Loading...
02 February 1, 2013 Annual workshopTIME/DATE: LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission WORKSHOP AGENDA 1:30 p.m. I Thursday, January 31, 2013 1 0:00 a.m. I Friday, February 1 , 2013 SANTA ROSA B AND C EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA &-COMMISSIONERS tll6 Chair -Karen Spiegel Vice Chair -Marion Ashley Second Vice Chair -Daryl Busch Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts I Deborah Franklin, City of Banning Roger Berg I Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck I To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic I Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton I To Be Appointed, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis I Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez I Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel I Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Scott Matas I Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush I Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith I Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson I Ty Peabody, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller I Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson I Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee I To Be Appointed, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Tom Owings I Marcelo Co, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs I Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna I Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik I To Be Appointed, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat I Ste.ve Pougnet, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch I AI Landers, City of Perris Ted Weill I Scott Hines City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams I Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Basem Muallem, Governor's Appointee RECORDS Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET JANUARY 31, 2013 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS -=FJA-n n 1 Y\Q I.( f>:V'! AI ' J fff~ I {0 ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 31, 2013 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of CathedraJCity City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Welts · City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno VaHey City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of RaflCho.,Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent LJ % LJ LJ D LJ D LJ D fZ( D LJ D LJ D LJ D LJ D LJ ~ D LJ D J8 D LJ D LJ D LJ D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET FEBRUARY 1, 2013 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS I<LJA~A. ~/20-A CkJ~ ~aA _._~~ #~ ~ __ !Z\u.--c77 t:t:~- ~v~a_.~t:fe!u ""~.// (2~ £o .6Cf-JL~," A 5 JJ h 6 -6~1/M c;v-J. ,/A ./JI (~A y ( !.,_~~ ·f/ln ~ 1 ../ / !-.~--'i . . ~~.J~u__.____., ...__ /I ...._...(__.,{__A_. ' tJ~J·\ L;~y</iff t-vrt_~p~///l 13~ R vs-'-~i J./ ~vi-jl; o/{ u:> 'R_rr;L h/ h~ <) HC/IL).,f~ & I ·; "- t--A 2Aw ~/c.-/ ;J • c/)---Z..'~"'A-Ho AJ ( ko.RJ:-.e.l5 ----;&;rzc: vL4 r~ IJA t1 L,' isL L~h (//0L-t// trV 70 /Ill 0/AJt" N t,. ~ M ..u. n..a V 1'1 .1 /1. I i-A-IJ(.. rt. '-1 ~s M1-t11. ~-~~tiT I /<'MVI~ .J F~H_I f-5 II k't v C'C;; ;¢!'£: ~\ _.k:j Q tl\ u .Y L C_,IIA ' .1/ {1~j-f} 6 (J-=~, 1 v v '-(~ -c; cTl( fl/l~AJ-5. l ·-~( ~--1-k~--5?.c..--: <: -~}-J 1-~N\K ~ 1:::(; M I )+~1-__}::(_-+- b -/t1/41 J.lu~n vf"t-Oo~vk/1~. I Ut>~AoJ.)AJ Ha..,-,JOI""'\ I111 e:l 1 ""Yl \tv ~J Lr -n¥ G ~ jV\,\lu-rN~'\IC."! _, ' . j I Pr-....Jr-...) " hEZ/r 4/J A pJ f?, drR -~~; £2 1:-,.-- 5u;l/ f1 ill~ StttV s~CJ~h f2r2..1::_-lo ~Trl~ ~114& cx<AL (!_(fl./ '-' I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda JANUARY 31 AND FEBRUARY 1, 2013 EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza La Quinta, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board 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 :30 p.m. - 1 :40 p.m. 1:40 p.m. -2:05 p.m. 2:05 p.m. -3:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. -3:15 p.m. 3:15 p.m. -4:15 p.m. 4:15p.m.-4:30p.m. 1:30 P.M. THURSDAY, JANUARY 31,2013 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Karen Spiegel, Chair and Anne Mayer, Executive Director SELF-HELP COUNTIES COALITION Keith Dunn, Executive Director of the Self-Help Counties Coalition TRANSPORTATION GAPS STATE FUNDING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND REGIONAL TRANSORTATION PLAN Mitchell Weiss, Deputy Director of the California Transportation Commission BREAK CLOSING THE REVENUE GAP -POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS Anne Mayer, Executive Director BREAK Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 31 and February 1, 20 1 3 4:30p.m. -5:30 p.m~ 5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. 6:30p.m. 6:30 p.m. -7:30 p.m. 7:30p.m. INTERSTATE 15 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCOPE CHANGE Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director This item is for the Commission to: 1) Establish the new scope of the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project {1-15 CIP) to include two Tolled Express Lanes in each direction from approximately State Route 60 to Cajalco Road; 2) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment with HDR, Inc. for environmental and preliminary engineering services consistent with the 1-15 CIP scope change and bring back to the Commission for future consideration; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to amend existing cooperative agreements and execute new cooperative agreements with Caltrans con~istent with the 1-15 CIP scope change for the . current and future project development phases of work. BREAK DINNER UPDATE ON FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS Kathy Ruffalo, Federal Legislative Advocate Mark Watts, State Legislative Advocate This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report and provide comments and possible action. ADJOURNMENT The workshop will continue at 9:00 a.m., Friday, February 1, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 31 and February 1, 2013 9:00A.M. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2013 9:00 a.m. -9:55 a.m. COMMISSION MEETING (Separate Agenda) 10:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. RCTC 101 -COMMISSION OVERVIEW John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 10:30 a.m. -10:45 a.m. BREAK 10:45 a.m. -Noon Noon-12:30 p.m. 12:30 p.m. DELIVERY PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND UPCOMING PROJECTS Anne Mayer, Executive Director WORKING LUNCH -LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S TOLL PROGRAM Stephanie Wiggins, Executive Officer of the Metro Congestion Reduction Demonstration Initiative WORKSHOP CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURNMENT Karen Spiegel, Chair z 0 M -n "' 0 V) N -... > ~ ~ !z ~ c- ::l 0 ~ 0 u ~ u z ...., ~Q -~ ~~ wo::: >o -c. 0:::"' z <C 0::: 1- I li t '>"") r;, If r ... average hide gets of gas, and you pay q.as E II ••• ' • • road) c: ·-ta I t c: ·- "c: I ,. I ,. - $7 Maintenance Needs are Growing Estimated! :Highway Repair Needs f'n BilJionsJ 6 :Legislative Analyst's Office I Feb. 28, 2011 5 --------·------4 +----·---·········· 3 Shortfall 2 1 0 A State of Neglect CALIFORNIA • Pavement: )-58% of California roadways require rehabilitation or pavement maintenance • Bridges: )-20% require major maintenance or preventative work )-6% require complete replacement 40 Million Residents by 2020 • VMT is growing 10 times faster than lane miles -Governor's 2006 Strategic Growth Plan • Truck freight is expected to increase 75 percent by 2035 -Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 ~.!' (\ '),.#~ ~ ~r:s '),<§> The Transportation Cliff looms (f.,~ '),<§S (:) '),#~ ~ ....... r;:,o$( ~ ~v -1!"' '),t;;)~ ~ .:;:> '),~"V ·~ ~\?!. ~~">} "): !ry~ t;;'), ~~ I! State bo,"'d funds j · Fede-a fund:;, II SHA and PTA m Prop 42 f\.• c: 0 ·-tlO GJ 0:: RTP Components • Incorporates county transportation commissions' long-range transportation plans • Major programs and projects as well as maintenance and the cost of operations • Financial plan-documents fiscal constraint • Performance analysis-transportation conformity, environmental justice, and economic impact analysis • Sustainable Communities Strategy-new for 2012 RTP • Constrained plan, strategic plan, and unfunded projects What is an RTP • Federal RTP requirements: ~ Forecasts 20-year transportation system plan ~ Reasonably available revenues • Must meet federal transportation conformity standards ~ Addresses ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide • Complies with new California AB 32 & SB 375 requirements ~ Addresses greenhouse gas emissions RTP Findings • The system at a glance: ~ 21,690 miles of highways and arterials ~ 470 miles of passenger rail ~ 446 million miles driven each day ~ Rail riders have grown by 45 percent since 2000, yet 34 percent of the region's jobs depend on goods movement creating major rail conflicts ~ 3 million hours are wasted each year in traffic A Funding Paradox • In spite of growing needs: ~ State and federal gas taxes have not changed in 20 years ... yet Highway construction costs have grown by 82 percent over the same period ~ Rail operating costs have increased by 40 percent over the last decade ... while Transit operators have been forced to cut service by 20 percent • Add to this, increased environmental and safety requirements that drive costs even higher Reality vs. Projections • The RTP includes $524.7 billion in projects between 2011 and 2035 ... yet • "Core Revenues" which assume no new revenue sources, only totals: $305.3 billion ... so Where does the other $219.4 billion come from? The Reality • Not every project in the RTP will come to reality • Many of the revenue ideas are either: >-Politically unpalatable >-Overly optimistic >-Will require a major change in state or federal policy >-Fail to have a local nexus between funding source and need Vet, massive needs will remain and Riverside County is no exception ... Funding the Gap in the RTP ; ... 1:2~· billio'h · ··. · Unfunded Riverside County Projects • Here is a partial list of improvements that aren't fully funded in the next 20 years: ~Significant improvements in Banning Pass Area ~Widening of State Route 60 ~State Route 79 Realignment ~Any expansion of Metrolink service to additional locations ~Grade Separations ~Additional needs? Quality of Life • Along with projects, there are related needs ... ~Additional acquisition of MSHCP habitat ~Active Transportation Improvements ~Community-based transit Improvements ~ Emissions reductions through technology and cleaner fuels The State of the State • New supermajorities in Sacramento will be busy • Some ideas are already on the table in California ~ Reinstate higher VLF and dedicate to transportation ~ Increase and index the gasoline excise tax ~ VMT fee levy on vehicle registrations ~ Use of cap and trade revenue for transportation ~Additional utilization of privatization and tolling ~ Lessening the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes What Should We Do? • RCTC must remain engaged in funding discussions • An ad hoc committee would be helpful for input • We are already a tolling agency • Lowering the two-thirds threshold has strong support in many areas of the state • The state's priority will be on maintenance and preservation leaving locals to fund new capacity • Consideration of what can be funded with a new measure does not equal an endorsement, but it ensures we are prepared The Cost of Inaction • Inland unemployment rates remain higher than in coastal areas • Every $1 billion in transportation investment creates 18,000 jobs • The RTP estimates that every dollar of investment generates a return of $2.90 to the economy • RCTC should lead any discussion of transportation funding strategies to ensure that others do not set priorities for us •• bO c: ...., ·-V) -c ra c: LL. c: 0 ·-V) :::J Q) LL. 1.. V) ·-E E Q) c: .s:::: 0 0 3: V)um ·- V) 't-1 ...., ·-c: 0 CV 0 N ra 0 s ·-+J ... _n:s'~-~ ...., z _+Jm cv 0 > 1.. -5 0.. '- +J V) n:s ·-c: ::::s ~ n:s c: .=~ 0 bO n:s ·-c: c. c: '-~ V) ·-c: 0 ~ ·- ra -n:s u 1.. 1- ao c: ·--c c: ::l '+- c: 0 ·-..., nJ f'.• ~ E 0 0 c.~-­ U)'+- c: QJ ~ E ..., 0 U) u QJ 0 -c QJ 1.. QJ .J: s m Funding wasn't always quite so complicated 71l"A>l£PO~TATioN TA~ <tJO.ID 1.10Hll1 VRIICI.~ RJEL fUNO (lurrwul.., .,.,... • .,..,fh· ) (~OVf r.;ot 'H~ t.Jntfo-rm ) fHl£l1 .. L AlD ljQ ,:EIMetiRSEMftll ~ ~~~ (0-lw:..O • .,...th· ,...,,.,._.,.,n\1 I -t..IJf~si••..,·' ~ 111\ 11\<>fiDr>) / ~ !1\ F£DU!AL ~tO PROJECTS (IMI•'d .. CO. rAS c, l;.;;.! TOPIC$) t 30 io 4~!1\i ,., month ( CO!-ITRII!UTI0>-1$, FOR CDOR -.:, INTE~£~T $. MISC. 1 (flow '"'"'<4""" •I'Orodil:· iw<[V .... 11 unl<ta """•••lly tlpet~al U>ntNbllt~ iM~t~~J G •. ,.. on l\ or MOTOR Yal. FUtiO c:tw; ..... , 1111 111\ c=ti" ~ .. r···· r~ I I --=.. · p,•ff1~-_j Fe~ 1/<IN .... 7 to+t~ I! --\ MCJ.I Rclcg•c ~ •10 lc •voM tJOW · r·tot2Al MP P~<Jttro Q.d.Ou Cil9 fi Co•nfy w"i fi.ncrlCtd ihrou;h tht Sh»c: tli,hw~':! Fuf!d .) 1:1' ~~. ~ ..... ~"' lnitru-t to.. IIJI\ !11 STATE HWY. FUND CASH FlOW <A<O.C"""'"-------_ ..... -.. -_ M----~-=-· -... -.. -~~-....... ----:~lf ;it:~~c 4 Transportation Funding User fee proxies: • State & Federal fuel excise taxes • Commercial vehicle registration (truck weight fees) • Sales taxes on diesel • Impact and mitigation fees Broad based: • General sales taxes • General fund Direct user fees: • Tolls and fares 5 • • • E OJ -...Q 0 ~ c. OJ _c I- Insufficient funding-State Highways Rehabilitation (SHOPP): • $8.28 annual need • $28 annual funding Capacity enhancement (STIP): • $600-700M/year • $120M= average cost CMIA/Rt. 99 project 7 ,......, "" =: Q ..... s = fA ...._, ~ = -~ > $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 Squeezing the SHOPP Pavement, Bridge, Roadside, Mobility, and Facilities Loss of Buying Power ~ ........ • • • • .~ • • 9 • $0.0 7~~~ ~ ~ $0.5 ·~··-Ma]Or'oama9e R.estoratiorl",~· coTiislon Reduction, and Mandates ~,...ro ~t\. ~~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~OJ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~"" _(\{0' ~~ ~~ ~v ftrv ':\"-'0 r::,~ "' ~"OJ ~...._q; -.-Estimated Available SHA Revenue _._Loss of buying Power ---Financially-Constrained Cost of Major Damage Restoration, Collision Reduction and Mandates 8 Insufficient funding-Local Roads 80% of CA roads Maintenance & Rehabilitation: • $63.68 funding. backlog • $3.18/year to maintain pavement at existing condition • More than twice the current funding • $708 needed over ten years 9 Insufficient funding-Transit National fleet exceeds recommended service life: • 20% of buses • 40% of rolling stock Stations (national): • 50% substandard condition or worse 10 ...., ·-U) c: ta 1- 1- I bD c: ·--c c: +-' u :J ta '+-c. ...., E c: ·-V) Q) ta ·-V) (!) u ClJ ·-V) V) ClJ :I ta +-' V) ClJ :s :s :J ~ u 0 u U) c ClJ .J: c: ·-u c: ·--ClJ > ClJ '-~ ClJ ta ClJ ~ u. V) (!) MAP-21 • Program consolidation • Performance goals • Freight policy • Expanded National Highway System • Accelerate project delivery • Excise taxes extended Page 12 ------------------------------------What MAP-21 doesn't do: • Provide funding certainty • 27 mo. funding from 10 years of savings • Excise taxes only thru Sept. 30, 2016 • Hold harmless 13 Federal Highway Trust Fund Highway Account Receipts1 Outlays1 and Balances, 1998 to 2022 (Billions of nominal dollars) 60 c 40 c ..... ~ ......;,..~""· Olllays /-'dual : ~:>-.";~,..~ Receipts and <?eneral Fund Transfers ............. .. 0 ' .... .... -20 .... . .. ..... -40 L : End-of-Year • ...... Balances "'•.,.., .... .... .... ... .... -60 ,, .... ... .... .... -80-' --~----~--~--~--~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~ 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Source: Congressiona I Budget Office. Notes: Assumptions are based on CBO's March 2012 baseline projections, updated for MAP-21 enactment, and 2012 Actual results. Cf\O's baseline is calculated by increasing the obligatinn limits set for c:urrent year by a measure of projected inflation and by assuming extension of the current tax on fuels and on heavy vehicles. The Highway Trust Fund cannot incur negative balances. Negative balances are illustrative of the cumulative deficit that would be incurred~ t~~~~~~~y .Account under cso:~ base.line scenario. 14 (J) c: 0 V') n:s C) c: 0 )( ~ (J) V') ·-u )( w (J) +-' n:s +-' V) "'C c: n:s n:s '- (J) "'C (J) LL (J) ..t: +-' c: (J) V') n:s (J) '-u c: 0.. 3.?' Vl X ro ...... Vl ro tlO 0 ~ 0 N U") 0 X ro ..... ClJ Vl ·;::; X ClJ ro .... ClJ "0 ClJ LL. llll X ro ..... ClJ Vl ·;::; X ClJ ClJ ..... ro ..... Vl Mill owz 600Z: 800Z: LOOZ -------·IIIIJ&Bt''S:',','71:!e'!fzc!" 1 :',JJ;;h\':i1i:'ii%aJ-900Z: :tawr+:k~:wc:;rrawj 500Z: llllllliiRIIIIIIRIIIII.IRIIIIIIRIIIIIIRIIIIIIRIIIII ... IIll!1!1c~-Ficf~U'Itlwj;JIIll!1!1%:tJi&W-Jff~l'.·.;c.,>.:j 1700Z: EOOZ: .-.............. ~~ .N~P~•··~~t~M'<"i•~~~.zooz: M 0 N 0 i ···q ·.:,·.:g ::4~1"W6T8':lliKWidwi&i/ •llllllllllllllllllllllllliBimllliW1mTh'%7:W!.@¥mF.itff\:&>,:;::-.... . : i>.~ffN;:;t4M$,;4~,:~~Z1) t- rl 0 0 woz oooz 6661 8661 L661 9661 5661 17661 £661 Z:661 1661 0661 6861 8861 L861 9861 5861 17861 £861 Z:861 1861 0861 6L61 8L61 LL61 9L61 5L61 17L61 EL61 ZL61 1L61 OL61 M N • M ~ -(/).. (J) -1-J (J) Vl M 0 u Vl ro {.9 ·-!...... ..c +J !...... 0 z ~ (j) (j) M OJ Vl ro ..c u """0 OJ OJ c.. Vl s 0 -Vl c 0 Vl c.. E ·-V) • ......, • 0 00 .-I c C)) ro rl tlO ·-!..... !..... Q) ~ > u c ro z ro > ·-!..... c 0 ~ ~ u CJ) ro CJ) +-J +-J n ro V) Q) tlO c ro !..... !..... ro tlO c ·--c !..... ro I Consumer prices 1994 v. 2011 1994 Movie ticket $4.09 New car $12,350 Bread, white, lb $0.76 Milk, whole, gal $2.48 Coffee, ground, lb $3.40 Gas $1.21 Excise tax on gas $0.36 2011 Movie ticket $8.20 New car $29,602 Bread, white, lb $1.42 Milk, whole, gal $3.48 Coffee, ground, lb $5.61 Gas $3.09 {2010) Excise tax on gas $0.36 * *Excluding gas tax swap. 20 Gasoline Excise Tax as a Percentage of the Price Per Gallon $4.QQ "T"'''"'""""--·---·-------------------····--···-··--··------~~---------------" $3.50 +-----··-·-------·----------·-·------····----······---····----·--~---·----·------·--------------····-············--------------··········---····""""'-""''"'''"""'~---·--············ .............................. -~---.-·······------··· $3.00 ------------------.-~----· ---·-----1---.+--.J---$2.50 $2.00 ~--------~·----·-----------------·----------.......................................... --............................. --............. .._ ________________ ................. -...................... _,_ .............. -----1'··----------·-------------------·-------$1.50 $1.00 $0.50 -Gasoline Price Yearly Average Total excise tax ~,,,,.;.w••' 17% (Including gas tax swap.) *' j:>.'m'G~G"'0t'!?!<IBI:flfBr<'i<c,i'~"""~~::::,'ll..fll' ~2~ .;f' ~ > c~J))l:':j% ~l'>i~~>M8'--i>N>~'»'""''>»W.-,::r/..:r$7~/ $0.00 ·t--r--·. r-r-r---r-· ··.,--,--,--,--r·-r··;--,-, ··.,.--,--,------r----·1 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 21 "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. "\Jl. .!""' .!""' ...... ,!-' ...... N ""' ()"\ 00 0 N '.p. ()"\ Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f::J 0 0 0 0 f::J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "\Jl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 I n 1977-78 1979-80 0 1981-82 3 1983-84 1985-86 3 1987-88 ! ~ ............. m 1989-90 IU) -I 1991-92 . U) ....., AU1 ....., 1993-94 c n 1995-96 -· ! n OJ 1997-98 1 1999-00 " -2001-02 ~ < 2003-04 m 2005-06 2007-08 m ::r -· -· 2009-10 OQ n 2011-12 ::r -2013-14 \ m \ 2014-14-; ' t"""t 2015-15 " \ :::0 2016-16 i ,., 2017-17 \, I m m 2018-18 m OQ 'l\ (/) -· 2019-19 (/) 2020-20 ...._..... t"""t 2021-21 ....., 2022-22 I \ OJ 2023-23 I t"""t 2024-24 :1 \ -· 0 :J I z ., ~ I'D 0 ..... n; I'D ~ n ciQ" QJ :::> I'D Vl ..... ciQ" ..... ., :::> I'D ..... I'D ., Vl I'D N I'D N Vl Proposition 111 Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990 • Increased the excise tax on fuels: • SC on August 1, 1990 • 1C each January 1 from 1991 through 1994 • Increased commercial vehicle weight fees: • 40% on August 1, 1990 • 10% on January 1, 1995 23 t-1 t-1 t-1 c: 0 ·-..., ·-"' • • 0 QJ ~ ~ ::J 0\ c. M c:: I N 0 ll:::t 0 QJ 0\ 0\ • > 0\ I N '- ~ c.. QJ ~ 0\ a.n '-c: 0\ V) -c ·-~ QJ QJ ~ c: +-' +-' ·-0 m Ln co > N E 0\ ~ V) ·-"(/). "(/). ~ +-' • V) • LLI • • 0 CJ) CJ) M U") N 1.0 N 1990 World Wide Web Tile WorldWide Web (W3) is a wide-area hypermedia information retrieval initiative aiming to give universal access to a large universe of documents. Everything there is online about W3 is linked directly or indirectly to this document, including an executive summarv of the project, Mailing lists. Policy , November's W3 news , Frequently Aske:.d Questions . What's out there'! Pointers to the world's online infom1ation, subjects, W3 servers, etc. Help on the browser you are using Software Products A list ofW3 project components and their current state. (e.g. Line Mode .Xll Vjola, NeXTStep, Servers , Tools . Mail robot. Library) Technical Details of protocols, formats, program internals etc Bibliography Paper documentation on W3 and references. People A list of some people involved in the project. History A summary of the history of !he project. How can I help ? If you would like to support the web .. Gettin~ code Getting the code by anonymous FTP , etc. 27 ~- QJ '- QJ .J: E 0 '-~ 0 bO QJ 3: 0 -c QJ '- QJ .J: s 00 N A transportation funding system that: • Improves mobility • Appropriately prices mobility options • User pays • Allows consumer choice • Address statewide needs • Looks to regional priorities 29 How do we get there? • Who knows there is a problem? • What is the state's role? • Who should pay? • Who cares there is a problem? 30 Comparison of Vehicle Miles Traveled, Registered Autos, and Gasoline Consumption in California 35,000,000 -,----------------------------------------, ~ .. ~., 30,000,000 +-----------------------------~c__---------1 25,000,000 +-------'~------------------7'1'--------------------j 20,000,000 +---------"ou-------------;d"'---------------------."---------j 15,000,000 ~ 10,000,000 I ~ __ ....--~.,_ -K "" 1 5,000,000 ---1 0 +-~_,~,_~-,~~,_~_,~,_~_,~,-,-~_,,-,-~_,-,,-,-~-,,-,-~_,-,,-,-~ ~ ~ ro o N ~ ~ ro o N ~ ~ ro o N ~ ~ ro o N ~ ~ ro o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ro ro ro ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N ~VMT (10-Thousands) --11-Registered Autos ~Gas Gallons (Thousands) -•-Total Tax per Billion VMT (1996 dollars) 31 c ·- ().) -0 ~ V) --.. ().) ...._. ro ...._. V) ().) ..c ...._. ().) ..0 """0 -::J 0 ..c V) ...._. ro ..c $ C'-· ; c 0; ·-...._. ro ...._. ~ 0 c.. V) c ro ~ ...._. tlD c ·-"""0 c ::J '+- Eli: '¥ N ('Y') f\.• > ...., ·-'-ca ·--c Partnership ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"In areas where the local use of common resources has a broad regional, or even global, impact (such as in the generation of pollutants), higher levels of authority may have a natural mandate to supersede local authorit'i." 34 Partnership STATE-PROVIDED FUNDING FOR STATE AND lOCAL USE Numerous transportation fund sources 1.mder tr.e centro] of th•' Sratt> ar(• shm·ed with ltX'a] agen~ies. The following ple c:harts show the breakdown of reY~nue sharing for the major fund sources. Note: The charts below do not. mcludc S1.2 bJ!Lon ·for the Local Tran::>poration Fund ···a 1/; cent state sales tax a?portioned direetly to local ag•mcies for local transportation. Base Gasoline Excise Tax {$2.6 billion) State 64% Counties Cities 19% Price-Based Excise Tax ($1.6 billion after Debt Service) STIPState 11% Federal Highway Funding ($3,3 billion) State 50% Locals 40% Base Diesel Excise Tax ($330 million) State 56% State 56% Counties Diesel Sales Tax ($650 million) 22% Local (STA) 54% Federal Transit Funding ($1.2 billion) State How do we get there? • Increase the fuel excise tax • Use a portion for transit • More direct user fees: • VMT • Tolls • Congestion pricing • Make it easier to pass local sales taxes 36 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 31, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project Ad Hoc Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project Scope Change INTERSTATE 15 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Establish the new scope of the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (1-15 CIP) to include two tolled express lanes in each direction from approximately State Route 60 to Cajalco Road; 2) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment with HDR, Inc. for environmental and preliminary engineering services consistent with the 1-1 5 CIP scope change and bring back to the Commission for future consideration; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to amend existing cooperative agreements and execute new cooperative agreements with Caltrans consistent with the 1-15 CIP scope change for the current and future project development phases of work. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Early Development of the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project In 2002, Riverside County voters approved a 30-year extension of Measure A through 2039 including improvements to the 1-1 5 corridor. Specifically, the project commitment contained in the 2009-2039 Measure A extension is to add a lane in each direction on 1-15 from SR-60 to the San Diego County line. In the spring of 2006, the Commission assessed the feasibility of tolling four freeway corridors in Riverside County and concluded that portions of the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors were generally feasible from a financial, traffic operation, and engineering standpoint. Additional engineering, project scoping, and traffic and revenue study work were performed throughout 2006. An ambitious 1-15 project scope consistent with the significant traffic needs of the corridor was created as follows: Phase 1 : 1 5/91 interchange to Cajalco Road (south Corona) -two tolled express lanes each direction. Phase 2: San Bernardino County line to 15/91 interchange -two tolled express lanes each direction. Phase 3: Cajalco Road to SR-74-two tolled express lanes each direction. SR-74 to Bundy Canyon Road -one carpool lane each direction. Phase 4: Bundy Canyon Road to 1 5/21 5 interchange -one carpool lane each direction. This scope of work was proposed to meet the Measure A commitment to voters as well as to use tolling as a way to build more improvements and provide more congestion relief than would have otherwise been possible using Measure A funds and other more traditional state and federal freeway funding sources. Also in 2006, at the request of the Commission, staff completed a project study report (PSR) in conjunction with Caltrans to study the addition of one general purpose lane in each direction on the 1-1 5 corridor from the San Bernardino County line to SR-7 4. This general purpose lane was in addition to the tolled express lanes already being proposed. In December 2006, the Commission approved the 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway 1 0-Year Delivery Plan ( 1 0-Year Delivery Plan) to advance the development of the highest priority projects in the 30-year Measure A extension. The 1 0-Year Delivery Plan calls for the development of high occupancy toll lanes within the 1-1 5 corridor. The Commission's approval of the 1 0-Year Delivery Plan also authorized staff to begin environmental and preliminary engineering studies for projects within the plan including those for the 1-1 5 corridor. As part of the 1 0-Year Delivery Plan approval, the Commission also directed staff to include in the 1-15 project scope a general purpose lane in each direction from the San Bernardino County line to SR-74, approximately 31 miles. The Commission's direction to include general purpose lanes added significant costs to the project and reduced its financial feasibility; however it was decided that it added significant value and the 1-1 5 corridor improvements should replicate those on SR-91, which also called for both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes. In early 2008, the Commission advanced the project to the next project development step of preliminary engineering and environmental studies for 46 miles of the 1-15 corridor from SR-60 to 1-215 and named the project the 1-15 CIP. The Commission hired HDR, Inc. to perform environmental and preliminary engineering services for this 46-mile corridor. Tolling Authority After the 2006 Commission approval of the 1-15 CIP and its tolling element, staff worked to obtain the necessary tolling authority for Interstate 15. State Tolling Authority AB 1467 (Nunez, 2006) established a statewide pilot program for tolled express lanes by authorizing four projects in California, two in Northern California and two in Southern California. This Public Partnership pilot program required a comprehensive application, a finding of eligibility by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and ratification of the CTC's finding by the State Legislature via statute. In December 2007, the Commission submitted an application under the Public Partnership pilot program. At its April 2008 meeting, the CTC found the project eligible for the pilot program. Later that year AB 1954 (Jeffries, 2008) was signed into law, which ratified the CTC's April 2008 decision. The passage of AB 1954 provides the Commission the state authority to build and operate two tolled express lanes in each direction within the 1-15 corridor. Federal Tolling Authority In March 2008, the Commission submitted an expression of interest (EOI) to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the first step in obtaining federal tolling authority for 1-15. Based on the EOI, FHWA advised the Commission that the 1-15 CIP would best fit under FHWA's Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP). In July of 2008, the Commission submitted an application for federal tolling authority and in July 2009 entered into an agreement with FHWA making the 1-15 CIP part of the VPPP. This agreement provides the Commission the federal authority to build and operate two tolled express lanes in each direction within the 1-1 5 corridor. Economic Challenges and The Impact on the Commission's Toll Projects The Commission's 10-Year Delivery Plan was conceived and approved in 2006, a bullish economic time when the unemployment rate was at 4.6 percent in the county. Since that economic peak, state and federal funding for freeway transportation projects has generally been in decline for a variety of reasons and the recession that began around 2007 hastened that trend. For the Commission, local Measure A receipts dropped from $1 57.1 million in FY 2006/07 to $111.8 million in FY 2009/10, a 29 percent decrease in three years. Factors that directly impact the financial feasibility of tolling projects are many but the long-term demographic trends of job creation, number of households, and population are particularly significant. Each of these factors was negatively impacted by the recession in Riverside County and the Southern California region as a whole -both areas have impact to the financial results. The changes in these demographic factors negatively impacted the amount of projected toll revenues. The bond markets, including the toll revenue bond market, have changed since the economic peak of 2006/2007 as well. The financial crisis impacted the bond markets initially through a significant decrease in liquidity, a precipitous drop in the value of real estate, the default of a variety of mortgage-backed securities, and the subsequent failure of significant financial institutions. These failures heightened the sensitivity of bond buyers to credit risk. In the post-crisis environment, the Commission's proposed toll revenue bond financing structure, much lower rated than the Measure A sales tax bonds, incurs a higher interest cost relative to its sales tax debt. This additional cost ·consequently negatively impacts debt service coverage ratios and other financial results. As the 1 0-Year Delivery Plan was being developed, the Commission realized that the timely delivery of its projects would require an increase in the Measure A debt limit beyond the $500 million limit established in the original Measure A Ordinance approved by the voters in 2002. In addition, the impacts of the financial crisis Jed to a fundamental shift in the financial feasibility results of the Commission's two toll projects. The availability of Measure A funds became the key criterion/limiting factor that constrained both the scope of work for each project as well as the timing to complete each project. This shift further reinforced the need for a substantial increase in Measure A funds to fully fund the Commission's planned improvements, including the toll revenue based projects. The need for greater Measure A funds on an expedited basis drove the Commission to seek voter approval to raise the Commission's Measure A bonding limit in 2010 through Measure K. The impact of the approval was to counter the trend of lower Measure A receipts and the economic downturn. At the January 2010 annual workshop, the Commission adopted a re-prioritization strategy that bifurcated all of the 1 0-Year Delivery Plan projects between the Commission's highest priority projects and all the rest. Projects in the J-215 and SR-91 corridors, among others, were categorized as the highest priority and staff was directed to continue to develop these projects using Measure A and other funding sources. The 1-1 5 CIP was not placed in the highest pnonty category, making less Measure A dollars available for the 1-15 corridor in the first 1 0 years of the renewed measure and beyond. However, the Commission adopted the following 1-15 CIP recommendations at the 2010 annual workshop: • Complete the current work phase (preliminary engineering and environmental studies); • Assume a deferral of the next work phase (final design); • Re-evaluate the project work scope and financial plan; and • Staff to return later with an 1-1 5 update and recommendations. DISCUSSION: Since the Commission directed staff to re-evaluate the 1-15 CIP work scope and financial plan and return with recommendations, several activities have occurred: • An ad hoc committee, composed primarily of Commissioners representing cities along the 1-15 corridor, was created to discuss and provide input to the development of a new 1-1 5 Cl P scope of work and provide staff direction; the ad hoc committee met four times between November 2010 and September 2012; • Staff and its consultants performed additional engineering, traffic analysis, and project cost estimating and evaluated a variety of project scope alternatives; • Staff and its consultants performed new traffic and revenue studies with current demographic data for several project scope of work alternatives to better understand the long-term toll revenue impacts; and • Staff and its consultants performed new financial analysis based on several project scope of work alternatives, project capital and operations and maintenance costs, traffic and revenue estimates, and estimated available funding. Guiding Principles and Constraints Through this ongoing re-evaluation effort several guiding principles and practical constraints emerged further guided the 1-15 CIP development and the ultimate recommendation of the ad hoc committee and staff. • Minimize the use of Measure A funds in the short/mid-term. Other higher-priority projects are using the majority of short/mid-term Measure A funds; and Consistent with the re-prioritization at the 2010 annual workshop and the new economic reality facing the Commission's capital program. • Maximize the value of improvements by building in the portion of the 1-1 5 corridor with the greatest need for congestion relief. "Most bang for the buck" approach; Of the 46-mile corridor from SR-60 to 1-215, the 14-mile segment from SR-60 to Cajalco Road was determined to have the greatest congestion through traffic modeling and analysis work; and Construct primarily in the 1-1 5 median with a reduced project scope as opposed to a project requrnng outside lane widening and accompanying right of way acquisition costs and challenges. • Build off the investment being made on SR-91 by constructing tolled express lanes on 1-15, north and south of SR-91. As part of the SR-91 CIP, a direct tolled express lane connector is being constructed from the median of SR-91 to the median of 1-1 5 providing an express lane connection for north-to-west and east-to- south movements. • Complete construction by 2020 to provide some relief soonest. Completing the 1-15 CIP by 2020 is consistent with both the 1 0-Year Delivery Plan and the ad hoc committee's desire to improve the corridor in the short/mid-term timeframe; and Start 1-15 CIP construction in 2018 after the completion of SR-91 CIP construction. • Recognize, support, and advocate for other 1-15 corridor improvements constructed by other projects. SR-91 CIP by 2017 • Makes significant improvements to the 1 5/91 interchange and eliminates the chokepoint on the existing 1 5/91 connector; · • Constructs a new tolled express lane direct connector on 1 5/91 interchange; and • Constructs one tolled express lane each direction on 1-15 from SR-91 to Ontario Avenue. 1-215 South Segment (Scott Road to 1-15) 1-21 5 SB to 1-1 5 Connector widening gap closure Interchange improvements within the 1-15 corridor • Limonite Avenue, Cajalco Road, and French Valley Parkway • Construct tolled express lanes in an area where financially feasible. There are few locations in the County where tolling can be used to generate significant revenue to fund the construction of a project. • Tolling this portion of the 1-15 corridor allows the 1-15 CIP to be funded primarily by future tolls; and • Future surplus revenue (if any) to help fund other 1-15 projects. • Meet th e Measure A voter commitment . - - B a uild at least one lane in each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road; nd Measure A funds not spent on the 1-15 CIP can be allocated to future 15 corridor projects and/or other Commission programs and projects. 1- Project Scope Alternatives Project scope alternatives were created and analyzed that varied in number of f lanes (e.g. carpool, general purpose, tolled express), construction ates, location within the 1-15 corridor (SR-60 to 1-215), and other e alternatives were then narrowed to a shorter list for further detailed d the results were presented to the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee, hed: lanes, type o completion d factors. Thes evaluation an which is attac 1) 2) 3) Tolled • Tolled • • express lanes by 2020: Two tolled express lanes 1n each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road. express lanes by 2020, general purpose lanes by 2039: Two tolled express lanes 1n each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road; and One general purpose lane 1n each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road. Carpool lane by 2020: • One carpool lane in each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road . Alternatives were evaluated and compared based on several quantitative factors asure A funds required, number of new lanes constructed, traveler Measure A cost per minute saved, and other factors. including Me time savings, ALT ERNATIVES, PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES, AND TOTAL COST Toiled Expre ss Lanes by 20 20 Mea sur e A $166M TIFIA Lo an $124M Toll Rev. Bo nd $124M * Other = $1 M To tal = $415 M Toiled Express Lanes by 2020 + General Purpose (GP) Lane b 2039 Measure A $717 M TIFIA Loan = $121 M Toll Rev. Bond = $262 M *Other = $219 M Total = $1,319 M Carpool Lane by 2020 Measure A = $330 M TIFIA Loan = $0 M Toll Rev. Bond = $0 M *Other = $0 M Total = $330M * Other funds retained cash u purpose lane by include income during construction (both tolled express lanes alternatives) and sed for the future construction phase ("tolled express lanes by 2020 + general 2039" alternative only) ALTERNATES FACTOR 1-15 Alternative Lanes of Traffic Travel Time Measure A After 6 a.m. -9 a.m. NB Cost per Minute Saved Construction Cajalco Road to 6 a.m. -9 a.m. NB (lanes each SR-60 Year 2039 Cajalco Road to SR-60 direction) (minutes:seconds) No Project 3 38:22 GP lane n/a, baseline (3 existing) Toiled Express Lanes 5 $6.7 million by 2020 (3 existing + 13:30 Express Lanes Express Lanes 2 Toiled Express 31 :53 GP lane $25.6 million GP lane Lanes) Toiled Express Lanes 6 $28.8 million by 2020 + General (3 existing + 13:30 Express Lanes Express Lanes Pur-Pose ( GP) Lane 2 Express Lanes 26:51 GP lane· by 2039 + 1 GP lane) $62.3 million GP lane Carpool Lane by 4 13:30 Carpool lane $13.3 million 2020 (3 existing + Carpool lane 1 carpool lane) 33:05 GP lane $62.5 million GP lane • Total length of trip = 13.9 miles • Morning northbound (NB) peak period is 6 a.m. to 9 a.m . . Travel times for year 2039 Several qualitative factors were also used to compare these three alternatives as summarized below: FACTORS TOLLED TOLLED EXPRESS CARPOOL EXPRESS LANES 2020 + LANES LANES GENERAL PURPOSE 2020 2020 LANES 2039 Meets/exceeds Measure A commitment + + + Consistent with regional toll network + + Constructs future general purpose lanes + Perceived constituent preference + *Most financially feasible + *Initial construction by 2020 + Maximizes Measure A funds for other + Commission uses Maximizes surplus revenues/future 1-1 5 + projects *In order to complete construction by 2020, Measure A funds would be needed by 2017 as follows: TEL 2020 option= $166 million TEL 2020 + GP 2039 option= $717 million Carpool 2020 option= $330 million Alternative Meeting the Most Needs Staff identified the tolled express lanes by 2020 alternative as the alternative that would meet the most needs while maintaining financial constraints. The alternative is estimated to cost $415 million (2011) for development and construction and proposed to be funded as follows: $1 66 million $1 24 million $1 24 million $ 1 million $4 1 5 million Measure A (possibly offset by state/federal funds, e.g. CMAO) Toil revenue bonds (paid back by future toll revenue) Federal TIFIA loan (paid back by future toll revenue) Interest income during construction Total cost The estimated project development schedule, should the Commission adopt this alternative in early 2013, is as follows: Restart environmental studies and preliminary engineering Complete environmental studies and preliminary engineering Complete procurement for final design and construction Financial close (sell toll revenue bonds, fund TIFIA loan, etc.) Start construction Complete construction February 2013 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017 2018 2020 Particularly, the tolled express lanes by 2020 alternative from SR-60 to Cajalco Road offers the following benefits: • Adds capacity: largest fundable capacity increase in the short/mid-term. Increases lanes generally from three to five in each direction; and Reduces congestion in the 1-15 general purpose lanes. • Offers the best-value for the Measure A dollar among alternatives studied. Low Measure A cost: per lane-mile constructed and per minute saved; Focuses limited Measure A resources on the largest 1-1 5 problem; Exceeds Measure A commitment to voters; and Builds upon 91 Project improvements including tolled express lanes. • Provides new driver choices not currently available. Congestion-free travel on 1-1 5 for a fee (toll); and Carpooling for free (three or more persons constitutes a carpool). • Fastest path to construction. Less right-of-way needs due primarily to widening within the median; Less time for environmental permitting due to reduced project limits (32 mile reduction) and smaller impact due to median widening; and • Lower level National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act document expected = less time. Fundable project allows for completion of construction by 2020. • Consistent with the recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan. Consistent with multi-county tolled lane network (express lanes, high occupancy toll lanes). • Results in the most financially feasible alternative. Minimizes Measure A funding for the project; and Accesses alternative funding (tolls) and financing (toll revenue bonds and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan sources. • Provides enhanced public transit and carpooling opportunities. Aids existing and future regional express bus operations through the use of congestion-free tolled express lanes; and Constructs the first 1-15 lanes for carpoolers. • Produces revenue in future years. Future tolls pay for the majority of the initial construction through toll revenue bonds and a federal TIFIA loan; Future surplus revenue, if any, could fund future 1-1 5 freeway projects, 1-15 transit, and/or other 1-15 transportation purposes; and 50 years of estimated operations and maintenance expenses are paid by future tolls and factored into the overall financial feasibility. Therefore, based on the quantitative and qualitative factors identified, analyzed, and discussed, staff sought and the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee adopted the tolled express lanes by 2020 alternative at its September 2012 meeting. Staff and the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee are seeking to change the current scope of the 1-1 5 CIP to two tolled express lanes in each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests the Commission establish the new scope of the 1-15 CIP to include two tolled express lanes in each direction from approximately SR-60 to Cajalco Road. Further, staff requests the Commission to authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment with HDR, Inc. for environmental and preliminary engineering services consistent with the 1-15 CIP scope change and bring back to the Commission for future consideration. Lastly, staff requests the Commission authorize the Executive Director to amend existing cooperative agreements and execute new cooperative agreements with Caltrans consistent with the 1-15 CIP scope change for the current and future project development phases of work. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I N/A Year: I FY 2013/14 + Amount: I $415,000,000 Measure A, TIFIA loan, toll Source of Funds: revenue bonds, state and/or federal funds, other Budget Adjustment: N/A GL!Project Accounting No.: 003027 81 XXX 262 31 81 XXX Fiscal Procedures Approved: I Date: ='=======:!I 01/22/13 Attachment: 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee Presentation: /-15 Corridor Improvement Project, The Path Forward, April 12, 2012 ~ u Q) ·~ 0 ~ a.. -o m ~ ~ M c ro 0 Ln s Q) N M E ~ ' Q) 0 M ~ Q) u.. m ro > ..c > ~ 0 ......., ~ Vl ~ ro ro ~ c.. a.. Q) ::J ~ E OJ c c ..c ro -- I-~ ~ 0 -c ·-~ ~ 0 u ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• 1-15: Review Where We've Been • Recent Efforts -Ad hoc Committee -New Objectives and Constraints -Alternatives Studied • Proposed Change to the Project -Scope of Work: Project Limits and Lanes -Seeking Approval Today of Recommendation • Study tolled corridor potential (SR-91, SR-79, 1-15, Mid County Parkway) • 10-Year Delivery Plan (2006) • 1-15: construct two tolled express lanes+ one general purpose lane from SR-60 to SR-74 (by 2020) • Construct one carpool lane from SR-74 to 1-215 (by 2030} 1 MF 3MF 2 ' Express , (t, Lanes 2 --~ Express ! Lanes 1 3 MF ~ .......... """""' _______ ........._ 1 MF .-.# ......._ ~ ,.,.....~ ,.,.... ~~ ~a 'c:• ~ r.. --.:f~L~-~L2;;_r;•-, C' e , l• , ., s I! SR-60 to SR-74 :LEGEND: -~ Express Lanes -Widening Lanes (MF = Mixed Flow or General Purpose {GP} Lanes) 4 • Traffic and Revenues studies and financial model -Level 1 (preliminary) work completed 2007 • Environmental studies and preliminary engineering -Started 2008 • State tolling authority (2008) -AB 1467 (Nunez 2006): statewide HOT lane pilot program • CTC approved 1-15 project application • Legislature ratified CTC's approval via AB1954 {Jeffries 2008) • Federal tolling authority {2009) -Federal Value Pricing Pilot Program application -USDOT approved application and executed agreement 5 • Recession led to .... -29% reduction in Measure A revenue in three years • FY2007 to FY2010 -RevenueforFY2009-FY2019 • less than half of the 2006 forecast -Long-term reduction in growth rate of: • Job creation • Number of households • Population 6 • Impact to the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project -Significant traffic and revenue decline -Change in bond markets • Less appetite for credit risk by bond buyers • Toll revenue bonds impacted, increased interest costs -Substantial increase in Measure A funds • Required to make up for lower toll revenues -Measure A availability is the key criterion/limiting factor • Overall Measure A projected sales tax revenue down • Existing Measure A bond limit {$975 million via Measure K) • Less Measure A available for the 1-15 corridor in the first 10 years 7 • Commission's annual workshop-January 2010 -Updated status of entire 10-year Delivery Plan • Top tier priorities vs. next tier priorities -Re-cap of the adopted 1-15 recommendations ... • complete current work phase (preliminary engineering and environmental studies} • assume deferral of next work phase (final design} • re-evaluate project work scope and financial plan • return later with an 1-15 update 8 • Established the 1-15 ad hoc Committee -Provide input and direction • Additional engineering, traffic analysis -Created and evaluated a variety of project alternatives • New traffic and revenue studies -Updated demographic data, new revenue projections • Updated financial model -Results for several project alternatives 9 • Minimize the use of Measure A in the short/mid-term for the 1-15 corridor -re-prioritization at the 2010 annual workshop -new economic reality facing the Commission's capital program • Maximize the Value of Improvements -build first in the area of greatest need for congestion relief -I/ most bang for the buck" approach 10 • Build on the 91 Project Improvements -Extend congestion relief north and south of SR-91 -Tolled Express Lanes • Build Meaningful Improvements on 1-15 ASAP -Complete construction by 2020 • 10-Year Delivery Plan • Ad hoc Committee desire -Start 1-15 CIP construction after the 91 Project construction 11 • Recognize and Support other 1-15 Projects -SR-91 CIP by 2017 • 91/15 interchange improvements, chokepoint • New TEL connector at 91/15, new TEL on 1-15 -1-215 South Segment (Scott Road to 1-15) -1-215 SB to 1-15 Connector Widening Gap Closure -Interchange improvements in the 1-15 corridor • Limonite Avenue, Cajalco Road, and French Valley Parkway 12 • Construct TEL Where Financially Feasible -Generate revenue to pay 50 years of O&M costs -Generate revenue to pay for the majority of initial construction -Future surplus revenue (if any) will fund future 1-15 corridor improvements • Measure A Voter Commitment -Build at least one lane in each direction 13 • Factors -Congestion relief, number of additional lanes -Type of lanes: gen. purpose, carpool, express lane -Construction completion date -Measure A cost, toll revenue generated • Further narrowed to three alternatives -Further analysis -Presentation to the ad hoc Committee 14 Tolled Express Lanes 2020 1$1 I • Measure A • TIFIA Loan ? Toll Revenue Bond • Other NOTE: Tolled Express Lanes 2020 + GP 2039 p $219 1111 Measure A 1111 TIFIA Loan Toll Revenue Bond 1111 Other Carpool2020 • Measure A • TIFIA Loan I ·t ,,·, m i, j mill ' • Toll Revenue Bond • Other *Other funds include income during construction (both options) and retained cash used for the future construction phase ("Tolled Express Lanes 2020 + GP by 2039" option only) 15 xpress Lane's 2~~~'+raen. 5 (3 existing+ 2 Express Lanes) 6 (3J~t<isting + 2 Express , 'Lanss + 1 GP lane) 4 'sting+ 1 carpQol) , 13:30 ExpressLanes 31:53 GP lane <' ' ' 13:30 Express Lanes 26:51 GP lane < ' '. ~~ , 13:39"CarppgtJgne 33 :'0 Si::i.i\P;:I~~~i~ Express Lanes $25.6 million GP lane $28.8 million Express Lanes $62.3 million GP lane $13.3 million NOTES: 1) Total length of trip= 13.9 miles, 2) Morning northbound (NB) peak period is 6 a.m.-9 a.m., afternoon southbound (SB) peak period is 3 p.m. -7 p.m., 3) Travel times for year 2039 16 . ToHed Expresstanes (TEL) 2020 "[oiled Express Lanes (TEL}2020+ Gen. Pu'H;j~se ·2o39 carpool t~·ne~.2d2o · (3 existing+ 2 Express . Lanes) 6 (3 exist. + 2 Express. Lanes t lGP I an~) ·a: existing+ !carpool) 13:18 Express Lanes 54:34 GP lane 13:18 Express Lanes ..4:1:39:G,g.lane ' ', :. ' "',> .. <' ; ' ·, ' .. ·, ~ 13:18:Carpoollane 53:36 GP lane ·.· Express Lanes $45.3 million GP lane $16 million Express Lanes $43.2 million GP lane $7.3 million Carpool lane $71.2 million GP lane NOTES: 1) Total length of trip= 13.9 miles, 2) Morning northbound (NB) peak period is 6 a.m. -9:00a.m., afternoon southbound (SB) peak period is 3 p.m. - 7 p.m., 3) Travel times for year 2039 17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Meets/Exceeds Measure A commitment + + + +. Maximizes surplus revs./future 1-15 projects 1 + *In order to complete construction by 2020, Measure A funds would be needed by 2017 as follows: TEL 2020 option= $166 M TEL 2020 + GP 2039 option = $717 M Carpool 2020 option= $330 M + 18 • Develop Tolled Express Lanes by 2020 -Adds Capacity • Largest fundable capacity increase in the short-to-mid-term -Best-Value • Lowest Measure A cost per lane-mile built, per minute saved • Focuses limited Measure A resources on the largest 1-15 problem -New Driver Choices • Congestion-free travel on 1-15 for a fee {toll) • Carpooling for free {three or more persons= HOV3+ =carpool) -Fastest Path to Construction • Less right-of-way needs and environmental impact • Fundable project allows for construction completion by 2020 19 • Develop Tolled Express Lanes by 2020 (cont.) -Consistent with Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) • Part of growing Southern California tolled lane network -Most Financially Feasible Alternative • Minimizes Measure A use • Accesses alternative funding and financing sources -Provides for enhanced public transit and carpooling • Aids regional express bus, first carpool lanes on 1-15 -Generates revenue in future years • Future tolls to pay for the majority of the initial construction • Future tolls to pay for 50 years of operations and maintenance • Surplus revenue, if any, could fund additionall-15 transp. needs 20 "Establish the new scope of the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (1-15 CIP) to include two Tolled Express Lanes in each direction from approximately State Route 60 to Cajalco Road." Questions? 21 • • ~ (I) (I) > s.. 0 ::l ~ I ' (I) ::l ~u. ca (I) -'= C) I' c: ·-C) -c c: ·-·-~ ::l c: m ca 0 ·= t-U. 0 ~ Progress -the Key to the Future • Measure A stabilized and beginning to grow • Progress during the recession • Long-term funding still unpredictable • Key_ priority projects completed or underway • Entering most active period in RCTC history • What's next? Today's Agenda • Discuss current project progress • Review and reevaluate previous po·licy decisions and assumptions • Reaffirm current direction and consider future priorities <C w n:: ::l en <C w :E Measure A Funding • Western County Expenditure Plan funds: ~State Highways ~New Transportation Corridors ~Regional Arterials ~Local Streets and Roads ~Public Transit ~Economic Development Incentives ~Debt Financing Costs Measure A Funding • Coachella Valley Expenditure Plan funds: v"'State Highways and Major Regional Roads v"'Local Streets and Roads v"'Public Transit • Palo Verde Valley Expenditure Plan funds: v"' Local Streets and Roads 411-111M NNOM Ol 3AVH 3M oa 1VHM Estimated Annual Revenues {in millions) WC CV Total Measure A: Highways Bond financing Regional arterials Highways/arterials _ Subtotal $ 51.3 ::::::::=:======= State: STIP Federal: CMAQ STP Total 68.7 13.0 ··. · ;3·· 3"o···· ·.;:::···;~(. ~-;~. />j}'· '.· :>. """ >"' < 0:~0i;:+;>·' ·>~;,.,, ·.,.-?: Subs't~p:tially alt:wHf be requir~.e fotdebts"ervice {?009, 2010, ?Q~3,,~Qnd issue sf • · , Developing taH':f~;projects ·· Administered"by CYAGtsma:.ll portiort·used for debt service . . . . . · J Based on 10-year average; very unstable . }:·.~::~::;2~·~:i·. ~ ....... Basgd op Caltrans estimates .. $136.7 wz :I:<( 1-...J u..D.. 01- ~ffi Wet:: >0::: W::l 0:::0 Current Delivery Plan • Pursue construction: -Interstate 215 -State Route 91 -Interstate 15 -Bi-county Interstate 215 project • Pursue environmental clearance: -Mega projects: State Route 79 realignment and Mid County Parkway • Protect right-of-way for mega projects • Consider additional projects as opportunities arise Improvements • Completed new mixed flow lane in each direction from 1-15 to Scott Road (South) • Will start construction on new lane between Scott Road and Nuevo (Central) • Construct HOV lane in each direction from Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road (North) Improvements • Construct two HOT lanes and a general purpose lane to 1-15 • Construct EB auxiliary lane from OC Line to Serfas Club Drive • Build Connector Improvements & Collector Distributor (CD) System at SR-71 • Implement Connector Improvements and CD System at 1-15 Improvements • Commission approved action yesterday • Add 2 HOT lanes in each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco • Support French Valley Parkway • Coordinate with SANDAG regarding future improvements C'· w 3: w a! <C w a! w J: 3: 0 en Active Projects Completed • SR-60/Valley Way Interchange • 1-215/Ciinton Keith Road Interchange • 1-215/South Widening • 1-10/Bob Hope Interchange • 1-10/Palm Drive Interchange • 1-10/lndian Canyon Interchange • 74/215 Interchange Project • 91/Green River Interchange • 91/LaSierra Avenue Interchange Project • 91/Van Buren Blvd. Bridge and Interchange c ·-~ c 0 .2 ~ I , ·o· g I..· I.. c.. I, ~ tn > c ·-0 uo <( SR-91 CIP Design-Build • Don't stop/don't slow down ~Environmental approval completed!!! ~Continue right-of-way acquisition ~Finalize TIFIA loan ~Released RFP to bidders & received proposals ~Award contract ~Financial close ~Likely start of visible construction within the corridor: early 2014 Other Commitments Active Projects and Commitments ;Measure Funding Available $661 million Projects in the Queue 1-215 Widening -North • On hold -MCP Phase 1 can provide improvement SR-60 "Badlands" Truck Climbing Lanes • Project initiation complete Mid County Parkway • Environmental approval • Total project cost: $1.3 billion • Available TUMF and Measure A {2019/20) $170 million • Phase 1 on 215 from Nuevo to Van Buren State Route 79 Realignment • Environmental document status • Total project cost: $1.1 billion _,f l!!;,;o;l\'~.!J",~; ~~.;t.tOK fi'k.>;.~l,_~ r"'t ""'''''?'' "", t-1~~~ 1 <":J·f1!11ft r'r!f%:,n·'i"d: AJ~i~}':?l'~ -~ ~ ... ~~~~-C-~c~·~··-l:J~, .. • ¢"«~'M:~ .. d it>>'l:i:t'~ti;!lH~ ~v l"'~ IO!,N,:h~tf~ • ~1-::--~-.i><z.~"OllH ·0t.¥~~m f'~·· Completed and Upcoming Coachella Valley Projects • Jefferson StreetNarner Road Intersection Improvements • Jefferson Street/Interstate 10 Interchange Construction Project • Monroe Street, from Avenue 49 to Avenue 52, Street Improvement Project • Madison Street, from Avenue 50 to Avenue 52, Street Improvement Project • Highway 111, from Cook Street to Hospitality Way, Street Improvement Project • Indian Avenue, from Garnet Avenue to the UPRR Railroad Crossing, Improvement Project • Fred Waring Drive, from Dune Palms Road to Port Maria Road • Date Palm DriveNista Chino Drive Intersection Improvement Project • Construct Highway 111 Bridge over the Cathedral Canyon Wash Project • Construct Frank Sinatra Bridge over the Whitewater River Channel Project • Construct Avenue 52 Railroad Grade Separation Project • Construct Avenue 56 Railroad Grade Separation Project • Monterey Avenue/Interstate 10 Ramp Re-configuration Project Rail Projects/Operations • Funding primarily from local funds: ~LTF: $10.6 million (FY 2014 projection) >-Measure A: $6.6 million (FY 2014 projection) • Sufficient funds for short-term capital projects • Sufficient funds for operations through 2018 • Long term operating needs exceed planned revenue-station costs are a major concern Rail Projects • No Measure A set aside for rail projects in Coachella Valley • 1 00°/o of L TF funds currently dedicated to bus and specialized transit GOODS MOVEMENT ' " ' ,:~:::::,· ,, ' " . ~'' ' ', ACdt~l\nPtiSHMENTS • Completed: -Avenue 48/Dillon Road -Columbia Avenue -Jurupa Avenue -Magnolia Avenue/UP • Under Construction: -Iowa Avenue -Streeter • Closed: -Jane Street -Mountain View Avenue 2013' PROJECTS • Pending Construction: -Auto Center Drive -Avenue 52 -Avenue 56/Airport Blvd. -Clay Street -Magnolia Avenue/BNSF -Riverside Avenue -Sunset Avenue C'· 1->< w z UJ ~ !cc :I: 3: 0 UJ Next Steps • Continue delivering projects • Finalize funding for SR-91 CIP • Initiate SR-71 /91 PS&E • Initiate SR-60 Badlands project • Implement revised 1-15 project • Complete environmental work on MCP and SR-79 • Identify Phase 1 MCP (;) EICIZ kerucleA > Background > 110 Expresslanes Update > Traffic Performance > System Operation > Customer Experience > Lessons Learned > 1-10 Expresslanes > Next Steps ®Metro \.\ ~-1 ange unty r ,. SR 91 I I • t ,, , "'* !San Diego County 1~15 • OPERATIONAl UNDER CONSTRUCTiON ~Metrd , .. : Salt lake City 1-15 • r--.......................................... ~---· ""~---: Denver • 1<25 ··D 3 ..... ttl·' ... u· .. $'' <~;~/(I<JNir~.s.· In ... ···••·· e " · ... '" ·. ·, .... · .. ~... ~· . ' :: .. . ... ~ ' I< ' , Minneapolis -1-394 I-35W I • r .. --1.-... ,. __ ,,_,,,._--'···-········~'" I Houston I e.· .. 1~10 I . ' ... o·~·-.. . ,~ ' i " ' "• J .. ' '' ~ \ Je US290 j i .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. t..;;:Miami ", ,1) 1·95 •"" 1·95 extension 1-580 •· r.,,.IF' '\ ''•,2Santa Clara County % 1• 1-880/SR 237 San Diego County • 1·15 I'··,,. OPERATIONAl UNDER CONST'RUCTION ®Metro • ,--~~~·"'-, Denver ···25 OaUas-Ft. Worth ;t-_. 1·820/SH 183/121 1·635/1·35E SH-121/114 • • f /\,,,,""'' '''~'''''''' . Minneapolis • 1·394 ·I-35W US290 us 59 (Nonh) US 59 (South) ' r • .. , ,. 'Ill •• " Baltimore 1·95 'i~~lt §4 ~\~'L ..... .Jt .... r~shington~o':c-:~'"' I 1-495 {Virginia) 1-95 (Virginia) 1·9.5 extension > Types of Facilities: Bridges, Roads, HOT lanes/Express Lanes > Types of Pricing: Flat Rate, Time of Day, Variable Pricing > State Mandates lnteroperability: = Universal Transponder > California Toll Operators Committee: 1 0 agencies (4 in SCAG region) ~Metro 5 ~:n 10 > Goal: Move More People, Not More Vehicles > 1st HOT Lanes in LA County > $290 Million Program Budget ($21 0 M UPA/CRD Grant) > $142M Transit > $129M Toll/Roadway > $ 19 M LA ExpressPark ~Metro h6 /' > The FORMULA: More People in the Expresslanes = Fewer People in the Regular Lanes = Better Traffic Flow for Everyone ', 7 > Solo Drivers w/FasTrak can pay a toll to use the Expresslanes > FasTrak can be used on all toll lanes in CA > Introduces Congestion Pricing to Manage a)raffic Demand Metro > Eligible Carpools, and Vanpools with FasTrak can use the Expresslanes Toll-free METRO EXPRESSLANES > Carpool Loyalty Program (1st in the State) > Automatic Entry for Gas Card Drawings > FasTrak is portable > Can be moved from vehicle to vehicle > Multiple license plates can be assigned to an account > 1-110 Express lanes Toll-Free: ~Metro. {<<{ A 8tsTRAK' ~ > 2 or more people -24 hours a day, 7 days a week ~ MitfO.O Expresslanes Toll-Free: .•. ! •.. • '"~v~~c> • Set before driving > 3 or more people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week/ 2+ non rush hour > No. A FasTrak issued by another agency will work to pay a toll on the Metro Expresslanes. > Each toll facility has different rules on toll discounts > To travel Toll-Free on the Metro Express Lanes, you need the FasTrak with the switch. ~Metro ®Metro A, lillsTR.AK 9 METRO EXPRESSLANES -" :,~~ -~~'~ . s~t btfor• driving > Combination of Photo Enforcement & CHP > Photo Enforcement for Toll Violation > $25 penalty for 1st Notice; $30 penalty for 2nd Notice > Metro Transit Court for Administrative Hearings > CHP Enforcing Occupancy w/Enforcement Beacon Lights > Minimum $341 fine ®MetrO'. . i~:1 .. ·· ·;~:o ·. > Increased Transit Frequency (Silver Line, Foothill Transit, Torrance, Gardena) > Bike Lockers > Sheriff Substation > Net Toll Revenues Reinvested in Transit & Carpool Lane Improvements > Harbor Transitway Ridership j 49°/o since July 2011 ~Metro Arte-sia Tronsit C.:m .. r • New El Monte Station. • New Patsaouras Plaza Station. • Improvements at all Harbor Transitway Stations including signage, shelter, security, artwork, restroom at Harbor/Gateway Station. • Transit Signal Priority and peak bus only lane along Figueroa and Flower St. > All vehicles required to have a FasTrak transponder > 24/7 tolling operation > HOV 2+ Toll-Free at all times > SOV Pay Toll at all times > Dedicated Tow Trucks for Incident Response > Dedicated CHP during Peak Periods for Enhanced Enforcement > Tolling began for 11 mile facility on Nov 10, 2012 fJ Metro ~ 110 Expresslanes Avg Daily Trips 42,534 39,820 41,641 40,300 41,576 34,851 43,909 40,093 26,856 22,646 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"'-~f)., ~rp "'V n\"-n~ n~ " " " t~..' "-v "v "v O:f r:::f ~... ~'V\ ~ co Kf \"-~ ~ "'V n\" ~~ ~ "" "" "" "v "'V "'V ~~ '"~ \~ ~ "\ "\ ~ ~co ~"<rf 0 ~ C'CS I.. 1- tn (I) s:: C'CS ...J tn tn f c. >< w 0 ~ ~ >> oo I (f) • ~ 0 N <.0 "C c ns E ns co "C • c E ns ns EO) ns"C "" ; c E ~ ns ::co ..., c Cl> Cl> .c Cl> -~! Cl> Cl> tn.C ns en en ·-::Ja> Cl> C) a> ns a... en U.::J I ----~~ ..., ..., en en Cl> Cl> ..c..c C) C) ·-·-:I: ::I: > Travel Speeds: Above 45 mph 1 00°/o of the time > Ramp up Period Continues but GP lanes improved 5 mph November 2012 to December 2012 > Safety: Zero Accidents Attributed to Expresslanes > Average Posted Toll in the Peak (11 mile trip): November 2012-$5.70 December 2012-$5.60 January 1-17th-$4.94 > Estimated Toll Revenue (thru Dec 31 ): $1,297,000 > Est Toll Expenses (thru Dec 31 ): $3,998,500 {i)C Activity: 60,639 calls; 482,218 web visitors (10,137 sp) Metrd METRO EXPRESSLANES m MetrO' A. FAsTRAK Set before driving ® 1,331 4,136 8,474 7/16-7/31 31-Aug 30-Sep Transponders 18,273 31-0ct 71,634 50,123 1 8 86,435 ~---·---~----'""'"'"'---------~-------·'" -----~-------30-Nov 31-Dec 1/1-1/29 ~ Iii ,, :t ••. H ~ ~~ ~: ' .. ~· lR !" u H -~ f::~·, ,, J VI~ l ""-.,.<;,."'*'' "' :J.,_~ tt~;; ~ .. '• % # ~ 1 " i IS":~ 474 (4 5::5v0,4F' T Pr eFM71 S4T: • :Cc 111 CC, - 05 - S:-�6 7,•k 3 TT r,wed.° nernasy lerAmi *4WD 4112 ADRINN'itrikfmlA - MU' Cdflurtl+t I' sn8 *ton pe=alco� lefoaa6 3ILi _ lxakud AztwaN Aiia puaBai TUC,- *.riz&a++u�ker l�Y�a�t=y: n�.9 yY>`�';'Sl 3zn'Prtoyy` 5 � C, s a 4:1 sapO3 dl?{moo sal ui patlada slunaaoy X12.115Rd Top 10 Cities: Los Angeles Torrance Redondo Beach Long Beach Manhattan Beach Gardena Rancho Palos Verdes Pasadena Glendale San Pedro Utf!Hld lililiii\11II!H01'I'l!l!\!!llli!l'll:fa:l -HIIl;F~~ CI!!Y~ ZIP C<>dt<• l' ... 'lta~ <li!>'"'"* 1-~c 11-Z:!> ~S!IIi Ll1'115· D '*· m -ilir~Bmi!.!l'IG ··t-•:1:1 -F~ -101•~1 ~~iii g .,.:w~.dft\ '?~, .%tl 'J! , ~>~·II La., n;;efe ,;.: JJ ~~ t n 2' 1 FasTrak Accounts fi1!1!)'0 Milt ·{ ·' ~ . ZiP coc.es @ ·dii'l ~ f ---====------=====:::~t.nu 0 u s 10 ~~ ONLINE metroexpresslanes. net WALK-IN CENTERS soo W 19oth St Gardena, CA 90248 3501 Santa Anita Av El Monte, CA 91731 MAll Send your application to: Metro Expresslanes PO Box 3878 Gardena, CA 90247 VOICE Call 511 Say "Expresslanes'' a.Metrd For more information, visit metroexpresslanes.net ~2. )l METRO EJCPIUISSLANES {D Metro· 4 T r~~. Set belorl! drilling • lil~ > AAA > Corona -1170 El Camino Ave > Hemet-450 W Stetson Ave > Palm Springs-300 S Farrell Dr > Riverside-3700 Central Ave > Temecula-26403 Ynez Rd Riverside County Accounts (378): Banning Beaumont Canyon Lake Cathedral City Cherry Valley Corona Lake Elsinore Hemet La Quinta Menifee Mira Lorna Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Sun City Idyllwild Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Temecula San Jacinto > Costco 1 Winchester METRO EXPRESSLANES Desert HS > Moreno Valley-12700 Day Street I Indio > Murrieta-25125 Madison Ave Wildomar Mecca ®Metro A -.m ~;-. .. c,~~~L • FAsfRAK· Set before driving > 62o/o carpool trips/38°/o SOV trips > Business: 1, 763 accounts > 64,622 trips (26°/o were SOV trips) > Alt Fuel Vehicles: 6,344 accounts > 97,469 trips (42°/o were SOV trips) > Equity Plan: 1 ,616 accounts > 32,065 trips (14% were SOV trips) > TAP Accounts: 1 ,442 accounts > 83°/o of customers would recommend FasTrak to family and friends ·2 5, > Signage, Signage, Signage > Additional Static Signage Installed This Week > Lessons Learned will be applied to 1 0 ExpressLanes > Ongoing Marketing & Outreach > Circulars to be distributed to 230 congregations along 11 0 corridor > Pulpit presentations > Carpool Loyalty Program > Equity Plan r DO NOT_, CROSS DOUBLE WHITE ~ LINES ~ ~ ~ ' ,_ ALL HOY MUST HAVE 'A.' ·RisTMK·J \ ..' .,..,./ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 14 miles from Alameda Street to 605 Freeway > New Capacity Added for 2nd Expresslane between the 605 and 710 (9 miles in each direction) > Advertising & Marketing Underway > Challenging Corridor for Incident Management > Challenging Corridor for Different Occupancy Requirements (3+ toll-free 24/7, 2+ toll-free during non rush hour) ,q,"'-"''-"""'«<ii:U:&m • .::mw::n.. ,, __ v,,,,, w:m:>• ·''""''§iiik.,,,, ,,,;i:',,, '''"B[(l>f~:'{(({<'c',m J,, ','Jfo:;_:;,w:f;:;;<#_.,S,.:_<_'"' · ·~"-.};_ ;;c' lollll1'M fDBUUf#U <».!«! A ~ ~ Ml\m4rhil>! , Metro Expr~ss~(Jnes > Arriving at your Destination in Less Time in either the ExpressLanes or General Purpose Lanes (travel time savings, average vehicle speed) 27 > Change from Driving Alone to Carpool, Riding Transit, and/or Vanpool (mode shift) > Increase in Efficiency by Moving More People on the ExpressLanes in a specified period of time (person throughput) > Improved Transportation Access for Low Income Commuters (surveys, credit redemption,transit ridership) ~Metro > 1-110 Continue Outreach & Marketing > 1-110 Continue Performance Monitoring > 1-10 Continue Testing until February 23rd Opening 2 8