 2025 4 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements (2017) 122.7 5 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of County Line, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to I-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements (2017) 1,345 6 Express Bus Improvements Between Orange County and Riverside County (2017) 9.5 7 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (2018) 135-180 8 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 (2025) 253-425 SUBTOTAL 1,865 – 2,082 By Year 2035 9 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements (Post-2025) 76.8 10 Metrolink Service and Station Improvements (2030) 335 11 Ultimate CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR- 91 Improvements East of I-15 (2035) TBD 12 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15 (TBD) 2,720 13 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail (Post-2030) TBD 14 Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) 4-Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road ( Post-2030) 8,855 SUBTOTAL 12,000+ 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 The operations analysis quantified travel time savings for WB morning and EB afternoon conditions for the following major capacity enhancing projects:  New WB/EB lanes from SR-55 to SR-241 by 2012 (Project 1).  New WB/EB lanes from SR-71 to I-15 by 2017 (Initial CIP, Project 5).  SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes connector with lanes to Coal Canyon on SR-91 by 2018 (Project 7).  EB lane between SR-57 and SR-55 by 2025 (Project 8).  New WB/EB lanes, various segments, from SR-241 to I-15 by 2035 (Ultimate CIP, Project 11).  New capacity provided by Corridor A and Irvine- Corona Expressway (ICE) by 2035 (Projects 12 and 14). The WB morning traffic analysis results indicate that the year 2015 forecasts, bottlenecks are shown at the Orange-Riverside County line and at the SR-55 interchange. A minor bottleneck is shown at the SR-241 interchange. The main bottlenecks in Riverside County have decreased because of the completion of proposed projects, though some congestion is still forecasted. In the year 2025 forecast, WB bottlenecks occur at Main Street, the Orange-Riverside County Line, at the SR-241 interchange, and at the SR-55 interchange. Assuming Corridor A and the ICE are not constructed by the year 2035, bottlenecks appear at Main Street, just east of the SR-71 interchange, at the Orange-Riverside County Line, at the SR-241 interchange, and at the SR-55 interchange. For the year 2035, the construction of Corridors A and ICE is forecast to notably improve WB operations along the SR-91 freeway. A bottleneck is shown at the SR-55 interchange. The EB evening traffic analysis indicates that the year 2015 forecasts, bottlenecks are shown shortly before the SR-55 interchange, at the Orange-Riverside County Line, and at Lincoln Avenue. In the year 2025 forecast, EB bottlenecks are still shown west of the SR-55 interchange and at the Orange-Riverside County Line. The bottleneck at Lincoln Avenue and queuing in Riverside County have largely decreased because of the completion of proposed projects, though some congestion is still forecasted. Assuming Corridors A and ICE are not constructed by the year 2035, bottlenecks appear at SR-55, at the SR-241 interchange, and at Lincoln Avenue. For the year 2035, the construction of Corridor A and the ICE is forecast to notably improve EB operations along the SR-91 freeway. A bottleneck is shown before the SR-55 interchange, and some minor congestion is shown at the SR-241 and in short stretches within Riverside County. The current design of the SR-55/SR-91 interchange limits the ability to move traffic into north and central Orange County via SR-55, and significant future vehicle delays may result without major interchange improvements and downstream capacity increases or diversion to other corridors. The introduction of Corridors A and ICE by 2035 offers the potential capacity to manage future SR-91 traffic demand in both directions. While both of these corridors are still concepts, they provide substantial relief to EB and WB traffic congestion in the future. Further feasibility studies will determine if one or both concepts move forward in the project development process. The charts below describe the travel time benefits by year including these various project concepts. 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5 PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS Much progress has been made since the initial 2003 SR-91 Implementation Plan was approved. The 2012 Plan includes select completed project exhibits as a historical reference, see Section 3. Recently Completed Construction/Improvement Projects As of June 2012, the following physical improvements have been constructed/implemented:  Repave and seal pavement surfaces, restripe, and replace raised channelizers on the 91 Express Lanes.  EB SR-91 restripe and median barrier reconstruction project that removed the CHP enforcement area and extended the EB auxiliary lane from SR-71 to the Serfas Club Drive off-ramp.  WB auxiliary lane extension between the County Line and SR-241. This project eliminated the lane drop at the 91 Express Lanes and extended the existing auxiliary lane from the County Line to SR-241 in the Figure 1-2 – Mainline Eastbound SR-91 from SR-57 to I-15 P.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time Figure 1-1 – Mainline Westbound SR-91 from I-15 to SR-57 A.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 westbound direction. This improvement minimized the traffic delays at the lane drop area, resulting in improved vehicle progression.  WB restripe project extended the auxiliary lane between SR-71 and the County Line resulting in a new continuous auxiliary lane between SR-71 & SR-241.  Express Bus improvements are implemented for the Galleria at Tyler to South Coast Metro route.  Safety Improvements at the Truck Scales. Existing shoulders were improved, lanes were re-striped, illumination improved, and signage was modified into and out of the EB facilities.  Green River Road overcrossing replacement (See Section 3).  Metrolink parking structure at the North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station (See Section 3).  EB SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71 (See Section 3). These projects provide enhanced freeway capacity and improved mobility for one of the most congested segments of SR-91. The recently completed EB SR-91 lane addition project from SR-241 to SR-71 (See Section 3) has greatly enhanced highway operations. This accounts for some of the improvement in existing EB p.m. peak hour travel time from approximately 70+ minutes in 2010 to approximately 50 minutes as shown in Figure 1-2. In addition, there are two projects that are currently in the project development or environmental phase that have a direct impact upon SR-91 widening projects. The first is the $2 billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Santa Ana River Mainstem (SARM) improvement project that provides flood protection from the recently improved Prado Dam (near SR-71) to the Pacific Ocean. As part of the Corps’ project, existing riverbanks are being improved due to the increased capacity of the Prado Dam outlet works, which can now release up to 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) compared to the previous facility capacity of 10,000 cfs. The only remaining segment of the Santa Ana River to be improved is Reach 9 Phase 2A, which includes areas along SR-91 from just east of the Coal Canyon Wildlife Corridor Crossing to SR-71. SR-91 project design teams have coordinated with the Corps, Caltrans, and other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to accommodate future SR-91 improvements by the Corps bank protection project within Reach 9 by relocating the Santa Ana River. This will greatly enhance the ability of Caltrans and other regional transportation agencies to implement many of the SR-91 improvement projects listed herein. The Corps SARM Reach 9 improvements were under construction as of September 2009 with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) “stimulus” funding and will be completed by October 2012. The other project with a direct impact to SR-91 is the $120 million Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) sewer trunk line relocation. The existing SARI line is within the Santa Ana River floodplain and is in jeopardy of failure due to scour from the potential increased flood releases by the aforementioned Corps project. In order to relocate the proposed 48-inch diameter SARI line outside of the floodplain, which is immediately adjacent to SR-91, highway R/W was relinquished to the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) for location of the SARI line. SR-91 project teams have coordinated with the OCFCD, Caltrans, and other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to accommodate planned SR-91 improvements within the remaining State R/W subsequent to relinquishment. This project completed the preliminary engineering phase and construction is scheduled to be completed by March 2013. Recently Completed PSRs and other Reports In addition to the physical improvements in the corridor, there are several reports and PSRs that are completed, in draft form, or anticipated to be approved that identify improvements that will provide improved mobility. The reports and PSRs include (also see Section 4):  MIS – Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report (January 2006).  Project Study Report “On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County” (October 2006).  Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan (November 2006).  Project Study Report for SR-71/SR-91 Interchange (December 2006).  RCTC 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan (December 2006).  91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study (March 2009).  Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71 (May 2009). 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7  SR-91 Feasibility Study from SR-57 to SR-55 (June 2009).  SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study (December 2009).  Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR-91 Corridor Final Report (August 2010).  PS&E “On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County” (April 2011).  Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, approved August 2007 and subsequently renamed as the Capital Action Plan (April 2011). Updates from the 2011 SR-91 Implementation Plan In addition to the improvements and progress noted above, the following items that were included in the 2011 SR-91 Implementation Plan have been modified for the 2012 Plan update:  Project schedules have been revised such that the implementation of projects has moved some of them into new horizon years.  Various project descriptions, costs, and schedules have been updated from the 2011 Plan based on continued project development. ICE status summary The ICE project concept (see Project #14) was conceived as part of the 2006 Riverside County – Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) and was established as part of a suite of projects to support future peak demand volumes between Riverside and Orange Counties. ICE was further evaluated in 2009 for financial and geotechnical feasibility. Seven (7) primary feasibility issues were considered:  Geologic, Hydrogeologic/Hydrologic, and Geotechnical Conditions  Corridor Concepts (full tunnel and partial tunnel/partial surface road)  Tunnel Configuration  Tunnel excavation and support Methods  Tunnel Systems (e.g. Ventilation, Emergency fire system, operation building, toll system, etc.)  Construction Considerations  Construction, Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Costs At the conclusion of the financial and geotechnical feasibility study in 2010, Riverside Orange Corridor Authority Board (ROCA) directed staff to shelve the project due to its high construction cost and the difficult economic climate, and to reevaluate the project on an annual basis during the preparation of the SR-91 Implementation Plan. The National Forest Service has continued monitoring of the ground water level along the preliminary alignment of the tunnel and has not found any significant changes since 2010. The technological ability to construct the large-diameter tunnels is currently available; however, the cost of tunnel boring machines (TBM) required to construct this project has not been reduced significantly. In general, no significant changes on the seven feasibility issues considered for the project have occurred over the last year. Conclusion An assessment of current economic conditions, lack of state and federal transportation funding; and the high construction cost is hampering the ability of OCTA and RCTC to implement this project. Until considerable advancements are made in regards to efficient and affordable tunneling technology, and more state and federal funding are made available, the project will be a challenge to construct. 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8 SECTION 2: Implementation Plan OVERVIEW The 2012 Plan describes projects, implementation schedules, key consideration, benefits, and costs (in 2012 dollars, or as noted) for major projects through 2035. Most of the projects identified in this Implementation Plan are based on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The projects are presented based on potential implementation schedules and priorities established in the MIS. The schedules for implementation of the packages of projects include 2015, 2025, and 2035. The 2015 projects are capable of being implemented through the project development process with minimal to moderate environmental constraints. Some of the longer-range projects for 2025 and 2035 require more significant planning and environmental assessment prior to design. Each of the project improvements includes an estimate of project schedules. It is important to note that implementing various time saving measures, such as design-build or contractor incentives for early completion, may potentially reduce project schedules. The implementation phases are defined as follows:  Conceptual Engineering = Pre-Project Study Report (Pre-PSR) – Conceptual planning and engineering for project scoping and feasibility prior to initiating the PSR phase.  Preliminary Engineering = Project Study Report (PSR) – Conceptual planning and engineering phase that allows for programming of funds.  Environmental = Project Report/Environmental Documentation (PR/ED) – The detailed concept design that provides environmental clearance for the project and programs for final design and right of way acquisition. The duration for this phase is typically 2-3 years.  Design = Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) – Provide detailed design to contractors for construction bidding and implementation.  Construction = The project has completed construction and will provide congestion relief to motorists. The intent of these Implementation Plan project packages is to provide an action list for OCTA, RCTC and Caltrans to pursue in the project development process or for initiating further studies. Figure 2-1 – SR-91 Project Study Area from SR-57 to I-15 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9 By Year 2015 The first set of projects will be completed by 2015 and includes three (3) improvements at a total cost of approximately $170 million (in 2012 dollars, or as noted). The projects that will be completed in this time frame include widening SR-91 from SR- 55 to SR-241 by adding a 5th general purpose lane in each direction, the Metrolink short-term expansion plan, and the SR-91 WB lane at Tustin Avenue. Further details for each of the projects are included following the summary below. Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M) 1 Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction (2012) 85.2 2 Metrolink Short-Term Expansion Plan (2014) 35.4 3 SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 49.9 SUBTOTAL 170.5 Figure 2-3 – Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2015 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 10 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 11 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 12 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 13 By Year 2025 Projects for implementation by 2025 include the interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91; the Initial Phase SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) that includes widening SR-91 by one general purpose (GP) lane in each direction east of the County Line, collector-distributor (CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-91, extension of 91 Express Lanes to I-15, and system interchange improvements; Express Bus improvements; the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes direct connector; and SR-91 improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary planning activities for these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Consequently, there may be opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2025 are expected to cost approximately $1.87 to $2.08 billion (in 2012 dollars, or as noted). Some of these projects may become components of 2035 projects. Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M) 4 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements (2017) 122.7 5 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of County Line, CD Roads and I-15/SR- 91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to I-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements (2017) 1,345 6 Express Bus Improvements Between Orange County and Riverside County (2017) 9.5 7 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (2018) 135-180 8 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 (2025) 253-425 SUBTOTAL 1,865 – 2,082 Figure 2-4 – Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2025 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 14 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 15 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 16 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 17 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 18 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19 By Year 2035 Projects for implementation by 2035 focus on longer-lead time projects. This multi-billion dollar program includes: a potential new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont Boulevard; a significant expansion of Metrolink service and station improvements; the Ultimate CIP that widens SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-91 improvements east of I-15; an elevated 4-lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15; the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail; and the Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) 4-lane facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS Corridor B). The $77 million dollar Fairmont Boulevard interchange project and the other four, multi-billion dollar potential projects include significant environmental constraints and right of way requirements in addition to requiring a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. The Corridor A project may incorporate projects being developed in the earlier programs as project components. Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M) 9 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements (Post-2025) 76.8 10 Metrolink Service and Station Improvements (2030) 335 11 Ultimate CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-91 Improvements East of I-15 (2035) TBD 12 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15 (TBD) 2,720 13 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail (Post-2030) TBD 14 Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) 4-Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (Post-2030) 8,855 SUBTOTAL 12,000+ Figure 2-5 – Summary of Projects for Implementation by 2035 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 20 2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 21 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 22 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 23 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 24 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 25 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 26 SECTION 3: COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS APPENDIX The following exhibits represent completed projects from previous Plans and are intended to be used as a reference to illustrate the progress made since the inception of the Plan. Note, some projects listed in the Plan as completed (see Section 1, Project Accomplishments) are not included herein since there was no exhibit created for use with prior Plans (such as for restriping projects, various safety enhancements, minor operational improvements, etc.). Appendix Project No. Project Improvements Constructed A Green River Road Overcrossing Replacement March 2009 B North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure June 2009 C Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71 September 2010 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 27 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 28 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 29 2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 30 SECTION 4: REFERENCES The following documents and resources were used in the development of the 2012 Plan. Data was provided by OCTA, RCTC, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), and other agencies. PS&E “On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County” (April 2011) Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR-91 Corridor Final Report, August 2010 Project Study Report/Project Report “Right of Way Relinquishment on Westbound State Route 91 Between Weir Canyon Road and Coal Canyon”, May 2010 SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study, December 2009 SR-91 Feasibility Study from SR-57 to SR-55, December 2009 Feasibility Evaluation Report for Irvine-Corona Expressway Tunnels, December 2009 Renewed Measure M Strategic Plan, June 2009 Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71, May 2009 Project Study Report “On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County”, April 2009 91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study, March 2009 Project Study Report/Project Report “On Gypsum Canyon Road Between the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Westbound Off- Ramp (PM 16.4) and the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Eastbound Direct On-Ramp (PM 16.4)”, June 2008 California Transportation Commission, Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), February 2007 Project Study Report “On Route 91 from Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the City of Corona in Riverside County”, December 2006 Orange County Transportation Authority Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, November 2006 Project Study Report “On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the C ity of Riverside in Riverside County”, October 2006 Riverside County-Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) – Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report, January 2006 Preliminary design plans for Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71, 2006 Project Study Report “Westbound State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane from the NB SR-55/WB SR-91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange”, July 2004 California – Nevada Interstate Maglev Project Report, Anaheim-Ontario Segment; California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, American Magline Group, August 2003 Route Concept Reports for SR-91, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 Various Preliminary Drawings and Cross Sections, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan PowerPoint Draft 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan 2 Plan Background Required by AB 1010 (Chapter 688, Statutes 2002) Updated by SB 1316 (Chapter 714, Statutes 2008) Annually updated Organized by project readiness 3 Projects By Year 2015 Project No. Project Summary - Implementation Year 2015 Cost ($M) 1 Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by adding a fifth GP lane in each direction (2012) 85.2 2 Metrolink Short-Term Expansion Plan (2014) 35.4 3 SR-91 westbound lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 49.9 SUBTOTAL 170.5 4 Projects Between Years 2016 and 2025 Project No. Project Summary - Implementation Year 2025 Cost ($M) 4 SR-71/SR-91 interchange improvements (2017) 122.7 5 Initial phase 91 CIP (2017) 1,345 6 Express bus improvements between Orange County and Riverside County (2017) 9.5 7 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes connector (2018) 135-180 8 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 (2025) 253-425 SUBTOTAL 1,865-2,082 5 Projects Between Years 2026 and 2035 Project No. Project Summary - Implementation Year 2035 Cost ($M) 9 Fairmont Boulevard improvements (Post 2025) 76.8 10 Metrolink service and station improvements (2030) 335 11 Ultimate 91 CIP (2035) TBD 12 Elevated four-lane facility (Major Investment Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15 (TBD) 2,720 13 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High-Speed Rail (Post-2030) TBD 14 ICE from SR-241/State Route 133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (Post 2030) 8,855 SUBTOTAL 12,000+ TBD – To be determined 6 ICE In August 2010, ROCA recommended annual evaluation of technological and financial feasibility Challenges remain: High construction costs, lack of federal and state funding support, and unstable economic climate ROCA - Riverside Orange Corridor Authority 7 Traffic Summary (PM, eastbound) 8 Traffic Summary (AM, westbound) 9 Recommendations/Next Steps Approve Draft Plan Provide to OCTA Board and RCTC in mid-June and July Forward approved SR-91 Implementation Plan to state legislature Continue project implementation efforts