Loading...
10 October 15, 2007 Technical advisory commiteeTIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* 10�00 A.M. October 15, 2007 Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA 81859 Records *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternativeformat; i.e. large'print, tape. Q COMMITTEE MEMBERS i a�. Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City '' Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Ron Carr, City of Perris Bill Gallegos, City of Coachella'' Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit 1 Steven Mendoza, City of Desert Hot it Springs r Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Shirley Medina, Program Manager is ;! Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, and San Jacinto Les Nelson, PVVTA Amad Qattan, City of Corona Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, VVRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Bill Thompson, City of Norco Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian VVells' John Wilder, City of Beaumont Sean Yeung, Caltrans District 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: October 15, 2007 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. Local Assistance Report (Verbal Presentation) 6. NEPA Delegation Update Presentation (Verbal Presentation) 7. Perris Blvd. STPL Fund Substitution (Attachment) 8. Grade Separations Funding Update (Attachment) 9. Congestion Mitigation Plan (CMP) Update (Verbal Presentation) 10. 2008 STIP Update (Verbal Presentation) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting October 15, 2007 Page 2 11. RTIP Update (Attachment) 12. COMMISSION CONNECTION/COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be November 19, 10:00 A.M. in Riverside) ij L - -= - • • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday,: September 17, 2007 1. Call to Order Tom Boyd, Chair, called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to order at 10:05 A.M. at Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Mike Gow, City of Hemet Brian Guillet, City of Banning Bruce Harry,: City of Rancho Mirage Alfonso Hernandez, Sun Line Ned Ibrahim, City of Corona Timothy Jonasson, City of La Quinta Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Eldon Lee, City of Desert Hot Springs Mike McCoy, RTA Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Eric Tang, Caltrans District 8 Alana Townsend, City of Palm Desert John Wilder, City of Beaumont Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 17, 2007 Page 2 Others Present: Grace Alvarez, RCTC Ruby Arellano, RCTC Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Michael Blomquist, RCTC Eric Haley, RCTC Tracy Hernandez, RBF Consulting Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC John Pagano, Ca!trans Evita Premdas, Ca!trans Paul Rodriguez, Urban Crossroads 3. Approval of Minutes — July 16, 2007 M/S/C (Motlagh/Harry) to approve the July 16, 2007 minutes Abstain: John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. CETAP - Mid County Parkway Final Alternative Presentation , A presentation was made by Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, on the Mid County Parkway. At the September 12, 2007 Commission Meeting, Alternative 9 was selected as the locally preferred alternative. This corridor spans 32 miles East-West between the 79, across 1-215, and west to 1-15. Ms. - Bechtel explained the five alternatives studied over the years which Lead to Alternative 9. being selected as the locally preferred alternative. Discussion ensured about possible future funding and the priority to complete the various segments. 6. Measure A Project Call Shirley Medina informed the TAC that the subcommittee, George Johnson, Juan Perez, Habib Motlagh, Bill Hughes, Chris Vogt, and Tom Boyd, has met three times to determine the criteria and eligibility. The draft Call : for Projects was distributed for review. If approved, it will be submitted to the Commission at the October ,meeting. The project call applies to western county agencies only and will be capacity :enhancing projects. Funding will be available for all , project phases, but the reasonableness of project schedules will be ;looked at closely. Project maintenance activities (landscaping,etc.) are not expected to be eligible for funding. Ms. Medina provided an overview of the basic scoring criteria, local match requirements, and that funded projects are expected, to be under construction. by 2015. She added that funded projects will be .monitored in the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 17, 2007 Page 3 same fashion as are federally funded projects that RCTC manages. Finally, the intent of the project call is not to back -fill committed TUMF funded projects. M/S/C (lbrahim/Johnson) to approve the Measure A Extension Regional Arterials Calf for Projects Western County and submit to the RCTC Commission October 10, 2007. 7. FY 2007/08 Draft Obligation Delivery Plan A draft FY 2007/08 Obligation Delivery Plan has been created by RCTC using the milestone reports submitted in July 2007. The FY 07/08 Obligation Delivery Plan provides a look -ahead of anticipated CMAQ, STPL, TE, and other federal earmarks to be obligated between October 2007 and September 2008. If there are any errors or changes please notify Ken Lobeck at RCTC. 8. Perris Blvd. Fund Substitution The item was continued to the next meeting to allow the lead agencies more time to work out the funding split agreement. 9. City of Palm Springs STPL Request Dave Barakian, City of 'Palm Springs, presented a letter regarding the Gene Autry Trail Railroad Bridge project. The project was originally STIP funded but was moved to STPL funding. The city is requesting an increase of the STPL funding from $1,540,000 to $4,038,020. The request is made as a result of a cost increase and delay clue to the adjacent 1-10/Gene Autry Trail Interchange project and the Union Pacific Railroad's additional main line track project. M/S/C (Johnson/lbrahim) to approve an increase: of $2,498,020 in funds from $1,540,000 to $4,038,020 as requested by the City of Palm Springs for the Gene Autry Trail Railroad Bridge project. 10. Local Assistance Report Various handouts were distributed by Eric Tang, Caltrans. All were printouts of e-mails previously sent to the TAC from Caltrans Local Assistance. The handouts were as follows: HSIP list of successful projects (which is also on the Caltrans website), the Local. Assistance assignment sheet, an example of a false letter which is being distributed requesting privileged information, NEPA/Emissions modeling, a DBE letter, information regarding a federal aid class, and information regarding the upcoming CTC meeting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 17, 2007 Page 4 11. FY 2007/08 STIP TE Allocations All the.. projects listed in the STIP for TE FY2007/08 was distributed with the Obligation Delivery Plan item. Shirley Medina reminded everyone that all TE projects are going to need an allocation and an obligation package submitted. 12. 2006 RTIP Amendment Status Update Ken Lobeck provided the TAC with a status update on the current amendments to the 2006 RTIP. Amendment 10 is currently under review by SCAG. Approval is anticipated by mid November, 2007. A list of projects to be included in Amendment 12 was distributed. Only the projects with changes for funding in 2007/08 or that include a federal action that would prevent funding if not reported have been included. Any updated TIP sheets need to be submitted by October 11, 2007. 13. 2008 RTIP Update Ken Lobeck announced that the development of the 2008 RTIP Update is now occurring. There are several formatting and process changes that are necessary to adhere with revised FWHA procedures. New projects and updated TIP sheets for carry over: into the 2008 RTIP are due back to RCTC by October 22, 2007. RCTC will be holding multiple RTIP workshops during September to help explain the numerous procedure changes. Three workshops will be at RCTC with one workshop to be held at CVAG on September 25;2007. 14. Commission Connection/Commission Highlights Eric Haley, RCTC, presented a few key items from the September 12, 2007 Commission meeting. The first was the discussion on the Trade Corridor Infrastructure Account. Also, the Perris Valley Line is still on track. RCTC ,is working with FTA for funding. Lastly, an agreement has been struck with BRE Properties, a development company, for a joint project at the La Sierra . Metrolink station. There will be a mixed housing project which will provide two parking structures. Each structure has an estimated cost $25-30 million. 15. Other Business Project Milestone Reports were sent out to local agencies. Approximately 57% responded. The reports that still outstanding. ' are: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa,Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, and RCTC. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 17, 2007 Page 5 11. Adjournment There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:50 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2007, 10:00 A.M., Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Program Manager _ , - 7 - „' _ - _ - - = . - _ _ A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. 1 • AGENDA ITEM 7 - L - - :- 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 15 2007 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Perris Blvd STPL Funds Proposed Reprogramming of $796,000 by the STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item requests the TAC approve the reprogramming of $796,000 of an approved $3,184,000 of STPL funds from Perris' Perris Blvd widening project to Moreno Valley's Nason St IC improvement project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The city of Perris and city of Moreno Valley currently have two projects programmed in the RTIP that will widen Perris Blvd from 2 to 6 through lanes between Ramona Expwy and Cactus Ave. The projects are currently programmed in the RTIP in an unusual fashion due to one portion that was once STIP funded. The projects will be re -programmed in the RTIP to reflect the project limits properly within each city. The Perris widening segment will widen Perris Blvd from 2 to 6 through lanes from Ramona Expressway north to the city limits. Moreno Valley's widening segment from 2 to 6 through lanes will be from their southerly city limits north to Cactus Ave. Approximately .25% of the $3.184 million of STPL for the overall Perris Blvd widening falls within Moreno Valley. However, Moreno Valley does not intend to federalize their widening segment and will back -fill the $796,000 with local funds for their segment. Per an agreement reached between the two agencies, Moreno Valley is requesting the $796,000 of STPL be. reprogrammed to their Nason St IC project. Proposed Perri:0N Widenink z t0 14!)40 es�4,110 The TAC action for this item is to consider reprogramming Moreno Valley's STPL portion to their SR60/Nason St IC improvement project which is federalized and already has STPL programmed for the project RCTC staff supports Moreno Valley's proposed $796,000 STPL. reprogramming action to the SR60/Nason St IC based on Perris and Moreno Valley's agreement to split the STPL funds. Attachments: 1. Moreno Valley's October 4, 2007 STPL Reprogramming Request Letter 2 Perris October 3, 2007 Perris Blvd Letter • Oct 04 2007 6: O 1 PM City of Moreno Val l em 951-413-3170 P-2 • •Lid`-'L.Otr�=��`..�r �- -- _ - October 4, 2007 Ms.. Shirley Medina, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation, Commission ' 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Public Works Department Capital Projects Cky Nall 14177 Frederidc Street P.O. Box 88005 Moreno Valley, CA 92552-0805 Telephone: 951.4133 00 FAX: 951A133170 Subject Project . ID RIV011205 - Perris Boulevard Rehabilitation from Ramona Expressway to Perrin Valley Storm Drain Lateral "A" and Project ID RIV041044 Perris Boulevard Widening from Ramona Expressway to Cactus Avenue (TUMF Project 5106) Dear Ms. Medina: As discussed during the September 5, 2007 meeting between the City of Moreno Valley (COMV), City of Perris (COP), and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), COMV props that certain programming changes be made to the following projects: Project ID RIV011205: In Moreno Valley/Perris — Widen Perris Blvd 2 to 4 Lanes from Ramona Expressway to Perris Valley Storm Drain - Lateral `A' (Approx. 2 Miles) This joint project currently has $3.184 million of STPL funds programmed, with COP as the lead agency. To date, a PES has been completed and approved. Due to recent development -driven improvements in COMV, approximately 25% of the project work remains to be done within COMV City Limits. In order to deliver the project more of iciently, COMV and COP propose to modify the limits such that the project title would read: In Perris — Widen Perris Blvd 2 to 6 Lanes from Ramona Expressway to Penis Valley Storm Drain Lateral "B" (Approx. 1 Miley This restructuring of the project limits allows COP to solely manage the project and to construct ultimate width improvements within COP s jurisdictional boundaries. COMV requests that $796,000 (25% of the $3.184 million) be transferred to the following project: At SRBO / Nason StIC - Modify. l Reconstruct IC & Mason St from Elder to Fir: Realign ES, WB Exit plus EB & WB Entry Ramps, Add EB & WB Ramp Oct 04 2007 6:01PM City of Moreno Valley 951-413-3170 p.3 Letter to Shirley Medina October 4, 2007 Page 2 HOV Lns, 8 Add Aux Lanes (EA 32300). This. project is currently in the right of way phase, with 95% PS & E completed to date. This project already has federal funds and estimated construction costs have significantly increased; consequently, the additional $796,000would greatly assist in the completion the interchange. $2.388 rnillion (75% of the $3.184 million) would remain with: COP for the widening of Perris Boulevard from Ramona Expressway to Perris Valley Storm : Drain Lateral "Bp, which is fully located within COP city limits_ COP proposes to couple the STPL funds with TUMF and local funds to widen Perris Boulevard to its ultimate street width. This is further explained below. Project ID RIV041044 to Moreno Valley: Widen Perris Blvd 4 to 6 Lns (Ramona Expwy to PVSD-Lat A) & 2 to 6 Lns (PVSD-Lat A to Cactus Ave) including Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks,, Signals, & Medians (TUMF Project 5106) The existing agreement between COMV and RCTC allocates $389,000 and $871,000 of TUMF funds for the PA&ED and PS&E phases, respectively, for this joint. project. In order to deliver the project more efficiently, COMV and COP propose to modify the limits such that the project title would read: in Moreno Valley:.VViden Perris Blvd 4 to 6. Lns (PVSD Lat:B to PVSD=Lat A) 8 2 to 6 Lns (PVSD Lat_A to Cactus Ave) including Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks, Signals, & Medians. This restructuring .of the project limits allows COP and COMV to solely manage the project within their own jurisdictional' boundaries. The existing programmed project length is 4.5 miles, with. 1 mile located in COP and 3.5 .miles located in COMV. The proposed fund split would be based on this :ratio: 1 / 4.5 (22.22%) of the TUMF funds to COP and 3.5 / 4.5 (77.78%) of the TUMF funds to COW. In summary, two projects would remain. The first, located in COP (with COP as the lead agency), widens Perris Boulevard from Ramona Expressway to Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral -"B" (COP/COMV city limits) from 2 to 6 lanes (ultimate width) and is funded by STPL, TUMF, and local funds. The second, located in COMV (with COMV as the lead agency), widens Perris Boulevard frorn Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral "B" (COP/COMV city limits) to. Cactus Avenue from 2 or 4 to 6 lanes (ultimate width) and is funded by TUMF and local funds. The end result is that between the two projects, Perris Boulevard would be widened to its ultimate .width from Ramona Expressway (in COP) to Cactus Avenue (in COMV), Because the two agencies would do their utmost to coordinate the scheduling of these two contiguous projects, which both construct Perris Boulevard to its ultimate width, Logical Termini and Independent Utility should not be a .concern. As mentioned earlier, a° third project, the SR-60/Iason Street interchange, located in GOMV, is also furthered by the proposed additional infusion of STPL funds. The enclosed "redline" Project Report form for Project ID RIV041044 has; already been faxed to RCTC to help effectuate the requested reprogramming. COP recently provided Oct 04 2007..6:01PM Cites of Moreno Valley 951-413-3170 p.4 Letter to Shirley Medina October 4, 2007 Page 3 RCTC with the redline Project Report form for Project ID RIV011205, All requested revisions have been coordinated between the two agencies. Should you have any questions, please call Larry Gonzales, Senior . Engineer, P.E. at 951.413.3138. Sincerely, kp Chris Vogt ublic Works Director l City Engineer E LGien Enclosures: Redline Project Report for Project ID RIV041044 Exhibits "A" and "B" from TUMF Agreement for Project 5106 Redline 2006 RT1P with Approved Amendments 1 9 — State Projects, Project ID 32300 c: Eric Tang, Caltrans, Local Assistance Engineer Seam Yeun,g, Caltrans, Chief, Local Assistance Pr+em Kumar, COMV, Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer Eric Lewis, COMV, City Traffic Engineer Habib Motlagh, COP, City Engineer File W:1CapProilCapProAPROJECTSIL.arry • 01-12568622 Peens Blvd Rehab from Ramona Express Wy fa WSD Let A1AgencleaRCTC101-125.438822 Perris Blvd. Rehab. & 11.415.70125 Penis Blvd. frarn Ramona to Cactus TIA4F Le#ertdoc MEMORANDUM TO: CITY OF PERRIS HABIB MOTLAGH, CITY ENGINEER Ms. Shirley Medina, Program Manager Mr. Paul Blackwelder Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 FROM: Habib Motlagh, City Engineer DATE: October 3, 2007 RE: Perris Blvd. Rehabilitation — STPL 8s Regional TUMF This memo is to request your consideration and support of the Cities of Perris and. Moreno Valley to change the lead agency role and limits of the above projects. The City of Perris is in support of Moreno Valley's request to approve separation of the two projects as follows: • City of Perris will receive 75% of the currently allocated STPL funds to implement the improvements on Perris Blvd. as originally approved with the change of limits from Ramona Expressway to northerly city limit. The City of Perris's share is calculated to be $2.388 Million. • The City of Perris requests that the Regional TUMF Grant for widening of Perris Blvd. is separated between the two cities with Perris receiving it's share . of the allocated RCTC funds on the basis of mileage which is 22.22% of the total length. The City's share of PA86ED and PSBaE phase is 86,435 and $193,536 respectively. I understand that an agreement between City of Perris. and RCTC will be required to formalize this. We trust that the above information is sufficient for RCTC to initiate the review and the approval process. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Cc: Richard Belmudez, City Manager Larry Gonzales, City of Moreno Valley DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 170 WILKERSON AVE., SUITE D, PERRIS, CA 92570-2200 TEL.: (951) 943-6504 - FAX: (951) 943-8416 • - . • - - • • - . _ • - . - " - _ _ • . - - „ • - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . . , • - 7 - _7' :7- _ , ' -- - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 15, 2007 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Grade Separation Funding Summary STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Grade Separation Funding Summary Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The impact of delays caused by the freight trains traveling through Riverside County is rapidly becoming one of the area's most pressing .transportation concerns. In 2003, 68 million tons of rail freight passed through Riverside County with less than five percent of that total either originating or ending locally. The impact of freight rail growth has led to numerous quality of life concerns in a number of communities that are faced with traffic delays, disruptions to public safety and emergency responses and an increase in harmful emissions. Funding and subsequently constructingrail road grade separations has become an important transportation priority for Riverside County. In an on -going effort to support much needed grade separations, Commission staff developed the attached Grade Separation Funding Summary together with an excel spreadsheet to relate' specifically to the actions approved by the Commission over the last 30 months. Because three of the funding sources Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, the 2009 Measure A Economic Development funds and the Surface Transportation Program — are subject to a "use it or lose it" provision, it is anticipated that over the next few months, Commission staff will be developing a policy for review by Technical Advisory Committee. A comprehensive analysis of all the funding sources available for grade separation projects is included in the RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy report. Attachments: Grade .Separations Funding Summary Sheet (Word) Funding Summary Sheet (Excel) • • Grade Separations Funding Summary Sheet (Effective 10/2007) Purpose versideCounty anion Commission To provide an overview of funds available from RCTC that may be available to support Alameda Corridor -East grade separation projects in Riverside County RCTC's Grade Separation Match Program: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)' - $1.5 Million Awarded (Available Upon Request: Up to $500,000 per Project) In September 2001, the Commission approved a policy to support successful CPUC Section 190 grade separation projects that are included in the Commission approved Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Grade Crossing Priority list by funding the 10% local share match required of the CPUC if funding sources are available. Currently, the maximum award is $500,000 per project. As of 2007, the total funds approved are $1.5 million. To date, the awards have resulted in completion of one grade separation project. Currently, 14 at -grade crossings in Riverside County potentially meet the requirement making them eligible for up to $7 million of Commission funding if the grade separation projects are awarded by the CPUC. Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) - $30 Million Approved ($30 Million Available Beginning FY 2009/10; $0 Awarded. $5 Million per Project; Funds available for construction only) The CMAQ program provides flexible federal funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation -related emissions in air quality non -attainment and maintenance areas. In April 2007, the Commission approved an earmark of 25% (approximately $30 million) of CMAQ funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated after 2009). A "use it or lose it" provision will apply to these funds. Under the California Streets and Highways Code Section 190, the Grade Separation Program is funded by $15 million annually from the State Highway Account. On a biennial basis, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) receives nominations for. Grade Separation Program projects from local agencies and prioritizes them for possible funding. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) allocates the annual state funding available to the projects on the PUC approved list. Although $15 million is available annually, a September 2007 audit report found that "For the past five years, the Commission's priority list has contained 50 to 70 grade separation projects, yet many local agencies do not apply for funding — only 10 local agencies requested funds for the projects during :this period. Thus, Caltrans has been unable to allocate the entire $15 million annual funding amount." 1 Earmark: Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users $31.25 Million Approved ($10.25 Million Available; $21 Million Awarded. Funds available for construction only) Projects with Congressional support — especially with support from a member of an appropriations committee might receive earmarks in the annual federalappropriations bill. Under SAFETEA-LU, a total of $125 million in earmarks was made available; of that amount, the Commission was allocated $31,250,000. Currently, $21 million has been allocated. To be eligible for the remaining $10.25 million, projects must be on the Commission approved priority list and must be "shelf ready2". The monies will be awarded on a first come, first serve basis. Measure A (2009) — Economic Development Program- $10 Million Approved ($10 Million Available Beginning FY 2009/10; $0 Awarded. Funds available for construction only) Measure A is a half -cent Focal retail transaction and use tax that was initially. approved by the voters in November 1988 for 20 years (Ordinance 88-1) and extended in November 2002 for an additional 30 years (Ordinance 02-001), through June 2039 ;to help fund key transportation improvements in Riverside County. The program includes. a new: category of funding: Economic Development Incentives with an allocation of $40 million over the 30-year life of the Measure. Existing grade separation projects located in a commercial and industrial development in Western Riverside County are eligible ,to compete in this category. In April 2007, the Commission approved an off the top of 1'0% (approximately $10 million) of Economic Development funds for grade separation projects. A "use it or lose it" provision will apply to these funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - $30 Million Approved ($30 Million Available Beginning FY 2009/10; $0 Awarded. $5 Million per Project; Funds available for construction only) STP is a flexible; federal funding source that is .apportioned based on, a federal formula. Funds are allocated by the Commission and administered by Caltrans. Current matching rate is 88.5313/0 federal and 11.47% local. In April 2007, the Commission approved an earmark of 25% (approximately $30 million) of CMAQ funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated after 2009). STP funds are subject to a "use it or lose it" provision. 2 Shelf ready defined as environmental document approved and final design completed.. • • Rail Transportation Development Act (TDA) - $10 Million Approved ($10 Million Available; $10 Million Awarded. Funding available for PA&ED and PS&E as well as preliminary engineering) The TDA is comprised of two elements: Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds. LTF funds are derived from '/ of one cent of the state sales tax and are returned to source. STA funds are generated from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and are allocated by the state to the Commission on the basis of population and as a percentage of transit fare revenue. Under TDA, only LTF funds are available for grade separations. In July 2007, the Commission approved $10 million in LTF funding to jumpstart grade separation projects along tracks where Metrolink operates to increase competitiveness for Prop 1 B funding. SUMMARY MATRIX Program/Fund Type Date Available Target Amount Project Phase RCTC Section 190 Match On -going $500,000 (per project) Construction CMAQ FY 2009/10 $5,000,000 (per project) Construction SAFETEA-LU On -going: "First Come/First Serve Basis" $10,000,000 Construction Measure A FY 2009/10 $10,000,000 Construction TDA FY 2007/08 All funds allocated. Zero balance available PA&ED; PS&E and Preliminary Engineering 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Grade Separation Funding Summary (as of October 2007) Funding Source/Amount Allocated RCTC Section 190 SAFETEA-LU Measure A Agency Name State Section 190 Match CMAQ Earmark (2009) City of Banning - Sunset Avenue/Avenue 22/UP7,500,000 2 TDA City of Coachella Avenue 48/Dillon Road/UP 5,000,000 500,000 1 2,500,000 City of Corona. -Auto Center DriveBNSF 1,500,000 500,000 - McKinley Street/BNSF 1,000,000 1,500,000 - Railroad .Street/BNSF 250,000 - Smith Street/BNSF 250,000 City of Riverside - Iowa Avenue/BNSF 1,500,000 - Jurupa Avenue 5,000,000 500,000 6,000,000 - Riverside Avenue/UP 1,500,000 - Streeter Avenue/UP 1,500,000 County of Riverside Beliegrave, Avenue/UP - Center Street/BNSF Clay: Street/UP - Jurupa Road/UP 1,000,000 500,000 2,500,000 1,500,000 Total: $ 10,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 21,000,000 Notes 1. TDA funds provided as local match to RCTC's Section 190 Match Program. 2. Commercial paper financing authorized. 10,000,000 10/9/2007 TL Preprint Funding Summary • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for. item 9. =~``==_^�==~~== N���� ���� . ' ~`- _' _- ''^ -~-` .�`.�`-- -.~_-. _ -- _ '- .- . '`� ` '-~^'�,`^'~-^.�`=, =~�_^`-�' =~`=��= `~^^'-'^`',_' ^^`. '`.` '=^^� .-..=^^�^''.' `�',-`~�~'~~,_,'~.'``�.��=�===''.' ' - - - � ^. ^` `.^ ` � ' �' ' �� - �' '� ' ``, ..'�,~ , `` ` ` ' � ' �� ' �'°^ � �� `�� `� '�'' �� '`� `,. `�' � , �- ` �.'^� .�.'` - ` ' `���~ �, `� '�- .`�� ��������`^ _ � ` _- ___�_--_- __ __�__ ~ ____' ___ - ' - ' ~ '� . ' ' . '� - ' ' - _ - .`_ �� - - _ � -_'�. - _ __. -^ ` � ' � .� ' - ' ~ r����z��z�r � ��� � . '� . -~-��`_-*. `' ''` . �� ,`..' ,. ` ,'`� . ='.` ����_� ,- .` .' =` ~ - ` �� '�.� _� -. _ _- _� -- , _ _- ._` ' �_ __ _ '� �' ____- � - _ _ _ = f AGENDA ITEM 1 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 10. i, ' I! • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 15, 2007 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item provides the TAC with a status update on the current amendments to the 2006 RTIP and the developing 2008 RTIP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2006 RTIP Amendment 10 Status:. SLAG initiated the mandatory Public Review for formal Amendment 10 beginning at the end of September. Amendment 10 is posted on the SCAG website in the form of a "Comparison Report" and shows the pre -amended project version and amended version. A copy of the Comparison Report for Riverside County is included as an attachment with this item. Once the Public Review period is completed, SCAG can finalize the amendment and send it on to Caltrans HQ for the first review and approval step. Once Caltrans HQ approves the amendment, it will be sent on to FHWA for final review and approval. Amendment 10 final approval is anticipated to occur during mid to late November. 2006 RTIP Formal Amendment 12: RCTC will. submit Riverside County's portion to Amendment 12 on or before October 25th to SCAG. The amendment is small and the total number of projects included should be less than ten. The amendment is only for needed project changes that affect FY 07/08. Changes affecting years in FY 08/09 or later will be made through the 2008 RTIP Update. 2006 RTIP Remaining Amendments: One last "emergency -style" amendment to the 2006 RTIP most likely will be needed to address any final FY 07/08 obligation needs. Although no amendment schedule has been announced, staff anticipates the amendment will occur sometime during mid to late January 2008. Due to the time to process and approve formal amendments, this will probably be the last amendment to the 2006 RTIP. TAC members will be notified of this last amendment when it occurs. 2008 RTIP Update: Development of the 2008 RTIP is now well underway. Due to SCAG's ongoing issues with the new RTIP database, leadagencies will .need to use the existing TIP sheets to make required updates. Updated TIP sheets, new RTIP Project Forms, project exhibits for capacity enhancing and a grade separation; projects, and any other required support documentation are due to RCTC by October 22°. During the recent RTIP Workshops, questions have emerged about the need for project exhibits for capacity enhancing and grade separation projects. Their purpose is intended to help ensure the project is correctly -modeled and reinforce the modeling details that will be stated on the new Project Sheet. RCTC also has been engaged in a multi -year discussion with FHWH over several gray modeling areas that have impacted the. NEPA sign -off process. A review and clarification of six modeling scope areas was submitted to SCAG and discussed among SLAG, the County Transportation Commissions, Ca!trans HQ, and FHWA on September 25th. The result of the discussion provided clarification of the following modeling scope elements: 1. Gap closure projects: a. Question: If a capacity enhancing project is a gap closure and the gap is only a small distance, can the gap closure be considered an exempt project? b. Answer: No. Regardless of the distance, if the project adds through lanes, it is a capacity enhancing project and requires regional air conformity modeling even if the limits before and .after the project limits are already widened. 2. Mainline auxiliary lanes: - a. Questions: i. If an aux lane is considered only an operational improvement, why 'must it be modeled? ii. Can a uniform definition be established? b.. Answers: i. The Conformity Rule does not exempt an auxiliary lane on the Mainline. Therefore, it must be considered capacity enhancing and requires regional air conformity modeling. ii. The basic definition for a mainline aux lane is a lane that is addedto the outside of the mainline, begins at the end of the entry ramp of one IC and terminates at the exit ramp of the next IC plus does .not go through the next IC. If the distance between the two ICs is a mile or greater, then the added lane is now a through lane and should be called out in the RTIP description as such. If the lane goes through the next IC, the lane is no longer an aux lane, but is now a through lane. 3.:IC ramp acceleration/deceleration lanes (or extended ramp lanes): a. Questions. is What is the difference between an acceleration/deceleration lane and an aux lane? ii. Are acceleration/deceleration lanes required to be modeled? b. Answers: i. An acceleration lane extends the entry ramp, but. terminates at the " mainline :before the next exit ramp and does not 'connect into the exit ramp. The acceleration lane should not exceed .'/ mile. A deceleration lane ° begins off the mainline and does not connect with the previous IC's entry ramp lane. The deceleration lane ,provides an extension for the IC exit ramp and should not exceed a '/ mile in distance. If the acceleration or deceleration lane exceeds a '/ mile, then they should be considered an aux lane and modeled. • • • ii. If the lane is determined to be an acceleration/deceleration lane, it is not capacity enhancing and regional air conformity modeling is not required. 4. IC ramp lane widening: a. Questions: i. If standard lane widening to IC ramps (e.g. adding turning lanes at the arterial for an exit ramp) where no modification to the mainline is occurring, are these types of improvements only channelization improvements? ii. If the ramp widening reflects only channelization improvements, why must the lanes be modeled? b. Answers: i. Standard ramp lane widening where the added lane for an exit ramp adds a turning lane at the arterial, or the entry ramp adds lanes at the arterial, but the lanes merge back to a single lane for entry onto the mainline, then the improvement is considered a channelization improvement and not .capacity enhancing. A key condition for this includes that there is no change to the number of lanes off the mainline for the exit ramp (e.g. the exit ramp lane still begins as a single lane off the mainline). For entry ramps, there must not be a change to the lane configurationat the mainline. If the pre -improvement condition reflects a single lane entry lane at the mainline, then : the improvement should be the same. The added entry lanes will merge back to a single lane at the mainline. ii. Because standard IC ramp lane widening improvements are considered only to be channelization improvements, regional air conformity modeling is not required. 5. IC entry ramp widening that includes an HOV preferential lane: a. Question: Are HOV preferential lanes modeled and how they modeled? b. Answer: Assuming the IC ramp entry lane improvement meets the above criteria as discussed for standard IC ramp improvement lanes, the HOV preferential lane does not. require regional air conformity modeling. HOWEVER, the HOV preferential lane =needs to be called out in the RTIP description. 6. IC improvements where the arterial widening includes an extended dedicated right -turn lane: a. Question: Since turning lanes are not modeled, would this change for an IC project that includes an extended dedicated right -turn lane as part of the arterial widening to the OC/UC (e.g. the right -turn lane terminates at the entry ramp) b. Answer: Yes. Extended arterial right -turn: lanes are required to be modeled. However, they are not a through lane and should be called out a separate scope element in the: description. Attachment: 2006 RTIP Amendment 10 Comparison Report 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Page I of 3 Leader$11.ip. Vision Home :: Regional Activities : Transportation : 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Home Get Involved Doing Business with SCAG Regional Activities Community Development Environmental Planning Global Gateway Regions Regional Comprehensive Plan Transportation About SCAG News & Announcements Resources Publications lobs SCAG Member's Login Calend Site ME Search Contac Help Aviation ! Goods Movement I Maglev ( Major Regional Corridor Planning Plans and Programs Technical Advisory Committee I Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Plan I Souther California Regional ITS Architecture I Transportation Finance Program Proposed 2oo6 RTIP Amendments Amendment #o6-11 All files are in Adobe PDF format except where noted. Public Review Notice Proposed Project Listings by County f b Ventura County Comparison Report SCAG Regional Financial Plan F Conformity Determination Amendment #o6-10 All files are in. Adobe PDF format except where noted. Iw Public Review Notice a Proposed Project Listings by County ► Imperial County Comparison Report Los Angeles County Comparison Report 1` Orange County Comparison Report F Riverside County Comparison Report F San Bernardino County Comparison Report Ventura County Comparison Report Various Counties Comparison Report F SCAG Regional Financial Plan f Conformity Determination ► Conformity Determination Conformity. Determination Project Listing Amendment #o6-o8 All files are in Adobe PDF format except where noted. ► Public Review Notice 0. Proposed Project Listings by County P Los Angeles County Comparison Report Orange County Comparison Report Riverside County Comparison Report {.xls} 1~ San Bernardino County ComparisonReport 0. Ventura County Comparison Report r- See Also... 1~ final 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment #3 http://scag.ca.gov/rtip/rtip2006/proposed.htm 9/20/2007 656E 9L8E O. 866 £8 STb '80/L0 MOIVd - AIIO AIM ..<HOS 30QIME QVOLPIIVM d0 30 SUS RIMS, 3HZ OI V'I3ROS3 • VIA WOU2 S3NV'I 6 OI Z 'S V'I3II0S3'VIA OI ONIHO VISTA NOMA S3NV'I 9,01 Z N3QIM = 'IIVMI X3InV 3N39 NO SONIEdS W'IVd NI 0' 0.- - 0 £911V0 .00029AIM OT .• SONIMdS NIVd . 'I -- AIM ST6 6S6 9L8E 0 9L8 0 0 0 0 866 £8 S16 L0/90 MOIUd AlIO •XIIO. <ZSOOZ .390RIS QVOMIIVM dp 30, 2QIS _ HInOS 3HI OI ' t7126OS3 VIA WOii3 . S3NVI 6 OI • Z '/ V'I2n0S3 VIA OI ONIHO'VISIA WOM2 S3NVI 9 OZ N3QIM - ''IIVLII AUTAV 3N30 N0 SONIEdS W'IVd NI 0' 0` O''. � _ E9MV0 000Z9AIM - 6 ,. ...... ._ S9NIMdS W'IVd 'I Alit SI6E 9L8E 000E 0 OOSZ 000Z 00S OOSZ 000Z 0 0 :° 00S ' _. 00S 0 0 0 00S II/OI• TT'YOT OT/60 H'Id x.IIO . " ION39'd - • <HOS NOANVO ZIMOHVI IV Li3IN30 3AI12MdM2INl NVIQNI 203 S3IIIN3WV aNV IOI ONI>IMVd 'dV9 ONISSIW QNV 300RiS.CM OQLIV'ISH ' I011MISN00 - SONIMdS W'IVd 30 xIIO 3HI NI 0' 0'. : '0 S9NVO - _ EOIOOOAIM _ OT - SONLN2S WPM ''I Alit' 005 OOOT E8Z£ 00Z .00S6 . 0 0001 £8Z£ 00Z OOS . 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 :NOIVd 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 .Hld IAd HId AIIO ADN3OV 600Z 0\0 NOANVO Z.LInOHVI IV Li3IN3O 3ATI321diI3ZNI NdIQNI Li03 S3IIIN3WV QNV, ZOI ONIMMVd 'dV9 ONISSIW QNV 39QINE ait 008VI32 .IOnEISN00 - SONIUdS WPM 30 AIIO 3H' NI 0' 0' 0 S9NV0 £01000AIM 0 , S9NILidS Wltid I AIM £ £80S 009 0 .80/L0 L89I L891 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 dISH XIIO Paid M3N (E 9 Z STISVI IdN2X3 8ZI 'LZI '9ZT'E6 IMVd M20 06 /M IN3ISISN00) NnS dW[I'I SZ03P0iid (dISH) WVEDOUd ZN2W2A0MdWI AI33VS 7VMHOIH XINn00 3QISN2AIE NI 0' 0'. 0 EOWII'T OTLOLOAIU OI AINnO0 9 S3I110 'I AIN Lbb 6ETZ Lbb 0 0 00S 00SL 0091 0£69T OOOT LTE OLIZ 06b COS OOSL 0091 0E691 O000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0£SI 0 066T 0 0 0 0 0 LIE 069 06b Eb OT/60 OT/60 01/60 01/60 60/80 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 MOIMd 8T86dIS SMNd 'IISOW3Q MO • NV3900ZALIO RIIO •XIIO MO XI10 <H0S IS00 (850E2IH+ST862iH +T9ZL# '8E6V0 V3I33VS) IS Na0ONI'I OI UUdn •30 0/S S3NVI 9 OI Z ONIN3QIM HONIW 1 NLIdR IV NOIIVEVd3S.30'd119 On 3NV'I 6 M3N IOnUISN00 :OI OT-I 0/S 3AV I3SNIIS NO ONINNVS NI 0' 0' 0 T9NV0 6ZI090AIM OT ONINNdff I AIM OZE 00S 00SL OZE 08ZI OEZ8 OOOT O OESLZ 0 OZE 00S OOSL OZE 08ZI OEZ8 000T OEST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0061 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0.06i 60/80 80/40 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 80/40 •LO/90 • 00V-ddH 8186dIS SENd DV-00'I IISOW30 . -XIIO MV3900Z XIIO OHO 2NR3 f9S0E2iH+8TSbiiH +1.9ZT# '8E6V0 V3133VS1 IS N'IOONII OI N8d(I 30 0/S S3NK'I 9 OI Z ONIN3QIM MONIW. 9' Lind[] IV.NOIIVMVd3S 3QVMO OR 3NV'I 6 M3N IMNISNOO :OI•OT-I 0/S 3AV I3SNnS NO ONINNVS NI 0' 0' 0 T9NVO 6-ZI090AIM 9. •_ 9NINNV8- I AIM 'WWI O OST6T SSNOO 0 OS6 MOlI. OSb DNS 'IYZOS omu LIY3E mina NOSYMLI ubbnam NOIZdImoSBa laid Slid SZE WYUDONd aI zowo a # aN2NV -SINN =MT SIS 00 . amna nu= N00 ZYZOs moo .: .XINn00 3QISZI3AIE IN0d2N NOSI2VdW00 01-90#' dIIE 900Z z TEE 0 0 TEE LO/90 8T86dIS (sxsewle3 SO A3 8186UH) EE8 0 0 E£8 LO/90 RIIO (NDIS30-32id/039K3) SNOIIVEVd3S 30VE0 OVOEIIVE T99 0 0 199 EOIEd 8T86dIS 3AI3 E03 S3IIIAII0K 9NINNKTd IN3W3A0EdWI 999 0 0 0 0 T66Z 999 EOINd AIIO II7dS NOIIVEVd3S 30'd219 - 30ISEEAIE 30 AIIO 3HI NI 0' 0' 0 06N7 d ZOS050AIE OT 30 AIID '30ISN3AIE T AIE 000T 0 0 000T 60/80 03V-ddH OOOT 0 0 OOOT 80/L0 OOK-ddH TEE 0 0 TEE LO/90 8I86dIS 000Z 0 0 000Z LO/90 DV-007 000T 0 0 000T LO/90 'IISOW30 (sxxewseE 07 K31.33KS+50 A3 8T86NH) EE8 0 0 £E8 LO/90 AIIO (NSISE0-3Ed/035'dd) SNOIIVEVd3S 30ti219 avaaapni T99 0 0 199 EOIEd 8I86dIS EAI3 2103 S3IIIAI.LOK 9NINNH'Id INSW3A0EdWI 999 0 0 0 0 T66L 999 EOIEd AIIO 600Z 0\0 NOIIVEVd3S EOVED - 30ISE2AIE 30 AIIO 3HI NI 0' 0' 0 06N7d ZOSOSOAIE 0 30 AIIO '33ISN3AIE 7 AIE (NDIS30-32Id/035Vd) 6LES OI ISV2 5 HIROS 09 VS W02i3 OA'IE 000Z 0 0 000Z L0/90 3WRIA2IM II'IdS ON32IIOd (4EIQ HO'd3 MI Z) 3NVI 6 M3N IomusN00 008 0 0 0 0 008Z 008 UOINd 00 M3N ; OT-I/09ES IX 0/M INOWRV38 ONV 09ES EV2N 0' 0' 0 L9N`dO ZOLOLOAI2T OT AINROD 30ISLT3AIE T AIN (E 3' Z SEISVI IdW3X3 `LZT 'LZT '9ZT'E6 IEVd E30 06 /M L56T LS6T 0 0 80/L0 dEEEH IN3ISISNOJ) WRS dWR'I SI03f0Ed WVEDO2Ed (ESH) Z9E 6T9T Z91 0 0 00Z OOZ 80/LO 00 PNd MEN SOKON 'IVEOE MSIN H9IH :AIN000 30IS213AIE NI 0' 0' 0 £OWR'I TOLOLOAIE OT ASN000 30ISE3AIE 7 AIE (XINO NDIS301-3Ed/039tld) EEd❑ 3HI E3QN0 ONISSOHOE20NR IS AV70 005Z 0 0 00SZ 80/L0 SENd IOREISNOO :E2AIE VNEI VINVS 3HI 0/N ONV OA'I8 SZ9 0 0 .0 0 SITE SZ9 80/L0 0D <HOS N3E02 NVA 0/3 S3'IIW 5'0 XOLEddV IS AVID NO 0' 0' 0 06N'Id £ZT090AIE OT AINROD 3QISE3AIE T AIE OOIT 0 0 OOTT 60/80 SNNd SC.? - 0 0 SLZ 60/80 00 000T 0 0 000T 80/L0 s8Nd (VINO NOIS30-2Ed/Q39ed) OSZ 0 0 OSZ 80/L0 OD EE dR 314I EEQNR ONISSOE0E2ON0 IS AVID 006 0 0 006 LO/90 SUNd IMEISN00 :2E3AIE VNV KINVS 3HI 0/N ONV QA'I8 OOT 0 0 0 0 SZTE 00I LO/90 00 OHO QNR3 N3E0E NFiA 0/E S3'IIW 5'0 X0EddV IS AVID NO 0" 0' 0 06NId EZT090AI2i L AINROD 3QISE2AILI T AIE TRIOS ISNOD Mad DNS NOSV2I ONII3 'IVIOS NOD TV1,01 MON 7V101 DNS wax ONOI SOWED NOISdI2EOS3O VNd ma 3111 D VEDONd QI ID2DONd_ ONS NK 2KVN XON39Y SAS OD • ziNR00 30ISE3AIE IE0d3E NOSIEVdWOO OT-90# dIIE 900Z • • 000T LIE 000T LIE 0 0 0 0 80/Lo 80/L0 aisowsa b'dWO T6Z 16Z 0 0 .80/L0 "L0/90 MO OZZT OZZT 0 0 Ond-KIS 0009 0009 0 0 L0/90 SENd 000Z 000Z 0 0 L0/90 'IISOW30 ILIE TLT£ 0 0 LO/90 Ovko 098 L80T 08LE ZZZT 098 L80T 0 0 0 0 00SZ Z06 0 0 08ZT OZ£ L0/90 L0/90 EOI2id EOIEd AIIO xON3JH ond-vis xIIO (bLL£# ddH nz K3IadVS) SMOVEI ii2idn iv 3AV M3IA NIHINOOW NMOQ 3S0'IO ONK SSVdE3ONn Ion2iiSN0O 30 AIIO '3aIS2i3AIE 'I' AI2i DOTE 9b6ST 0 ZOS9 00T£ 0091 0 EOIEd OVNO <1.500 - EH d❑ aNK 3AV vdnxnr IK aOISE2AIE NI 0' 0' 0 ZLNVO EOL066AIE OT OZZT OZZT 0 0 L0/90 Ond-vis 0009 0009 0 0 L0/90 S23Nd 000Z 000Z 0 0 LO/90 'IISOW30 TLT£ 098 TLT£ 098 0 0 0 0 L0/90 L0/90 OVWO xiin L80T L801 0 0 LO/90 AON3DV 08LE ZZZT 0 0 OOSZ Z06 08ZT OZE EOIEd E0I2id Ond-KIS xIIO S?DVEI 21)2dn iv 3AV M3IA NIifiNnow NMOa 3S0'I0 ONV SSvamaNn Ion2iISN0o 30 MO '3QISE2AIX 'i AI2i OOTE 8£EbI 0 ZOS9 OOTE 0091 0 2i0IEd OVWO SHO aNn3 - 4121 do ONK 3AV van2inr iv 30ISE3AIE 'NI 0' 0' 0 ZLNKO EOL066AIE L OZLST OZLST 0 0 60/80 3Wnimm OOOZ OOOZ 0 0 60/80 Ona-KIS ODOZ OOOZ 0 0 60/80 U SOW3a _ 000E 0 000E 0 80/L0 Ond-vIS NOI1.03SE2INT OSb 0 0 OSb 80/L0 AIIO IS Sn2iIIO IonEismonau 5 SIN3W3A0dENI . OObT 0. 0 OObT 80/L0 7.0NET1 - NVIEISSO2d /M 3AV VII2ixW'IVd 'S IS ONIEdS OS 0 0 OS L0/90 AIIO II'IdS NMIS NOIIVEVd3S 3OVED (AII0VdKO NON) 3Nd'i •0 30 kin '3QIS4i3AIE 1 AIE OOT OZL6T 0 000E 0 000Z 001 LO/90 xON39K M3N b MEN IonviSNOo ,3AV VMOI NO 3QISE3AIN NI 0'' 0'' TENON EOLOLOAIE OT "MOS SSNOO MOZI DMZ NOSVIU . 012MY OntM AONaDV SAS OD QNn3 TVIOS NOO WW1 MOX 'IKSOS 9M3- UVRA mina IMMO NOIIdIUDSZO WM Old =X ITOIDOUd GI SD3rOad AINnoo 3QISESAIE IE0d3Li NOSIEVdWOO OT--90#. dIIE 900Z 6 066 86S9 96E9 066 09LT 8659 Z9L 6S9E Z9L Z80ZZ 066 86S9 96E9 066 09LI 8659 0 0 0 6S9E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6S9E 0 6ZSI 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z9L 0 Z9L 60/80 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 LO/90 LO/90 L0/90 00V-ddH AIEIX 3E30I 0K-001 TISOW30 A06130t21 AIEIX 2E0i AO6130H OHO 061O3 (69£T# TS6V0 1111 V3I33t1S) SN'I Z OI T WOEi3 samvi A3IQOW 'SAOEddWI OI OI-I 'SN'I 9 OI Z NEOIM - OVOEI VIA'IVS OI HIC10S 0I OT-I W0112 0I Ed W'IVd/EIS AElinv 3N3J IV OT-I NO SONIEidS W'IHd EV2N S'9E L'SE OT EIXtiO 08S56 6 AINf100 3QISEI3AIEI S AIEI 9S9ET 09ZT 00ZZ 969E1 E8EE ES6 Z9LOE 9S9ET 09ZT 00ZZ 969EI 0 0 E8EE O 0 0 0 E8EE 0 ES6 0 0 0 0 0 ES6 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 L0/,90 E OIE3d EIHSVOIS TZIOW3d 'IISOW3Q AIIO E3HSKOIS AIIO <ISOO (I6E# OSEttO-R'I t13i33FIS) (OL000 :ONdd 'OLSS6 :Ii3) ( LLE#-TZV3I) S361Vg Z OI T SdWVEI ONV 3AV S3NE VO OI 3AV HIOZ WOE3 MITI 9 OI Z 00 613QIM - SONIE3dS 61gVd EVSN OI 3AV NVIONI IV OT-I NO T' £E L' ZE OT EIX110 9E0Z9AIEi OT SONIEidS W'IFId S AIEi 680E 90SET 09ZT 00ZZ T6E 680E EKE OOT OST ES6 SL6EZ 680E 90SEI 09ZI 00ZZ . T6E 680E 0 0 0 0 E8EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 E8EE 0 0 0 EOZT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00T.LO/90 OST ES6 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 L0/90 EOIEld EIOIEid AIEX EIHSVOIS TZIOW30 'IISOW3Q MO AON3OV EiHSdOIS AIIO EIHSHOIS MO <ISOO • (I6.E# OSEKO-Oq F13I33KS)(0L000 =ONdd 'OLSS6 :V3) ( LLE#-TZK3I) S31,1'd'I Z OI T SdWhd (INV 3AV I3NEIH0 OI 3AV HIOZ WOE33 S3Nva 9 OI Z 00 N3QIM - SDNIE1dS W'I'dd• EVEN OI 3AV NVIQNI IV OT-I NO I`EE L'ZE OT EIXKO 9E0Z9AIEI 6 SONIEidS W'IS'd S AIEi 71110S QN[13 SSNOO 'MOS N00 MON TYSOS MOH DNN TYSOS DMZ TM QN03 NOSIM 3DNYH0 NOISdIEi0S3Q YNd ow nu mamma QI S03f02td # maw MX AONBDY SAS 00 AIN000 3QISE13AIEi IEi0d3Ei NOSIEVdW00 OT-90# dIIEI 900Z • 5 OST OISZ 066 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 , 0 0 ' ., _ " ` 0S9E OST ,DTSZ 066 HOIEd - HOISa ' HOIHd ., dIH-dIS XON2OV TZIOW3a >1.500 (V£S00 :ONdd 'OOZSLb :V2) SIN3W3A0HdNI 4KNOIIVH3d0 XIIOKdVO-NON IS NOS2I3333P N3OIM 3 S3N`dI 9 CI Z 0I SNIISIX3 NOI'IK3H/I0hHISN00321 'OIQNIEVEN OI:IS NOSH2333P/OT-I IV T'ES L'IS OT EIX'd0 OZ2L6 b OION2 S ' AIZI 8ESE Z95b 8E5E 8ESE 0 SZTb 0 SZTb , LEI? 0 LEb LO/90 ZIOIEd X:LIO XISO OHO 3dOOS (OS030 :VS) dwv)1 IIX3 flM 3IVOU-12U/N9I'IK32I ONK dWVH XHIN3 UM M3N IOREISN00 :DI EXO9IIN00321 - 0I 3AV AMINOW/OT-I IV9'bb E'bb OT . EZXVO 80ZTEOAIU b I213S3a WIVd S AIE 8ESE Z90 8ESE '8ESE - 0 SZTb - 0 .SZTb LE6 0 ' LE6 80/10 'HOIHd MO XIIO <HJS (05030 :V2) dWVH IIX3 8M 3IVO0'I32T/NO IV211 (INV dWVH XXIN3 8M M3N IOR2iI5N00 -. DI 2HOOI3N003?I - 01 3AV X32I3INOW/OT-I__IV 0'S6 0',bb OI EIXVO 80Z.TE0AIU OT- - - , IH2S2O 1,71Va S _AIH S6ZS DObbi EbZS 90ZZ SOZZ 8ZE LZE L6S 865 888bZ 56ZS 00661 EbZS 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tlbb 0 .0 Cl 90ZZ SOZZ 0 0. 0 0 0S81 0 0 0 0 0 8ZE LZE L6S 865 60/80 60/80, 60/80 80/L0 80/L0 LO/90 LO/90 HOILId HOIHd AIUX HHSVOIS 3WRIAU AIHX 314RIt1E2 AIHX 364RIA133 AIHX 3WOIAHE <ISO0:0I (MO6SS6- :V2) SN'I Z OI T WOHA SdWVH 9 ONIHO KISIA OI HIROS SdVIVH 'N WOLi3 SNa 9 OI Z 20OILIS HEdO ONIOMONI 'I'dIH2IEV R 00 NEOIM/OI 73I0OW HO W1Vd 3IHa IV XIIO 'IVHG2HI'd0 NI OT-I NO6'6E 0'6£ OI EIXKO 06SSb OI XINROO 3QISH2AIH S AIU IE80T TE80T 68LZ 68LZ Z99TZ TE8OT TE80T 0 0 8LEb 0 0 68IZ 68IZ OOZT 0 0 009 009 80/L0 80/L0 LO/90 LO/90 AIHX XON29V AIEX X0N39V OH0 aNR3 (X06SS6 :K3) SN'I Z OI I W0113 SdWVH R ONIHO AIM\ OI HIROS SdWVH 'N WOH SNa 9 OI Z 20G1H2 liEan JNIaR'IONI 'IvisaI2fid I 00 N3QIM/OI X3IQOW :0I Na wand 3IHa Ili AIM avuo3HIH0 NI OI-I NO 6'6E 0'6E OT EIXV0 06SS6 6 XINR00 3aISi13AI2I S AIH 068 0000T 0092 Zb68 OOZZ 61.61 8L6I 99E L9E VI9 619 S89ZE Eb68 0000i 009Z Z668 00ZZ 0 0 0 '0 0 . 0 LS6E 0 O 0 0 0 6L61 8L6I 0 0 0 0' 1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99E L9£ bT9 VI9 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 .60/80 80/L0 80/L0 L0/90 LO/90 HOI23d HOI2id AIHX .3H01 EHSKOIS awni a aISOW30 /MIX 3WRIAsa AIHX 3WRIALT3 AIHX 3WRIA112 _ <I500 (69ET#,TSb'd0 R'I 'd3I33VS) SN'I Z OI T W02I3 SdW`fd XSIQOW 'SAOHdWI 0I OT-I 'SN'I 9 OI Z NHOIM - OVOH VIA'IVS OI HIROS 0I OT-I W02I3 .0I SO WaVd/VI X�TIRli 3N39 IV 0T-I NO SONIHd$ WZ'dd EV2NS'9E - - L'SE - OT . EIXVO --- _ •08SS6 :_--- -.- - OT.. _ _ _ - . X.LNR00 3QISXSAI2I S AIII ' 101 aNn3 SSNOD WIOS NOD MOU 'IKSOS MOV WM 'DUOS 0N3 UV= QN[13 NOSVSU 3DMili0 - N6ISdImD53a *Old Old 3521 WNIVZ0Vd QI =drama . # aN3WK 3W1fN JSD tam sxs OD XINR00 3aIS2I3A22i IiTOd32i NOSITMWOO OT-90# dIIH 900Z 9 £S90Z SbSTE 009E 96LZE L68S 6Zb9 S66ET 68E01 L6908 ES90Z SbSTE 0091 6689Z 0 0 0 0 OOELU 0 0 0 L68S L68S 6Zb9 9 bEO-1 TE88 LOLb .0 0 0 0 0 0 66TE HSI TT/Ot 01/60 01/60 OT/60 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 HOIEd AIID _ EHSVOIS gISOW30 AIIO AIIO ALIO ALIO ALIO <ISOO (OLZ£b.K3) (5'6-Z'8 .Wd STZ-I) 0I OE 413IS3HONIM A3IOOW 9 (GS 1 EN SN'I E) SN'I OD 'Ng XOK HS/SN 'SdW-VE 9 (23NA OI NO5E333311 0I Ng 9 IDOEISNOD .S3SVHd 'IVIE2IEV/0I AMxd A3IIVA HON2EA 0'6 0'9 ST OLXVD SIZTEOAIE 9 tiIOD2W3I S AIii ES90Z SbSTE 009T 96LZE Lb8S 6Zb9 S6bEI 68E01 L6908 ES90Z SbSIE 0091 6689Z 0 0 0 0 OOELE 0 0 0 L68S Lb2S 6Z69 9 bEOI 1E88 LOL6 0 0 0 0 0 0 66TE 8SST TT/OT OT/60 01/60 01/60 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 EOIEd AIIO EHSVDIS 'IISOW3O AIIO AIIO AIIO AIIO AIIO 9HO IIWI'I (OLZEt:V3) (SL'6-Eb'8 .Wd STZ-I) OI OE U3IS3HONIM AIIOOW 9 (ES/2N SN'I E) SN'I O0 'Ng X[I'd GS/9N 'SdWVE 9 (23NA OI NOSE3333f) OI Ng 9 IDOEISNOD :S3SVHd 'IFIIii3IEV/OI AMxd A3'I'IKA HON3E19'6 S'S ST OLXVO SIZTEOAIE OT 'dTQD3W3I S AIE 0660E OOIb - SLE 0660E 0660E 0 0 SZLZ 0 SZLZ 0 OSLT 0 SLUT SLE 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 ALIO ALIO AIIO <ISOO (xOTZSb :V3) ('IVIE3IEV IV SN'I Z) SdWVE IIX3 9 (Ng I) SdWVE AEIN3 ' ('EIO HO'd3 SN'I E) OI AMxd NOIH5OVNOW NI 9 IDOEISNOD (VEHS AIM S[1I0V0 0/M Wx 9'bt 9 Obi NO'PII0.0/3 Wx S'S) OT-I N0 6'Z9 E'Z9 0-L OLXVO I060E0AIE OT Vg13HDVOO S AIE 05Zb 0S6S 18 OS Sin OOZOI OSZb 0S6S 0 0 0 08 0 0 08 0 0 99Z1 0 0 T 05 STZT OT/60 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 EOIEd AIIO AIIO AIIO AIIO ALIO b00Z 0\0 . (MOTZSb :V3) (1VIEEIEV IV.SN'I Z) 5dWVE IIX3 R (Ng T) SdWVE XEIN3 '('SIG H0H3 SN'I E) 0I AMxd NOIGDOVN0W Ng' 9 IDOEISM00 (VEUS AIIO SOIDVD 0/M Wx 9'bt 9 CH NOTIIO 0/3 Wx S'5) OT-I NO 6'Z9 E'Z9 OT OLXVO t060E0AIE 0 VTT3HOV00 S AIE 00ZZ9 OST OISZ 066 0009S 0009S 0 0 0 00Z9 00Z9 0 0 . 0 0S9E 0 051 OTSZ 066 01/60 EOIEd EOIEd EOIEd ADN39ti dIH-dIS ADN39V TZIOW30 <ISOO (VES00 :ONdd 'OOZSLb :K3) SIN3W3A0EdWI 'IVNOIIVE2d0 AIIOKdHO-NON IS NOSE3333P N30IM 5 S3N'd'I 9 OI Z OI- 9NIISIX3 NSIgV314/IMEISN003E 'OIONI EVEN 0I IS NOSE3333C/OT-I IH I'ES CIS OI EIX`d0 OZSLb OT - •OIONI S AIE Ti(IOS QNC13 SSNOD 'MOS NOD M02i TV= MOti ON3 TV/OI DMZ UV= QMIIB NOSVM1 SIJ WHO NOIIdIlIOS3Q WM • Oid MI IViDOlid QI IDSPoild # ONMAV 3P11fM XONS SV SAS OD • AIN000 30ISE2AIE IE0d3E NOSIEVdWOO OT-90# dIIE 900Z • • 000ZI 000EZ DOTET OOLb OOZI 008 000Zb 00oZT 000£Z 000L 0 0 0 0006 0 0 00SS 00SE 0 0 008E 0 0. 009 OOZI- OOZI 008 IT/OI 01/60 60/80 80/L0- L0/90 80I8d 3WGIAEM 3WRIA8M 314RIALIM 3WRIAHM 3WRIAEM 3WnIAum 0HD 3d0OS -(OTOEZE._ tK3) N7 Xnii gM/g3 GOY 'dWhx NO SM GOY 'SdWdll N30IM/NOI7V28 'SN'I 9 OS Z N2GIM - DI lIQ HO 22 ON280W X3IQOW ISN7 6 OI Z DO NOSVN N3QIM .DI 80 HO'd38 ON380W + OI IS NOSVN/098S :. 8'6T 6'LT 09 EIXVO ZSOTbOAIli 8 ITMA ON380W S AI8 TS6E OL9Z 8SI SEE E86T 009S 009£ 000Z 0 0 0 00SZ TSE OL9 0 bOZ SLZI 000I 0 0 8ST PEI 80L 80/L0 80/L0 LO/90 UOINd 80I8d OO OYWO OD 00 OYWO <HOS 'SOD 'NOII03Sli3INI (IAas NOISSIW/XVM X377VA N3dIM 9 S7KNois '(S3NY'l Z) dWVU-NO 63 M3N GUY (INV (S3Nli7 Z OI T) dWd8-330 3IV00738 - OI XYM X377‘iA/098S ' . S'L L'9 09 EIXVO TOL066AIU OI X.INROO 3QIS83AI8 S AIII OSS S891 OL9Z SEE E861 S8I6 DSS S96 OL9Z 0 0 66IZ 0 OZL 0 bOZ SLZI Zb8 0 0 0 PET 80L 80/L0 LO/90 LO/90 80I8d 80I8d OD OO a'dW0 OD 0,640 <ISOD 'NOII03Sli3INI GA78 NOISSIW/XVM X377VA N30IIM 9 S7VNOIS ' (S3NV7 Z) dWVII-NO 23 M3N QQ'd ONii (S3Nii7 Z OI T) dW'd8-330 3I\300728 - OI XVM X377VA/098S S'L L'9 09 EIXVO TOL066AIII 6 XINROO 3QIS83AI8 S ATE 066IZ OOT 60EE 8178 066TZ 0661Z 0 0 0 On 0 0 OZI 0 LET6 0 OOT 68TE 868 60/80 80/L0 80/L0 80I8d 8HSVOIS IIHSVOIS XIIO XIID <IS00 (06bV0 .K3)' li2V7d SMVO 'IVO OI 0n W02I3 S617 9 OI 6 S}IVO'IVO N3QIM ' (am. 330 SS 3Z1i00rmi 'Sama NO d007 SS/SN IOnIIISN00) SdWY8 28G0I3N0038 - DI IS KIW'IVM/48 SMY0 KIN803I7K0/Si-I IK6'0i E'OT ST . EIXVD 60ZOTOAIU •OT. VI3I8811W S AIli LSES 6LL9 PZEZ 9LET OOZT 9ETZT LSES 6LL9 0 0 0 009E 0 0 PZZZ 9LET - 0 -=--00ET 0 0 OOT 0 00ZI 01/60 01/60 60/80 60/80 80I8d IIHSVOIS XIIO IIHSYD.IS XSID -AlID bOOZ ONO (06PY0 :ii3) li2Vrid SMVO TdO OI DR W08.2 SN7 9 OI 6 SMVO TdO N3QIM ' (dwIl 330 as 21V00738, 'SdWll)i NO d007 SS/EIN IDGEISNOD) SZP Nli 28GDIINOD38 - 0I IS VIRIVN/G8 S?iv0 iiINliO3IavoisT-I Ili6'OT - E'Oi Si ...EIXVO . bOZOTOAILi A vISILTlinwl. S AIa TCLOI QNna SSNOO TKSOZ MOO MOZT ' Wi0I MOX 0= WIOS .OMS IA= _ ' amna • NOSV72I anrivmO _ MOTSa22t053a. Ama .ena 2111 = promOZia-- QT =aroma . # . akimv SHVI _ XONMOV SXS 03 XINnoD 34IS133AI1i 180,338 NOSITid1400 OT-90# drill 900Z 8 S9bE 05TbZ" I891 005 SESZ OOSI OOZT ST9LZ S9bE 05TbZ 0 0 0 0 0 9TLb 0 0 189T OOS SESZ 0 0 OOLZ 0 0 0 0 0 005T OOZT 60/80 .60/80 LO/90 LO/90 LO/90 EOIEd EOIEd EHSKOIS XIIO 'MIS OVW0 AIIO .OVWO MO OHO EONIW (OZ£OZ :K3) 3AV VNVIONI IV (SN'I Z) dWVENO E3 MON OOH 9 (11IOIGOE OI M2EGN'd) SN'I 9 OI b DO N3OIM ' (3NV7 AOH EM STIONI) SN1 £ OI Z SdWVE NEGIM/IDOEISMODEE - 0I QA'IE NEURE NVA/T6LIS S'bt 9'Et T6 EIXV0 . 6800AIE 6 30 XIIO '3OISE2AIU S AIE ELSIE EITEZ EITEZ 6Z9T 6Z9I 1E89 T£89 60/80 dOHSdIS <IS00M3N (18L00 :ONdd '098L17 :VE) 3AV HILS OI EO SRIO'd0 IESS3O X0EddV WOES (3N`d1 T) SdWVE ONH (3N'd'I NVIQ3W I + EDI HOVE 3NV1 T :00 3NV7 £) 0I IOR23ISN00 : (9S 3AV) QA'IE IE0dEIK/S98ES IV 8'LT 9'SI 98 OLXh'0 TOT090AI2I OT SNVEI7V0 S . AIE £L8LZ IbL6I TbL6T TO£T TOET 1E89 1E89 60/80 dOHSdIS fEd MEN ('I8L00 :ONdd '098Lb :K3) 3AV HILS 03 EC SRIO'd0 Di3S3O X0EddV W083 (3NV1 I) SdWVE ONV (3NV1 NVIO3W T + Eia HOVE EN'd'I T :00 ENFPI E) OI MEN IDOEISN00 :(95 3AV) OATH I110dEIV/S98ES IV 8'LT 9'SI 98 OLXKO TOT090AIE 0 SNVEI7V0 S AIH 000Z 008 0 0 0 0 0 0 008Z 000Z 008 LO/90 EOIEd 3WRIALIM TIIO bOOZ ONO (NOIS3O-2Ed/O35Hd) (Obt6E :Va) 6LHS OI 09ES WOE3 OKOU ONII03NN00 3NV1 b ONK (3Nv'I T) SdWVE R (SEN'd'I 6) 0I QA'IE OHEEIOd MEN IOR23ISNOO - 0I-I/09ES.I0f 0/M 09ES NO 0'TE Z'8Z 09 06N7d S£SOSOAIE 0 - AINR00 3QISESAIE S AIE DOSE OOSZ OOS OOL 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 - 0 OOZL 005E 005Z 00S ,OOL 01/60 60/80 80/L0 L0/90 XIIO XIIO XIIO XIIO II'IdS (NOIS3O -SEd/03/Vd) (ObIbE :V2) SOE EDVINOEA 3A0WEE 9 (SdWVE IIX3 313033E ,OOE'T) SN'I xnv EM/E3 '(N7 AOH S3QR13NI - SN'T Z) SdWVE / 0I N1 9 M3N IOR2iISN00 :06'8Z Wd X0EddV IV '09ES NO Z'OE "0'8Z_ . 09 ILXVO SESOSOAIE OI INOWRV3E S AIE 00996 OObOI DOZ.( 008 00096 0009b 0 0 0 0006 0 0006 0 0 0001 009 OObT OOZT 008 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 HOI2id 3WOIAEM 3WRIA2iM dWRiAm 3WRIA)iM <ISOO (Ot0£Z£ :V3) N7 XRH EM/E3 OOV .'dWVE NO EM GOV 'SdWK23 N3OIM/NOI1K3E 'SN'I 9 OI Z NEOIM - 0I NO HOF132 ONEEOW x3IQOW !SN'I 6 OI Z 00 NOSVN N2OIM ":OI Ea H0V3E ON2EOW + OI IS NOSKN/09ES 8'6T 6'LI 09 EIXV0 ZSOIb0AI2i OI XETIKA•ONEEOW S AIE 71(10I QNfld ISN00 'IYIOI N00 MOV 'mu. MOtI ONS 'mat ON3 WiX ON[18 NOSYStI SONYHO NOIIdIU0S3Q YNd Old SIN WY1I0012d QI I03CONd # ON3WY 3IRYN XON301t SSS 00 7,INR00 31ISE2AIE 'Waal NOSIEVdWOO OT-90# dIIE 900Z • • 006£S MILT 000T OOL 006ES 006ES 0 0 0 OOILI 0" 0 OIL_I 0 0 OOLI 0 0 000T OOL II/OI 60/80 80/L0 EOIEd 00 OD -OO OD •<ISOO (OZOVO _:FIE) SSNH'I Z OI:.I WOLt3 SdWK£i ONH SENYI 9-0I.Z WOHA OI NEOIM/IDGEISNODEE - VIEI2EGH EVEN OI GVOE IIOOS/SIZ-.L IV0'9T 0'SI SIZ EIXVO . Z£ZTTOAIE OT ` AIN000 30ISEEAIE S AI2I 0006Z 0S8 OOST .0006Z 0006Z 0 0 OS8 0 0S8 0 005T 0 0 OOSI 60/80 80/L0 UOIEd 00 OD OD - <ISOO (OZOVO :VE) S3NVQ Z OI I WOEA SdWVE ONFI S3NFiI 9 OI Z WOE2 DI NEOIM/IOR2i.ISMODEE - VISI2E0W EVEN OI QVOE IIODS/SIZ-I IV0'9i..0'SI, _SIZ EIXVO ' .ZEZITDAIE 6 .A.INROD EQISEEAIE S-, AI2I OOSI 0066T 099T T£80T OOSI TEE6 0 OTL6 0 OIL6 0 6ISZ 0 6S8 0991 80/L0 80/L0 EOIEd AIEX kI.IO ilIO <HOS ISOO SENFiIEMIS ONV SN'IVMEOIS ONIOR'IDNI Ma MEYIMOOVEW OI GE NIV IEOW WOUE DO (Ei0 HOFI3 SENVQ Z) ENV"' 6 ME IDGEISMOO :3NF1I QENNI'T IV SIZ-I NO EIIEIEE0W NI " 0'ET 0'ET STZ 8INVD 60I090AIE OI .VIEIEEOW S AIE OOSZ 066S 099T OEL9 00SZ OEZ6 0 8L8 0 8L8 0 Z66I 0 .ZEE 0991 L0/90 L0/90 EOIEd AIEX XIIO XIIO fEd MEN S3NVQ3HIE QNV SxIVM3QIS ONIQR'IONI NI ME IMOGVEW OI OE NI` MEOW WOEd 00 (EIO HOVE S3NFi'I Z) 3NHI 6 MEN IDGEISNOO :3NVQ 'I3NNI1 IV SIZ-I NO VI3IEE0W NI 0'£T O'£T STZ 8INKO 60T090AIE 0 V EIEE0W S AIE 866ZE 86SZ S6S6Z S6S6Z 0 006 006 0 IOS6 ES6I 86SZ 80/L0 EOIEd XIIO xIID <HOS ISOO SdWVE NO d00'I ES/2N MEN IDGEISN0O 5 (S.:ME ONOWFIIO 2S/2N ONIISIX3 OI ONINEOIM) SaNVE IDDEISNOOEE 'SNQ 9 OI Z 00 NEQIM :3'd3' EATID QVIIEVd IOREISNOO - DI GE HIIEM NOINI'IO/STZ-I IV 8'Zi.£'ZT STZ EIXVO EOZOIOAIE OL VIEIEE0W S AIE ZEEL EZZ8 86E1 ISZZI ZEZL 610S 0 60EZ 0 60EZ 0 86£Z •OOI 006 86E1 80/L0 L0/90 EOIEd XIIO IIIO IIIO 600Z 0\O SdWVE NO d00'I ES/SN MEN IDGEISNOO 9 (SdNVE ONOWVIO SS/EN DNIISIX3 OI DNIN3OIM) SdNVE ID0EISN0O32I 'SNQ 9 OI Z'.00 N3OIM :3FIEQUEA0'IO QVIIEVd ID0EISNO0 - -OI OE HIIEM NOINI'IO/STZ-I IV 8'ZI E'ZI STZ EIXVO EOZOTOAIE 0 :vimmEnM . S AIE 689 009L 0008 L66 I0I9I 005 0008 OOSI OOZT TOZZE 0 009L 0008 0 TOT9I 00S 0 0 0 T896 689 0 0 L66 0 0 0008 0 0 OOLZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOSI. OOZI OT/60 6.0/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 .60/80 80/L6 EOIEd NOIEd 'IBIS AIEX 3W0IAEM QdIS EHSVOIS OWIO 3WRIAEM nVWO XIIO <ISOO (OZEOZ :FIE) EAV FINVIONI IV (SNQ Z) dWVEN0 EE MEN 00V 5 ('I'IIOIORE OI MEECINK) SNQ 9 OI 6 DO MEQIM ' (3NTI AOH EN SOIONI) SNQ E OI Z SdWVE NEOIM/ID0EISNODEE - OI QAQS N2E02 NKA/I6ES S'6i 9'ET T6 EIXVO 6800AI2I OI '30 MO 'EQISEEAIE S AIE TV101 QNI13 ISNOD _WWI NOD MOU IVIOZ MON DN3 IVIOS JN3 2II1= ' ONII3 NOSit32t 3DNVHD NOISdImosaa 'OM Old 311t HVUDOW QI IDSPOltd N QNRKW . MOM AON3Dli SAS OD XINROO 30IS2iEAIN IE0d2E: NOSIEVdWOO OT-90# dlpi 900Z oT (ddOHS 900Z) (E Z S3'ISKI IdW3X3 '8ZI 'LZI '9ZT'£6 IEVd E20 06 /M INSISISNOJ) 'AINO SZ6T 30ISEEAIE NI SNOIIK00'I SnoillyA I'd W0S dWn'I SZ6T SZ6I 0 0 0 0 LO/90 dOHS-HN <ISOO SI03t0iid 3SNOdS2E XONESE2W3 - ddOHS' SNK24Iavo 0' 0' 666. 60dHS Losaniu 9 SNVE IHO (ddOHS 900Z) (E Z STIEVI IdW3X3 '8ZT'LZT'9ZI'E6 IEVd E20 06 /M INSISISN00) 'XINO 30ISESAI21 6629L ESE6L 66Z9L D 0 OT/60 dOHS-HN• NI SNOIItoa SMIEVA IV WEIS dWn'I.SIO3P0Ed ZS9SSI E.SE6L 0 0 0 0 80/L0 dOHS-HN >ISM NOIIVAV2S2Ed XVMOVOE - ddOHS,SNVErIV30' 0' 666 EOdHS • ZOS'IAIE OI SNVEIrIK0 (ddOHS 900Z) (E 9 Z S3'ISVI IdW3X3 '8ZT'LZT'9ZT7E6 IEVd )120 06 /M .IN3ISISN00) 'XINO 30ISE AIE 66Z9L 66Z9L 0 0 OT/60 dOHS-HN NI SNOIIVOO'I SnOIEVA IV Wns dWn'I SIO3f0Ed • 8ST88 LS6I9T 8STS8 0 0 0 0 80/L0 dOHS-HN >ISOO NOIIVAESS2Ed XVMOVOE - ddOHS SN'd2iI1V3 0' 0' 666 EOdHS ZOS'IAIE T sniv I'IX0 (ddOHS 900Z) (E 5 Z S3'ISKI IdW3X3 '8ZT'LZI'9ZT'E6 6EIL 6EIL 0 0 OT/60 dOHSdIS IEVd 2i30 06 /M INSISISN00) 'XINO Z600E Z600E 0 0 80/L0 dOHSdIS 30ISE2AIE NI SNOIIVOO'I SMIEVA IV WnS dWn'I 8L66 65996 8L66 0 0 0 0 LO/90 dOHSdIS <ISOO SI03POiid NOII0M2E NOISI'I'I00 - ddOHS SN'd2lI1V0 0' 0' 666. 60dHS TOS'IAIE Oi •SNVEITVO (ddOHS 900Z) (E 1 Z S3'ISVI IdW3X3 '8ZI'LZT'9ZT'£6 6EIL 6EIL 0 0 01/60 dOHSdIS IEVd E20 06 /M IN3ISISN00) 'XINO LSL8Z LSL8Z 0 0 80/L0 dOHSdIS 30ISE3AIE NI SNOLIV001 snonvin Iv Wns dWn'I 8L66 69ES6 -8L66 0 0 0 0 L0/90 dOHSdIS <ISOO SIO3P0Ed NOII0naal NOISI'I'I00 - ddOHS SNK2IMO 0' 0' 666 60dHS TOTIAIE SNVErIVO .6 'LIT8 •LIT8 0 0 01/60 MHSVOIS E86EZ E86EZ 0 0 01/60 IHSVOIS (iiE666 6ZOT 568L • 0 6TS SOS 80/L0 AIEX :t13) (TE'ET 04 TZ'ZT :Wd 09ES) SN'I UOIO3NNO0 .L8Z 0 '0 0006 0 S68E _80/L0 OVWO .IO2E10 AOH Z, 30IA0Ed OI IOP iouiSN0032i : (I0P . (0.10E) ETZZ 0091E 0 6TS6 0 • 0069 L8_Z ETZZ EOIEd EOIEd AIUX OVNO <ISOO SIZ-I/09ES OI IS x'd0) 09ES 9 (GE SONIEdS X02 0/S OI,3AV S0IdA1V003 0/N) STZ-I' NO6'8E' E'8E . STZ SIXVO SSSOSOAIE • 'OT NOISSIWW00 SN�i2II NOISSIxiNnoo 30ISSNVES ' (TT£666 LIT8 E86EZ LTT8 0 0 01/60 EHSVOIS :V2) (TE'ET 04 TZ'ZT *Id 09Es). SN'I VOIO3NN00 L8Z E86EZ 0 0 0 .0 OT/60 IHSKOIS .. I032iI0 AOH'Z 30IA0Ed OI'IOP I0nEISN0032I :(I0P (0I0E) ETZZ 0091E 0 0 0 OOSZ L8Z ETZZ'EOIEd E0IEd AIEX OHO . SIZ-I/09ES OS IS.XVC) 09ES (GE SONIEdS •NOISSIWW00 SNii2il . OVW0 EONIW • XOS 0/S OI 3AV.SnSdwrion3 0/N) SIZ-I N0 6'8E E'8E SIZ •SIXVO SSSOSOAIE 9 =moo 30ISE2AIE 7VIOS SSNOO -num MOU 9NS NOSYMI # QNII3 NOO 'limos mou . mum 9N3 MA . auna ammo NOIIdIunsaa , lipid' Old azu Wlti wa& QI I0arm QN3AM MOM xprianv 5 ziNn00 30ISii3AIE IE0d2E NOSITLIWOO 0T-90# dIIE 900Z • (L0E5 80 II) (I03r0iid K2i2IDS OI (NOIIE0d '80 ' -(0IO2I) 73 s,0IO2i) EELLOOEIS'qVNOIS NOOIS ONI'I'T02I (INK NOISSIWW00•SNVEI' Z AI2i 0 0 0 0 80/L0 ' ' L0.£S P2id M3N ,MOVEI 30 NOIS.KAON32i -ONK NOTIKII'IISKH32I VEEOS 0' 0' 0 ST2i2iZ 56IT90AI2i 6 7ZNROO 3Q252i3AI2i OOOT ODOT• 000T _ ... . _ __ 00S6 0056 0 0 60/80. O'iWO 90bI 90bT 0 0 80/L0 KIS 00S6 00S6 0 0 80/L0 dII-KId 19E1 19E1 0 0 80/L0 'OKWO 895 . 895 0 0 LO/90 6VOI U TZ 8TTZ 0 0 10/90 KIS (NKS-AIE 'NISLI00 :K3) 6E9E1 6E9E1 0 0 ' LO/90 bKwO ,K2R4 Aeozs LO `JCd) (Q6L00 :ONdd OOOT OODT 0 0 -L0/90 LOSS' NIS, >INI-10E1,2W NIKW :'N KNO2i00 IV 301,1KHN3_ NOISSIWW00 SNVEI LSOI • 0 0 0 0 .0, DOST LSOT Ebb 2IOIEd 2i0I21d dII-AIS LOSS 0H0 • NOMIW 03S/AI00 9 3E01002I1S 91,1I321'dd 30KdS 000'T M3N IOR2iISNOO - OA'IELONVED '3/IS NIKW 'N IV 0' 0' - 0 • 69ECII TIZTIOAIE OT -_xIN(100 3OISEaAIE I AIE Ebb Z606E 906T 9061 0 0 80/L0: KIS. 00S6 0056 0 0'80/LO dII-KId 1980I 1980I 0 0 80/L0 0'640 895 89S 0 0 LO/90 bV0I 8TTZ 8TTZ 0 0 L0/90 KIS (NKS-AI2i 'NISE00 6E9ET 6E9ET 0 0 LO/90 OKWO :K20) (L0E5 LO X2) (O6L00 :ONdd :K3) '30NKHN3 (0IO2i) 000T LSOT OOOI 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOST 0 LSOT Ebb LO/90 ii0I2id 2IOIEd. LOSS dII-dIS LOSS <1500 NIS NNI'IOEI3W NIKW 'N KNOE00 IV 03S/AI00 R 32iRI0R2iI5 ONINEVd 30KdS 000'T M3N IDIIEISN00 - ON -IS ONK2i0 '3/IS NIKW 'N .IK 0' 0' 0 6923OI TIZIIOAIU 9 NOISSIWW00 SNKLII ziNR00 3OISE3AIE I AIE Ebb Z606E (ddOHS 900Z) (E 9 Z 3'IHKI IdW3X3 9TZZ -9TZZ 0 0 0I/60, dOHS-HN '8ZT 'LZT '9ZT'E6 IEVd•E20 06 /M INSISISN00) 00E5 ' 00£S DOLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LO/90 dOHS-HN dOHS-HN <ISOO 'AINO 3OIS2i3AI21 MI SNOIIKOO'I SOOIEVA.Iti MIS dW0'I SI02P02Id S3IKONKW - ddOHS SNK2IiV0 0' 0' _. 6.66 • TOdHS 60SIAIE OT SNVELaKO S AIE OOLS 9TZEI (ddOHS 900Z) (E 9 Z 3'IHKI. IdW3X3 . '8ZT 'LZT '9ZT'E6 I2IKd E30 06 /M IN3ISISN00) „ 9TZZ 91ZZ. OOLS 0 0 0 0 0 '0 OT/60 L0/90 dOHS-HN dOHS-HN <1S00 . "'iINO 3OISE2AI2I-NI SNOIIKOO'I SL10IEVA IK. ' (ARS dWR'I .S103t02Id S3IKONKW - ddOHS SNVEI1V0 0' 0' -666 TOdHS 60SIAIE 9 SNVErIVO S . AIE OOLS 9T6L (ddOHS 900Z) (E 4 Z STISKI ZdW3X3 '8Zi 'LZT '9ZT'E6 IEVd EIO 06 /M IN3ISISNO0) 'XINO •,30ISEgAIE NI SNOILKOO'I SROI2IKA IV WRS dWRI SZLZ 0 0 0 0 L0/90 dOHS-HN <IS00 SIO3t0Ed 3SNOME x01130213W3 - ddOHS • SNYErIV0 0' 0' 666 bOdHS LOSIAIV OL SNVErIXO -S AIE SZLZ SZLZ TYZOS atria ISNOO ''IYSOZ NO0 .MOE TYSOZ MOE WM 'WWI O43 WU amna NOSFr32i . 3ONYHO NOISdIEOS3a YPid Mid $S21 WY?IO02id aI IO2DOEd MIZ MY MVIM AON3Ort ,SxS OO XINR00 3OISESAIE IE0d3E NOSIEVd1400 OT-90# dIlE 9002 ZI 668ZE 9TLL 9Tb SZ9T 909Z6. 668ZE 9ILL 9T6 SZ9T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 6HaI apdA TIES LOES Paid M3N (LOSS 80 A3) 3aI2i-H-`IHIa 5 aIncM a3XI3=30NHISISSH ONIIH2I3d0 - 80/L0 A3 NI HI24 2iO3 AINnOO 3gIS2i3AI3 NUaiszM NI 0' 0' 0 OOOna 6ZIT90AIE 6 A0N39H IISNYEI 30ISE3AIE I •AIE 0000T 00S 8L6ZS VITSZ 0000Z 00TOT SLOB 988 OOSZ L06Z ZZ8T 966 Z60801 0000T 0 8L6ZS VITSZ 0000Z 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98ZLZ 0 00S 0 0 0 0 OUT SL08 988 OOSZ L06Z ZZ8T 966 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 80/L0 LO/90 L0/90 L0/90 EOIEd EOIEd EOINd An2iX 'IBIS dIE-HId AON39H LOSS AON39H AIEX ADN30H LOES 3VW0 HIS Q60£S <ISOO (NHS-AIE :H2O) (LOSS LO AI) (31,1I'I ATFIHA SIEH2d) (SIEHad OI 3aISE3AIE) 30IA82S E2ON3SSEId 'LIVE E03 3NI'I HONVES OINIOHP NHS 30VE0 df1 9 IOnHISN003H O' 0' 0 Z6NVE 60TOZSAIE OI (0I0E) NOISSIWW00 SNVE1 AINn00 30ISE3AIE I AIE 0000T 00S 8L6ZS VITSZ 0000Z SL08 988 OOSZ LO6Z ZZ8T 966 Z60801 0000T 0 8L6ZS VITSZ 0000Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 981LT 0 00S 0 0 0 SLOB 988 OOSZ L06Z ZZ8T 966 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 60/80 LO/90 L0/90 LO/90 EOIEd HOIEd EOIEd AINX 'IBIS dIE-HId AON3OH LOES AIEX AON3OH LOSS OYWO HIS 460ES <IS00 (NHS-AIE :HZn) (LOSS LO A3) (3NI7 =IHA SIEE2d) (SIEE3d OI 3aISEEAIE) 3OIAE2S N3ON3SSHd 'LIVE EOE 3NI'I HONVES OINIOHP NHS 30H230dn 9"IOnEISN003E 0' 0' . 0 Z6NVE 60IOZSAIE 9 (01.0E) NOISSIWW00 SNVEI AIN1100 30ISEEAIE I AIH ES6T ES6T ES6I 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LOSS <ISOO (NHS-AIE :HZn) (LOTS 80 A3) (I03P0Ed IPIEDS OI (NOI.IE0d 80 A3 S.OIDE) 3HOIMEIS 'IHNOIS MOOIS ONITIOE 4NH NOVEI 30 NOIIHAONSE aNH NOIIHII'IIHHH2E VEERS 0' 0' 0 STEUI S6TT90AIE OI (0I0):1) NOISSIWW00 SNVEI AINn00 30ISE2AIE I AIE Td101 ONII3 SSMOD WSW, NOD MOU . TV101 MOU DN3 TYSOS 0N3 IMSX ONC13 NOSVM ' 39NKHD MOISdIUDS30 WM Old =V NYHDOUd 0I SDBL'Ova # 0N3WV OIVN XON391[ SXS OD AINn00 3aISEEAIE 1E0d32i NOSIEVd1400 OI-90# dIIE 900Z • • ET (NVS-AIE :VZR1'.(LOSS 80 X2) ('I3S3IQ/SVS) SMOGEI. IE0dd0s IN31430t1Id3E 89 89 0 0 80/L0 KIS OHO - b. QNV SEVO IEOddOS IN3W30'd'Id2E b 3SKHOE0d AON3OV ZLZ Ob£ ZLZ 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LOSS 3d0OS - VIE E03 AINROO 3QISE3AI2i NE2.IS3M NI 0' 0' 0 ZOlt3A 6ZTT90AIlt OT IISNVEI 3QISESAIE I AIE . . (LOES 80 A3) (.1292I3/S130) MIMI 032 3MVIS I2I0ddnS IN34433K'Id3E £E £E 0 0 80/40 bKQI Z_ QNV SEVD IEOdd0S IN3W30K'Id2E Z 3SVHDELld XON2DV EET 991 EET 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LOSS fEd M3N - VIE E03 AIN000 3QISE3AIE Nlt3ISSM NI 0-' 0' 0 Z0V3A 6ZTI90AIE 6 IISNVEI. 30ISE3AIE I AIE tzso-asnfl -LOOZ3 T. ZLO-dS03-900Z3 SNEVWEV2)-(0N0/2303 -I'1V ,E30613SSKd 04 X0EddV 'I003 06) SOS ' 6Z 6Z 0 0 80/L0 AIIO `JH032IS-'I'I03 IN31430Vgd2E 3N0 3SVHOE0d - (H9nONHI A0N3OV LTT 96T LIT 0 0 0 0 80/L0 060ES 3d00S SSVd).VIE HOGOEHI OOIX3IV0 30 AIIO 33I UO2 0' 0' 0 LIEGE( 8ZTT90AIE OT IISNVEI 30ISlt3AIE I .AIE (LOSS 80 A3) (ONO/1303-I'IK 'N3JN3SS'dd 66-Ob ZTE ZTE 0 0 80/L0 VV0I - 'I333 of, X0EddV) MLA IN3W30'd'Id2E 4 3SVHOE0d CON3OV 8bZT 09ST 8bZL 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LOES fEd M3N - VIE E03 AIN000 30ISE3AIE NE3IS3M NI 0' 0' 0 LIEGE' 8Z1T90AIE b IISNVEI 30ISEEAIE I AIE (NdS-AI2I :V20) (LOSS 80 Al) S3IEOSS300V / SI M /M (E30N3SS'dd ZT 9SS 9SS 0 0 80/L0 KIS OH0 X0EddV "I3S3I0/SK9 'IIA 3dAI 6 R II 3dAI 8£) X0N30'd ZZZZ 8LLZ ZZZZ 0 0 0 0 80/LO LOES 3d00S S3'T0I143A IISNVEIVEVd IN3W30'd'Id3E Zb 3SdHDE0d 0' O' 0 9IEVd LZTT90AIE OT IISNVEI 30ISHEAIE I AIE, (LOSS 80 X2) S3Ia)SS300t1 SIM /M S3'IOIH3A IISNVEIVEVd (E30N3SSVd Zt X0EddV) LEE LEE 0 0 80/L0 VVQI (13S3I0/SVO) Z 3dAI IN3W30'd'Id3E EE 3SVEDE0d XON39V 9b9T £861 91791 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LO£S fEd M3N - VIli 2iO3 XIN000 30ISESAI2t RE3IS3M NI O' 0' 0 9IEVd LZTI90AIE b IISNVEI 3QISE3AIE I AIE (EEGW/W3I (V20) (LOES 4£6 bEb 0 0 80/L0 VVQI 80 A3) 30NVN3INIKW 3AII`dIN3A2Ed Q32IGVIIEVO XON30ti' LELE TL96 LELE 0 0 0 0. 80/L0 LOSS <ISOO - VIE E03 XIN000 30ISE2AIE NE3IS3M NI 0' 0' 0 sauna SZTT9.OAIE OT IISN`EI 30ISE3AIE I AIL! (LOES bZS 5ZS 0 0 80/L0 bHOI 80 A2) 30NVN3INIVW 3AIIVINSA3Ed 032I'IKIIdV0 XON3OV 80TZ ZE9Z 80TZ 0 0 0 0 .80/L0 COES fEd M3N - VIE UO3 AINR00 30ISE3AIE NE3IS3M NI 0' 0' 0 SOH08 . SZTT90AIE b IISNVEI 30IS2t3AI2I I And OST OSI 0 0 8'0/L0_ AINX ZEbLE ZE4LE 0 0 80/L0 VVOI S8T8 5818 0 0 80/L0 2EV1 (LtEQW/W3I . OSbI OSbT 0 0 80/10 XON30Ef + 0KP NVS/WSH :9=1) (LOSS 80 X3) 3QI2I-K-'TtiIO ZZb ZZb 0 0 80/L0 TIES . 9 3I00E 03XI3 :30NVISISS'd 9NIIVE3d0 - 8040 • • AON39td Z961 10966 Z961 0 0 0 0 80/L0 LOES <ISOO X3 NI VIE H03 AINn00 30ISESAIE NE2IS3M NI 0' 0' -0 O.00nfl bZTT90ARi OT IISNK1iI 3dISlT3AIli I AIIt 'IKIOX ISNOO MOH DNS NOSIiSIT # . QNn3 num Nob "num Mott 'nisOZ OM2 xi= aNn.a ithorm NOIZdI2t553Q Kidd Old lilt PfltlOMS OI SoNPOSS Ward WIN XONZO'd SXS o0 AINR00 30ISE2AIE IE0d3E NOSIEVdW00 OT-90# dIIE 900Z 6T Z OT ZT Z OT 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6Hai LOSS rEd MEN (LOES 80 X3) (sE2d33MS IOZ ONIMEVd aNH E00Z3 'O'3) SN3WdIn03 dOHS MEN 35v8DEnd - VIE E03 x.INnOJ 30ISE2AII1 NZI3ISEM NI " 0' 0' 0 LONnH LETT90AI?I 6 XON3OH SISNVEI 30ISE3AIE S AIL[ LE '66T 98T LE 661 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS LOSS <ISOO (NHS-AIE :HZn) (LOES 80 X3) ('OIE 'SE2IdOO 9 I.N3WdIn03 MHOMI3N 3OHZd32I (INH S2i3IndW00 MO083ION 9 Od '0'3) IN3WdIn03 30I330 II 3SHHDEnd :VIE 2103 XINnOO 30ISE2AIH NESIS3M NI 0' 0' . 0 90EEI 9ETT90AIH OT XON3OH IISNVEI 3QIS2i3AIE I AIE TT E6 6S IT Eb 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6HOI LOSS 'lid M3N (LOSS 80 X3) ('Oia 'S213INIEd SnZd SE21.0dWOO ?I0083ION aNH dOINS3Q '0'3) IN3WdI003 E2If1dW03/2EVMOVVH daH 3SHHONnd :HIE E03 XSNnOO SOISE2AIS NZ131S3M NI 0' 0' 0 90EHI 9ETT90AIV b XONEOH SISNVHI 3QISLi3AIE .L AIH Z 8 OT Z 8 O 0 0 O 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS LOSS OHO 3dODS3SHHDErld (NHS-AIE :HZn) (LOES 80 X3) XII'IIOt13 3QISE3AIH 3HI VO3 3NIHOHW ONISNnOO NIOO Mal :HZN E03 XINnOO 30ISESAIE NE2IS3M NI 0' 0' 0 90EEI bETT90AIH OT XON3OH SISNVEI 30ISE3AIE S AIN 00Z 66L 666 00Z 66L 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6Hai LOSS rEd M3N (LOSS 80 X3) ('OI3 '3Ivadn SIJ 'SNEW3ONHHN3 ITT 3'I0,3E0 'WEISXS ONId33)I 31411 30VE0d❑ 'EUVMI30S ONIIinmm 9 ONIZIla3HOS 'S?iam2s '30'd'Id32t 9 MEN '0'3) 2EVMI30S/2EVMOEVH data 3SHHOTind 0' 0' 0 90EEI 6£TT90AIE 6 XON3OH IISNVEI 3aISE3AIE I AIH 68 LSE 966 68 LSE: 0 0 0 0 O 0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS LOES <ISOO (NHS-AIE =HZn) (LOSS 80 X3) ('OI3 'EOSS2EdW00 'NOISSIWSNH?II '2I3ZZ02iiN0O 'SdWnd '50703INHW • 'EOIHNE2I7V '0'3) SIEV d ZHIIdHO ?MIS ONITIOE 3SHHDEnd :S3EVdS 30NHN3INIHW ZHIIdHO 0' 0' 0 LOEEI Z£TT90AIE OT XON39H IISNVEI 3QISE2AIE I AIE OL 6LZ 66E OL 6LZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6HOI LOSS Paid M3N • (COES 80 X3) ('O13 'EOSS321dWOD 'NOISSIWSNHHI 'ESTIOEINOO 'SdWnd 'SaI03INHW 'EOIHNE2IZH '9'3) SIEVd ZHIIdHO MOOSS ONIZ'IOE 3SHHOIind :S311VdS 3ONHN3SNIHW ZHIIdHO O' 0' 0 LOEUI ZETT90AIE . 6 XON3OH IISNVEI 3QISSZAI?I S. AIH SL 00E SLE Si_ OOE 0 0. 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS LOES <ISOO (31) (NHS-AIE :HZn) (LOES 80 X3) SiI=HS/SdOIS ONIISIXE aNHdX3 9 EIVH3E OI 'O13 'S3ZOHId3O3E HSVEI 'SNOIS 'SNOISN3IX3/S310d 'S3110N38 3SHH02Ind :S3ISIN3WH dOIS SnH 0' 0' 0 OTEDM TETT90AIE OT XON3OH SISNHLII 30ISE3AIE I AIE ZZ 88 OTT ZZ 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6HOI LOES rEd MEN (LOES 80 X3) SE2=HS/SdOIS ONIISIX3 ONHdX3 9 8HHEE OI '0I3 'S3ZOHId30321 HSHNI 'SNOIS 'SNOISN3IX3/S3ZOd 'S3HON38 3SHHDEO d :SEIIIN3WH dOIS Sn8 0' 0' 0 OTNON TETT90AIH 6 XON3OH IISNVEI MISE2AIH S AIE Taal aNC13 SSNOD TVIOX NOD MOV TYZOS MOU ON3 WWI DNS. 2V21. arum NOS1(32 SOWED NOISdI2TDS3a Aiwa Old 8S2t FIYHO02d a 1.03P02d # maw 2NVN XDN3OY SXS OD XSNn00 30ISE3AIE .1E0d3H NOSIEVdWOO OT-90# dI.IE 900Z • ZT OS Z9 ZT OS 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/LO, 80/L0 -. 6KOI LOSS 'fEd MEN (LOES -80 A3) 535[lfl NO'03'I'IKZSNS SSIN[1 ('pall) 83INII0p 21391,13SSKd DIIKWOIIIK 30 ISOp ESKE'I :.K12I 2303' XIN000 30ISE3AIII N1i3IS3M NI _ 0' 0' 0 LONne Z6II90AIE 6 . - _ - ADN3OV IISWOII 3QIMAI2i - . I AI23 6ST LE9 96L 6S1 L£9 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 KIS LOSS OHO 3d0OSESKHOE0d . (NKS-AI21 :K20) (LOES 80 A3) S3X0831IK3 A3SSA00 I30 £S :V.I21 H03 ki.Nf10p 30ISH3AIE N213ISEM NI 0' 0' 0• 80NUI I6IT90AIII OI ''ADN3OK IISNK2II 34IS2i3AIII I ATE TT E6 6S TT E6 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 80/L0 __80/L0 6KOI _ LOES. PNd MEN (LOSS. 80 x3) S3XOgE2IK3 x3SSA00 I30 6 3SKHOHOd :KIII 2103 xIN00p 20I52i3AIH N2i3IS3M- NI 0' 0_' 0 _ BON1tI . T6TT90AI)i 6 x01,130K IISNY81.-30IS1i3AI i , I,. Ant 9 bZ OE 9 6Z 0 O 0 0 0 0 80/L0.' 80/LO KIS LOES OHO 3d0OS (NHS-AIii :v2A) 'SLOES 80 x3) SIINA 2iEIKEH ONK ONINOIIIQNOO HIV MEN 3SKH02I0d :AII'II0V2 30NVNEINIVW VIII ONIISIX3 Ili 0' 0' 0 98HON 06IT90AIii OI AON3Oli IISN'd1II 30IMMAIU I AI2I ZT 86 09 ZT 86 0 O 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6KOI ` 0ES PLid M3N (LOSS 80 AA) (*DIE''ONIINIKd 800'I3 '5'3) SHIKd32i dOHS 2ONKN3INIKW :AII'IIDK3 30NVN3INIKW Klii ONIISIX3 IK 0' 0' 0 MON - O6TI90AIH 6 ADNSOV IISNd23I 30IS1i3AIN I . AIH T 9 L T 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 KIS LOES 9140 Ed00S (NKS-AIH :K20) SLOES 80 x3) E1inIIN2Ina E0I330 IN3W3DK'IdE1i 3SKH01102 : SEIII'IIOK3 3AIIK2IISINIW0K IEW3H 5, 30ISH3AIE VIH ONIISIX3 IK 0' 0' 0 90HUI 6ETT90AI2i OT AON3OK IISNVIII 30ISH3AI2I I AIH T T Z T T O 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6KOI COES rEd M3N (LOES 80 A3) (STINK NOIIK21E0I2I3E21 'O'E) INEW2I00E IHOddOS EAIIVHISINIWOK IN31,130K'Id32I ESKHDHOd :S3III'IIOK3 NOIIVHISINIWOV VS/I ONIISIX3 Ili 0' 0' 0 90/1/11. 6E1190AI/1 6 x01,135li IISNVHI 30ISH3AIII .I AIH 8Z OTT BET 8Z OTT 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 KIS LOES . • OHp 3d0OS (NKS-AIH :K20) (LOES 80 A3) ('0.I3 'SHIKd323 300H 'ONIINIKd AII'IIDK3 'ONISK00311 H0013 ''IN31,130K'Id321 3.I3/10N00 '5'3) S3III'II0K3 I3W3H 9'30I5213AI/1 KILL ONIISIX3-IV SIN3W3A02IdWI S3IIIIIOK3 0' 0' 0 98110N 8£TT90AIU OI ADN3OV IISNVUI 30ISH3AI2i I AI11 8Z ZIT 06T 8Z ZTT '. 0 0 O O 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6K0I LOES Paid M3N .. (LOES 80 x3) ('3I3 'S'IO2IIN00 SS300K 02IKp 30K2IOd0 'ain03 30NK'I'II3AWS 030IA 'I'IKISNI 'S3SIIOH 02ivns IomiISN00 '0'3) SI03t02id x.LI2nns :S3III'IIDK3 I3W3H 9 30ISESAIE KIH ONIISIX3 IK 0' O' 0 6S03S 8£.1190AIE. 6 XONEOK IISNKNI 30ISH3AIE I. AIH S TZ 9Z S TZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 •KIS LOES <ISOD (NKS-AIN :K2I11•.(LO£S 80 x3) ('pia '31IKMI305 1 S2i3I0dWOO dOI dVI 'SEHDN3HM IOKdWI 'MOKL` NOISSIWSNK27I 'xIaoa Wri2I0 3NVIIS 'MKS 330-If10 'O'E) :INEWdI003:d0HS M3N 3SKHOE0 d 0' 0' 0 LONne LETT90AIH OT AON3O'd SISNK2II.30IS213AI1I I AI2i 'MOS QNII3 SSNOD TYSOS NOD MON ' vIat mu DN3 avIca DN3 NIV2A QNII3 NOS1X32 3ONYHO NOISdIxossa KPtd ma 3SZi KV2002d QI SDuma # QN ler IdN ADN25V SAS 00 . AINnoo 30ISH3AIH IHOd31I NOSI23K2W00 OT-90# dIII1 900Z 9T 008E OOt 6b9Z 6bS9 008E 00T .6b9Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS .360ES LOES PIM MENINEW3OV1d28 (TOTO-dSng -3) (sdnnNI :H2n).(LO£S 80 XI) S3INOSS303H R SOIOHii 's3XOH 323H3.'SxOHii 'sI3II /M (NEON3SSHd Eb-OE 'IA Ob-OE 73113-I'IH) SESng 91 ESH40230d— x3'I'IHA VT'IEHOH00 NI 0' 0' O. Lams 80LOLOAIN OT AONEOH IISNYNI ENI'INnS I AIN OSZ TOT 6b 006 OSZ TOT 6b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 80/L0 bHOI HIS LOSS >IS03 (El) (SdnnONi :H2n) (LOES 80 X3) SdOIS Snot8vA H03 ('DIE 'S3I'IddnS 'SNEI1EHS 'salt-mEHOS 9 SNHX31 NSOIM 'SNENIHINOD HTVNI 'S3H0N3g '9'3) SEIIINEWH dOIS SOS 'EONHHN3 IISNV4I 3SHH02ind 0' 0' 0 DIMON LSIT90AIE OT XONEOH IISNVUI 3NI1NnS I. AIN 00b 00Z 009 006 00Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 bHOI LOSS fad MEN (En (COES 80 XI) SdOIS SnoiiiHA E03 ('OIE 'S3I1ddnS 'SN2113HS 'S3'InOEH3S 5 SNHX31 MSOIN 'SEENIHIN00 HSVNI 'SEHON38 'O'3) SEIIIN3WH dOIS ISns '30NHHN3 IISNVNI 3SHHOEnd 0' 0' 0 OILION LSTT90AIN b x0N3OH IISNHH.I 3NI1NOS I AIN OZ 08 00T OZ 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 60/80 60/80 bHO.I LOES fEd MEN- (LOES 60 x3) EONHNEINIHW 3AIIHIN3A2Nd 03ZI1HIIdHO S30IANES 1HI03dS EOISNEAIN NO3 30ISNEAIN NI 0' 0' 0 b02ing bOLOLOAIE OT 30 XIIO '30IS83AIN I . AIN 8 'LE 6E 8 TE 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS LOES fNd MEN (NHS -Alit :H2n) (LOES 80 XA) SdOIS Sng ONIISIXE NO3 ('0IE 'S2XVIidS INIHd SS311IIH 'S13AOHS 'S2MVN 'woous WnnOHA 'NEHSHM E2Inssau 'O'E) din03 Sno iiHA ESHH02Ind :dind3 INIHW dOIS Sng 0' 0' 0 LONUI LOLOLOAIN OT XON3OH IISNVEI 30ISNEA Ri I AIN bIT 9Sb OLS bTT 9Sb 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 HIS LOSS fNd MEN (NHS-AIN :HZn) (LOSS 80 X3) xII1ISHI1EN 3A0NdWI OI S3IOTHEA x3110UI ONO ONIISIXE S NOIII0N003H/HSIgS(13EN :VIN NOI EQISUEAIN ONnouv ONH NI 0' 0' 0 Sohn$ 90LOLOAIN OT XONEOH IISNVNI EOISN3AIN I AIN E9 TSZ bT£ E9 TSZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 80/L'0 HIS LOES Paid MEN (NHS-AIN :FiZn) (LOES 80 X3) SUNOSSE00H ONH SI3I1 NIKHO 1EEHM HIIM (1ES3I0/SHO 'E2ONESSHd ZT XONddH) SE`IOIHEA II Edx.I .IISNVSIVNVd NOISNHdX3 S 3SHHOUnd 0' 0' 0 E6NHd SOLOLOAIN OT . XONEOH IISNVEI 30ISN2AIN I AIN ZEZ 8S 06Z ZEZ 8S 0 0 0 0 0 0 80/L0 L0/90 LO£S HIS OHO Ed00S (NHS-AIN :H2n) (LOSS 80 x3) 13AVNI ii3InWWOn O3ONHHNE NOI NNI'I ii3InWW00 NO I3IM R AI IOEEIO 3SHH02Ind :HIN NOI AINnoo 3OISNEAIN NNEISEM NI 0' ' 0' 0 LONns ' Z6tt90ARI OT XONEOH I2sNH4II 30Isii3AIii I AI?! WW1. QNna SSNOO TVIOS NOO MOU Ta01 MOU 9N3 WWI 9N3 Int3A QNn3 NOSii32i 3JNKHO NOISdIU0S3Q itNid SPid 3III PI UDOlId QI SO3roua # GLUM 2KVN %0N2DV SES 00 xlNnoo 30ISUEAIN IN0d3N NOSINVdW00 OT-90# dIIN 9002 • • LT 86 T6£ 686 86 T6£ 0 0 0 .0 0 0 80/L0 80/L0 6VOI 060£5 fEd M3N (ZOTO-dSR6-LOOZ-3 + 66T-dSRS-900Z-3) SRS NOISSIW3 OE3Z V 3IVE3dO 9 dO13A34 OI I03POid NOII EISNOWEO R HOEV3S321 SRS 'T'I30 'MA NO3 IEVISISSM/IEVISTVD /M 3IHSEZNIEVE INIOP 0' ' 0' 0' £OU3A ZTLOLOAIE 'OT 106139V IISNVEI 3NI'INRS I' AI2l 9LT 9LT 9LT 0 0 0 0 80/L0 6VOI Paid M3N 53I2iOSS300K cm 'S3XO6 3EV1 'SOIOVE 'SI3I'I HIIM (2139613SS'dd ZT XONddK "I3R3-17I`d) S3SR6 EVO IISNVEIVEVd NOISN'ddX3 Z 3SVHDNRd - 3NI'INRS 303 X3'I'IVA VT'I3HOV00 NI 0' 0' 0 66NVd TTLOLOAIE OT XON39V IISNVEI 36II:"INRS I AI2I 0091 009T 0091 0 0 0 0..80/_L0. 6KOI PId,M3N .S3IEOSS3OO?i 9 SOIQhii 'S3XO6 3EV3 'SHOVE 'SI3I'I /M 01396I3SSKd-£6-0£ 'I3 06-0£ 'I303-rIV)..S3SR8 .610ISNKdX3 6 3SVEDECId - 7,3'I'IVA VTI2H0V00 NI 0' 0' 0 66NRS 60LOLOAIE OT XON3O'd IISNVEI 3NIINCIS I AIE Torsos QMn3 I MOD TV/Os MOO -MON TVIOs MON 9N3 'Mal' DNS IrdaX mina NOSK3II 3JNYND NOIsdraosaa VNZ MI 3s?I NVUDONd aI IDWOUd i QNINV MIN AONSOV SXS oO XINRO0 3OISEEAIE IEpd2E NOSIEVdWOO OT-90# •dIlE 9o0z Prop 1B Website http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond.htm B Bon,tosof rnrcmcr 3-`Y`,��IatD:IA's'aa.doUa.9m'AiMrmsvo4lbcnd.htm C•A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Of GOV TRANSPORTATION SVia to Content l Tooter I Accessibility Home I navel Ruaneza Cagiao erinq Coln ens... Wulf. Hare lo GgIYnoThnc 7-, Proposition 2.B - Transportation Bond Prosram -w Prot, 18 Lamm an .h Prop 1B Implemardation "t EY 2O17rria Appropriation.; et California Strategic Growth Plan - Bond Accountability Search Caleans CORRIDOR MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT The Highway Safely, Tragic Reduction; Air Oualily, and Pan Security Band Act of 2006, approved by the raters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, includes a program of funding bom KS baron to be deposited in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMW). The binds in tha CNA. are to he available to the California Transportation Commission, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Bib by the Legislature, for allocation for performance improvements on the state highway system or major access routes to the state highway system. The CMIA presents a unique opportunity for tha State's transportation community to provide demunslratable congestion rebel', enhanced mabilay, improved safety, and stronger cnnnectMty to benefit traveling Califomians. .h CMW Guideline6 Penned E mwpy -y CMW Adopted Prom, anew+ et CM Initial Program Resolution (Adopted WSW) STATE ROUTE 99 CORRIDOR The Highway Safely, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality. and Pod Security Bond Act of2006, appoved by the voters as Proposition IB on November 7, 2C06, includes an authorization of St billion to be available to the Department of Transportation, upon appropriation in 'ha annual Budget Big by Iha Legislature, fo Page 1 of 2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Caltrans > Transportation Programming > Prop 1B Bond Proposition 111 - Transportation Bond Program * Prop 1B Language Prop 1B Implementation * FY 2007/08 Appropriations California Strategic Growth Plan - Bond Accountability CORRIDOR MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, includes a program of funding from $4.5 billion to be deposited in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). The funds in the CMIA are to be available to the Califomia Transportation Commission, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Bill by the Legislature, for allocation for performance improvements on the state highway system or major access routes to the state highway system. The CMIA presents a unique opportunity for the State 's transportation community to provide demonstratable congestion relief, enhanced mobility, improved safety, and stronger connectivity to benefit traveling Californians. CMIA Guidelines (Adopted 11/08/06) CMIA Adopted Program (2/28/07) ">> _CMIA _Initial _Program Resolution (Adopted N15/07) STATE ROUTE 99 CORRIDOR The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, includes an authorization of $1 billion to be available to the Department of Transportation, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Bill by the Legislature, for safety, operational enhancements, rehabilitation, or capacity improvements necessary to improve the State Route 99 Corridor in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. State Route 99 Corridor Program Guidelines (Adopted 12/13/06) * State Route 99 Corridor Program (3/15/07) TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FUND l The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, includes $2 billion, available to the California Transportation Commission upon appropriation in the annual Budget Bill by the Legislature and subject to such conditions and criteria as the Legislature may provide by statute, for infrastructure improvements along federally designated "Trade Corridors of National Significance" in this state or along other corridors within this state that have a high volume of freight movement. The Commission is to consult the Trade Infrastructure and Goods Movement Plan, trade infrastructure and goods movement plans adopted by regional transportation planning agencies, regional transportation plans, and Cal-MITSAC Statewide Port Master Plan. file://EADOCUME—l\LOBECK 1.RCT\LOCALS—I\Temp\MOT7RAS1.htm 10/8/2007 Page 2 of 2 ISHVREUBMilitiLlIMIR3NERSHIP PROGRAM ACCOUNT The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B on November 7, 2006, authorized $2 billion in general obligation bond proceeds to be available for projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to augment funds otherwise available for the STIP from other sources. Under the Bond Act, the funds shall be deposited in the newly created Transportation Facilities Account (TFA) and shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in the same manner as other STIP funds. 2006 STIP Augmentation Guidelines (twins) .* 2006 STIP Augmentation Fund Estimate Targets and Shares (12/13/06) Formula Distribution lziy County The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B on November 7, 2006, includes $1 billion to be deposited into the newly created State -Local Partnership Program Account. The funds will be available to the California Transportation Commission, upon appropriation by the Legislature and subject to such conditions and criteria as the Legislature may provide by statute, for allocation over a five- year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency. A dollar for dollar match of local funds is required for an applicant transportation agency to receive state funds under this program. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B on November 7, 2006, includes $750,000,000 to be deposited in the newly created Highway Safety, Rehabilitation, and Preservation Account for highway safety, rehabilitation, and pavement preservation projects. $250,000,000 will be available for traffic light synchronization projects or other technology -based improvements to improve safety operations and the capacity of local streets and roads. Funds will be available to the Department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of the state highway operation and protection program. Conditions of Use 1 Priva y Policy Copyright © 2007 State of California file //EADOCUME-1\LOBECK-1.RCT\LOCALS-1\Temp\N10T7RASl.htm 10/8/2007 California Strategic Growth Plan: Bond Accountability: Transportation Page 1 of I STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN :GOV BOND ACCOUNTABILITY Home » Bond Information » Transportation Proposition iB As approved by the voters in the November 2006 general elections, Proposition 1 B enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $19.925 billion of state general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including high -priority transportation corridor improvements, State Route 99 corridor enhancements, trade infrastructure and port security projects, school bus retrofit and replacement purposes, state transportation improvement program augmentation, transit and passenger rail improvements, state -local partnership transportation projects, transit security projects, local bridge seismic retrofit projects, highway -railroad grade separation and crossing improvement projects, state highway safety and rehabilitation projects, and local street and road improvement, congestion relief, and traffic safety. Click to view larger image Program Available Committed.' Balance (dollars in thousands) Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) $4,500,000 $4,489,707 $10,293 Route 99 Corridor Account (Rte 99) $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Trade Corridors Improvement Fund $2,000,000 0 $2,000,000 Trade Corridor Emission Reduction Account $1,000,000 0 $1,000,000 Port, Harbor, and Ferry Terminal Security Account $100,000 0 $100,000 School Bus Retrofit and Replacement Account $200,000 0 $200,000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Augmentation $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Intercity Rail Improvement $400,000 0 $400,000 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account $3,600,000 0 $3,600,000 State -Local Partnership Program Account $1,000,000 0 $1,000,000 Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account $1,000,000 0 $1,000,000 Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account $125,000 $125,000 $0 Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account $250,000 0 $250,000 State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) $500,000 $500,000 $0 Traffic Light Synchronization $250,000 0 $250,000 Local Street and Road, Congestion Relief, and Traffic Safety Account of 2006 $2,000,000 0 $2,000,000 Total $19,925,000 $8,114,707 $11,810,293 These figures include a two percent reserve for bond administration fees. Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy Copyright © 2007 State of California http://svdtsucp.dot.ca.gov:8084/bondacc/ i I 10/8/2007 Revised Proposition 1B Bond Provisions Implementation Provisions Bond Amount FY2007/08 Program Amount Committed Appropriations' SB 1266 SB 88 Comments Corridor Mobility Improvement Account $ 4,500 $ 4,487 $ 608 CTC CTC No substantial changes (CMIA) State Route 99 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 14 Caltrans CTC No substantial changes Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) $ 2,000 $ - $ - CTC CTC Program development in progress. Transportation Facilities Account (STIP) $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 727 CTC CTC No substantial changes Highway Safety Rehabilitation and $ 500 $ 500 $ 280 Caltrans CTC No substantial changes Preservation Account (SHOPP) Highway Safety Rehabilitation and Preservation Account (SHOPP Traffic Sync) $ 250 $ - $ 123 Caltrans CTC Department to develop a $250 million program, including $150 million for City of Los Angeles. Intercity Rail $ 400 $ - $ 188 Caltrans CTC Presentation at Sept CTC meeting on strategies to coordinate Prop 1 B and STIP intercity rail programs. State/Local Partnership $ 1,000 $ - $ - CTC CTC Program development in progress. Local Bridge Seismic $ 125 $ 125 $ 14 Caltrans CTC Department to submit funding request to CTC before Sept 30 each year. Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account $ 250 $ 123 CTC CTC CTC to adopt program guidelines by Feb 15, 2008, in cooperation with PUC, Caltrans, and HSRA. CALTRANS APPROPRIATIONS $12,025 $ 8,112 $ 2,077 Program Bond Amount Amount Committed FY 2007/08 Appropriations" SB 1266 SB 88 Comments School Bus Retrofit $ 200 $ - $ 193 GARB CARB No substantial changes Air Quality Improvement $ 1,000 $ - $ 250 CARB CARB SB 88 defines program. SB 201 amends SB 88 related to railroad participation. Port, Harbor, and Ferry Terminal Security $ 100 $ - $ 41 OHS/OES OHS/OES SB 88 defines program onjectives. Transit System Safety, Security and $ 1,000 $ - $ 101 OHS/OES OHS/OES SB 88 defines program onjectives. Disaster Response Transit $ 3,600 $ - $ 600 SCO Caltrans Regional agencies /transit operators to submit project lists to Caltrans prior to distribution of funds from SCO. Cities and counties to submit project lists to DOF prior to distribution of funds from SCO. Local Street and Road $ 2,000 $ - $ 950 SCO DOF NON-CALTRANS APPROPRIATIONS $7,900 $ - $ 2,135 ' Appropriation levels passed by legislature on August 21, 2007. Final appropriation subject to signed budget. $ 8,112 $ 4,212 http://www.doLca.govlhgttransprogfibond.htm June 16, 2007 Draft 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program October 15, 2007 Prepared For: versidu('pnnty ransportatlon C,o nsnisston Riverside County Transportation Commission County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Ph: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 Prepared By: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105 Fresno, CA 93722 Ph: (559) 271-1200 Fax: (559) 271-1269 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER DESCRIPTION PAGE Executive Summary ES-1 1 Designation of the Congestion Management Agency 1-1 2 Designation of the CMP System of Highways and 2-1 Roadways 3 Transportation Modeling 3-1 4 Multimodal System Performance Standards 4-1 5 Enhanced Transportation System Management 5-1 Program 6 LOS Deficiency Plans 6-1 7 Transportation Demand Management/ 7-1 Air Quality 8 Capital Improvement Program 8-1 9 CMP Conformance and Monitoring 9-1 10 CMP Development and Implementation/ 10-1 Update Process Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-1 Riverside CMP System 2-2 4-1 Level of Service on CMP System 4-3 5-1 Smart Call Box (SCB) Implementation Sites 5-2 5-2 Transportation Management Center 5-5 (TMC) Implementation Sites LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-1 System of Highways & Roadways 2-5 4-1 Exempt Facilities in 2007 4-6 4-2 Highway Capacity Manual -Based LOS Methodology 4-7 Applications 4-3 Transit System Performance Indicators 4-10 5-1 Floating Car Run Deficiency Analysis 5-7 9-1 CMP Updates Since Inception 9-4 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was first established in 1990 under Proposition 111. Proposition 111 established a process for each metropolitan county in California to designate a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that would be responsible for development and implementation of the CMP within county boundaries. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the CMA in 1990, and therefore, prepares the CMP updates in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which consists of local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies, and subregional agencies. CMP legislation is provided in Appendix 1. The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. A number of counties within California have developed a CMP with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. The Riverside County CMP was significantly modified in 1997 to focus on federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements as well as incorporate elements of the State CMP requirements. The 1997 CMP also focused on development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and federal levels. This monitoring effort was completed in 2004, which consisted of installing Smart Call Boxes (traffic counters in Call Box equipment) and traffic counters at Caltrans' Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites along the State Highway system. Monitoring of the CMP system on local arterials will continue to occur through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments' (CVAG) monitoring program and through local agency monitoring efforts in Western Riverside County. RCTC's adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold is LOS "E". Therefore, when a CMP street or highway segment falls to "F", a deficiency plan must be required. Preparation of a deficiency plan will be the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency will also be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including consideration of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. To insure that the CMP is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of LOS deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the CMP System. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies ES-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program detailed analysis of LOS must be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. During preparation of the 2007 CMP, deficiencies were found on the CMP System based upon this year's monitoring effort. These segments will continue to be monitored to determine if the deficiencies reflect temporary or permanent conditions. If it is determined that deficiencies are permanent and not related to construction activities on the segment or anywhere else that could impact the segment or any other special circumstances a deficiency plan will be required to address the deficiency. OTHER PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS This document is prepared to address each elements the State CMP legislation and federal CMS requirements. Below is a summary of each chapter highlighting the Riverside County CMP's approach in meeting the State CMP and federal CMS requirements. Chapter 9 - Designation of the CMP Lead Agency: ♦ The County Board of Supervisors, and a majority of cities representing a majority of population in the incorporated area, must designate by resolution, a public agency to prepare and adopt the Congestion Management Program. The Riverside County Transportation Commission was designated as the CMA for Riverside County on June 11, 1990. The County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population supported the designation. Chapter 2 - Designation of the System of Highways and Roadways: ♦ The CMA must designate a system of highways and roadways to include, at a minimum, all state highways and principal arterials. RCTC has designated, based upon a set of optional criteria referenced in Chapter 2, a system of Highways and Principal Arterials. All State highways within Riverside County have been included in accordance with CMP statutes, and a set of Principal Arterials has been identified (reference Exhibit 2-1 and Table 2-1). Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies ES-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Chapter 3 - Transportation Modeling: • The CMA is to provide a uniform database of traffic impacts "for use in a countywide transportation computer model." For purposes of this Program, the Commission has recognized use of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Model, the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) sub -regional transportation model, and local agency models to analyze traffic impacts associated with development proposals or land use plans. Chapter 4 - Multimodal System Performance Standards: ♦ AB 1963 identifies requirements in CMP legislation including development of multimodal system performance standards focusing on street and highway level of service and transit standards. This Chapter therefore incorporates minimum standards for both these important forms of transportation. CMP Street and Highway Standards The methodology for measuring LOS must be that contained in Circular 212 or the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); and traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS "E" for any segment or intersection on the CMP system, unless the current LOS is lower ff. a, "F'). For purposes of this CMP, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways, under current or existing conditions, is required to be developed using HCM-based methods. Considering the transportation financing program in Riverside County established through Measure A, there are no advantages to set a higher minimum LOS standard than required by CMP legislation, LOS "E". As a result, the minimum LOS standard for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways shall be "E" unless the intersection or segment had a lower LOS (LOS "F") in 1991 (reference Table 4-1 and Exhibit 4-1). Such facilities are exempt from CMP deficiency plan requirements. Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System Standards Transit standards must be established for service frequency (Le., headways), routing, and coordination among multiple transit agencies operating within the CMP jurisdiction. To meet the requirements of the Statutes, the performance measures outlined in the Short Range Transit Plans prepared by transit agencies in Riverside County are included in this chapter. In 2005, RCTC approved a Productivity Improvement Program as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency and serves as performance targets in which transit operators will strive to meet in developing its SRTP service and financial plan. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies ES-3 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Chapter 5 — Enhanced Transportation System Management Program: ♦ The CMP must include a program to analyze the impact of land use decisions by jurisdictions on the regional transportation system, including an estimate of costs to mitigate those impacts. This element describes the traffic data collection process to assess land use decision impacts on the Congestion Management System. Under the program, RCTC, CVAG and Caltrans would be the agencies in Riverside County responsible for the traffic count data collection process. The count data can also be applied to comply with State and federal Congestion Management Plan/Congestion Management System/Transportation Management System (CMP/CMS/TMS) data collection requirements. CVAG currently has a Traffic Monitoring Program in place that addresses CMP System Monitoring requirements in the Coachella Valley. RCTC has implemented the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program using Smart Call Box (SCB) and Caltrans' Traffic Management Center (TMC) equipment at selected sites along the State Highway system in Riverside County. This system has resulted in significant increases in the number and location of traffic counts along the CMP System. Chapter 6 - LOS Deficiency Plans: ♦ AB 471 and AB 1791 provide for the development of deficiency plans. The bills state that "a city or county may designate individual segments or intersections as deficient when they do not meet the established level of service standards, if prior to the designation at a noticed public hearing, the city or county has adopted a deficiency plan". Deficient segments or intersections will be identified through the biennial traffic monitoring process. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. The local agency where the deficiency is located will be responsible for the preparation of the deficiency plan. RCTC will prepare deficiency plans on the State Highway System when deficiencies are identified and will coordinate the development of the deficiency plan with affected local jurisdictions. Chapter 7 - Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality: ♦ The CMP must include alternatives to single occupant auto use, such as transit, and van and carpooling; and must promote strategies to manage overall travel demand, such as a jobs/housing balance, flextime, telecommuting and parking strategies. Local agencies must also adopt a transportation demand management (TDM) ordinance to comply with CMP statutes. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies ES-4 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program RCTC will continue to work with local agencies toward development of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that reduce reliance on the single -occupant vehicle. All local agencies in Riverside County have prepared and have adopted TDM ordinances. Chapter 8 - Capital Improvement Program (CIP): ♦ The CIP is a 7-year program; projects in the CiP may be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for the programming of Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) and Urban and Commuter Rail funds; OP Projects must maintain or improve performance of the multi -modal system; and projects must conform to transportation -related emission air quality mitigation measures. To comply with the statutes, the 2007 CIP incorporates all CMP System projects listed in the most recent TIP including STIP, Measure "A", Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and other federally funded projects. To streamline this process, CIP requirements shall be the same as, and accomplished through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) development. Chapter 9 - CMP Conformance and Monitoring Process: ♦ RCTC must make a determination that its member cities and the county are conforming to the CMP, including consistency with traffic LOS and transit performance standards; adoption and implementation of a trip reduction and travel demand ordinance, and adoption and implementation of a program to analyze land use impacts on the transportation system. SCAG must also find the CMP consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan. The specific requirements of Conformance and Monitoring Process are described in Chapter 9. Chapter 90 - CMP Development and Implementation Update Process: ♦ This chapter focuses on the procedural, administrative, and coordination activities related to CMP development, adoption, and update in accordance with CMP legislation. The CMP includes a process that addresses each of the activities identified above including CMP development, adoption, and update. Environmental Assessment — The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies the CMP as an exempt project. As a result, compliance with CEQA requirements is no longer necessary. Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies ES-5 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 1 DESIGNATION OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS According to CMP legislation (AB 471, AB 1791, AB 1963, and AB 2419), the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area, must designate by resolution, a public agency to prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has the authority to monitor the County's and each affected city's' compliance with the adopted program. An amendment to the Government Code requires the CMA to update and adopt the CMP every two years (biennially) consistent with development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). A copy of AB 2419 is provided as Appendix 1. A key feature of AB 471 is the requirement that every urbanized county with a population of 50,000 or more must prepare and adopt a comprehensive CMP. The CMP represents a directive for local governments to measure and mitigate the impact of land use decisions on streets, highways, and regional transportation systems. In 1996, the State of California amended the CMP legislation to change the requirement from mandatory to voluntary. However, federal Metropolitan Planning provisions require Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) serving a transportation management area (TMA) (i.e. area with a population over 200,000) to include a Congestion Management System (CMS) component as part of their transportation planning process. Each of the six counties in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region has adopted and implemented a CMP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly determine if the MPO's planning process meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 among other provisions. In the event that the FHWA/FTA determines that the planning process in a TMA does not substantially meet the requirements and do not certify the process, they may withhold project and funding approvals. RCTC DESIGNATED AS THE CMA On June 11, 1990, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the CMA for Riverside County by resolution from member agencies. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) also supported the designation. It is the Commission's intent to continue working closely with WRCOG, CVAG, the cities and the County, toward development and implementation of an effective CMP. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 1-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The Commission will continue to develop and biennially update the CMP to coincide with the development of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) in cooperation with local governments, Air Quality Management Districts, and subregional planning agencies (WRCOG and CVAG). The CMP must also be submitted to the MPO, which for Riverside County is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible for determining consistency of each CMP within the SCAG region with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and air quality management plans. The Riverside County Congestion Management Program combines the requirements of the State's CMP and the federal CMS with a greater emphasis on the CMS, resulting in an enhanced transportation monitoring system. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 1-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 2 DESIGNATION OF THE CMP SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(a), referenced in AB 1963, requires development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to establish traffic level of service (LOS) standards for a system of highways and roadways designated by RCTC as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). This system must include, at a minimum, all state highways and principal arterials, both new and existing facilities. Once designated, components of the system cannot be removed. Designated System of Highways and Principal Arterials: ♦ All State Highway facilities in Riverside County. Consideration may be given to the following conditions when designating Principal Arterials: ✓ Routes identified on Caltrans' "Functional Classification System" maps as "Principal Arterials"; ✓ Designated expressways; and ✓ Facilities linking cities/communities (interregional facilities), and major activity centers (shopping malls, activity centers, major industrial/business parks, stadiums, etc). 2007 CMP SYSTEM UPDATE PROCESS An update to the CMP System considers the optional criteria identified above, including arterial facilities added to the Federal Functional Classification System. Local agencies may nominate arterials for inclusion on the CMP System at any time. Nominated arterials will be reviewed by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for approval and forwarded to the RCTC Board for final approval. Exhibit 2-1 provides a graphic display of the CMP System of Highways and Roadways in Riverside County. Based upon review of the revised Functional Classification System and the considerations listed above, additional facilities were not designated as principal arterials during the 2007 CMP update process. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 2-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Rverile CMP3ilem &tit 2-1 • o I Merit on C1/11:11em Hgkeyson CI Poem I terlaieson CNP8flem W N r►. -E s nnrrosrxE Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 2-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Rversde CMPSAem (M/em Ft/ate) Ribit 2-1 (cont). IEGEND Riicipalktaialson CMP9Aem Fighwayson CMP9i9em hteniateson CMPSy3em -E S enrrosraF Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 2-3 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Rvedde CMPBfiem (Coachella Dailey) Eilibit 2-1 (cont). 1EGEM PoncipalPitelralson CMPklem thwayson CMP9ystem hteilateson CMPSi3em Prepared for: Riverside .County Transportation Commission Prepared By: VRPA Technologies 2-4 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TABLE 2-1 CMP SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS ♦ State Highways: Facility Name 1. 1-10 2. 1-15 3. 1-215 4. US 95 5. SR 60 6. SR 62 7. SR 71 8. SR 74 9. SR 78 10. SR 79 11. SR 86 12. SR 91 13. SR 111 14. SR 177 15. SR 195 16. SR 243 17. SR 371 Limits San Bernardino Co. line to the Arizona State line San Bernardino Co. line to the San Diego Co. line San Bernardino Co. line to I-15 San Bernardino Co. line to I-10 San Bernardino Co. line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. line to SR 91 Orange Co. line to SR 111 Imperial Co. line to I-10 1-10 to San Diego Co. line SR 111 to Imperial Co. line Orange Co. line to 1-215 1-10 to Imperial Co. line SR 62 to 1-10 SR86toSR111 1-10 to SR 74 SR 79 to SR 74 ♦ Principal Arterials - Western Riverside County: Facility Name 1. Alessandro Blvd. 2. Agua Mansa Rd. 3. Arlington Blvd. 4. Armstrong Rd.Nalley Way 5. Country Village Rd. 6. La Sierra Ave. 7. Limonite Ave. 8. Magnolia Ave. 9. Main St./First St. 10. Market St./Rubidoux Blvd. 11. Seventh and University 12. Sierra Ave. 13. Etiwanda Ave. 14. Van Buren Blvd. Limits Intersection of Central, Arlington & Chicago to 1-215 San Bernardino County Line to Market St. California to Intersection of Central, Alessandro & Chicago Sierra Ave. to SR 60 San Bernardino County Line to SR 60 Arlington Blvd. to SR 91 San Bernardino County Line to Mission Blvd. SR 91 to Market St. San Bernardino County Line to Market St. San Bernardino County Line to Magnolia Ave. Market to SR 91 San Bernardino County Line to Valley Way/Armstrong Rd. Limonite Ave. - San Bernardino County Line San Bemardino County Line to 1-215 ♦ Principal Arterials - Coachella Valley: Facility Name t. Monterey Ave. 2. Ramon Rd. Limits SR 111 to 1-10 SR 111 to 1-10 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 2-5 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 3 TRANSPORTATION MODELING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089.3 (c) of the Government Code requires that RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), in consultation with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), cities and the County, develop a uniform database on traffic impacts for use in a countywide transportation model. Further, RCTC, in consultation with SCAG, must approve transportation computer models that will be used by local jurisdictions and the county to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system. Local transportation models shall be consistent with the databases used by SCAG. RCTC TRANSPORTATION MODELING Transportation computer models applied in Riverside County include the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) Model and the SCAG Regional Transportation Model. Updates, expansions, and enhancements of these transportation models are done by the respective agencies. During 2004, SCAG and CVAG prepared updates to the SCAG and CVATS models based upon results of a trip origin and destination (O&D) survey completed in 2001 and I new growth forecasts developed for the Year 2030. Local transportation models are also developed by local agencies to determine impacts on their transportation system. TRANSPORTATION MODEL IMPROVEMENTS The SCAG model was last calibrated/validated (revised/updated) in 2004 and has been available for use by local agencies in reviewing regionally significant development projects, or projects that generate greater than 500 peak hour trips through the Intergovernmental Review (IGR) process. In addition, the SCAG model was revised to update the trip tables, socioeconomic data estimates and projections, and results of the SCAG O&D Study. The CVATS model was also revised in 2004 to reflect the updated information. In addition, SCAG developed a regionwide demographic database system to collect accurate data for development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Because this information is required for a number of other applications, WRCOG and CVAG have taken lead roles in the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to monitor growth in the County so that socioeconomic and land use databases can be easily developed and maintained. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 3-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program SCAG has developed model consistency guidelines to assist public agencies and traffic engineering professionals with the development of local models that are consistent with the SCAG regional transportation model. The objective of these guidelines is to comply with CMP consistency requirements, improve communications between affected agencies to simplify the exchange of data, and improve databases and modeling results at both the local and regional level. A copy of the current Consistency Guidelines for ' Transportation Modeling - Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is available at RCTC or at the SCAG Inland Empire Office in Riverside. In 2004, the County of Riverside updated its General Plan. As part of this update, planning for land use, transportation corridors, and multi -species habitat conservation was incorporated into a process known as the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). This planning effort included new land use plans, as well as improved processes for tracking land use changes. The updated information from the RCIP has been incorporated into the transportation models. MODELING FOR CMP PURPOSES During implementation of the Riverside County CMP, transportation computer models are used for several purposes, including: ♦ Determining and monitoring traffic levels of service (LOS) for the current and future years; ♦ Analyzing the impacts of land use decisions resulting from the IGR or CEQA processes and when an LOS deficiency occurs along the CMP System; and ♦ Evaluating and prioritizing transportation improvement projects, such as capital projects, transit projects, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) projects, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and other programs that improve the transportation system and air quality. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 3-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 4 MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(b)(2) of the Government Code states that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) must contain a performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, the performance measures must incorporate highway and roadway system performance and measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. The performance measures must also support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and must be used in the development of the Riverside County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4) of the Government Code. According to AB 471 and AB 1791, traffic level of service (LOS) must be measured by: a) Circular 212; b) the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); or c) by an alternative uniform methodology adopted by RCTC as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), which the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) determines is consistent with the HCM. In no case can the standards established be below LOS "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS RCTC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS This Chapter describes the multimodal system performance standards for Riverside County in accordance with CMP legislation. Therefore, standards are presented in this Chapter for the CMP System of Streets and Roads and for the Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System. CMP System of Streets and Highways ♦ Established Minimum Level of Service With the intent of the legislation in mind, the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) CMP Subcommittee approved a "two -tiered" approach to establish the minimum LOS standard. Tier 1 involves the 'locally established minimum traffic LOS - or - ceiling,"while Tier 2 involves the CMP minimum LOS standard - or - "floor." Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Most local agencies in Riverside County and Ca[trans have adopted LOS standards of "C" or "D" (representing the "ceiling" in Tier 2) in an effort to maintain a desired LOS for the local circulation system. To address CMP legislative requirements, and establish a minimum LOS along the regional system of roadways and highways within the County (representing the "floor" in Tier 2), RCTC approved a minimum traffic LOS standard of "E." ♦ Exempt Facilities Table 4-1 and Exhibit 4-1 identify facilities (roadway segments or intersections) along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways that had a LOS of "F" in 1991. As a result, these facilities continue to be "exempt' from CMP requirements in accordance with CMP Statutes. Methodology to Determine Level of Service RCTC determined that the traffic LOS method that incorporated a "delay" analysis was the most applicable for CMP purposes. Consideration of delay through HCM-based software programs provided a closer approximation of LOS than under the Circular 212 or similar methodologies. For purposes of this Program, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways (under current or existing conditions), should be developed or established using the following HCM-based methods in the order presented: 1. Segment (freeway and principal arterial) floating car runs or stopped delay LOS analysis at intersections; 2. Segment and intersection LOS analysis using HCM; and 3. Segment analysis using the Modified HCM LOS Tables (or revised Florida LOS Tables). Staff continues to recommend the use of HCM methods through applicable software packages applied to various types of facilities (reference Table 4-2 -- LOS Methodology Applications). Appropriate defaults to be applied by local agencies in their analysis of LOS are referenced in Appendix 2. Staff has also applied results from floating car runs to determine levels of service along selected congested freeway and arterial segments in Riverside County. HCM-based methodologies applied to calculate LOS for CMP purposes will be the responsibility of local agencies as new development or land use plan revisions/updates (reflective of specific development proposals) are considered. This process shall be consistent with the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program described in Chapter 5. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 15,810 van - ;60: M' e�enenrwva. =stud Rubiduox 'v �♦ Immune Ave Blvd �♦ ^� i 15 >. ion : vd omng Ontario Ave TemetNal Canyon Rd Lade Drive O 1,1 Pigeon Pass Rd k St I - jIller4 Perris Blvd 216 Oleander Ave 2,284 bnon St Ora n• Ave Bader lid Alleeandro Blvd Van Buren Blvd Ramona Expressway Nuevo Rd ;74/ ,983 Clinton Keith Rd D St 216 Mtmietano Swhrer Read W L 6, 103 60: O 10 7,5130 11,264® California Ave 2,158 1,877 74, p &llama Rd si 79s , a Q 79! 10 4-4 11,7420 nemana Expressway 1,770 1,690 Sandman 3,2114iLym Ave on Ave Muniena Hot Springs Rd • Rancho Califomis Rd 1,852 3,106 tip Pale Rd p 79., O San Jacinto Ave. /Main St. o Ave. O 1 194 San Gorgonio Ave 741 80 ounoin Ave 74 emet S[ 1,7590 wtlsan Sage Rd 51R IeY r3 643 Marion Ridge Dr O e27 243 To SR Ill 774 Anon, Contreras Rd0 O 371 52501 2007 - Level of Service on CMP System in Western Riverside Legend ® LOS A, B, C, D, E, or F designation for segments based on 2007 CMP Data memNot Deficient Per Floating Car Runs and/or CMP Count Data X)OC Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 2007 CMP Data _ Deficient Per Floating Car Runs and/or CMP Count Data Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-3 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 1,94 ��(6 Pierson 9,375 7,513 .@ 0 Palm Canyon Vista Ckna OCO 2,942 4 Gene Autry Trail Trail Blvd R. 7,729 a.,Y.. 10 Re ��nRoad 7,791 � < 7,517 p�aa Avon O 2,521 SNth St n rr �� ® 617 O AZ. `+ N 3,918 CaU9ry C14 Dr�`N.O • \ 2'Rd7' 1,070 341 74 !F RacRuel Ctm Dr al0 Cook Sr 111 'J 1,611 289 O 781 3,034 4,09 8,,,,,Ave. Avewe56 86 AiryanBlvd 1n O 1168 O 2906 , ® 1956amwvem603 Otta O O 735,• 111 O 1,179 2007 - Level of Service on CMP System in Coachella Valley Legend ® LOS A, B, C, D, E, or F designation for segments based on 2007 CMP Data Ego Not Deficient Per Floating Car Runs and/or CMP Count Data XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 2007 CMP Data M. Deficient Per Fbating Car Runs and/or CMP Count Data ..,., A Tenhnologiea,Ino. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-4 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 60 W r 'x (�1 CO2031 ' aNt Z I42 Limonite 1,972 est Arlin on ♦ Riverside 1 City Limit • t 1,575 2,424 3` Gramercy 2,424 a(P. Pi .si MymS 3'32 Phh 1� Haenxen S, 1� � 2,II09 Yey y` 3,88 o i 9®bury❑r 13/ 302 2,718/ / / \ 4. / CN • i Dr3,412 T r i 298‘ ...\ 4 • nth •\ 3,730 �(Jnip • • 3,099./ vicorm Ave 2,324 Maude St no Anza ' 3,046 ✓ 1,65 3,886 Moctinebird Canyon Ad 3,061 nw Curare Ave Van Wubinrme et Clayton Se Blvd Tmunven Rd S MDT TO SCALE 2007 - Level of Service on CMP System in North Western Riverside Legend ® LOS A, B, C, D, E, or F designation for segments based on 2007 CMP Data ME Not Deficient Per Floating Car Runs and/or CMP Count Data XHX Peek Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 2007 CMP Data _ Deficient Per Floating Car Runs and/or CMP Count Data Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-5 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TABLE 4-1 EXEMPT FACILITIES IN 2007 STATE HIGHWAYS ON STATE ROUTE 60: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LINE TO JCT 1-15 VALLEY WAY TO JCT SR 60/SR 91/1-215 JCT SR 60 EAST TO PERRIS BOULEVARD ON STATE ROUTE 71: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE TO JCT SR 91 ON STATE ROUTE 74: GRAND AVENUE TO LAKESHORE DRIVE LAKESHORE TO 1-15 SANDERSON AVENUE TO CORNELL STREET CORNELL STREET TO HEMET AVENUE ON STATE ROUTE 91. RIVERSIDE COUNTY LINE TO JCT SR 71 JCT SR 71 TO MAPLE STREET MAPLE STREET TO JCT 1-15 JCT 1-15 TO 0.6 MILE WEST OF MCKINLEY 0.6 MILE WEST OF MCKINLEY TO MAGNOLIA AVENUE MAGNOLIA AVENUE TO 14TH STREET 14TH STREET TO JCT SR 60/SR 91/1-215 ON 1-215: EAST JCT SR 60 TO JCT SR 60/SR 91 /1-215 JCT SR 60/SR 91/1-215 TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE ON STATE ROUTE 111: DISTRICT 11 BOUNDARY TO JCT SR 74 JCT SR 74 TO GENE AUTRY TRAIL - RINCIPAL ARTERIALS - WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON LA SIERRA AVENUE: ARLINGTON TO GRAMERCY ON VAN BUREN BOULEVARD: NORTHERLY CITY LIMIT TO JURUPA JURUPA TO CENTRAL CENTRAL TO ARLINGTON Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-6 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TABLE 4-2 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL BASED - LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS M « rA V co 0 2 V W =J LL H o E w<n O N d J N Z � Q 2 cc 0o 2 J H0 O= N. W BASE YEAR *1 URBAN Signalized Intersections x x x Unsignalized Intersections - 4-Way Stop Controls *4 Unsignalized Intersections - 2-Way Stop Controls *4 x Links, Expressways, & Arterials x x x Freewa Links, Rams, & Weavin• Sections RURAL x x x Signalized Intersections x x x Unsignalized Intersections - 4-Way Stop Controls *4 Unsignalized Intersections - 2-Way Stop Controls *4 x Links, Expressways, & Arterials x x x Freewa Links, Ramps, & Weavin. Sections FUTURE YEAR *2 URBAN x x x Signalized Intersections x x x Unsignalized Intersections - 4-Way Stop Controls *4 Unsignalized Intersections - 2-Way Stop Controls *4 x Links, Expressways, & Arterials x x Freewa Links, Ramps, & Weavin• Sections RURAL x x Signalized Intersections x x x Unsignalized Intersections - 4-Way Stop Controls *4 Unsignalized Intersections - 2-Way Stop Controls *4 x Links, Expressways, & Arterials x x Freeway Links, Ramps, & Weaving Sections x x NOTES: *1 - Current year traffic conditions *2 - Future year (2030) traffic conditions *3 - Used as an example only, other HCM compatible software will also be accepted. *4 - Results of analysis should be evaluated considering actual intersection conditions or 4-or 2-way stop or signal warrants. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-7 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The initial LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is considered to be a "screening" level analysis. A more detailed assessment is conducted on key critical segments. If the analysis results in LOS deficiencies, the LOS analysis would continue on a quarterly basis to determine the average peak hour LOS and determine if the LOS deficiencies are due to temporary or permanent conditions. In some cases, floating car runs are necessary to establish accurate LOS. The floating car runs are also conducted on a quarterly basis. Coordination with the affected local agency(s) is critical to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. ♦ 2007 Level of Service (LOS) Results ✓ Coachella Valley The Coachella Valley Associated Governments (CVAG) has implemented a valleywide traffic monitoring program for a number of years. Information provided by CVAG indicated that there are no deficiencies in the Coachella Valley for 2007. ✓ Western Riverside County Based on level of service calculations along the CMP system in Western Riverside County using Caltrans and local agency counts, two deficiencies were identified along local streets and highways along the CMP system; one along Alessandro between SR 91 and 1-215; and one along Van Buren Blvd east of SR 91. Discussion regarding this deficiency is provided in Chapter 5. There were no other deficiencies along the remainder of the local street and highway CMP System in Western Riverside County for 2007. ✓ State Highways Traffic count information was collected from the Caltrans 2006 Traffic Monitoring Report and from existing Smart Call Boxes located along the State Highway system. In addition, peak hour traffic counts were taken by VRPA Technologies in late spring and early summer 2007, the data was evaluated by VRPA Technologies using HCM-based LOS tables. Following review of the initial screening results by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2006, floating car runs were performed along three major State Highway segments on a quarterly basis in 2006 and 2007. Results of this process are provided in Chapter 5 and indicate that two (2) of the segments on 1-215 (Alessandro to SR 74 and SR 79, 1-15 to SR 74) are operating at LOS "E" or better and therefore not deficient; and that two (2) segments along 1-15 (San Bernardino County Line to 1-215 and 1-215, SR 60 to Alessandro) are operating at LOS "F" likely due to existing construction activities. One (1) additional segment on 1-15 (1-215 to SR 79 South) is Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-8 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program operating at LOS "F" but will likely be improved to LOS "E" or better once construction of the French Valley Interchange is initiated and completed. One (1) segment on 1-215 (SR 74 West to 1-15) is operating at LOS "F", and likely not due to construction activities. This segment has been evaluated on a quarterly basis in 2006 and 2007. Since the segment has remained deficient throughout the monitoring period, the next step will be to prepare a deficiency plan for the segment. RCTC is the lead agency for the widening project on 1-215 from the 1-15/1-215 Junction to Nuevo Road. The project will consist of adding a mixed flow lane and is currently in the preliminary engineering phase. Construction of the widening project will commence in fiscal year 2010/2011. RCTC will prepare the deficiency plan for the 1-215 segment identifying the widening project as the mitigation measure for the deficiency. In addition to those segments operating at LOS "F", it will also be important to closely monitor critical LOS "E" segments on a quarterly basis. Once a LOS "E" segment falls to LOS "F" during the quarterly monitoring process, the segment will be further analyzed as to what the cause may be. If the LOS is at "F" for more than one (1) year and is the average annual peak hour condition with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified to prepare a deficiency plan in accordance to Chapter 6. Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit Standards ♦ Statutory Requirements Section 65089.(b)(2) of the Government Code specifically requires development of standards established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. ♦ Public Transit and Alternative Mass Transit Facility Standards RCTC, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, is responsible for planning and coordinating all public mass transit services within the jurisdiction of the Commission and between the jurisdiction of other county commissions or transit operators. On an annual basis, transit operators prepare a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which is a three-year document detailing the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides quarterly data to RCTC regarding performance. Once the SRTPs are approved by RCTC, transit operators are charged with the responsibility for providing the service levels and purchasing the capital equipment identified in year -one of the SRTP. Once approved by RCTC, the SRTPs must be amended if an operator wants to deviate from the original plan. The Commission encourages all operators to coordinate public transportation Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-9 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program services including routes, fare structure and transfer agreements as the overall goal is the improvement of public transportation services to the general public. To assist with the coordination efforts, quarterly meetings are held with the public transit operators to ensure that efficient, effective transportation services are provided. Public Utilities Code Section 99244 requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators through the SRTP process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the triennial performance audit. In 2005, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which was originally adopted in 1998 as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. Table 4-3 details the performance targets as identified in the PIP that transit operators will strive to meet in developing its SRTP service and financial plan: TABLE 4-3 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Performance Indicator Method for Establishing Performance Targets 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Increases no more than CPI 2) Fare Box Recovery Ratio Per PUC requirements and RCTC policy 3) Subsidy per Passenger +/- 15% variance 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile +/- 15% variance 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour +/- 15% variance 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile +/- 15% variance 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour +/- 15% variance 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile +/- 15% variance 9) Ridership growth 2% minimum growth annually (Applies to Commuter Rail) As an alternative mode to the single -occupant vehicle, mass transit services (commuter rail services) should be considered during the assessment of local development proposals that affect the Congestion Management System and during the development of deficiency plans by local agencies. Further, future rail passenger services should be considered as appropriate mitigation measures to offset potential deficiencies. If feasible, future transit and passenger rail facility systems should be described as potential services that could reduce vehicle trips and relieve congestion at or above the minimum LOS standard. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-10 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program RCTC CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING PROCESS It is the local agency's responsibility to ensure implementation of development project mitigation measures identified by the project proponent. RCTC and local agencies will monitor the implementation of deficiency plans that include transit and roadway improvements intended to improve traffic LOS. If through the biennial traffic monitoring process, the LOS along a deficient arterial or highway facility improves to LOS "E" or better, mitigation measures that have not been implemented as specified in the deficiency plan, would no longer be required for CMP compliance purposes. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 4-11 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 5 ENHANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089 (b)(4) of the Govemment Code requires that RCTC develop a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. In no case must the program outlined in this Chapter include an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel, but it must provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements on regional transportation systems. In the case of toll road facilities, credit must only be allowed for local public and private contributions, which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. RCTC must calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. RCTC ENHANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The RCTC CMP Enhanced Transportation System Management Program was designed to meet the federal Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and Congestion Management System/Traffic Management System (CMS/TMS) requirements, as well as to monitor the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. A review of Federal CMS/TMS requirements is provided in Appendix 3. The intent of the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program is to effectively identify those facilities that have congestion problems, track the degree of congestion, and apply evaluation criteria to the system so that federal and State funds are targeted or programmed to relieve the congestion. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program utilizes "loop or pavement sensors" currently installed along the State Highway system at call boxes and TMC sites. Traffic counters were installed at these sites allowing RCTC and Ca[trans to retrieve count data. Future plans are to retrieve speed, vehicle classification, and turning movement data. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program will improve traffic monitoring for the CMP and other planning or technical purposes. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 5-1 a Gl tJ 1 t�D N 41) ci �C <D z a Q. '0.• 'NO .A3 a)) no 'i , '• 3 • N. �4Q N ea 3 f i i W Van Buren Blvd Cactus Ave Oilman Spring Simpson R MNrnela NOr Springs Rd Only 'pv u 3 s a s SMART CALL BOX IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE EXHIBIT 5-1 A LEGEND ® New Smart Call Box Sites (Not Installed) ® New Count Station "Black Box" Sites (Not Installs* Existing Smart Call Box Sites from 1997 $1999 Pilot Programs O New Smart Call Box Sites (Installed) 9 New Count Station "Black Box" Sites (Installed) N w- e NOT IU SCALE wei6oud;uawa6eue141 uogsa6uo3 Aunoa amsaanid LOOZ b tD a a, co a w � a m n �e m RO a•a '• o Bpi no �o Z� O_ a ai 0, 0 'a SMART CALL BOX IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN COACHELLA VALLEY EXHIBIT 5-1 B LEGEND ® New Smart Cell Box Sites (Not Installed) New Count Station "Black Box" Sites (Not Installe Existing Smart Call Box Sites from 1997 & 1999 Pilot Programs 0 New Smart Call Box Sites (Installed) 191 New Count Station "Black Box" Sites (Installed) N e NOT 108GI1E anW :.101 pale tD n b� a a~ w a� t� a av no yz 03 . H 8 I to 3 0 New Smart Call Box Sites (Installed) 9 I New Count Station "Black Box" Sites (Installed) SMART CALL BOX IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE EXHIBIT 5-1 C LEGEND ® New Smart Call Box Sites (Not Installed)® New Count Station "Black Box" Sites (Not Installs* Existing Smart Call Box Sites from 1997 & 1999 Pilot Programs N E Nor M SCALE N aBuoo Aluno Bard paumBeueyp uoR b wanly :Jo/ paied n �; �07 4 °i era O a Da ya e• O S ZS' O H j m e�� W , � �� gp 8.11 Cub Dr San Bernardino Co • P I 1 San Bernardino Co Ave r. L University Ave El Cerrito Dr Central Ave Perris Blvd 7 m Orange Co Maple Grand Blvd • • • • • • Series Club Dr Lincoln Main St Ave McKinley St Li9 m 79 TMC IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE EXHIBIT 5-2 IN New TMC Sites (Not Installed) New TMC Sites (Installed not fully operational) LEGEND — qL� Highways on CMP System _ • • Riverside County Boundary interstates on CMP System n B NOT ro SGta 6uo0 itlunoo api acua8euen uaps 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TRAFFIC MONITORING State Highways The program involves the downloading of traffic count data from Ca!trans' Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites and Smart Call Box (SCB) sites on a monthly basis. A level of service analysis will be performed to determine the condition of the CMP System. When a deficiency or LOS "F" is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The best approach to determine LOS along freeway segments is through the use of floating car runs on a quarterly basis. A number of floating car runs have been conducted under the direction of VRPA Technologies in 2006 and 2007. Results of these runs are provided in Chapter 4. Local Arterials The program involves the continuation of the CVAG Traffic Monitoring Program in the Coachella Valley and the local traffic counting efforts on behalf of the local agencies in Western Riverside County. To further insure that the CMP System is appropriately monitored to reduce the ' occurrence of CMP deficiencies, proposed development projects can be evaluated by each affected agency to determine potential impacts along the regional, sub -regional and CMP Systems. As a result, such evaluation will reduce the incidence of LOS deficiencies along the CMP System given that each local agency has established LOS thresholds at higher levels. To insure that major development projects and plans are evaluated and reflected in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Model and local models, local agencies are encouraged to work with affected agencies to mitigate the impacts considering the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Monitoring of Potential Deficiencies As a result of the LOS screening analysis, five (5) LOS "F" segments along Alessandro, SR 79, 1-15, and 1-215 were identified using floating car runs. Floating car runs provide the accurate measure of LOS. The runs were requested by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on a quarterly basis following approval of the 2006 CMP. Table 5-1 illustrates that three of the segments are likely operating at LOS "F" due to construction along the deficient segment or along another major freeway or interchange projects in the vicinity. One of the segments on 1-15 (1-215 to SR 79 South) is operating at LOS °F" but will be improved to LOS "E" or better once the French Valley Interchange improvement is initiated and constructed. A majority of these deficient segments have been effected by major freeway segment and interchange construction over the past two years. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 5-6 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Van Buren Blvd from SR 91 to Mockingbird Canyon and from Washington St to Wood is also operating at a LOS "F" based on recent segment counts taken on October 4, 2007. If the LOS is at "F" for more than one (1) year with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified that a deficiency plan must be prepared in accordance with requirement set forth in Chapter 6. As a result, it will be important to continue to monitor the LOS along these segments of Van Buren to identify the LOS through the use of traffic counts or floating car runs on a quarterly basis in 2007 and 2008. TABLE 5-1 FLOATING CAR RUN DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS Selected Segments of 1-15/1-215/SR 79/Alessandro Roadway 1-15 1-215 SR 79 Alessandro Segment S.B. Co. Line to 1.215 1.215 to SR 79 South SR 60 to Alessandro Alessandro to SR 74 SR 74 West to I.15 1-15 to SR 74 SR 91 101-215 Deficient Per Floating Car Runs(Y/N) Y (Selected Segments) N Overriding Considerations (Y/N) Reason for Overriding Considerations Diversion Due to 1.215 Construction French Valley j Interchange Improvement Decrease in Capacity Duey to1215 Construction N (1) Y (Selected Segments) Diversion Due to 1.215 Construction (1) Combined segments from 1-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road to achieve this result In addition to those segments operating at LOS "F" for the reasons stated above, it will be important to also closely monitor critical LOS "E" segments. Once a LOS "E" segment falls to LOS "F", the segment will be further analyzed as to what the cause may be. If the LOS is at "F" for more than one (1) year and is the average annual peak hour condition with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified that a deficiency plan , must be prepared in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 6. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 5-7 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 6 LOS DEFICIENCY PLANS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(b)(1)(B) of the Government Code specifically states that the Level of Service (LOS) standards established by RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in Riverside County, not be below LOS "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS "A". When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established level of service standard, a deficiency plan must be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4. In addition, Section 65089.4 requires a local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. The deficiency plan must be adopted by the city or the County at a noticed public hearing. RCTC must calculate the impacts subject to exclusion (e.g. interregional travel) pursuant to subdivision (f) of the Section, after consultation with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Caltrans, and the appropriate air district(s). If the calculated traffic LOS following exclusion of these impacts is consistent with the LOS standard, RCTC must make a finding at a publicly noticed meeting that no deficiency plan is required and then notify the affected local jurisdiction. RCTC must be responsible for preparing and adopting procedures for local deficiency plan development and implementation responsibilities, consistent with the requirements of this Section. The deficiency plan must include all of the required elements included in (Appendix 1) of the CMP Legislation. RCTC DEFICIENCY PLAN PROCESS RCTC will prepare deficiency plans for deficient segments along the State Highway System on behalf of local agencies. RCTC will coordinate development of such plans with affected local agencies, WRCOG or CVAG, Caltrans, and the AQMD. These agencies will have an opportunity to work with RCTC during the development of a deficiency plan, provide comments, and meet with other affected agencies to discuss issues prior to completion of a plan. To comply with the intent of the CMP legislation, a deficiency plan prepared by a city, the County or RCTC must include the principal elements specified in the CMP Legislation (reference Appendix 1). To date minimum CMP Levels of Service have been maintained, therefore deficiency plans have not been required. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 6-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY DEFICIENT SEGMENTS The procedure for identifying deficient segments or intersections along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways is documented in Chapter 5, Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. Deficient segments would be identified through traffic monitoring. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. CRITERIA TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation strategies that measurably improve the CMP System must be identified in the deficiency plan. Such strategies would include capital improvement projects or other measures that shift trips to alternative modes that may be included in or consistent with local Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinances. Further, mitigation measures should be developed considering both the existing and planned circulation system and the highest peak hour trip estimates or forecasts. Consideration of TDM measures under this process should focus on information contained in the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) section regarding the Congestion Management Program Linkage with the Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMPs) and local government Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County TUMF Programs Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County local agencies and the County of Riverside have adopted Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs. In general, the programs impose fees on development specifically to address transportation impacts on local arterials. The fees are then used for selected transportation improvement projects along the adopted TUMF arterial network. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) implements the TUMF program in the Coachella Valley and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) implements the program in Western Riverside County. If, during the annual LOS monitoring process, an intersection or segment along the CMP system within the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) areas fall below LOS "E," an evaluation of planned improvements necessary to mitigate the deficiency must be undertaken. The adopted arterial programs would then be reviewed to determine if the deficiency would be mitigated through the TUMF program and within a reasonable timeframe. If an improvement project(s) is programmed that will mitigate Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 6-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program the deficiency, the arterial program would be considered as a deficiency plan for CMP purposes. If projects in the arterial program do not meet the required mitigation for the deficiency, then RCTC will work with the appropriate agency(s) to identify mitigation measures. Agencies that do not participate in the TUMF programs would be required to prepare a deficiency plan in accordance with this chapter. REVIEW OF DEFICIENCY PLANS Deficiency Plans will be reviewed by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A recommendation of approval or nonapproval of deficiency plans will be forwarded to the RCTC Board for action. In accordance with Chapter 5 - Enhanced Transportation System Management Program, mitigation measures must be identified to offset deficiencies. If the Board approves the deficiency plan, that plan will immediately become effective. In accordance with Section 65089.4(d), upon receipt of a deficiency plan from a local agency, RCTC shall hold a noticed public hearing within sixty (60) days. Following the hearing, the RCTC may either accept or reject the plan in its entirety. Further, the Commission may not take action to amend the deficiency plan if it finds that it is not acceptable. If RCTC rejects the plan, the plan must be forwarded to the affected local agency indicating the reasons for rejection. RCTC would then meet and confer with the affected local agency to identify revisions that would provide for an adequate plan. The affected local agency may resubmit a corrected deficiency plan and obtain approval by RCTC prior to the next annual allocation of tax increment funds. If the local agency does not correct and resubmit the plan, or receive approval prior to the next distribution of funds, RCTC must notify the State Controller to withhold such funds. If through the biennial traffic monitoring process, the LOS along a deficient arterial or highway facility improves to LOS "E" or better, mitigation measures that have not been implemented as specified in the deficiency plan, would no longer be required for CMP compliance purposes. In the Coachella Valley and in Western Riverside County, any funds withheld from a jurisdiction due to noncompliance, will be returned to the subregion that it was taken from (CVAG or WRCOG) to implement the respective TUMF Regional Arterial Program. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 6-3 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 7 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT! AIR QUALITY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(b)(3)(A) of the government code requires that RCTC prepare a CMP trip reduction and travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods. Such methods must include, but are not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park -and -ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and ' other strategies, including, but not limited to, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. CMP Legislation also requires consideration of parking cash -out programs. INTRODUCTION RCTC has facilitated the implementation of a number of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects independently through the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Programs. RCTC has also facilitated implementation of a number of TDM projects in cooperation with Ca!trans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties to achieve TDM objectives such as Park-N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, and rail and feeder services. Taken together, the individual programs and projects constitute a broad base effort to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle. CMP legislation requires each local agency to adopt a TDM ordinance. RCTC has prepared a model TDM Ordinance that can serve as a guide to local agencies in the development of their own ordinance. The model ordinance focuses on capital facilities that would encourage ridesharing and transit services. To date, all local agencies in Riverside County have adopted TDM Ordinances. This approach can be particularly effective in a rapidly growing County such as Riverside. It should be noted that the model ordinance is simply a model to be used if local agencies feel that it is suited to their own needs and requirements. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), in conjunction with local agencies, have also developed model TDM Ordinances that meet the requirements of CMP legislation. The TDM Ordinance developed by WRCOG includes lists of actions required for implementation of the Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) for the Southern California region. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 7-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(b)(5) of the CMP Statutes requires that RCTC prepare a seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, and to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4). The program must conform to transportation -related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures and include any project that will increase the capacity of the multimodal system. It is the intent of the legislature that, when roadway projects are identified in the program, consideration is given for maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that, which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. The capital improvement program may also include safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects that do not enhance the capacity of the system but are necessary to preserve the investment in existing facilities. RCTC CIP PROGRAM For purposes of this CMP Update, the 2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consists of STIP, Measure "A", TUMF, and other federally funded projects programmed on the CMP system. RCTC submits state and federally funded projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the FTIP. Locally funded non -regionally significant projects are not required to be included in the FTIP. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 8-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 9 CMP CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089.3 of the Government Code requires RCTC to monitor the implementation of all elements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Caltrans is responsible for data collection and analysis on State highways, unless the agency designates that responsibility to another entity. RCTC may also assign responsibility of data collection and analysis to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. RCTC must also consult with Caltrans and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules prior to program adoption. At least biennially, RCTC must determine if the County and cities are conforming to the CMP, including, but not limited, to all of the following: (a) Consistency with levels of service standards, except as provided in Section 65089.4. (b) Adoption and implementation of a trip reduction and travel demand ordinance. (c) Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including the estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts. (d) Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4 when highway and roadway level of service standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system. Section 65089.6 states that failure to complete or implement a CMP shall not give rise to a cause of action against a city or the County for failing to conform with its general plan, unless the city or the County incorporates the CMP into the circulation element of its general plan. RCTC CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING In addition to conformity requirements referenced in specific sections of the Government Code, the County and cities must work with the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to provide Level of Service (LOS) monitoring information along the CMP System. This process is detailed in Chapter 5, Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. RCTC will continue to work with its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to introduce new or revised requirements. Additional CMP workshops, to be held at the request of individual jurisdictions, offer the opportunity for planning and engineering staff to gain a better understanding of the CMP in an informal environment. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 9-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS The following sections provide a description of the monitoring process relative to individual CMP requirements. Consistency with LOS Standards To simplify the process of collecting traffic counts from Caltrans and the local agencies, RCTC has implemented the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. LOS calculations will primarily be based upon the newly installed traffic counting equipment along the state highway system. Counts along the local arterial system will be provided by the subregional agencies, affected local agencies, or from counts conducted by RCTC. Currently, thirty-six (36) Smart Call Boxes (SCB) sites and twenty- seven (27) Traffic Monitoring Center (TMC) sites have been installed to collect traffic counts along the state highway system. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program utilizes 'loop or pavement sensors" currently installed along the State Highway system at call boxes and TMC sites along the highway system. The program provides Caltrans and RCTC the ability to retrieve real-time count information. Chapter 5 of this CMP contains a full explanation of the SBC and TMC implementation program. In order to minimize administrative requirements for traffic count data and traffic LOS analysis, a database of key segments along the State Highway system has been identified. The links and intersections provide an adequate picture of the LOS on the entire CMP System. Local agencies within the Western Riverside County area will be required to provide RCTC with current traffic count data along the CMP System local arterials. CVAG will provide traffic counts for its regional arterial projects on the CMP System. Caltrans, in accordance with AB 1963, is required to monitor the LOS along the State Highway facilities. Therefore, Caltrans will provide traffic counts or LOS calculations along facilities where SCB or TMC counts are not available. Adoption and Implementation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) Ordinances RCTC has provided a model Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance that complies with CMP requirements. In addition, the County, WRCOG and CVAG, in cooperation with their member agencies, have developed model TDM ordinances. Copies of these TDM ordinances are on file at RCTC. All agencies in Riverside County have adopted TDM ordinances. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 9-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program PROPOSED PROGRAM TO MANAGE AND ANALYZE THE SYSTEM To insure that the CMP System is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, proposed development projects can be evaluated by each affected agency to determine potential regional and sub -regional impacts along the CMP Systems. As a result, such evaluation will reduce the incidence of LOS deficiencies along the CMP System. Local agencies are encouraged to work with other affected agencies to mitigate the impacts considering California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Intergovernmental Report (IGR) requirements to insure that major development projects and plans are evaluated and reflected in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Model. When a LOS deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, and a more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. TRANSPORTATION MODEL CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS Some local agencies have or will be developing transportation models to analyze the circulation system within their jurisdiction or for special transportation studies. RCTC, SCAG, local agencies engaged in modeling, and representatives of consulting firms working for local agencies, assisted in the development and update of Transportation Model Consistency Guidelines. These guidelines are available at RCTC and at the SCAG Inland Empire office in Riverside. RCTC will require that these guidelines be followed during development of traffic models for all projects of regional significance. The guidelines have several objectives; however, the primary objective is to insure that the legislative requirements for transportation modeling and database consistency are achieved. In addition, the guidelines have been designed to ease the transfer of information from the regional and subregional models to local models and vice -versa. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 9-3 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program REQUIRED CMP UPDATES The CMPs were required to be updated annually between 1992 and 1995. An amendment to the CMP legislation changed the update to occur biennially. Table 9-1 outlines the updates approved since inception: TABLE 9-1 Year CMP UPDATES SINCE INCEPTION Major Effort/Revisions Adopted 1992 The Commission originally adopted the CMP December 1992 1993 The CMP was revised focusing on LOS evaluation December 1993 1994 The Commission updated Chapters 3 and 5 of the CMP December 1994 1995 The CMP was revised and updated, primarily focusing on Chapter 5, Land Use Coordination and the inclusion of legislative amendments December 1995 1997 The CMP was thoroughly amended focusing on replacement of the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) process contained in the Land Use Coordination Program (Chapter 5). The TIA process was replaced with the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program December 1997 1999 The CMP was revised focusing on LOS evaluation December 1999 2001 Minor revisions were included in the update and RCTC issued the RFP for the traffic counter installations at Smart Call Box and Traffic Management Center Sites. December 2001 2003 The 2003 CMP Update was focused on continued implementation of the CMP to meet Federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements. The traffic counter installations project was nearing completion. Test runs were initiated. December 2003 2005 The 2005 CMP Update focused on a review of LOS and monitoring of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service. Several segments were identified as deficient through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in adjacent areas. Continued monitoring of the segments has been undertaken and the segments continue to be deficient due to continued construction activity and road closures. May 2006 The current update of the CMP is required to be updated and adopted by December 2007. Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 9-4 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program SCAG CONSISTENCY REVIEW The 2007 CMP will be reviewed by SCAG for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and with CMPs of adjoining counties (San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties). Under the MPO planning regulations, SCAG is required to certify that it meets federal CMS requirements, which includes a review and consistency determination of all CMPs within the SCAG region. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 9-5 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 10 CMP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION/ UPDATE PROCESS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(a) of the Government Code requires that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) must be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with ! the schedule for the adoption and update of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), for every county that includes an urbanized area, and must include every city and the county. The CMP must be adopted at a noticed public hearing by RCTC acting as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Development of the CMP must also be coordinated with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), regional transportation providers, local governments, Ca[trans, and air districts. Section 65089(b) also states that the CMP must contain all of the elements described under Statutory Requirements in each Chapter of this CMP. RCTC DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND UPDATE PROCESS As described above, Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation requires that the Program be developed, adopted, implemented, monitored, and updated biennially. This chapter primarily focuses on procedural, administrative, and coordination activities related to CMP development, adoption, implementation and update. To meet the requirements of the legislation, the CMP shall be developed, adopted, implemented, and updated in accordance with procedures described in the following sections. CMP DEVELOPMENT The CMP is developed to meet federal CMS requirements and also includes elements of the State's CMP guidelines. State CMP statutes AB 471, 1791, AB 3093, AB 1963, and AB 2419 (reference Appendix 1). CMP ADOPTION PROCEDURE The following procedure has been developed to outline the process toward preparation and adoption of the CMP. RCTC staff shall coordinate the development of the CMP with the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Local agencies should continue to monitor the CMP System. It is suggested that the local agency collect ground counts at least every four (4) months to provide for average annual traffic conditions. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 10-1 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program ♦ Beginning in April of each odd numbered year, RCTC will obtain counts or LOS analysis from Caltrans, CVAG, and local agencies. In May of each odd numbered year, RCTC must initiate a CMP update. RCTC staff will review individual Chapters with the RCTC TAC, as necessary. ♦ In October of each odd numbered year, RCTC must submit a Preliminary Draft of the CMP to SCAG and the RCTC TAC CMP Subcommittee for review and comment. In November of each odd numbered year, RCTC staff will submit the Draft CMP to the TAC for formal review and approval. ♦ Between November and December of each odd numbered year, RCTC staff will submit the Final Draft to the Commission for review and approval CMP IMPLEMENTATION The CMP is to be implemented and monitored in accordance with procedures described in Chapter 9 - CMP Conformance and Monitoring. CMP UPDATE PROCEDURE The CMP update process should be initiated at least 6 months prior to adoption. Revision of the CMP may occur any time during the year to address specific issues. ' The update should include a thorough review of each Chapter or required element contained in the current CMP. A suggested review process follows: ♦ Legislative revisions or new enactments to CMP statutes should be thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into the CMP update. ♦ Review agency requests for adding road segments to the CMP System. According to the CMP legislation, facilities may only be added to CMP system. All facilities included in the adopted CMP must be retained. Review adjacent county CMP Systems to determine if facilities were added or are proposed for addition. Review and analyze any additions considering SCAG's Consistency Guidelines on file at RCTC. ♦ Review, in coordination with SCAG and local agencies, the existing and future year databases used for transportation modeling purposes to insure consistency Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 10-2 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program in the development of socioeconomic estimates and projections. ♦ Review the adopted CMP Minimum level of service (LOS) standard. The CMP LOS standard can only be increased above the level identified in the adopted Program. ♦ Review LOS estimates to determine if the LOS along CMP facilities has dropped below LOS "E". ♦ Document the purpose for, and status of, deficiency plans that may have been prepared by local agencies during the previous year including proposed mitigation measures. ♦ Document segments or intersections that are at LOS "E", close to falling below the adopted CMP threshold. ♦ Review the Productivity Improvement Program Transit System Performance Indicators for any changes/updates. This effort will be coordinated with RCTC staff responsible for development and adoption of the transit operators SRTPs. Document whether public transit or passenger rail service was identified as a mitigation measure or potential mitigation measure in the development of deficiency plans. ♦ Review the CMP Conformance and Monitoring Process to determine whether the process is consistent with changes or revisions identified within other CMP elements. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies 10-3 Local Assistance Agenda at RCTC TAC for October 15, 2007 Call for Projects Bicycle Transportation Account for FY 2007/08 ■ Due to my office on December 3, 2007. ■ BTA questions, contact Program Managers Ken McQuire or David Priebe. ■ All other questions contact me or Ramiro Martinez. State Safe Route to Schools (SR2S) ■ 71h cycle since 1999. ■ Due to my office on November 16, 2007. ■ Contact me or Laura Zaninovich for program questions. Available Training Disadvantage Business Enterprise Administrators' Summit • Not sponsored by Caltrans. Course is $120 and is offered by California Project Connection organization. • 2 day class in San Diego, October 25-26. • Register online at www.caprojectconection.org. Developing Context Sensitive Solutions for California • For public transportation agencies, this is a free two day workshop all over California. Being offered at Los Angeles on November 13-14, 2007 and San Diego, January 9-10, 2008. • For all others $595, including out of state individuals. • To register goto, www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/contextsensitive/ Local Assistance Federal Aid Training Course • Seating limited. Please bring your e-mail confirmation. • Course 1: Getting your Federal Aid Project Started on October 11, 2007. • Course 2: Environmental Analysis, has been postponed to Spring 2008. • Course 3: R-W Acquisition schedule for Oct. 23, 2007. Financial Management of Construction Projects • Free class taught by FHWA. • Class available in Southern California on Nov. 13 at Irvine. • Call Ada Lehner at 916-498-5955 or Tom Glover at 916-653-3990 to register. Policy Update • DBE updates to race conscious and race neutral hybrid program at next TAC meeting. Template for External Caltrans Pages Page 1 of 2 CALTRANS DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE Caltrans > Local Assistance > Bicycle Transportation Projects APPROVED BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT PROJECTS Fiscal Year 200712008 BTA Projects Pending Approval Approved Fiscal Year 2006/2007 BTA Projects Approved Fiscal Year2005/2006 BTA Projects Approved Fiscal Year 2004/2005 BTA Projects Approved Fiscal Year 2003/2004 BTA Projects i Approved Fiscal Year 2002/2003 BTA Projects Approved Fiscal Year 2001/2002 BTA Projects The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) provides state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To be eligible for BTA funds, a city or county must prepare and adopt a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) that complies with Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2 and the following: 1. The governing body of a city or county must adopt the BTP by resolution or certify that it is current and complies with Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. 2. The city or county must submit the BTP to the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for review and approval for compliance with Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2 and the regional transportation plan (RTP). 3. Following regional approval, the city or county must submit the BTP, the resolution adopting the BTP, avid the letter of approval from the MPO/RTPA to the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit (BFU) for review and approval. 4. BTP adoption establishes eligibility for five consecutive BTA funding cycles. Example: BTPs adopted in 2007 and submitted December 3, 2007; with an application for 2008/2009 BTA ' funding would establish eligibility for state fiscal years 2008/2009, 2009/2010, 2010/2011, 2011/2012, and 20012/2013. The state fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. Applications for 2008/09 BTA funds are due to Caltrans Districts by December 3, 2007. Download the 2008/09 BTA application in Microsoft Word format and open it from your local hard disk. Highlights of the 2008/09 BTA cycle are outlined in an announcement sent to Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineers (DLAE). Additional information about the BTA program is available in the Local Assistance Program Guidelines, Chapter21. Bicycle Transportation Plan Preparation and Processing Sample BTA Applications. All bikeway projects shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 Bikeway Planning and Design. ittp://wwvv.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/bta/btaweb%20page.htm 10/11 /2007 .emplate for Extemal Caltrans Pages Page 2 of 2 Effective September 26, 2006, the California MUTCD supersedes and replaces the previously adopted (May 20, 2004) MUTCD 2003 Edition and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement as well as Chapters 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and the traffic signals portion of chapter 9 of the 1996 Caltrans Traffic Manual, as amended, and all previous editions thereof. If you have questions about the BTA, contact Ken McGuire at (916) 653-2750 or David Priebe (916) 653-0036. Page Last Updated 9/17/07 If you have any questions or experience difficulty downloading files, please see our Tech Support page or e-mail Local. Programs@dot.ca,govfor assistance. Please feel free to send comments regarding this web site to our Webmaster. Back to Top of Page Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy Copyright © 2007 State of California ittp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/bta/btaweb%20page.htm 10/11 /2007 >afe Routes to School Page 1 of 1 CALTRANS DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE Caltrans > Local Assistance > Safe Routes to School > SR2S Safe Routes to School California State -legislated Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Program Established jr) 1999, the State Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program came into effect from the passage and signing of Assembly Bill 1475 (AB 1475). In 2001, Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) was enacted which extended the program for three additional years. In 2004, SB 1087 wa's enacted to extend the program three more years. A new bill, AB 57, was introduced in December 2006 to extend the program until January 1, 2013. Six (6) cycles of project solicitation for the State SR2S program have been completed. Click the link below to view the results. A call for projects for the 7th cycle of this program was announced in August, 2007. The application submittal deadline is Friday, November 16, 2007. This call for projects covers FFY 2006/2007 and FFY 2007/2008. The amounts available for the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 fiscal years are approximately $26.8 million and $25.5 million, respectively. Apply now Results of the previous 6 cycles Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy Copyright © 2007 State of California tttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/sr2s.htm 10/ 11 /2007 The DBE Program Administrators' Summit "Building for the Future" Purpose: The DBE Program Administrators' Summit is a two day event that will focus on the Federal rules as they pertain to the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 26) as well as CFR Part 23 (Airport concessions). Attending will be key practitioners and liaisons representing agencies that are recipients of Federal transportation dollars from around the industry: the USDOT, FTA, FHWA, and FAA, as well as local transportation authority officials. Also, on hand, will be select industry consultants and vendors. The event is closed to the private sector, with the exception of invited sponsors and speakers, a maximum of 15 companies. These firms will have exclusive access to the conference attendees, transportation industry specialists and decision makers. With tentative special keynote speakers like Michael Freilich, of the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Civil Rights, and Colette Holt, Attorney at Law, the Summit will provide information from all levels of the industry, in one event. The summit will focus on the following areas: • DBE outreach tools and strategies • Retention of existing DBEs • Disparity studies • Achieving race conscious results in a race neutral environment • Building Capacity one tier at a time Conference sessions will include: • Round table discussions • Presentations by some of the leading software developers in the market • Disparity study, panel discussion with some of the leading consultants in the industry • Presentations by leading government agencies Held on beautiful Shelter Island, in San Diego, California, the location is the perfect venue for networking, relaxing evening activities, and many close -by amenities - golf, restaurants, clubs, and the world famous San Diego Gaslamp District. Expectations of gorgeous fall weather, lots of sunshine, and an average daytime temperature of 74 degrees will make this a spectacular destination event. The summit will equip practitioners with tools and information that will assist in formulating and implementing a consistent and successful Federal DBE Program either through race - and gender conscious measures, or by race neutral means. One of the round table discussions will focus on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on "Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT. Although west coast states are adversely affected by this ruling, the need for DOTS across the country to understand the results of this ruling is crucial -- it could very well effect states east of the Mississippi as well. The Summit will be held at the Island Palms Hotel and Marina in beautiful San Diego California - • Thursday October 25, 2007 • Friday October 26, 2007 The resort is just minutes from the San Diego Airport, with shuttle service available. For many of the other nearby attractions, please visit the Island Palms website at: http://www.islandpalms.com Room rates are: $110 per night (State Government) and $137 per night (Federal Government) Registration for the two day summit includes the following: • Two day pass to all workshops • All Materials • Continental breakfast, both days • Lunch, both days • VIP Reception on the evening of the 25th • Access to the summit's informational Web portal Conference Registration Costs: • $150 for one participant • $125 each, for 2 or more participants from the same agency Early Bird Registration prices, good only through September 20t6 2007 are: • $120 for one participant • $100 each, for 2 or more participants from the same agency Conference Contact information Registration site: www.caproiectconnection.org www.pstgov.com Toll Free: 866- 568-6444 Local: 916- 568-7900 Fax: 916-922-3115 Email: info@caproiectconnection.org or info@pstgov.com Mail: 5022 Bailey Loop, Ste:102 McClellan Park, CA 95652 Hotel Contact Information: Island Palms Hotel & Marina 2051 Shelter Island Drive San Diego, CA 92106 Direct: 619-222-0561 Toll Free: 800-922-2336 Fax:619-222-9760 http://www.islondpalms.com/ Please make your arrangements as soon as possible — this event will sell out quickly — the combination of powerful information, and a perfect location...what could be better? Register online now at: www.caprojectconnection.orq t: The DBE Program Administrators' Summit Sponsorship Opportunities, Investment Sponsorship Type Available Event Sponsor - Includes o "Presented By" visibility o Signage Visibility (Conference Banner) o Booth Space o Introduction at Conference Sessions o 2 workshops 1 o Visibility on conference website o Logo visibility on Summit DVD/VOD j o Summit program 1 /2 page ad 2 $25,000 Workshop Sponsors - Includes o Signage visibility (Conference Banner) 0 1 Workshop Presentation o Booth Space o Introduction at Conference Launch o 1 /4 page ad in program o Visibility on conference website 4 $15,000 Luncheon Sponsor Thurs., Oct 25 o Signage visibility (Conference Banner) o Booth Space o Introduction at Luncheon o Your ad/flyer distributed on tables 0 1 /4 page ad in program o Visibility on conference website 1 $10,000 Luncheon Sponsor Fri., Oct 26 o Signage visibility (Conference Banner) o Booth Space o Introduction at Luncheon o Your ad/flyer distributed on tables o 1/4 page ad in program o Visibility on conference website 1 $10,000 VIP Reception Sponsor Weds evening o Booth Space o Introduction at Reception o Your ad/flyer distributed at event o Visibility on conference website o 1 /8 page ad in program 1 $ 7500 Vendor Sponsors o Booth Space o Visibility on conference website o 1/8 page ad in program 6 $ 5,000 Agency / Organization Sponsors o Luncheon table sponsor o Workshop (roundtable) o 1 /8 page ad in program 15 $ 2,500 Sponsorship Information: With limited availability, sponsorship opportunities will be sold out quickly - please contact George Hanible at 866-568-6444 to reserve your space. Since sponsorship opportunities are limited, your payment in full reserves your sponsorship, and will be the determining factor in the case of competing companies/agencies for the same sponsorship package. All sponsorship payments are due in full, no later than 5 p.m. October 12, 2007, no exceptions. Deadlines for inclusion in elements of sponsorship packa¢es (sorry, no exceptions) ■ Ad Copy, camera ready, for the event program is due by 5 p.m. October 12 { o 1/2 page dimensions: 7.5 inches wide x 4.75 inches high o '/4 page dimensions: 3.25 inches wide x 4.75 inches high o 1/8 page dimension: 3.25 inches wide x 2.3 inches high ■ Sponsor Banner / Website Visibility - please provide your logo by 5 p.m. October 12 o Email your logo to: info@caprolectconnection.org and be sure to include your contact information in case we have questions. • Your ad/flyer for event distribution - you are responsible for providing 200+ flyers, 8.5" x 11" in size, printed and delivered to the registration table by 9 a.m. on the morning of your event. • Introduction materials: if your sponsorship package includes an introduction at one of our events, please provide the bio/introduction you would like us to use, by 5 p.m. on October 12. Email to: info@caprolectconnection.org ■ Signage for booths, tables, workshops, etc. will be your responsibility - to produce, set up, and take down. When submitting any information, please be sure to include your name, your phone and email, and the name of your company and / or agency. )eveloping Context Sensitive Solutions for California: Tech Transfer Page 1 of 3 earch This Site 1GoD Training Links Upcominig Courses_ o Web -Based Training o On -Request Courses Road Shows o Training Clearinghouse o Registration o Our Instructors & Affiliates ► Free ITS Training ► Federal Aid Series ► Resident Engineer's Academy o Work Zone Training o Context Sensitive Solutions Related Topics o Join Our Mailing List A BERKELEY>:IN TITUTE grTNAN8 ONT. li ., STUD!... --Training Essentials -- --Free Services-- CONFERENG€S ABOUT 14 c i .l.a.0 n c= Home > Training > Developing Context Sensitive Solutions for California Developing Context Sensitive Solutions for California (PL-03) Across California, people are demanding that transportation projects —state and local —fit in with the character and unique needs of their communities. In this free, two-day workshop sponsored by Caltrans, participants will learn to accommodate those demands by using the Context Sensitive Solutions approach to developing transportation projects in California. Upcoming dates and locations: • October 2-3, 2007 - Sacramento • November 13-14, 2007 - Los Angeles • January_9-10, 2008 - San Diego • February 26-27, 2008 - Yuba City • March 2.5-26,_2008 - Fresno • April 29-30, 2008 - San Luis Obispo • May 7-8, 2008 - Costa Mesa • June 10-11, 2008 - Richmond Read Director Kempton's memo on the importance of this training. (PDF, opens in a new window) See Director Kempton's_video message about this training. (Flash video) About CSS The Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approach to planning and designing transportation projects is based on forming early, active, and ongoing partnerships with community groups and other vested stakeholders for each transportation project. The CSS approach can be used to help ensure that transportation facilities are in balance with community goals and meet access, mobility and safety needs for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, and pedestrians. Through lectures, small group exercises, and case studies from California, workshop attendees will learn: ittp://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/contextsensitive/ 10/11 /2007 developing Context Sensitive Solutions for California: Tech Transfer Page 2 of 3 • The meaning of CSS and why it is an important way of doing business • Principles and implementation strategies for CSS • How to analyze and define the "context" for your transportation activities • How to identify and engage partners and stakeholders for your projects • How to develop a new kind of problem statement ▪ Tort Liability and CSS • Tools for evaluating project alternatives, given competing goals and values in a community • Interpersonal team dynamics Instructors Leslie Regos, Transportation Planning Manager, CH2M Hill Loren Bloomberg, Traffic Operations Technical Leader, CH2M Hill Who Should Attend This Class • Caltrans staff who are involved with planning, delivering, operating, and maintaining transportation projects in California, including those in project design, environmental, construction, project management, and right-of-way as well as mass transit and local assistance • City, county, regional, and federal professionals involved in project planning, implementation, maintenance, and operations ▪ Consultants (may be admitted on a seats available basis) Registration Information This training course is free for employees of California public transportation agencies. You may register through the links above or at the Training_ page. Seats will be filled on a first -come, first - served basis. Private industry and out of state individuals may register online with a credit card for a fee of $595 as seats are available. Please contact the registrar for pre -approval by sending your request. Caltrans staff with questions about content or appropriateness of this training program for their job function may contact Carolyn Dudley at 916.654.5505 or by e-mail. This free statewide training is sponsored by the Caltrans Division of ittp://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/contextsensitive/ 10/11 /2007 )eveloping Context Sensitive Solutions for California: Tech Transfer Page 3 of 3 Design's Landscape Architecture Program in partnership with the Technology Transfer Program, a unit of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley. Home 1 Training I Services 1 Conferences 1 About © 2007 Regents of the University of California ittp://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/contextsensitive/ 10/ 11 /2007 FEDERAL AID SERIES This series of five, one -day courses provides comprehensive training on Federal and California procedural requirements for transportation projects involving FHWA funding as described in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) and the California Transportation Commission's State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Guidelines. Courses may be taken individually or as a complete program. Getting your Federal -aid project started (Course I) This course provides an overview of FHWA and Caltrans procedural requirements as described in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) and the California State Commission's State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Guidelines. The course has been thoroughly revised to reflect recent changes in the Governor's "use it or lose it" policy on project delivery. Topics Include: • Overview of LAPM contents • Helpful Caltrans and RTPA resources • Steps required to deliver projects using Federal funds • Roles and responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies in project delivery • Field review requirements • Environmental requirements • Project authorizations and agreements • Consultant selection • STIP procedures • Reimbursement and invoices Environmental Analysis (Course II) Training focuses on the rules that must be followed to comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with some comparisons with California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Topics Include: • Overview of NEPA • Determining when NEPA applies to a project • Types of documentation required • Preparing the project description • Interagency coordination • Completing the PES form • Related laws and environmental requirements • Tips on preparing EAs and EIS/EIRs 4 Right of Way Acquisition (Course III) Training provides an overview of procedures local agencies must follow to acquire real property for transportation projects, including recent changes in rules and critical tasks. Focus is on the ROW and Utility Facilities Chapters of the LAPM. Topics Include: • Roles and responsibilities of local agencies under Federal and California laws • Stewardship agreements • Helpful resources • Role of FHWA • Required documentation and certificates • Meaning of "just compensation" Federal -aid Project Development Requirements (Course IV This course continues discussion of step-by-step procedures for project development, picking up where Course I leaves off. Focus is on chapters 11 (Design Standards), 12 (Plans, Specifications and Estimates), and 15 (Advertise and Award Projects) of the LAPM, including how to balance increased local responsibilities with increased procedural flexibility. Topics include: • Federal requirements for construction plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) • Design standards and exceptions • Advertising and procurement criteria • Required contract provisions • PS&E certification • Contractor selection and award • Helpful checklists Construction Contract Administration (Course V) This training focuses on procedures to ensure accountability and regulatory compliance during the actual construction phase, including discussion of the engineer -inspector's responsibility to identify deviations from project specifications. Topics include: • Resident engineer's checklist • Labor compliance and EEO • Hazardous materials disposal • Change orders and claims • Work zone safety • Subcontracting • Record keeping and documentation REVISED OCTOBER 4, 2007 Federal Highway Administration — Training for Local Agencies Financial Management of Federal Aid Construction Projects The Federal Highway Administration, California Division, is sponsoring a series of free training seminars for local agencies during the months of October and November 2007. This is a joint training effort with Caltrans, and it is open to local agencies, MPO's, and special districts in all 12 Caltrans districts. Participation by project management, finance, and accounting personnel is encouraged. Listed below are the dates and locations for the training session: • SACRAMENTO AREA: Tuesday, October 30, 2007, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM FHWA California Division Office, 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento Note: Security Restrictions: no camera phones • BAD' AREA: V LednesdnyT:ovemb7 2007v 8A0 M . 4 0 P -CANCELLED • SANTA BARBARA, Thursday, November 8, 2007, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM ADDED County Bd of Supervisors Hearing Room, 4'h Floor, 105 East Anapamu Street • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Caltrans District 12 Office, Conference Room C1165, 3347 Michelson Dr., Irvine Listed below are some of the topics that will be covered during the training: • Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Requirements • U.S.C. Title 31 and the Anti -deficiency Act Overview • Construction Contracts - Procurement to Closeout • OMB Circular A-87 - Indirect Costs • Project Documentation Requirements, and Project Records Retention • Procedures: Accounting and Internal Controls, Change Orders, Project Diaries To register for the session in your area, please email Ada Lehner at the FHWA, California Division indicating which session you will be attending at alehnernfhwa.dot.gov. Please provide contact information as follows: Name of participant, Title/position, name and address of your agency, telephone and fax numbers, and email address of each participant. If you have any questions, please contact Ada Lehner at 916-498-5955, or Tom Glover at 916-653-3990, tom.glover(u�dot.ca.gov. SAFE- TEA-LU and U Caltrans District 8 San Bernardino an.d Riverside Counties What is SAFETEA-LU? Answer: Y In August 2005, the President signed into law the new federal transportation reauthorization bill called the Sy/e, Accounloble, Flexible, lfcienl Transporlalion Lgnih Acr A Legacy for lawns. (SAPETEA-L.U). SAPETEA-Lll authorizes funds for Federal :tid highways, highway safety programs, and public transportation programs, and for other purposes- . Authorizing appropriations totaling $244.1 billion, SAPETL• A-LU is the largest sm'litee transportation investment in history, aimed at improving safely, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency in $eight nurvemel* increasing intermodal eonnecti vih Mid protecting the environment. YSAFETEA-LlJ promotes more et eienl and effective federal transportation programs while giving slate and local transportation decision makers more flesibil ily to solve issues in their own communities. YSAPP YEA-1J named California as one ol'the stales eligible to participate in the Section 6004 MOD and the Section 6005 N13PA_1)elegalion pilot program thal will allow the California Department ofTransporlation (Caltrans) to assume the Pnderd Highway Administration's (FliWA's) responsibilities miderthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated federal environmental requirement N. Pilot Program Key Provisions Y Celirans is subject to the same procedural and substantive requirements as Pli WA in carrying out assignment i Must comply with federal laws and regulations, Executive ()tilers, official MINNA guidance and police iStreamlining comes from eliminating review laver, not from sh sh:titling legal requirements YCnhner is solely responsible & solely liable for the responsibilities it assumes, and will defend all claims m its own expense »Cellnus will coordinate with other Federal resource agencies early and appropriately. and make all reasonable & good faith efforts to resolve any conflicts that arise Y FI1WA will not provide any project -level assistance to Ca!trans fir assigned projects Y FHWA may assist on policy or program issues »CaMans will maintain its project files and make them available for FIN'A inspection; with 5 days notice Ciliate's will citify out regular QA & QC to ensure it is meeting requirements of lacy and of the MOU Y Codtrans will report quarterly to PIMA on its approvals and decisions YFHWA will reassume authmdty Ibr any project it determines C'rdlrans is out of compliance with MOU YCtdlrans may also request FHWA reassume authority— this can cover new projects Components of the Pilot Program Section 6005 A'EPA Delegation Pilot Program i Effective July 1, 2007, CaltrnnS assumed all of FEWA's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act for projects on California's Slate Highway System and for federal -aid local streets and roads projects under FHWr A's Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program, pursuant to 23 CFR 773. Caltrans also assumed all of P11 WA's responsibilities for environmental coordination and consultation under other federal environmental laws pertaining to the review or approval of projects under the Pilot Program. Y This assilmmienl includes certain projects for which FHWA has issued it draft environmental impact statement. as described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The assignment excludes certain categories of projects as defined by regulation and specific individual projects, as listed in the MOU. This assumption of responsibilities will not remove or change any federal environmental laws, regulations, or policies. Y Caimans is required to comply with all applicable federal environmental laws and with FHWA environmental regulations, policies, and guidance. The program will not change federal environmental protection standards_ implementation attic Pilot Program is expected to simplify and expedite the federal environmental review process for transporlat ion projects; while ensuring: the same level of protection for environmental resources. i Bottom Line. Cailrans is in charge of review and approving Section G1105 CE's and EA's within District unless it is a complex EA or am EIS in association with headquarters Division of Environmental Analysis (1)11A) Environmental Coordinator (11Q EC). What are the NEPA Delegation Benefits? Y Project review authority would be retained within the State Y adore efficient environnnenlnal review process 1 Timesaving will result from eliminating one layer of government review Y Eliminate turn around of submitting and receiving to FHWA Y All technical review/consultations occurring at the local level Existing, dedicated Local Assistance Staten) help facilitate the environmenbl.prmess Y Streamlined environmental process with a single set orotundards Y Streamlines consultation processes by Y Allowing direct consultation between CaMans and federal resource agencies 'r Reducing consultation parties from three to two, making consultation more efficient Y Section 6004 and Section 6005 Benefits Y Implementation of the Pilot Program is expected to simplify and expedite the federal environmental review process for transportation projects, while ensuring the same level of protection for environmental resources. How do we obtain those benefits? Y Those benefits are obtained by following the environmental process Y Consistent and Clear Communication Y Streamlining comes from eliminating review laver, not from shot -minting legal requirements Y Local agencies and -their consultants must perform Quality Control (QC) New Review Cerlilicatidm Forms (External and Internal forms) Y All reviewers certify that State Highway System (SITS) and Local Assistance environmental documents meets standards Y Technical reviewers certify that envin>nmentad document meets requirements and is consistent with -the technical study Y Categorical Exclusion Checklist Y Initial Study/L•nvironntenlal Assessment 'template Y Environmental AssessmCIII Template (Coming SOON!) Y Environmental Impact Repot/Environmental Impact Statement 'template Table 4 Comparison ul IS/NI/Process and EA/I+DNSI Process Chnpt cr 37 InIru//wwdcdohcn,Gov/scr/vol I/seen/ch37iMal/chit 07.01114prois IS/ND LA/FONSI Prepare "draft" 1S Prepare "drall"EA r QA/QC Review' t- Technical .Specialist Review - 1 Internal Peer Review 1- Supervisor Review 1- Technical Editor Review Y Legal Review , / r;\=f d` Review' % Technical Specialist Review r Internal Peer Review 1- Supervisor Review Y 7cchnical Editor Review i NEPA QC Review Y Legal Review i- For motinc EA, Deputy District Director or designee approves EA line eirenlal ion. )7 For cmnpim EA, submit EA to I -IQ District Environmental Coordinator for approval to circulate. )revise as Necessar • Revise and Resubmit as Necessary Circulate Sign and Circulate EA (sec Chapin 38 lin sieuature authorities) Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration or Notice °Nolen( to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration Nuhee of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Public Hearing or Opportunity for Public Hearing (loud newspapers) Note: Documents must be distributed no later Iran the time the document is noticed in the local newspaper.. 30 Day Comment Period 30 Day Comment Period Note: Comment period starts when document is distributed. Opportunity for Public Hearing / Hold Public Hearing Note- EA must be in public circulation for 15 days prior to the hearinu. Revise 1S and Respond to Ornaments Revise EA and Respond to Comments If applicable, obtain CA Department of Fish and Game 2080.1 Consistency Determination or Incidental Tale Permit Finalize as applicable compliance wi0m all federal laws, regulations and executive orders, including but not limited to: -Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding -Section 106 Process -Section 7 Consultation -Section 4(1) Evaluation -Compliance ce with all Executive Oilers -Air Conformity" Statement QNQC Review (see above) DAiOr Review Isec above) For routine EA. Deputy District Director or designee approves FONS1 for circulation. Fur complex EA, submit EA to HQ District Environmental Coordinator for review prior to approval of PONS]. Revise nod Resubmit as Necessary Prepare and sign Title Sheet and ND Or MND Ca lhans authority signs FONSI Cimel: to "Baal" IS with ND or MND Circulate "lin al" EA with FORT Prepare and Pile Notice of Determination (NOD) Saul NOA (Notice of Availability) of EONS] to State Clearinghouse start Optional: 1,11 WA publishes notice in Federal Register Ira 180-day SDI. pursuant to SAFETEA-LI/ Section 0002 (Nate: Still the case under the NEPA Pilot Program_ Section 00115) i STATE, OF CALIFORN IA —BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND NOIISING AGENCY ARNOLD SCI IWARZEN HG GER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE — M.S. I 1120 N STREET P. O BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-000I PI-IONE (916) 653-1776 FAX (916) 654-2409 TTY 711 September 21, 2007 To: Public Work Directors for All Cities and Counties in California Metropolitan Planning Organizations Regional Transportation Planning Agencies Local Transportation Commissions Dear Executive Director: Flex your power! Br energy efficient! I am pleased to announce that the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) NEPA Delegation program has officially begun. Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have signed separate Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) for SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 (CE Delegation) and for Section 6005 (NEPA Delegation Pilot Program). The MOUs together assign to Caltrans all authority and responsibility for compliance with NEPA and other federal environmental laws. Caltrans is therefore now legally responsible for all NEPA decisions and is also authorized to conduct formal consultations with the regulatory resource agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Caltrans is the first state transportation department in the nation to assume these responsibilities and looks forward to making it a success. Caltrans believes that NEPA Delegation will result in program -wide time savings for state and local agency project delivery as a whole, which will translate into dollar savings by advancing construction. Details of both NEPA assignments can be found on the NEPA Delegation website http://www.dot.ca.govihq/env/nepa pilot/index.htm and in the summary attached to this letter. Key provisions include; • The Programmatic CE program is superseded by the Section 6004 CE delegation; now all CEs will be signed by Caltrans, regardless of classification. • Caltrans is now solely liable for defending environmental decisions on state and local agency projects in federal court. • NEPA authority cannot be delegated from the state to local agencies. In addition, because of the importance of this legal responsibility, the two programs will be subject to quarterly reviews and regular formal audits by FHWA to ensure that Caltrans complies with all FHWA environmental regulations, policy and procedures and that the programs deliver the anticipated benefits. Caltrans will need the assistance of its local partners in conducting and documenting quality assurance reviews on documents, in utilizing Caltrans' annotated outlines for EAs and EISs, and in collecting the data needed to support the audit, including summaries of environmental commitments and copies of permits. These new requirements are described in the "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Public Work Directors for All Cities and Counties in California Metropolitan Planning Organizations Regional Transportation Planning Agencies Local Transportation Commissions September 21, 2007 Page 2 attachment to this letter. We will also be soliciting and reporting to FHWA your views on the efficiency of the program and on areas that may need improvement, and we welcome your input at any time. The PES form and Chapter 6 of the Local Assistance Program Manual (LAPM) are being updated to incorporate these procedural changes and is expected to be released in November 2007. The new NEPA delegation requirements can also currently be found in the Standard Environmental Reference (SER), which is on the Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/. If you have questions or comments on either program, please contact your District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE). Your DLAE can also arrange for presentations or training on NEPA delegation. We look forward to working with you to make the NEPA Delegation program a successful vehicle for improving project delivery. Sincerely, TERRY L. ABBOTT Chief Division of Local Assistance Attachments cc: DLAEs Cindy Adams, Chief, Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis bc: DLA Office Chiefs Germaine Belanger Virginia Denison, Dist. 3 (Marysville); Julie Myrah, Dist. 10 Local Assistance; Gary Ruggerone, Dist. 5 Local Assistance; Kelly Hobbs, Dist. 6 Environmental; Dawn Kukla, Dist. 7 Environmental; Chris Benz -Blumberg, Dist. 8 Environmental; Julie Myrah, Dist. 10 Local Assistance; Kevin Hovey, Dist. l 1 Environmental Typing:Archive:MargaretB:NEPA Delegation.doc "Caltrans improves mobility across California" SAFE 1'EA-LU NEPA Delegation Program September 20, 2007 Page 2 ❑ Most environmental and technical document reviews, signatures and consultations are delegated to the district level. ❑ EISs, individual 4(f) statements, and complex EAs will go to Caltrans HQ Division of Environmental Analysis. This step was previously readiness review prior to final FHWA NEPA Compliance and legal sufficiency reviews. With FHWA review step eliminated, the HQ review will be final NEPA compliance and legal sufficiency review. ❑ Section 106 Adverse Effect reports and MOAs will go to HQ Cultural and Community Studies Office, which will take the former FHWA consultation role. For simplest CEs: expect incremental gains — no waiting for FHWA signature on PES and CE forms, no waiting for FHWA to forward correspondence formally consulting with resource agencies. Time savings are expected to accrue program -wide. For highly complex projects, such as projects with complex resource agency coordination, and for EA and EIS projects: CT expects time savings of one to six months, depending on complexity of project. Savings will come from eliminating one layer of document review and the time needed for FHWA to forward correspondence to and from resource agencies Over the long-term, Caltrans also expects benefits from working more closely, one on one, with resource agencies. Caltrans can negotiate as the decision -maker at the table. While Caltrans must operate within fiscal guidelines for reasonable expenditure of federal public funds, there may be more flexibility to negotiate creative mitigation or combine funding opportunities, since mitigation will not set precedent for FHWA nationally. Why Delegation Matters The NEPA Pilot Program is a key opportunity to participate in an important national experiment and to explore a new way of streamlining the federal environmental process. Caltrans and local agencies have desired federal environmental delegation for many years: this is Congress's response; the opportunity is not likely to return if not tried. Caltrans has the opportunity to build closer relationships and more innovative approaches with federal resource agencies: the MOUs specifically state Caltrans agreements on mitigation measures will not be considered precedent -setting for FHWA Reasonable Expectations All Federal laws, regulations and policies remain in place: consultations with resource agencies will still take time, and Caltrans must maintain standards of federal review authority. The NEPA Delegation Program may have bumps at first — no state has done this before. Feedback will be important to improving the process. "Galmm. improves mobility across California" SAFE1'EA-LU NEPA Delegation Program September 20, 2007 Page 4 • Local Agencies must send copies of 1) environmental documents, 2) technical reports, 3) summary lists of environmental commitments to be incorporated into PS&E, and 4) permits to Caltrans' DLAE for files to facilitate audits and process reviews. The requirement to have environmental commitments and permits is not new (Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapters 6, 12, 15, 17), but providing copy to DLAE is now mandated because of the need to provide rapid response to FHWA in process reviews and audits and because FHWA nationally is placing new emphasis on ensuring these commitments are carried out. Assistance on NEPA Delegation Available to Local Agencies Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser Caltrans Local Program Manual Chapter 6 (under revision: to be published Nov. 2007) NEPA Delegation website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ho/env/nena nilot/index.htm NEPA DELEGATION PROGRAM: DETAILS Section 6004: CE Delegation Scope • Available to any state • State assumes authority and responsibility for determining Categorical Exclusions on the 23CFR771.117 "c" and "d" lists • State could propose additions to "d" list: Caltrans proposed and FHWA approved 7 categories: • ; Construction, modification, or repair of storm water treatment devices (e.g., detention basins, bioswales, media filters, infiltration basins), protection measures such as slope stabilization and other erosion control measures throughout California. • Replacement, modification, or repair of culverts or other drainage facilities throughout California. • Environmental stewardship projects throughout California not to exceed five acres in size to assure the creation, maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife (e.g., revegetation of disturbed areas with native plant species; stream or river bank revegetation; construction of new, or maintenance of existing fish passage conveyances or structures). • Routine repair of facilities due to storm damage, including permanent repair, throughout California to meet current standards of public health and safety (e.g., slide repairs, construction or repair of retaining walls). • Routine seismic retrofit of facilities throughout California to meet current standards of public health and safety. • Air space leases throughout California. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Attachment 2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 Categorical Exclusion Assignment of Responsibilities MOU Overview of Key Provisions ■ The MOU allows the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to assign, and California to assume, responsibility for determining whether certain designated activities are included within classes of action that are categorically excluded from requirements to prepare environmental assessments or environmental impact statements pursuant to the NEPA regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality, part 1500, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. ■ The assignment under the MOU pertains only to designated activities described in Stipulation I(B): 1. Activities listed in 23 CFR 771.117 (c); 2. The example activities listed in 23 CFR 771.117(d); and 3. Additional actions listed in Appendix A. ■ For projects covered by the MOU, California is also assigned FHWA responsibilities for • environmental review and consultation under other federal environmental laws, as defined in Appendix B [Section IRA)]. ■ The MOU transfers to California all responsibilities for processing the CEs assigned under the MOU including all projects that are CE candidates, and any required reevaluations of CEs under 23 CFR 771.129 for all CE projects not completed prior to the date of this MOU [Section I(C)]. ■ This MOU supersedes any existing programmatic agreement that is solely between the State and the FHWA concerning CEs assigned under the MOU [Section I(C)]. ■ 'The State shall make all determinations under this MOU in accordance with 23 CPR 771.117(a) and (b) and succeeding regulations [Section IV(A)], and shall be subject to the same existing and future procedural and substantive requirements as if those responsibilities were carried out by the FHWA [Section II(C)]. ■ IThe State shall carry out the assigned consultation, review and coordination activities in a timely and proactive manner [Section II(D)]. ■ ,The State shall make all reasonable and good faith efforts to identify and resolve conflicts with (Federal agencies, state and local agencies, Indian tribes as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(m), and the 'public during the consultation and review process [Section H(D)]. • Any activity that does not satisfy the criteria for the CE categories described in Stipulation I(B) is excluded from this assignment. Projects may also be excluded at any time during the 'environmental process if the State determines that the project fails to meet the CE criteria [Section III(A)]. ■ FHWA shall retain responsibilities for formal government -to -government consultations with Indian tribes [Section II(B)]. • FHWA will evaluate the State's environmental processing if it has reason to believe that the State's performance does not satisfy the terms and conditions of this MOU [Section III(B)]. ■ If a project -related concern or issue is raised in a government -to -government consultation process with an Indian tribe and either the Indian tribe or the FHWA determines that the issue or concern will not be satisfactorily resolved by the State, then the FHWA shall reassume responsibility for processing the project [Section 1II(C)]. ■ For projects and other activities assigned under this MOU that the State determines are included in the classes of CE assigned to the State under this MOU, the State shall [Section IV(B)]: 1. Institute a process to identify and review the environmental effects of the proposed project. 2. For CEs other than those designated in 23 CFR 771.117(c), carry out a review of proposed CE determinations prior to the State's approval of the CE determination. rare or extreme circumstances and based on its observations, the FHWA may submit comments to the State and the other Federal agency if the FHWA determines such comment is necessary and in the Federal interest because [Section XI(B)]: 1. The FHWA reasonably believes that the State is not in compliance with this MOU; or 2. The FHWA determines that an issue between the State and the other Federal agency has broad or unique policy implications for the national Federal -aid Highway Program. ■ Caltrans will maintain adequate organization and staff capability to effectively carry out delegation (Section 4.2.2). ■ The State of California must assume sole responsibility and liability for its NEPA actions and decisions and be subject to Federal court jurisdiction (Section 4.3.1). ■ Caltrans shall be subject to the same procedural and substantive requirements as FHWA in carrying out the assignment, including federal laws and regulations, Executive Orders, official FHWA guidance and policy (Section 5.1.1). ■ Caltrans shall be solely responsible and solely liable for the responsibilities it assumes, and shall defend all claims at its own expense (Section 6.1.1). ■ Caltrans shall make all reasonable and good faith efforts to work with affected parties and attempt to resolve any and all conflicts prior to potential litigation (Section 6.3.1). ■ Caltrans shall coordinate with all Federal, State, and local resource agencies early and appropriately, and shall make all reasonable & good faith efforts to resolve any conflicts that arise (Sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.2). ■ FHWA will not provide any project -level assistance to Caltrans (Section 8.1.1). ■ FHWA will not intervene, broker, act as intermediary, or be otherwise involved in any issue involving Caltrans's consultation or coordination with another Federal agency (Section 8.1.2). However, FHWA may attend meetings between Caltrans and other Federal agencies and submit comments in the following extraordinary circumstances: o FHWA reasonably believes that Caltrans is not in compliance with the MOU; o FHWA determines that an issue between Caltrans and the other Federal agency concerns emerging national policy issues under development by the USDOT; or o Upon request by either Caltrans or the other Federal agency and agreement by FHWA. ■ Caltrans will maintain its project files and make them available for FHWA inspection (Section 8.2.4). ■ Caltrans agrees to carry out regular QA & QC to ensure it is meeting requirements of law and of the MOU (Section 8.2.5). ■ Caltrans will perform "self -assessments" at least every 6 months to determine if its processes are working properly, identify weaknesses, and take corrective action (Section 8.2.6). ■ Caltrans will report quarterly to FFIWA on its approvals and decisions (Section 8.2.7). ■ FHWA's California Division Office will submit documents to the Federal Register on behalf of Caltrans (Section 8.4.1). ■ FHWA's California Division Office will provide project level conformity determinations for EAs and Draft and/or Final EISs for projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide (Section 8.5.1). ■ Before executing any Federal -aid project agreement for construction, design -build, or final design services contracts, Caltrans will submit a certification to the FHWA California Division Office stating that Caltrans has fully carried out all responsibilities assumed under the MOU (Section 8.6.1). ■ FHWA will reassume authority for any project it deter„ Ines Caltrans is out of compliance with MOU (Section 9.1.1). o Caltrans may also request that FHWA reassume authority (Section 9.1.2). ■ Caltrans and FHWA established the following performance measures by which Caltrans will be evaluated (Part 10): o Compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and regulations Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Checklist Categorical Exclusion Checklist 10/12/2007 1. Does Project Qualify for SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 Categorical Exclusion (check applicable box)? 1.1 Activity listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c): ❑ 1 Activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction ❑ 11 Determination of payback under 23 CFR part 480 for property previously acquired with Federal -aid partici ation ❑ Utility installations along or across a [ Improvements to existing rest areas and truck 2 transportation facility 12 weigh stations. ❑ Bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, ❑ Ridesharing activities 3 and facilities 13 ❑ Activities included in the State's ❑ Bus and rail car rehabilitation 4 highway safety plan under 23 U.S.C. 14 402 ❑ Transfer of Federal lands pursuant ❑ Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to 5 to 23 U.S.C. 317 when the subsequent action is not an FHWA action 15 make them accessible for elderly and handicapped persons ❑ Installation of noise barriers or ❑ Program administration, technical assistance 6 alterations to existing publicly owned buildings to provide for noise reduction 16 activities, and operating assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine changes in demand ❑ Landscaping ❑ Purchase of vehicles by the applicant where 7 17 the use of these vehicles can be accommodated by existing facilities or by new facilities which themselves are within a CE ❑ Installation of fencing, signs, ❑ Track and railbed maintenance and 8 pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur 18 improvements when carried out within the existing right-of-way ❑ Emergency repairs under 23 U.S.C. ❑ Purchase and installation of operating or 9 125 19 maintenance equipment to be located within the transit facility and with no significant impacts off the site ❑ Acquisition of scenic easements ❑ Promulgation of rules, regulations, and 10 20 directives —OR-- 1 Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Checklist 10/ 12/2007 1.3 Appendix A of Iv1OU for State Assumption of Responsibilities for Categorical Exclusions: ❑ 1 Construction, modification, or repair of storm water treatment devices (e.g., detention basins, bioswales, media filters, infiltration basins), protection measures such as slope stabilization, and other erosion control measures ❑ 5 Routine seismic retrofit of facilities to meet current seismic standards and public health and safety standards without expansion of capacity. ❑ Replacement, modification, or repair ❑ Air space leases that are subject to Subpart D, Part 2 of culverts or other drainage facilities. 6 710, Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations. ❑ Projects undertaken to assure the ❑ Drilling of test bores/soil sampling to provide 3 creation, maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife (e.g., revegetation of disturbed areas with native plant species; stream or river bank revegetation; construction of new, or maintenance of existing fish passage conveyances or structures; restoration or creation of wetlands). 7 information for preliminary design and for environmental analyses and permitting purposes. ❑ Routine repair of facilities due to 4 storm damage, including permanent repair to return the facility to operational condition that meets current standards of design and public health and safety without expanding capacity (e.g., slide repairs, construction or repair of retaining walls). 2. If project does qualify under the Section 6004 above, does project include any unusual circumstances? Yes No [ Significant environmental impacts; Yes No ❑ Substantial controversy on environmental grounds; Yes I I No n Significant impact on properties protected by section 4(f) of the DOT Act or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or Yes I I No n Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law, requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action If you answered ` yes" to any of the items above, then we must conduct appropriate environmental studies to determine if the 6004 CE classification is proper. If you answered "no" to all of the above, prepare and approve the categorical exclusion using the Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE/CE) form. Remember a Senior Environmental Planner must sign the CE form. Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Checklist 10/ 12/2007 4. Have all other federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders been complied with'? Environmental Statutory or Regulatory Compliance Does Project Trigger Statute or Regulation? Date and type of Technical Study or Memo to File or Field Survey Outcome of Agency Coordination (Concurrence Type and Date) Notes, Documentation Reference &for Explanation Historic Preservation (Section 106) Executive Order on Floodplains Wetland Protection Coastal Zone Wild and Scenic Rivers Section 4(f) ^_ De minimis ❑ Programmatic ❑ Individual Endangered Species (Section 7 FESA) Effect Determination: ❑ No effect n Not likely to adversely effect i Likely to adversely effect Farmland Protection Noise (23 CFR 772) Hazardous Waste/Material Environmental Justice Project -Level Air Quality (CO, PM Hotspot and MSAT) Other (i.e., Visual) 5. Environmental Permits anticipated Permit Anticipated (Y/N) 404 (USAGE) ❑ Nationwide # (J Individual Section 401 Certification Coastal Development Permit 1602 Streambed Alteration Other (list): t Be sure that the proposed CE type is concordant with all regulatory compliance required for the action. c Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Checklist I0/12/2007 ❑ Sign removal ❑ Directional and informational signs ❑ Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities) ❑ Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational, or capacity changes. ❑ Exempt from conformity per 40 CFR 93.126 7. If the project does not qualify under 40 CFR 93.126, is project exempt from regional air quality conformity? PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM REGIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSES AS PER 40 CFR 93.1272 ❑ Intersection channelization projects. ❑ Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections. ❑ Interchange reconfiguration projects. ❑ Changes in vertical and horizontal alignment. ❑ Truck size and weight inspection stations. ❑ Bus terminals and transfer points. ❑ Project level conformity determination completed ❑ Exempt from regional conformity per 40 CFR 93.127 PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM REGIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSES AS PER 40 CFR 93.128 ❑ Traffic signal synchronization projects.3 '` If the project is exempt from regional emission analysis, the local effect with respect to CO concentrations must be considered to determine ifhot-spotanalyses are required prior to making a project -level conformity determination. This requirement is applicable if the proposed project includes intersection channelization, intersection signalization, interchange reconfiguration, changes in vertical and horizontal alignment, if it becomes federally funded in the future, or if the project is regionally significant. 3 If the project is from a non -conforming Plan, the traffic signal synchronization project must be included in the regional emission analysis. If the traffic signal synchronization project is from a conforming Plan, it is exempt from regional emission analysis, but is not automatically exempt from the intersection air quality analysis (hot spot screening). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL111GHVdAV ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA DIVISION 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA. 95814-2724 January 9, 2004 IN REPLY REFER TO HDA-CA File #: Environmental Doc Format Document #: S44357 Mr. Jeff -Morales, Director California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Federal Resources Office, Room 3500 For Gary Winters Dear Mr. Morales: SUBJECT: Standard Environmental Document Formats The Federal Highway Administration (MI/VA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have worked cooperatively to streamline the environmental process and expedite environmental document review. One of the ongoing efforts between your staff and the FHWA staff has resulted in the development of standard formats (outlines) to assist in the preparation of documents addressing both the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act. Mutually acceptable formats have been developed for Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) joint documents and Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) joint documents. The FHWA strongly encourages the use of IS/EA and EIR/E1S standard formats in the preparation of joint environmental documents by Caltrans and local agencies. We believe that1S/EA and EIR/E1S standard formats, when used in conjunction with current Caltrans Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures and the Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference, are important steps towards ensuring that joint environmental documents effectively meet both federal and state regulatory requirements. Consistent use of standard formats when preparing documents should also lead to a substantial reduction in time devoted to document review and revision. We understand that a similar format for Environmental Assessment/Environmental impact Report joint documents is currently under development and we loot: forward to continuing our joint streamlining efforts. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, /s/_Wiser Khaled For David A. Nicol Acting Division Administrator initial Rindy/Environnlenial Assessment annotated Outline CHAPTER 2 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES (p.25) Following is s: list of potential topic areas to! the IS/EA. The IS/EA only needs a full text discussion of those topics that are relevant to the project �t�7 C���� � iivIrwarcw � I ph subheadings: the: discussion of that topic should include the following • Regulatory Setting (if applicable) The regulatory setting language was developed to communicate to the public wily we analyze issues the way we do in an environmental document. If the topic is of sufficient magnitude io warrant discussion in the document, cut and paste the regulatory setting language into the environmental document. When the topic is a minor issue; there the regulatory setting language may be modified. r. Affected Environment • Environmental Consequences Discuss the impacts of each build alternative: and the no -build alternative_ Note: This includes permanent, temporary (usually construction impacts), direct and indirect Impacts, vOhStrUCtlJn In'1FraCLS and CUfI`IUlatll/c impacts must be discussed either. Under each resource heading or in separate sections ai the end of the chapter. Cross-reference between sections as appropriate. E. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures When writing the environmental document, treat "mitigation" and "mitigate" as strict terms of art. Only use then-1 it reference to impacts that are significant or wouid be significant but for the measures taken to reduce their severity. Address all other measures in the framevvork of avoidance or minimization measures. It these measures vary for each alternative, discuss vviiat measures are proposed for each alternative. { tIlit%gaILWIcTOL b.04ier 7156 ?f Q a„ireifE�,yfai. far p13 , include the following summary statement: Fs part of the, scoping and env ronmental analysis conducted for the project; the following environmental issues were; considered but no adverse impacts were Identified. Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding these issues in this document. Hsi topics and briefly (in one or two sentences) describe vvhy there is no potential for adverse impacts. Cite technical studies as appropriate.] ALIOUSt 2007 2 Initial Study/_invlronrrie;ntai .Assessment Annotated C)Litiirie hours, noise, air quality (dust), access. issues (pedestrian, cyclists, equestrians, etc.), detour and traffic delays. Remember to discuss proposed borrow/fill and optional disposal sites. Identify and assess Impacts associated with the staging and storage of equipment. if[kE'Sllernt€t9e IdiE:re3C.t£ ;opEPo=ea: uara:,eE""I:.e'ii (pp.80-t',?) If cumulative impacts have not been discussed under each resource section above, then} -discuss cumulative impacts here. Climate Chranoe (CE k) l.Cl-li.APTPP. — All ClOORDINATON (pp. 87-89) CHAPTER 4 - LIST OF PREPARERS The List of Preparers should include all individuals, including consultants, that prepared or helped to prepare the: environmental document and supporting; technical studies. CHAPTER 5 - DISTRIBUTION LIST APPENDICES Appendix A: CEQA Checklist (p. 96) The checklist in Appendix G of the CEDE. Guidelines on the Office of Planning and Research vvebsite shall be used. Appendix B: "Section 4'f) Evaluation' or "Res:our, e€ Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)" (pp. 97-105) All archaeological and historic sites within the Section 1DE) area of potential effects (APE) and all parks: recreational facilities; and vvildlife refuges within approximately one-half mile of any of the project alternatives: should be analyzed to determine whether the; are protected Section 4(f) resources. It the proiect would use a Section 4(f) resource, then include a Section 4(f) Evaluation. If not, include an appendix entitled "Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0," which would explain why the project would not have Section 4(f) impacts. On the first page of the Section 4(f) report (see sample on follovving pages) insert the follovving language: "The environmental review, c onsultatiori, and any other action required In accordant_ vvith applicable Federal laves for thi: project is bring. or has been, carried -out by the 1 epartmeni under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to r.1 Appendix C: Title VI Policy Statement (p. 105) Appendix. D: Summary of Relocation Epenefcts (if applicable) (pp. 105-107) Appendix E: Glossary of Technical Terms (optional) Appendix F: Minimization and/or Mitigation Summary Auntisi. 2007 4 NEPA QC Reviewer: July t, 2007 INTERNAL CERTIFICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW CERTIFICATION Project Name: DIST-CO-RTE-PM: Federal -Aid No.: EA: Document Type: ❑ EA ❑ EIS ❑ Draft ❑ Final Dlstdct Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) Name of Document Preparer or Oversight Coordinator: Local Assistance ❑ SHS With my signature, I certify that I have performed the required quality control review assigned to me and that the environmental document satisfactorily meets State and federal requirements in my area of expertise and is consistent with the applicable technical study (State "NA" if the technical area is not applicable.) Type of 'Review Reviewer's Certifying Reviewer (Print Name) Signature Certification Date Technical Specialist Reviewers o Biology o Cultural o CIA! o Visual o Hazardous Waste o Floodplain o Water Quality o Air Quality o Noise o Traffic o Section 4(f) o Other: Peer Reviewer: Technical Edit Reviewer: (check for grammar, syntax, style, format, graphics etc.) Certification must be signed by the NEPA QC reviewer. I hereby certify that this environmental document complies with FHWA policies and guidance and the requirements of all applicable federal laws, executive orders, and regulations. Final Environmental Document only: Public review comments have been appropriately addressed. Date I hereby certify that this environmental document is internally consistent and was prepared consistent with the applicable SER annotated environmental document outline. I also certify that this document was distributed to the internal PDT for review. Environmental Document Preparer/Oversight Coordinator: Date I have reviewed this environmental document and hereby certify that the required quality control reviews shown above have been satisfactorily completed and that the environmental document meets all Caltrans and FHWA requirements. Chief. Environmental Branch Date Environmental Document Preparation and Review Tool Page # in ED Check if content is: Major Required Content Per Annotated Outline Included Not applicable ■ ■ Cover Sheet ■ ❑ Follows annotated outline format ■ ❑ General Information About This Document ■ ❑ "What's in this document" section ■ ❑ "What you should do" section ■ ❑ "What happens next" section ■ ❑ Title Sheet ■ ❑ Follows annotated outline format ■ ■ Title including cooperating agencies ■ ■ Signature' blocks ■ ■ Contacts ❑ ■ Abstract ■ ❑ Due date for comments ■ ❑ Summary ■ ❑ Overview of project area including major actions in same geographic area ❑ ❑ Purpose and need ■ ❑ Proposed action including reasonable alternatives and preferred alternative, if identified ■ ❑ Joint CEQA/NEPA document including boilerplate ■ ■ Project impacts (beneficial and adverse) including table ■ ❑ Coordination with public/other agencies (approvals, unresolved issues, areas of controversy) ■ ■ Table of Contents ■ ❑ Follows annotated outline format ■ ❑ List of tables and figures ■ ❑ Chapter f—Purpose and Need for Project ■ ❑ Brief introduction including appropriate figures ■ ❑ Summary of hove purpose and need developed through planning process and relevant studies ■ ❑ Bulleted list of "purpose" statements ■ ❑ Statements of "Need" using categories provided in annotated outline ■ ❑ Project has independent utility and logical termini? ■ ❑ Chapter 2—Project Alternatives ■ ❑ Restatement of existing facility and project purpose and need ■ ■ Common design features of a reasonable range of build alternatives - ❑ ■ ❑ Unique features of a reasonable range of build alternatives ■ TSM and TDM alternatives ■ ❑ Estimated cost information ■ ■ No -action alternative ■ ❑ Alternatives comparison matrix (not required) ■ ❑ Preferred alternative, if one has been identified ■ ❑ Locally preferred alternative, if one has been identified ■ ❑ Alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion ■ ❑ Permits and approvals needed • ❑ Chapter 3—Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization andlor Mitigation Measures ❑ ■ List of environmental topic areas determined to not be relevant ■ ■ Subheadings for all relevant topics: ■ ❑ Regulatory Setting (use boilerplate language as appropriate) ■ ❑ Affected Environment ❑ 01 Impacts of each build alternative Page # in ED Check if content is: Major Required Content Per Annotated Outline Included Not applicable • • Description of and impacts/mitigation related to sewage facilities ■ ■ Description of and impacts/mitigation related to electric power conveyance facilities ■ ■ Description of and impacts/mitigation related io telecommunication systems ■ ■ Description of and impacts/mitigation related to law, fire, and other emergency services ■ ❑ Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ■ • Boilerplate regulatory setting ■ ■ Existing and post -project (20-year time horizon beyond construction) traffic circulation ■ ■ Project measures to include circulation ■ ❑ Description of and impacts/mitigation related to travel patterns for residences and businesses ■ ■ Project compliance with ADA ■ ■ Construction related impacts ■ ■ Description of proposed Traffic Management Plan ■ ■ Description of and impacts/mitigation related to existing and planned bicycle facilities •❑ Visual/Aesthetics ■ ■ Boilerplate regulatory setting ■ ■ Sensitive visual resources in project area • ❑ Visual sensitivity of project area ■ ❑ Before and after visual simulations ■ ❑ Impacts to potential viewers of and from the project ■ ❑ Proposed context -sensitive solutions ■ ❑ Description of and impacts/mitigation related to scenic highways ■ ❑ cultural Resources ■ ❑ Boilerplate regulatory setting ■ ❑ No disclosure of location of archeological sites ❑ ■ Description of APE ■ ■ Discussion of significance of each evaluated cultural resource . ■ ■ Impacts on resources listed or eligible for listing on NR HP ■ ■ Documentation of Section 4(f) use, if applicable ■ ❑ De-minimis impact discussion, if applicable ■ ■ Documentation of consultation (include copies of correspondence) ■ ❑ MOA process, if needed ■ ■ Physical Environment • ■ Hydrology and Fioodplain ■ ❑ ■ Boilerplate regulatory setting ■ ❑ ■ Description of base 100-year floodplain ❑ Longitudinal/transverse encroachments of project alternatives ■ ❑ Documentation of significant encroachment into the floodplain, if applicable ■ ■ Documentation of coordination with water resources and floodplain management agencies ■ ❑ Only practicable alternative finding, if required ■ ❑ Summary Encroachment Report, if applicable • ❑ Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff ■ ❑ Boilerplate regulatory setting C ■ ■ ❑ Description of watersheds and receiving waters ❑ Pertinent impact information from the Storm Water Quality Assessrent ■ ■ Pertinent mitigation information from the Storm Water Quality Assessment • ■ Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography ❑ Boilerplate regulatory setting ■ ❑ ❑ Site geology and subsurface conditions ❑ ❑ Impacts/mitigation related to erosion and geologic hazards ❑ Impacts/mitigation related to natural landmarks and landforms ■ • ❑ Paleontology Page # in ED Check if content is: Major Required Content Per Annotated Outline Included Not applicable • Description and impacts/mitigation related to special -status animal (including fish) species (non-ESA/CESA) • ❑ Threatened and Endangered Species • Boilerplate regulatory setting • ■ Documentation of federal consultation to date (include copies of correspondence) • ■ Consistent with Environmental Handbook Volume 3 content requirements? • ■ Invasive Species • ■ Boilerplate regulatory setting • • Description of and impacts/mitigation related to invasive species in project area • ■ ElRelationship between Long -Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity • Irreversible and irretrievable Commitments of Resources that would be Involved in the Proposed Project ■ ■ Construction Impacts (Optional Placement) • ■ Cumulative Impacts (Optional Placement) • ■ Resource study area for each resource • • Current health and historical context of each resource • ■ Reference project related direct and indirect impacts on each resource • ■ Current and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their impacts • ■ Mitigation for cumulative impacts • ■ Chapter 4—California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation • ■ Determining Significance under CEQA • ■ Boilerplate language • ■ Discussion of Significance of Impacts • ■ CEQA noise analysis • ■ Less than Significant Effects of the Proposed Project • ■ Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project • • Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects • • Significant irreversible Environmental Changes • • Growth -Inducing impacts (if not previously discussed) Mitigation Measures under CEQA •❑ Chapter 5—Comments and Coordination • ■ Boilerplate introduction • ■ Scoping process • ■ Consultation and coordination with public agencies • ■ Public participation • ■ Chapter 6—List of Preparers • ■ ❑ Chapter 7—Distribution List • Appendix A: CEQA Checklist • • Appendix B: Section 4(f) Evaluation • • ❑ Introduction ■ ❑ Description of proposed project and alternatives • Description of 4(f) properties • ■ Impacts to 4(f) properties ■ ■ Avoidance alternatives • ■ Measures to minimize harm • ■ Documentation of coordination with agencies with jurisdiction of 4(f) resources • ■ Concluding statements • ■ - ❑ Other park, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and historic properties ■ Copies of correspondence • ■ ❑ Appendix C: Title VI Policy Statement ■ 5 Date: May 11, 2004 Environmental Coordinator: Jo Generalist Phone No: 688-0000 MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING RECORD (MMRR) Page 1 of 3 11-SD-123 KP 9.8 EA 01234K Construct Highway Task and Brief Description Ref. • Responsible Branch 1 Staff Timing / Phase NSSP Req. Action Taken to Complywith Task Task Completed Remarks Environmental Compliance Initial Date Initial Date DESIGN KICK-OFF Proj Mgmt & Proj Dev Beginning of 1 phase ENVIRONMENTAL PS&E REVIEW Proj Mgmt & Environmental District PS&E Circ PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING Proj Mgmt Contract Award Transfer Resident Engineer Book Proj Eng Preconst Meeting PREJOB MEETING Proj Mgmt & Const Const ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW Proj Mgmt & Const Safety Review DESIGN FEATURES MEMORANDUM Proj Mgmt & Const Post Const Biology Notify District Biologist two weeks prior to construction so that the two impacted oak trees can be flagged. ED, p, 12 Const.l Biology Pre-Const. Y If impacts to the flagged oak trees cannot be avoided, the oak trees will be mitigated at a 10:1 ratio at an approved off -site location concurrent with projeot construction. ED, p. 12 Const./ Biology Const. Y Cultural Resources Under no circumstances is the contractor allowed to stage or otherwise use any unpaved areas between P.M. 24.0 and P.M. 26.7, ED, p. 13 Const. Const. Y For monitoring purposes, the District Archaeologist shall receive at least two weeks notice that the work will begin. ED, p. 13 Const./Cultural Pre-Const. Y - Date: May 11, 2004 Environmental Coordinator: Jo Generalist Phone No: 688-0000 MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING RECORD (MMRR) Page 3 of 3 11-SD-123 KP 9.8 EA 01234K Construct Highway Task and Brief Description Ref. Responsible Branch / Staff Timing / Phase NSSP Req. Action Taken to Comply with Task Task Completed Remarks Environmental Compliance Initial Date Initial Date Community/Social To preserve views and some of the rural atmosphere along the route, the roadway profile will be depressed wherever practicable and all vertical elements of the project kept to a minimum. ED, p. 20 Design - Design N Construction Construction activities that are adjacent to schools will be coordinated with school officials to reduce the level of noise impacts during school hours. ED,, p. 21 Const. Pre - const./Const. Y No construction activities are allowed at location #1 from February. 15 to September 1, ED, p. 11 Const. Const. Y If night work is conducted, lighting shall be shielded or directed away from the ESAs. ED, p. 11 Const. Const. Y Permits and A• •royals CA Department of Fish and Game All plants (both container and seed) used for restoration shall be endemic species. 1601, p, 1 Land. Arch./Blo. Design/Const. Y Caltrans quarterly inspections shall be done by the project biologist or a representative approvea oy the project biologist. 1601, p. 2 Bio. ConslJPost- Const. N All restoration for temporary impacts shall be implemented in the appropriate season immediately following project construction at that location. 1601, p. 2 Const. Const. Y Grade Separation Program: An Unchanged Budget and Project Allocation Levels Established More Than 3o Years Ago May Discourage Local Agencies From Taking Advantage of the Program September 2oo7 Report 2oo7--io6 The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are s3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite Soo Sacramento, California 95814. 916.445.oz55 or TTY 916.445.0033 OR This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca_gov: The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For information On hOW to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255. ext. 456, •or visit our V7eb site atwwu! bssa.ca.gmt Alternate format reports available upon request permission is granted'to reproduce reports. Elaine M. Howie State Auditor Doug Cordiner Chief Deputy 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR Bureau of State Audits Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.0255 September 13, 2oo7 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: 916.327.0019 fax www.bsa.ca.gov zoo?-106 As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning the funding and approval process required for grade separation projects by state and local transportation agencies. This report concludes that although the Public Utilities Commissions (Commission) priority list of grade separation projects for the last several years has contained more than so projects, the California Department of Transportation has been unable to allocate all of the Grade Separation Program funds because local agencies have often not taken the additional steps necessary to apply for the funds once their projects are included on the Commission's priority list. Part of the reason for this failure to apply for funds is that the cost of grade separation projects has increased more than tenfold over the past 3o years while the funds available from the Grade Separation Program have remained unchanged. Specifically, the average cost of a grade separation project has increased from $2.5 million in 1974 to a current average of just more than $26 million. Local agencies say they are experiencing difficulties securing the funding necessary to pay for their share of grade separation projects; thus, some are not nominating new projects to be included on the Commission's priority Iist and many are not applying for funds for the projects already on the priority list. rt prepared by the Commission in March zoo7 showed that $165 million is needed to funding for the same number of grade separation projects that Us million provided ditional funding will be available for grade separation projects from a bond measure California voters in November 2oo6, which will provide a one-time amount of to improve railroad crossing safety. The bond measure makes $rso million of these e for allocation under the process established for the Grade Separation Program. itted, Contents Summary Introduction California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September2007 1 5 Audit Results Local Agencies Believe Allocations Are Not Sufficient to Allow Them to Take Advantage of the Grade Separation Program 13 The Final Costs of Grade Separation Projects Often Exceeded the Preliminary Cost Estimates 21 Caltrans Does Not Always Follow Regulations When Allocating Supplemental Funds, and Some Regulations Are Inconsistent With Statutes 23 Recommendations 24 Response to the Audit Business,Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Transportation 27 Vii Summary Results in Brief According to data from the Federal Railroad Administration, 167 accidents occurred near at -grade crossings throughout California in 2oo6. An at -grade crossing, often referred to as a railway crossing, is an intersection of railway tracks and a roadway at the same elevation, or grade. One method used to address dangerous at -grade crossings is to eliminate them by separating the railway and roadway so they no longer intersect, usually via an overpass or bridge. Grade separation projects involving local roadways are the responsibility of the local agency that has jurisdiction over the roadway. The average cost of these projects is $26 million, according to the Public Utilities Commission (Commission), based on a current list of high -priority grade separation projects. To help local agencies pay for these projects, the State makes some funding available through what is commonly referred to as the Grade Separation Program. As part of the process of determining which grade separation projects will receive funding from the Grade Separation Program, state law requires the Commission to establish a list by Julys of each year prioritizing each eligible project nominated by local agencies. Further, state law gives the California Transportation Commission (CTC) the responsibility for allocating the annual Grade Separation Program appropriation of $15 million to the projects included on the Commission's priority list. CTC has delegated this responsibility to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Although the Commission's priority list of grade separation projects for the past several years has contained more than So projects, Caltrans has been unable to allocate all the Grade Separation Program funds because local agencies often have not taken the additional steps necessary to apply for the funds once their projects are included on the Commission's priority list: Part of the reason for this failure to apply for funds is that the cost of grade separation projects has increased more than tenfold over the past 3o years, while the funds available from the Grade Separation Program have remained unchanged., Specifically, based on data provided by the Commission, we found that the average cost of a grade separation project has increased from $2.5 million in 1974 to a current average of just more than $26 million. However, the annual funding of Us million available for the Grade Separation Program has not changed since 1974- Local agencies say they are experiencing difficulties securing the funding necessary to pay for their share of grade separation projects. As a result, some are not nominating new projects to be included on the Commission's California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Audit Highlights... Our review of the Grade Separation Program found that: n Although the average cost of grade separation pmject has from S2.5mdlion in 1974 to a current average of just more than $26 mNion, the annual funding of $15 million available for the Grade Separation Program has not changed since 1974. » Loral agencies say they are experiencing difficulties securing the funding necessary to poy for their share of grade separation projects; thus, some are not nominating new projects to be induded on the Public DtilitiesCommissiont (Commission) priority list and many are applying for funds forthe projects already on the priority list. » Areport prepamd by the Commission in March 2007showed that $165 million is needed to provide funding for the same number of grade separation projects that $15 million provided in 1974. . Additional funding will be available for grade separation projects from a bond measure approved by California voters in November2006, whirr will provide a one-time amount of $250 million to impraremihoad crossing safety. a The California Department of Transportation does not always comply with state regulations whenallocating supplemental hinds to projects for which the final costs exceed the preliminary cost estimates. 1 2 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 priority list. Furthermore, many are not proceeding with projects that are already on the priority list, so they are not applying for funds for the projects. A report prepared by the Commission in March zoo7 showed that $165 million is needed to provide funding for the same number of grade separation projects that $15 million provided for in 1974. Although the report identified a need to increase the funding for the Grade Separation Program, according to a deputy director, the Commission has not performed an analysis to identify where it could obtain additional funding. The Grade Separation Program currently is funded through the State Highway Account, which also funds other transportation programs. Consequently, increasing the funding for this program would redirect funds from other transportation programs and projects unless another funding source is identified. Some of this additional funding will be available from a bond measure approved by California voters in November 2oo6, which will provide a one-time amount of $25o million to improve railroad crossing safety. The bond measure makes $iso million of these funds available for allocation under the process established for the Grade Separation Program. In addition to the funds made available from the bond measure, the State Transportation Improvement Program can provide funding to local agencies for various transportation projects including grade separation projects. When applying for an allocation from the Grade Separation Program, local agencies generally submit a preliminary cost estimate —a rough estimate based on such things as the scope of work to be performed, data from previous projects, and experience —to Caltrans. They are reluctant to spend the money needed to develop a more accurate estimate of a project's costs until they receive an allocation. As a result, the final costs of eight of the nine grade separation projects we reviewed exceeded the preliminary cost estimates local agencies submitted to Caltrans in their applications by amounts ranging from $1.5 million to $19.6 million. However, when we compared the final costs for seven of these projects to the preconstruction estimates (two cost . estimates were not available), the cost overruns were much less, between $So,000 and $3.7 million. The preconstruction estimate is an estimate of a project's cost based on the final design, using current construction and material costs. Finally, we found that Caltrans does not always comply with state regulations when allocating supplemental funds to projects for which the final costs exceed the preliminary cost estimates. For example, four of the six applications we reviewed did not include one or more of the required certifications, and two were missing a statement explaining in detail why the original allocation California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 was insufficient. Additionally, Caltrans' current regulations are inconsistent with statutes; thus, applicants may not be aware of changes in law and may either choose not to submit an application or submit inconsistent applications. Recommendations In light of local agencies' limited participation in the Grade Separation Program, the Legislature should reconsider its intent for the program and the extent to which it wishes to continue assisting local agencies with their grade separation projects. Among possible courses of action, the Legislature could: • Discontinue the program after the proceeds from the bond measure approved in November 2006 have been allocated and require local agencies to compete with a broader range of projects for funding available to them through other programs such as the State Transportation Improvement Program. • Continue the program and increase the annual budget of $is million and allocation limits per project because it desires to continue providing a specific source of funding focused on grade separation projects. To ensure that it administers the Grade Separation Program in compliance with state regulations, Caltrans should follow state regulations when making supplemental allocations. Further, to be consistent with statute, it should seek to revise current regulations to conform to recent amendments to statute. Agency Comments Caltrans agrees with our recommendation and will take steps to address it. 3 4 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Introduction Background Data from the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) show that there are more than 7,70o at -grade crossings in California. An at -grade crossing is an intersection of railway tracks and a roadway at the same elevation, or grade, and often is referred to as a railway crossing. According to data from the Federal Railroad Administration, 167 accidents occurred near at -grade crossings throughout California during 2006. One method used to address this hazard is to eliminate dangerous at -grade crossings by separating the railway and roadway so they no longer intersect. As Figurer shows, grade separation involves having the railway or roadway pass over the other, typically by building a bridge structure. According to data provided by the Commission, there are currently more than 2,30o grade -separated crossings in California. Figure 1 A Grade Separation Involves Placing Railroad Tracks and a Road on Separate Levels Source: Illustrations prepared by the Bureau of State Audits based on the definition of grade separation. 5 6 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Grade separation projects involving local roadways are the responsibility of the local agency that has jurisdiction over the roadway. The average cost of these projects is $26 million, according to the Commission, based on a current list of high -priority grade separation projects. To help local agencies pay for these projects, the State makes some funding available through what is commonly referred to as the Grade Separation Program. Specifically; the California Streets and Highways Code, Section z9o, requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to include $zs million annually in its budget for this program. State law also requires that local agencies secure at least to percent of the cost of the project from the affected railroad companies in order to receive funds from the Grade Separation Program. The railroad company's contribution can be less if the local agency obtains federal funds to assist in paying for a project. Although state law makes the funds for the Grade Separation Program available without regard to fiscal year, the Budget Act generally limits the availability of these funds to three fiscal years. If Caltrans does not allocate all funds to local agencies within three years, the funds revert to the State Highway Account (highway account) —the original source of funding for this program —and are no longer available for allocation. Commission's Role The Commission receives nominations for grade separation projects from local agencies and prioritizes them for possible funding. Local agencies, which include cities, counties, separation -of -grade districts, and public entities providing rail passenger transportation services nominate crossings in need of grade separation or existing grade separations that requirealteration or reconstruction. The Commission reviews the nominated projects to ensure that they are eligible for the Grade Separation Program. According to the Commission, projects exclusively involving light rail or pedestrian grade separation are not eligible for the program because state law defines 'railroad -ma railroad. corporation, and "grade separation" as a structure that separates vehicular roadway from :railroad tracks. law requires the Cormniasibn to establish a list by Icily z of each year,pr oritizing each eligible project nominated by local agencies. As Figure 2 shows; the Commission uses a two-year process to establish the priority list. Specifically, it spends a year, developing the priority list (Fiscal Year i in the figure). it then issues the new'priority list by July z, the beginning of the next fiscal year. It uses the priority list for that fiscal year (Fiscal Year a in the figure) and then, at the end of the year, revises the list by deleting the projects to which funds were allocated during theyear. It then uses the revised list California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 for the following fiscal year, at the same time that it is going through the process of developing a completely new list. In other words, the Commission uses the same priority list for two years, revising it at the beginning of the second year to eliminate projects that already have been funded. During the second year, the Commission begins the year -long process of creating a new list, which takes effect in the following year. Figure 2 The Commission Uses a Two -Year Process to Establish Priority Lists of Grade Separation Projects i July i The Commission I sends nomination packages to local agencies. E IJune Caltrans notifies the Commission regarding ivhick projects are allocated funds.` October Due date for local agencies to send I project nominations to the Commission. March The Commission holds hearings before an administrative law judge. Two-year process This cycle repeats itself every two fiscal years. April Due date for local agencies on the priority list developed in the previous year to send applications for funding to Caltrans. April Due date for focal agencies on priority fist developed in the previous year to send applications for funding to Caltrans. June The Commission issues the priority -fist by July t for use in the fiscal year beginning on that date: Source: Information provided by the Commission. - . Upon notification by Caltrans of which projects are allocated funds, the Commission removes - them front the previous Est and issues a new priority list by July 1 for the following fiscal year. In developing the list, the Commission requires local agencies to submit a nomination package for grade separation projects by October After reviewing all nomination packages, the Commission prioritizes projects that involve either the construction of a new grade separation or the alteration of an existing grade separation. It uses two formulas it developed through public hearings and with input from local agencies and Caltrans. These formulas take into account various . factors, including vehicular and train volumes, accident history, and the amountof funding requested by the local agency. Projects may include alteration or reconstruction of existing grade separations, construction of new grade separations to eliminate existing or. proposed grade crossings, or removal or relocation of highways or railroad tracks to eliminate existing grade crossings. 8 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 After it initially prioritizes the nominated projects, the Commission holds formal public hearings at which local agencies can provide testimonyconcerning their nominations. After the Commission staff revises the priority list based on the results of the hearing, the administrative law judge approves it and the Commission issues the new priority list to be used during the next two fiscal years. Caltrans' Role Caltrans allocates the Grade Separation Program funds to projects on the Commission's priority list. State law gives the California Transportation Commission (CTC) the responsibility of allocating the annual Grade Separation Program appropriation of Sas million to the projects included on the Commission's priority list. CTC has delegated this responsibility to Caltrans: When local agencies are ready to begin construction on a project included on the Commission's priority list, state regulations require them to submit an application to Caltrans_ The application must include satisfactory evidence that the Commission approved the project for construction, that sufficient local funds will be made available as the project progresses, that all necessary agreements with affected railroad companies have been executed, that all required environmental impact reports were. approved, and that all other prerequisites to the awarding of the construction contract can be accomplished within two years after the allocation. Depending on the type of project, state law limits allocations from the Grade Separation Program to either 5o percent or 8o percent of a project's estimated cost and imposes maximum allowable contributions of $5 million, $15 million, or $ao million. Projects involving the construction of grade separations at locations where there were previously no at -grade crossings and those involving the elimination of at -grade crossings that have been in existence for fewer than io years, are eligible to receive allocations no greater than so percent of the estimated costs. This limit increases to 8o percent for all other projects In addition to these limits, under state law each grade separation project generally can receive no more than $5 million. However, Caltrans can allocate more than $5 million to eligible projects under certain circumstances. For example, grade separation projects that have the highest priority are eligible for as much as $15 million. Projects that alleviate traffic and safety problems or that provide improved rail services can receive as much as $io million regardless of their ranking on the priority list. Caltrans cannot allocate more than half of the Grade Separation Program funds available in a given fiscal year to these types of projects, however, and they must Califomia State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007' be funded over two to five years at a rate not greater than $5 million per year. Lastly, if the final cost of projects exceed the preliminary cost estimates the local agencies provided to Caltrans as part of their application for Grade Separation Program funds, state law allows Caltrans to augment the projects proportionately with supplemental allocations. Funding Source for the Grade Separation Program The Grade Separation Program is funded primarily from the highway account, for which the principal sources of funds are excise taxes on motor vehicle fuels, commercial vehicle weight fees, and federal highway trust funds. State law requires the highway account to provide funding for the administration of Caltrans; the State Highway Operations and Protection Program; and local assistance programs, such as the Grade Separation Program, required by state or federal laws. Any amount remaining in the highway account after funding the required programs is available for capital improvement projects under the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). However, according to CTC, the STIP has not received funds from the highway account since wog. Finally, state law requires that the highway account be reimbursed for $5 million of the $rs million funding it provides the Grade Separation Program. It receives this reimbursement from motor vehicle fuel license taxes and use fuel taxes that otherwise would be distributed to cities and counties. Recently Approved Bond Measure California voters recently approved the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2oo6 (Bond Act), which provides $25o million to improve railroad crossing safety. The Bond Act makes these funds available to. Caltrans, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the completion of high -priority grade separation and railroad crossing safety improvements. Of the $25o million in Bond Act funds, $iso million are available for allocation using the process established for the Grade Separation Program_ Other states have taken similar measures to provide funding for grade separation projects. For example, Ohio's Grade Separation Program is a io-year, $aoamillion program to fund 3o projects that were selected using criteria such as safety, train frequency, traffic volume, and project costs. 9 10 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Scope and Methodology The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) requested that the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) perform an audit of the funding and approval process required for state and local transportation agencies for grade separation projects. Specifically, the audit committee asked the bureau to assess the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies involved in the funding and approval of grade separation projects to determine if any duplication of effort or program exists. Further, the audit committee requested that the bureau determine whether the Grade Separation Program is being administered and operated in accordance with the appropriate statutes and regulations, and that it identify any obstacles that state and local agencies face in meeting the program's legislative goals. We also were asked to identify the funding sources for the Grade Separation Program and to determine whether the program uses the sources available and whether funding levels are reasonable and consistent with other comparable programs. The audit committee asked that we identify any changesin statutes that would improve the program's administration or any alternative funding mechanisms that could facilitate meeting its legislative goals. In addition, we were asked to determine which local agencies have received state funding for grade separation projects and, to the extent possible, to review estimated and actual costs for the projects. We also were asked to review a sample of these projects to determine the reasons for any cost overruns, the efforts local agencies made in planning and funding the projects, best practices available to local agencies to improve projections and control costs, and whether all local agencies face similar issues with projecting and controlling costs. To identify the roles and responsibilities of the various entities involved, we reviewed the laws and regulations related to the Grade Separation Program and interviewed appropriate state agency personneL We also reviewed the policies and procedures of the state agencies involved to determine if there was a duplication of effort. We have described the roles of the two major state agencies —the Commission and Caltrans—responsible for administering the Grade Separation Program. We did not identify any areas of duplication. We also discussed with staff at both the Commission and Caltrans whether administration of the Grade Separation' Program should be the responsibility of one agency rather than shared by both. According to Commission staff, the Commission is legally responsible for regulating activities involving railroad crossings in California, and thus it believes that it should be responsible for prioritizing the railroad grade separation projects. The Commission also indicated that, because Caltrans can be the lead agency for a project that requests an allocation from the Grade California State Auditor Report 2007-106. September 2007 Separation Program, it would not be appropriate for Caltrans to determine a project's priority_ Additionally, the chief of Caltrans' Office of Rail Equipment. and Track Construction indicated that the process for developing the priority list and the process for administering the allocations are very distinct, with little or no overlap, as provided for in statute. Thus, the chief did not see any significant advantages or disadvantages of having either one agency or two agencies administer the Grade Separation Program. Further, we identified similar state and federal programs and reviewed their requirements to determine if the Grade Separation Program duplicated these other programs. To determine if the state agencies involved in administering the Grade Separation Program complied with the program's legal requirements, we compared their policies and procedures to the legal requirements. We also tested a sample of is projects on the Commission's priority list for fiscal years zooa—os to zoo6—o7 to determine whether the Commission appropriately followed state laws, regulations, and its own policies when calculating the priority for these projects. We found that the Commission appropriately calculated the priorities for the projects we tested. Further, we analyzed the Commission's formulas for establishing a projects priority. We found that in zoos the Commission modified the formulas after conducting workshops with interested parties. We also selected a sample of three applications for new projects and six supplemental applications that were approved or rejected by Caltrans to determine whether the reasons for such approvals and rejections were in accordance with the laws and regulations. We found that Caltrans complied with the laws and regulations in approving or rejecting applications for new projects. To determine the obstacles that state agencies face in meeting program goals, we compared the number of projects included on the Commission's priority list during fiscal years zooz—o3 to ' zoo6—o7 to the number of projects awarded allocations during the same time. We reviewed Caltrans' accounting records to determine whether it allocated all available Grade Separation Program funds. We also interviewed appropriate personnel at the Commission and Caltrans to determine what obstacles they face in administering the Grade Separation Program and in meeting program goals. To identify local agencies' efforts in planning and funding projects and the obstacles they face in seeking and obtaining approval and funding for the Grade Separation Program, we surveyed a sample of 75 local agencies. Specifically, using data available from the Commission and Caltrans, we identified azz local agencies that were responsible for the more than io,000 at -grade and grade -separated crossings in California. We also identified 57 local agencies that nominated grade separation projects to the Commission 11 12 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 during fiscal years 2000-01 to zoo6-37 and we sent a survey to 48 of them. These 48 local agencies included nine that received an allocation from the Grade Separation Program and 12 that did not renominate a project in subsequent years. Finally, we selected 27 other local agencies to survey that did not nominate any projects during the seven years we reviewed. Of the 75 local agencies we surveyed, 57 responded. We analyzed the survey responses to determine whether all local agencies face similar obstacles in obtaining approval and funding for the Grade Separation Program. To determine whether the local agencies are completing the grade separation projects within budget, we reviewed Caltrans' records for the 17 projects completed as indicated by its accounting records for fiscal years 2000-01 through zoo6-o7 and identified those projects that had cost overruns. We selected nine of the 17 completed projects to further analyze their cost overruns, ensuring coverage throughout the State and a range of cost overruns. We then visited or contacted staff at each local agency responsible for these nine projects to obtain an understanding of the reasons for the cost overruns and, if available, reviewed supporting documents. We analyzed their responses to determine whether local agencies throughout the State face similar issues with projecting and controlling costs. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Audit Results Local Agencies Believe Allocations Are Not Sufficient to Allow Them to Take Advantage of the Grade Separation Program Once they have nominated a grade separation project to the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) and the project has been placed on the Commission's priority list, many local agencies we surveyed are not taking the additional steps to apply to the California Department of Transportation, (Caltrans) for funding under the Grade Separation Program. Many of these agencies indicated that they are not applying for this funding becausethey are having difficulty securing the funds to cover their portion of the costs of grade separation projects. We found that the portion of project costs that local agencies are expected to pay has increased dramatically over the past 3o years. According to data provided by the Commission, the average cost of a grade separation project increased from $2.5 million in 1974 to more than $26 million currently, while the annual budget of sis million for the Grade Separation Program has remained unchanged since 1974. A report prepared by the Commission showed that $165 million is needed to provide funding for the same number of grade separation projects as $is million provided in 1974. However, some local agencies have been able to secure funding from other sources to pay for their projects without using funds from the Grade Separation Program. A recently approved bond measure will provide additional funding for grade separation projects. Funding for the Grade Separation Program Has Not Kept Pace With Increased Construction Costs, So Some Local Agencies Choose Not to Nominate Potential Projects Although the average cost of a grade separation project has increased considerably, the budget for the Grade Separation Program has not changed since 1974. In 1971 an amendment to state law increased the annual Grade Separation Program budget from $5 million to sro million. Legislation that became operative in 1974 again increased the budget, this time to sis.million annually. This legislation also increased the amount of allocation a local agency was eligible to receive from no more than So percent to no more than 8o percent of the estimated costs of a project. At that time, according to our calculations based on Commission data, the average cost of a grade separation project was $2.5 rnillion. Since 1974, however, this average cost has increased by more than tenfold, to more than $26 million in fiscal .year 2oo6—c 7, while the budget for the Grade Separation Program has remained unchanged. 13 14 ( California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 This disparity between project costs and available funding has greatly increased the portion that local agencies are expected to pay for a grade separation project. As Figure 3 shows, local agencies currently must pay about 81 percent of the project costs, either by using their own funds or by finding other funding sources. In 1944 local agencies generally were expected to pay only about zo percent of the costs for a grade separation project receiving an allocation from the Grade Separation Program. In fact, a legislative committee's analysis of the 1974 legislation that ultimately increased the budget for the Grade Separation Program to $15 million and increased the allocation limit to 8o percent indicated that the bill's purpose was to reduce the cost to local agencies because many of them had been unable to meet their share of the cost at the previous levels. Figure 3 Local Agencies Currently Are Required to Provide a Greater Proportion of Funding for Grade Separation Projects Than in the Past $30 -Elfin Ponion of total cost that local agencies must hind 25 c 0 E 20 0 75 3 t a s a to d m N as 7 Q 1974 2096 now $26.3 million et% 19% Portion of total cast that the Grade Separation Program can fund Sources: Pub& UtintiesCornmissiwfs February 2005 report and its 2006 priority list and California Streett and Highways Code, Section 2454. _ Some local agencies we surveyed indicated that they do not even nominate projects to be considered for the Commission's priority list because they are unable to secure funds for their share of the costs. For example, an official with the city of Torrance estimates that one potential grade separation project the city would like to construct will cost roughly $25 million. According to the official, the city would have to secure $t7.5 million in other funding, provided it receives a $5 million allocation from the Grade Separation Program and the to percent railroad contribution. The city has been unable to secure the other funding, so it has not nominated the project to be considered for the Commission's priority list. We found that 18 of the 57 local agencies (32 percent) that responded to our survey did not nominate or renominate all their potential grade separation projects during the past seven years because they were unable to obtain the funding needed to pay for their portion of the costs. Of these 18local agencies, 13 also indicated that the $5 million limit per project was not a sufficient amount, considering the total cost of their projects. In March zoo? the Commission prepared a report showing that $165 million is needed to provide funding for the same number of grade separation projects that $ts million provided in 1974• Additionally, this report recommended that the maximum allocation for a single project be increased from $5 million to $25 million. This increase in the maximum amount allowed for each project would mean that local agencies would need to secure a smaller portion of the funding for grade separation projects. Of the 41 local agencies that responded to our survey and indicated that they were aware of the Grade Separation Program and had crossings in need of separation, 35 (or 85 percent) indicated that they would nominate more projects if funding for the Grade Separation Program and the limit on the allocation per project were increased. Although the report prepared by the Commission identified the need to increase the funding for the Grade Separation Program, according to a deputy director, the Commission has not done an analysis to identify a source of additional funding. As we stated in the Introduction, the funding for the Grade Separation Program currently comes from the State Highway Account (highway account), which also is required by law to provide funding for the administration of Caltrans, the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), the State. Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and local assistance programs required by state or federal laws. Therefore, increasing the funding for the Grade Separation Program would redirect funds from other transportation programs and projects unless another funding source were identified. In 1999 the Commission sponsored legislation to increase the Grade Separation Program's annual budget from $1.5 million to $6o million. At that time the Commission pointed out that funding for the Grade Separation Program had remained at $15 million since 1974 and that increases in the cost of land acquisition and project construction had resulted in allocations to fewer projects over time. The analysis of the bill indicated that an increase in the California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 in March 2007 the Commission prepared a report showing that S765 million is needed to provide funding for the same number of grade separation projects that vs million provided in 1974. 15 16 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Although the Commission's priority list has included so to 7o projects each year for the past five years, Caltrans has received applications from only to local agencies requesting funds for projects during that time. annual appropriation for the Grade Separation Program would reduce the funding available to local transportation agencies and the State through the STIP by the same amount. Ultimately, the legislation did not make it through the legislative process. Seven years later, in 2006, Assembly Bill 1785 again sought to increase the Grade Separation Program's annual budget, this time to $7o million. However, as with the earlier bill, the bill analysis indicated that the increase in the programs allocation would reduce funds available for other transportation programs and projects such as the SHOPP and the STIR This more recent bill also failed to make it through the legislative process. Ca/trans Has Received Few Applications for Funds Over the Past Five Years, and Some Grade Separation Program Funds Have Reverted to the Highway Account As we discussed in the Introduction, after the Commission includes a project on its priority list, the local agency must submit an application to Caltrans before it can receive funding from the Grade Separation Program. As shown in Table 1, although the Commission's priority list has included so to 7o projects each year for the past five years, according to Caltrans, it has received applications from only 10 local agencies requesting funds for their projects during that time. Caltrans has awarded allocations to eight of these 10 local agencies and two are pending consideration. We found that many local agencies did not apply for an allocation, even though some of their projects ranked higher on the Commission's priority list than the ones for which agencies applied and received allocations. Specifically, projects that ranked as low as 25, 40, and 60 on the priority list have applied for and received Grade Separation Program funds. In fact, only one of the eight projects for which Caltrans awarded an allocation during the last five years was among the top 10 projects on the priority list. Additionally, we found that zo of the 57 local agencies that responded to our survey had nominated a project for inclusion on the priority list during the last seven years but did not take the additional step of submitting an application to Caltrans for program funding. As Table on page 18 shows, to of these 20 local agencies indicated they could not raise the local funds needed for their portion of the project, and four of these 10 also noted that they could not reach an agreement with the railroad company to contribute to the project as required. Further, four of the to, as well as six others, indicated that they did not apply because they did not believe the project would be funded, given their projects' low priority on the Commission's list. Califomia State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Table 1 Very Few Local Agencies Applied for a Grade Separation Program Allocation During the Last Five Years FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 NUMBER OF PROJECTS ON THE PRIORITY LIST NUMBER of NEW APPLICATIONS CALTRANS RECEIVED NUMBER OF NEW ALLOCATIONS AWARDED NUMBER CIE NUMBER OF SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATIONS ALLOCATIONS CALTRANS RECEIVED AWARDED Sources: Data from Public Utilities Commission and Caltrans: * Caltrans initially rejected all five applications submitted in fiscal year 2005-06 in general because they contained deficiencies related to railroadamrements. According to Caltrans, three of the local agencies requested additional time to resolve the deficiencies and did so.The remaining two local agencies resubmitted their applications in fiscal year 2006-07. t This numberreflects two new applications submitted by focal: agencies in fiscal year 2006-07, but does not include the two applications that local agencies resubmitted after Caltrans rejected - them in fiscal year 2005-06.These two applications are already included in the count for that fiscal year. - 4 Caltrans awarded allocations to five of the seven local agencies that applied during fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07: The remaining two are pending consideration. Because so few local agencies applied for funding during the last five years, Caltrans' records show that all local agencies that applied for funding, in fact, were awarded funding or are pending consideration, regardless of their ranking on the Commission's priority list. However, even though Caltrans awarded funding to all that applied, it has been unable to allocate the entire $15 million budgeted annually because it has received so few applications since fiscal year 2oo2—o3. As we stated in the introduction, the California Streets and Highways Code, Section i9o, makes these funds available without regard to fiscal year, but the Budget Act generally Iimits the availability of these funds to three fiscal years. Thus, approximately $5.7 million has reverted to the highway account since fiscal year 2002-03. Further, as of July zoo? Caltrans still had approximately $9.3 million that it had not yet allocated to projects. If it is unable to allocate $4.3 million of these funds to eligible projects by June 3o, 2oo8, and $5 million by June 3o, zoo9, these funds also will revert to the highway account. 17 18 Califomia State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Table 2 Local Agencies Identified Two Main Reasons for Not Applying to Caltrans for an Allocation DID NOT BELIEVE TNT PROTECT WOULD COULD NOT REACNAN AGREEMENT BE FUNDED BECAUSE IT RECEIVED A VERY wUNtur RAILROAD COMPANY TO LOW PRIORITY OHM COMMISSION'S DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE OF CONTRIBUTE 10 MOUNT OF THE LOCAL AGENCY PRIORITY LIST COMPARED TO OMENS LAC% OF LOCAL FUNDS PROEMS COST AS REQUIRED OTHER' City of Delano City of Elk Grove City of Encinitas City of Los Angeles City of Merced City of Newark City of Palmdale City of Redding City of Riverside City of San Mateo City of Santa Fe Springs City of South San Francisco City of Stockton City of Vista Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District Los Angeles County San Bernardino County San Joaquin County San Mateo County Transportation Authorityt Tehama County Totals 10 10 6 Sources: Survey responses from 571ocal agencies. . Dther reasons local agencies cited for nominating a project for the priority Fist but not ultimately applying to Caltrans for an allocation induded the following: they were not aware of the need to submit an application to Cahans after nominating the project to the Commission, the agreement with the railroad had not been initiated, or they were not ready to apply for furldfng because the project was still 61 an early phase or was taking longer than expected to develop. t We originally sent the survey to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. However, the survey was completed and returned by the Peniniula Corridor Joint Powers Board These two entities operate as part of the San Mateo County Transit.Dishict and share the responsibilities for grade separation projects. Some Local Agencies Are Not Aware of the Grade Separation Program, and Some Have Received Adequate Funds From Other Sources Of the 571ocal agencies that responded to our survey, io told us that they were not aware of the Grade Separation Program. Two of these to local agencies noted that they have a need for grade separation. However, we found that the Commission appears to appropriately inform local agencies of the existence of the Grade Separation Program. According to the Commission, as part of its process for establishing the priority list, it mails nomination request letters to all parties on its mailing list. The mailing list includes local agencies that have nominated a project previously, as well as all other public agencies known to have crossings under their jurisdiction. The mailing list also includes railroad corporations operating in California, light -rail transit agencies, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties. The Commission also publishes the letter on its Web site. Although these 10 local agencies indicated that they were unaware of the Grade Separation Program, we found that all to are included on the Commission's mailing list. We also found that some local agencies constructed grade separation projects without using Grade Separation Program funds. State law requires that the Commission approve any railroad crossing construction. According to the Commission, during fiscal years 2oos—o6 and 2o06-07 it approved 18 projects that were eligible for the Grade Separation Program. According to the Commission, of these 18 projects, only five were nominated to be included on the priority list for the Grade Separation Program. Further, eight of the 57 local agencies responding to our survey indicated that they had completed a grade separation project without Grade Separation Program funds. A project for one of these eight local agencies was not eligible for the Grade Separation Program because it involved grade separation for pedestrians only. Further, two of the eight agencies incorrectly believed their projects were ineligible because they were building a new grade -separated crossing where no at -grade crossing existed previously. Additional Sources ofFunds Are Available for Local Grade Separation Projects' Although the Grade Separation Program's annual budget has not increased since 1074, other sources can provide funds for grade separation projects. In November 2oo6 California's voters approved the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2oo6 (Bond Act), which provides $aso million to improve railroad crossing safety. Of the $25o million, the Bond Act makes $15o million available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for allocation under the process established for the Grade Separation California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Eight of the 57local agencies responding to our survey indicated that they had completed a grade separation project without Grade Separation Program funds. 19 120 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Provided that local agencies are able to secure their half of the funding, the stso million in Bond Act proceeds available for allocation under the process established for the Grade Separation Program could help fund the eight highest -ranked projects on the Commission's fiscal year 2006-07 priority list: Program. However, high -priority projects funded by the Bond Act can qualify to receive so percent of the total cost of a project, without the limits established under the Grade Separation Program. Even with an allocation of so percent of the project cost, some local agencies might be unable to secure the remaining funding. For example, one local agency, with a project estimated at $136 million, would have to secure $68 million in other funds. Nevertheless, provided that local agencies are able to secure the remaining so percent of the project cost from other sources, the $15o million could help fund the eight highest -ranked projects on the Commission's fiscal year 2oo6—o7 priority list, which total about $3oo million. The remaining 62 projects on the priority list have a total cost of more than $1.5 billion. The Bond Act authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in consultation with Caltrans, the High -Speed Rail Authority, and the Commission, to allocate the remaining $too million to high -priority railroad crossing improvements, including grade separation projects. CTC and Caltrans say they have not developed guidelines to determine how to fund projects under this part of the Bond Act. The fiscal year 2oo7—o8 budget includes $123 million of the $25o million to carry out the purposes of the Bond Act, with the remainder to be appropriated in subsequent years. According to CTC, approximately $75 million of the budget is for projects that are part of the process for the Grade Separation Program, and the remaining amount is to be allocated in consultation with Caltrans, the High -Speed Rail Authority, and the Commission. The Commission and CTC indicated they will use the priority list already in place when allocating the $75 million budgeted for fiscal year 2oo7—o8. In addition to the Bond Act, the STIP can provide funding to local . agencies for grade separation projects. The STIP is a multiyear capital improvement program consisting of transportation projects, including grade separation, projects, adopted by the CTC. According to Caltrans, CTC has allocated $24 million from the STIP for a grade. separation project for fiscal year 2oo6—o7 and will be allocating an additional $87 million for four other local grade separation projects. . To nominate projects for inclusion in the STIP, local agencies must work through their designated authority, such as a regional transportation planning agency, a county transportation commission,_ or a metropolitan planning organization, as appropriate. However, the designated authority ultimately decides which projects to ` submit to the CTC for possible funding. The CTC then conducts public hearings before selecting the projects to be funded under this program. The STIP provides funding for many different types of projects, so grade separation projects compete with other projects for funding. Therefore, some local agencies stated that they have been unsuccessful in obtaining the STIP funding for their grade separation projects. The Final Costs of Grade Separation Projects Often Exceeded the Preliminary Cost Estimates State regulations require local agencies to provide a project cost estimate (preliminary cost estimate) as part of the application they submit to Caltrans when applying for funding. We compared the preliminary cost estimates submitted by local agencies to the final costs for nine of the 17 grade separation projects that received final payments from Caltrans between fiscal years a000—oi and 2o06-07. As Table 3 on the following page shows, the final costs differed dramatically from the preliminary cost estimates for eight of the nine projects we reviewed, exceeding them by amounts ranging from $1.5 million to $19.6 million. However, when we compared the final costs for seven of these projects to the precorlstruction cost estimates (one local agency was unable to provide these cost estimates for two projects), the cost overruns were much less, between $78,000 and $3.7 million. These overruns typically were due to unexpected conditions on the construction site, such as the discovery of objects that had been buried in the roadway along time ago and needed to be moved. When we: discussed the reasons for the significant differences between the preliminary cost estimates and the final costs, most local agencies explained that the preliminary cost estimate is simply a rough estimate based on such things as the scope of work to be performed, data from previous projects, and experience. For example, one local agency told us that the preliminary cost estimate it prepared in 1995 and submitted to the Commission and to Caltrans was based on designs completed during the 196os and updated using construction cost data from the 199os. The local agencies also told us that the preconstruction cost estimate they prepare at a later date is much more accurate because they derive it from the projects final designs, using current construction and material costs. They indicated that it is easier to estimate costs that are otherwise hard to predict, such as right-of-way acquisition, after they have actual project designs. When we asked why they do not base the preliminary cost estimate on project designs, several local agencies indicated they are reluctant to spend the money needed to develop the project designs until they know they will receive Grade Separation Program funding and they do not invest in a design until funds are secured. In fact, 30 of the 571ocal agencies that responded to our survey indicated that they had nominated a project for inclusion on the Commission's priority list since fiscal California State Auditor Report 2007-106. September 2007 When we asked why they do not base the preliminary cost estimate' on project designs, several local' agencies indicated theyare reluctant to spend the money needed to develop the moject designs until they know they will receive Grade Separation Program funding. 21 22 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 year 2000-01. Of these 30 local agencies, 20 noted that they had submitted rough cost estimates based on the scope of work to be performed rather than on actual designs for the project. Table Final Costs Generally Far Exceeded the Preliminary Estimates, but Preconstruction Cost Estimates Were More Accurate DATE OF DATEOF PRELIMINARY PREUMINART PRECONSTRUCTION PRECONSTROCTON LOCAL AGENCY COST ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE COST ESTMATE City of Hayward* City of Ontariot City of Riverside* City of Stockton§ Fresno Countyll Fresno Countyll _... Los Angeles County# Los Angeles County# San Joaquin County" FINAL COST DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRELIMINARY COSTESTIMATE AND FINAL COST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRECONSTRUCDON COST ESTIMATE AND FINAL COST Source: Grade separation project records obtained from Cahrans and local agencies - - - - - * The agency explained that cost overruns arose because of the delay between the time the project was nominated and the time it was completed, that it encountered unexpected conditions on construction site, and that it had to irrvestfunds in a detour it rfid not expect to have to build t The agency explained that the preliminary and preconstruction cost estimates are significantly different because of design changes and increases in construction costs occurring during the period separating the two estimates * The agency explained that it submits the preliminary cost estimate to the Commission in order to be on the priority list as soon as possible, and that construction cost overruns are typical - 4 The agency explained that the project was urban and therefore right-of-way issues were hard to estimate until a final detailed design was completed and that an increase in material costs escalated prices. II Although the agency was unable to locate the entire preconstruction cost estimate, it provided an estimate for the most significant portion of the project%costs—the contraction costs. For the first project the preconstruction cost estimate dated April 1996 was 54,975,000, while the construction cost component of the final costs was $4,358,000:Shus, for this project the construction cost component of the fmal costs was actually less than the preconsuuction cost estimate by $617,000. For the second project, the premnstruclion cost estimate dated June 2002 was $4,744,000, while the consuuction cost component of the finial costs was $5,139,000.1hus, the construction cost component de* final costs exceeded the preconstruction cost estimate by $395,000. # The agency explained that the most expensive project encountered much greater rightofwayand utility relocation costs than expected, and that the other project experienced costly construction -related delays and received construction bids higher than had been estimated. ** The agency explained that because the project was rural, it was easier to estimate its cost accurately compared to urban projects, which typically have larger overruns because ofiightof-way acquisition - - Further, two local agencies we contacted also indicated that the preliminary cost estimates can differ significantly from the final costs because of the delay between the nomination of a project for inclusion on the Commission's priority list and the project's final completion. During this lengthy time period, there are usually design changes and increases in construction costs, which often exceed provisions built into preliminary cost estimates to allow for inflation as well as unforeseen expenses encountered during construction. As shown in Table 3, the time between the preliminary cost estimate and project completion ranged from 2.5 years to 13 years for the nine projects we reviewed. Caltrans Does Not Always Follow Regulations When Allocating Supplemental Funds, and Some Regulations Are Inconsistent With Statutes State law allows Caltrans to award supplemental funds to local agencies if a project's final cost exceeds the preliminary cost estimates the local agency provided to Caltrans. Local agencies provide the preliminary cost estimates as part of their application for Grade Separation Program funds. The Commission informs the local agencies of the requirements for requesting supplemental allocations when it invites them to nominate grade separation projects to be included on its priority list. We reviewed all six projects that received supplemental funds from Caltrans between fiscal years 2oo3-04 and 2oo6—a7 to determine if Caltrans followed the requirements of state law and regulations when approving the requests for these supplemental funds. We found that Caltrans did not always follow state regulations when it awarded the supplemental allocations. State regulations governing the Grade Separation Program specify the content of applications for supplemental allocations. For example, these regulations require that a local agency's governing body must certify that the project was completed, that railroad companies paid the share required by state law, and that the final cost has been determined and is set forth in the supplemental application. Further, the regulations also require local agencies to include in the application statements that explain in detail. . why the original allocation was insufficient and a final accounting of the project's cost. However, four of the six applications we. reviewed did not include one or more of the required certifications.. In addition, two of the six applications were missing a statement explaining in detail why the original allocation was insufficient. Finally, for two of the six applications, the local agencies did not submit a final accounting of the project's cost until after Caltrans awarded them the supplemental allocations. However, although California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 State regulations governing the Grade Separation Program specify the content of applications for supplemental allocations, including various local agency certifications. However, four of the six applications we reviewed did not indude one or more of the required certifications. 23 24 I California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Caltrans did not have the final costs for these two projects, it ultimately allocated the appropriate amounts to the local agencies as prescribed by state law. The chief of Caltrans' Office of Rail Equipment and Track Construction noted that his office was not aware of the regulations for supplemental allocations. However, he stated that, because of the lack of new applications, the noncompliance with regulations did not prevent otherwise eligible projects from being funded through the Grade Separation Program. Although we agree that, because of the low number of applications received, Caltrans' noncompliance with regulations for supplemental allocations did not prevent other eligible local agencies from receiving Grade Separation Program funds, we believe it is important to administer the Grade Separation Program in compliance with state regulations. Lastly, state regulations governing the Grade Separation Program specify the required application process and content of applications for the allocation of funds for grade separation projects. However, certain state regulations are inconsistent with statute because of recent amendments to statutes governing the Grade Separation Program. In zoos the Legislature amended the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 2456, to allow local agencies two years to accomplish all matters prerequisite to the awarding of the construction contract. Current state regulations do not reflect this change and allow local agencies only one year. Additionally, the Legislature amended the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 2454, in 2006 to authorize CTC to allocate up to $is million to the highest -priority grade separation project on the priority list established by the Commission. However, current state regulations limit an allocation for a single project to ss million. When regulations do not conform to statutory law, applicants may not be aware of changes in law and may either choose not to submit an application or submit inconsistent applications. Recommendations In light of local agencies` limited participation in the Grade Separation Program, the Legislature should reconsider its intent for the program and consider the extent to which it wishes to continue assisting local agencies with their grade separation projects. Among possible courses of action, the Legislature could: • Discontinue the program after the proceeds from the bond measure approved in November 2006 have been allocated and require local agencies to compete with a broader range of projects for funding available to them through other programs such as the STIP. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September2007 • Continue the program and increase the annual budget of $15 million and allocation limits per project because it desires to continue providing a specific source of funding focused on grade separation projects. To ensure that it administers the Grade Separation Program in compliance with state regulations, Caltrans should follow state regulations when making supplemental allocations. Further, to be consistent with statute, it should seek to revise current regulations to conform to recent amendments to statute. We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of the report. Respectfully submitted, E i ' )66, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor Date: September 13, 2oo7 Staff: Denise L. Vose, CPA, Audit Principal Kris D. Patel Simon laud, Ph.D. Erik Stokes, MBA 25 26 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 (Agency response provided as text only.) Business, Transportation and Housing Agency 980 9th Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, CA 95814-2719 September 4, 2007 Elaine M. Howie, State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: Attached is a response from the Department of Transportation (Department) to your draft audit report, Grade Separation Program: An Unchanged Program Budget and Project Allocation Levels Established More Than Thirty Years Ago May Discourage Local Agencies From Taking Advantage of the Program (#2007-106). Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the report. We appreciate and agree with your conclusion that the limited financing available from the Grade Separation Program is a major obstacle to the participation of local agencies. As for the recommendation that the Department adhere to State regulations when making supplemental allocations, we are pleased that the Department has already developed a check list to verify that requests for supplemental allocations include all required documents. Furthermore, the Department is currently revising regulations to conform with recent amendments to statute: More specifics are provided in the attached Department response. If you need additional information regarding this response, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Michael Tritz, Deputy Secretary for Audits and Performance Improvement at the Business,Transportation and Housing Agency, at (916) 324 7517. Sincerely, (Signed by: M. M. Berte for) DALE E. BONNER Secretary Attachment 27 28 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Department of Transportation Office of the Director 1120 N Street P. O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 August 30, 2007 Dale E. Bonner, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency 980 9th Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Bonner: I am pleased to provide our five-day response to the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) draft report entitled, "Grade Separation Program: An Unchanged Program Budget and Project Allocation Levels Established More Than Thirty Years Ago May Discourage Local Agencies From Taking Advantage of the Program" At the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the BSA conducted an audit of the funding and approval process required for State and local transportation agencies for grade separation projects. The BSA concluded that funding for the Grade Separation Program has not kept pace with the increased cost of construction, causing some local agencies not to nominate potential projects. The average cost of a grade separation project has increased considerably and the budget for the Grade Separation Program has not changed since 1974.The BSA also found that the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) did not always follow regulations when allocating supplemental funds and that some regulations are inconsistent with statutes. The BSA is recommending that the Legislature reconsider the intent of the program and the extent to which it wishes to continue assisting local agencies with their grade separation projects The BSA is offering the following specific recommendation for Caltrans: "To ensure that it administers the Grade Separation Program in with state regulations, Caltrans should follow state regulations when making supplemental allocations. Further, to be consistent with statute, it should seek to revise current regulations to conform to recent amendments to statute" Caltrans Response: Caltrans has developed a check list to verify that requests for supplemental allocations include all of the documentation required by the California Code of Regulations. In addition, Caltrans is in the process of revising the current regulations to conform to recent changes in statute. Caltrans anticipates that the regulation amendments will be scheduled in the Office of Administrative Law 2008 Rulemaking Calendar with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published prior to June 2008. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 Dale E. Bonner August 30, 2007 Page 2 Ca!trans appreciates the opportunity to provide a response to the draft report. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact Steve Cates, Chief, Office of Rail Equipment and Track . Construction, at (916) 654-6920, or Gerald Long, External Audit Coordinator, at (916) 323-7122. Sincerely, (Signed by: Will Kempton) WILL KEMPTON Director 29 30 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 cc: Members of the Legislature Office of the Lieutenant Governor Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy Department of Finance Attorney General State Controller State Treasurer Legislative Analyst Senate Office of Research California Research Bureau Capitol Press