Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 29, 2015 Commission WorkshopRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda JANUARY 29 – 30, 2015 Hyatt Palm Springs 285 North Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, California 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. 1:00 P.M. THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 2015 1:00 p.m. – 1:10 p.m. WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Daryl Busch, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director 1:10 p.m. – 2:05 p.m. LOOKING BACKWARDS TO LEAP FORWARD Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 2:05 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. BREAK 2:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY Hasan Ikhrata, SCAG Executive Director 3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:15 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. OREGON: AMERICA’S TEST BED FOR ROAD USER CHARGING James Whitty, Manager, Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding, Oregon Department of Transportation 4:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. BREAK COMM-AWK-00005 Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 29 – 30, 2015 4:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S ROAD AHEAD FOR ROAD USER CHARGING – PANEL DISCUSSION Will Kempton, Executive Director, California Transportation Commission Norma Ortega, Chief Financial Officer, Caltrans Steve Finnegan, Manager of Public Affairs, Automobile Club of Southern California 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. BREAK 6:00 p.m. DINNER 6:30 p.m. THE POLITICS OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND ROAD USER CHARGING Honorable Vicki Berger, Oregon House of Representatives 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The workshop will continue at 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 30, 285 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California 8:30 A.M. FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2015 8:30 a.m. – Noon FACILITATED DISCUSSION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Sam Gennawey, Facilitator Noon WORKSHOP CLOSING REMARKS, LUNCH, AND ADJOURNMENT Daryl Busch, Chair RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 29, 2015 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 Cathed ra I City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent LI LI ~ ~ LI LI LI -[ %' LI LI % LI LI LI LI D LI D p LI LI D D D LI D D D LI D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET JANUARY 29, 2015 AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 30, 2015 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 Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula ~. City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent CJ CJ % ~ CJ CJ CJ CJ ~ '% CJ D % D CJ D D D CJ D ~ D CJ D D D % ~ D D p RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET JANUARY 30, 2015 E_MAIL ADDRESS Welcome to RCTCLookingBacktoLeapForwardLooking Back to Leap ForwardJanuary 29, 2015 Where it All Started•Created by State law in 1976 alongwithsimilaragenciesalong with similar agencies in neighboring counties•Codescoverareasof•Codes cover areas of responsibility and administration•Responsible for state highway coordination and gyshort range transit plans•Legislative language mentions need for small staff FY 2014/15 OrganizationalChartOrganizational Chart How Do We Pay For What We Do? Measure A•Approvedbytwo‐thirdsApproved by twothirds margin in 1988 and 2002•Governed by expenditure ypplans•Genesis of TUMF programspg•Establishes geographic return‐to‐source provision Measure A Provisions•TUMFrequirementsTUMF requirements•MSHCP (Western County)•1percentadministrativecap1 percent administrative cap•Debt limit ‐$500 million–Revisedto$975millionbyMeasureKin2010Revised to $975 million by Measure K in 2010•10‐year evaluation due in 2019 Measure A Funding•Western County Expenditure Plan funds:State highwaysNew transportation corridorspRegional arterialsLocalstreetsandroadsLocal streets and roadsPublic transitEconomicdevelopmentincentivesEconomic development incentivesDebt financing costs Measure A Funding•CoachellaValleyExpenditurePlanFundsCoachella Valley Expenditure Plan FundsState highways and major regional roadsLocalstreetsandroadsLocal streets and roadsPublic transitPlVdVllEditPlFd•Palo Verde Valley Expenditure Plan FundsLocal streets and roads How Return to Source WorksWorks•Coachella Valley ypopulation comprises 19.4 percent of county’s pypopulation•CoachellaValleyCoachella Valley receives approximately 23percentofMeasure23 percent of Measure A revenue (B dtbll)(Based on taxable sales) Coachella Valley PartnershipPartnership•MeasureArevenueisallocatedinthefollowingMeasure A revenue is allocated in the following manner:  –50percentforstatehighwaysandarterials(TPPS)–50 percent for state highways and arterials (TPPS)–35 percent for local streets and roads–15 percent for public transitImplementation and priorities for highway and arterial projects using Measure A funds are set by CVAG Measure A in WesternCountyWestern County•Measure A revenue is allocated in the following manner (2002 dollars):  –State highways: $1.02 billion + .64 billion in Fed/Stategy–New transportation corridors: $370 millionPublictransit:$390million–Public transit: $390 million–Regional arterials: $300 million–Local streets and roads: $970 million–Bond financing: $270 million–Economic development projects: $40 million Measure A Tax Revenues$160.0 $180.0 Measure A Revenues5.9% above last year (seven months)$100.0 $120.0 $140.0 $600MillionsActualmonths)•No change from bd tFY14/15revised$20 0$40.0 $60.0 $80.0 MProjectionBudgetbudget•6.8% above          FY 13/14 revenuesFY 14/15 revised projection:$167 million18%$‐$20.0 FY 15/16 projection:$170 million1.8% increase         fromFY 14/15 projection FY 2014/15FundingSources          Funding Sourcess        RevenuesMeasure A Sales Tax$        167,000,000/15 ourceLTF Sales TaxSTA Sales TaxFederal$,,81,500,00012,944,70083 351 4002014/ues/SoFederalStateOther  LocalTUMF83,351,40092,503,0006,211,0008 154 600FY RevenuTUMFOther revenuesInvestment income8,154,600575,0002,450,900RSourcesDebt proceedsTransfers in191,600,000526,034,70013Total Revenues/Sources$   1,172,325,300 Details on FederalFundingFederal Funding•FederalfundingsourcesFederal funding sources–Gas tax: 18.4 cents per gallonDieselexcisetax:24 4centspergallon–Diesel excise tax: 24.4 cents per gallon•Uses include–Surface Transportation Program–Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program–Transit formula funding Details onStateFundingState Funding•StatefundingsourcesState funding sources–Gas tax: 36 cents per gallonDieselexcisetax:18centspergallon–Diesel excise tax: 18 cents per gallon–.25 cent sales taxild•Uses include–State Transportation Improvement Program–State Transit Assistance (diesel tax)–Transit operations and capital (sales tax) Funding&DeliveringProjectsFunding & Delivering Projects Completed Projects(RCTC’s2014AnnualReport)(RCTC s 2014 Annual Report)Western CountyEastern County•60/215 East Junction Project•74/215 Interchange Project•I‐215 South Project•Highway 111:‐‐Widening project in Indian Wells from    Cook to the eastern city limit•SR‐91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange•SR‐91/Van Buren Boulevard Bridge and InterchangeI215Wid i(Bl iSt tt‐‐Washington Street intersection   improvement•I‐10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail Interchange•I10/IndianCanyonDriveInterchange•I‐215 Widening (Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard)•I‐215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange•GradeSeparations:ColumbiaAvenue•I‐10/Indian Canyon Drive Interchange•I‐10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road Interchange•I‐10/Date Palm Drive InterchangeGrade Separations:  Columbia Avenue, Iowa Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, and Magnolia Avenue/g•Grade Separations:  Avenue 48/Dillon Road and Avenue 50$601.4 Million Coachella Valley ProjectsUnder ConstructionI10/MtAIt hFuture ProjectsCVLi k•I‐10/ Monterey Avenue Interchange Project•I‐10/ Jefferson Street Interchange Project(2015)•CV Link•Highway 111–Signal Synchronization Project–MultiplestreetprojectsinthecitiesProject (2015)•Avenue 52 Grade separation project•Avenue 56 Grade separation projectMultiple street  projects in the cities of Cathedral City, Indio, and La Quinta–Make improvements and widen hhdillthrough Indian Wells–Madison Street to Rubidoux Street•Whitewater River Bridge Crossing   (Avenue50)$151.3 Million(Avenue 50)•Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street)•SR‐86/Avenue 50 Interchange ProjectS86/ e ue50te c a geoject$254.7 Million Western County ProjectsUnder ConstructionFuture Projects•91 Project•Perris Valley Line•SR‐91 HOV Project•I‐15 Express Lanes•SR‐60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lane•71/91 Interchange Projectj•I‐215 Bi‐County Gap Closure•I‐215 Central Project•SR‐74 Curve Wideninggj•SR‐71 Widening Project•SR‐79 Realignment Project•Mid County Parkwayg•Grade Separation Projects:  Auto Center Drive, Clay Street, Magnolia Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Streeter AdSAyy•I‐215 North Project•10/60 Interchange•I‐10 Truck Climbing LaneAvenue, and Sunset Avenueg$2 4Billion$3 7Billion$2.4 Billion$3.7 Billion Tolling:  The New Frontier•91ProjectisRCTC’sfirst91 Project is RCTC s first toll facility•Tolling will become gincreasingly important as a revenue source•Tolling adds new responsibilities for RCTC•Project completion: 2017•I‐15 Project to follow with completion in 2020 Commission Activities and Services Multimodal ServicesServices•TransitFunding&Oversight•Transit Funding & Oversight•Rail Funding & Operations as Part of Metrolink•SAFE & Freeway Service Patrol•IE 511 & Commuter Assistance Services Transit Funding & OversightOversight•RCTCprovidesoversightRCTC provides oversight role•Primary funding comes ygfrom two state sources•Federal formula grants galso available for capital and operating•Measure A funds are limited RCTC’s TransitRoleTransit Role•Operators submit Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP)–Revenues–Services/expenditures–Must meet farebox requirements in order to collect LTF and STA fundsRCTC’lit•RCTC’s role is to approve the SRTPs and  process LTF, STAandMeasureASTA and Measure A payments Riding the RailsgSouthernCaliforniaRegionalRailAuthoritySouthern California Regional Rail Authority–Joint Powers Authority–Comprisedoffivecounty–Comprised of five county transportation agencies–512‐mile network •plus 24 for Perris Valley Line (PVL)–7 service lines–55 stations •Plus four for PVL RCTC Rail ResponsibilitiesRCTC’s Metrolink BudgetFY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 (Proposed)Operating $7.5 million $9.8 million $13.8 million (includes PVL –41% increase)()Rehab/Capital $1.5 million $3.1 million $9.1 million•Future budget pressures include:–Positive Train Control–Emissions reductions/new locomotives–Service expansionsIncreasedMetrolinkoperationalcostssystemwide–Increased Metrolink operational costs system wide–Ticket vending machines (replacement) PVL Adds Responsibility•OperationsandmaintenanceoffivestationsOperations and maintenance of five stations•Maintenance and care of PVL’s right‐of‐way•New marketing responsibilities IE 511 Program•Developed/implemented in 2010 •One‐stop commuter information center•HelpsdriversavoidtrafficcongestionwithHelps drivers avoid traffic congestion with real‐time traffic information that includes:TraveltimesTravel timesIncidentsSignalertsSign alertsChain controls Quality of Life & ProtectingtheEnvironmentProtecting the Environment RCTC is Green•Public Transit–SunLine Transit Agency first system in U.S. to adopt 100% alternate fuel fleet–RiversideTransitAgencyeliminatedtheuseofdieselbusesRiverside Transit Agency eliminated the use of diesel buses in 2002–Solar generation program at Riverside/La Sierra stations–UnderconstructiontoextendMetrolinkby22miles(PVL)Under construction to extend Metrolink by 22 miles (PVL)–91 Project to include enhanced express bus service•Additional Efforts  –Administer region’s ride matching program–Partnership with employers on rideshare programs–Provided $152 million for habitat preservation of 8,600 $p,acres Riverside County IntegratedProjectIntegrated Project•InitiatedbytheRiversideCountyBoardofSupervisorsInitiated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in 1999•Three part integrated program•Transportation (CETAP)•Land Use (General Plan)()•Habitat Conservation (MSHCP) •RCIPcreatedfoundationforfutureplanningRCIP created foundation for future planning RCIP Planning Values Shape theRoadAheadthe Road Ahead•Mid County Parkwayyy•16‐mile East/West Corridor•$1.7 billion estimated cost•CEQA approval expected April 2015•Record of Decision expected Summer 2015•SR‐79 Realignment Project•14‐mile North/South Corridor•Recirculate the draft EIR/EIS – Summer 2015•Record of Decision –final step in EIS process – Summer 2016d$bll•Estimated construction cost:  $1.2 billion MSHCP•LinchpintotheRiversideCountyIntegratedProjectLinchpin to the Riverside County Integrated Project•Adopted in June 2003•FederalandStatepermitsissuedinJune2004;Federal and State permits issued in June 2004;75‐year plan•Supported by County of Riverside and Western ppyyRiverside County Cities•Partners include: Flood Control District, RCTC, Waste ManagementParksandOpenSpaceDistrictCaltransManagement, Parks and Open Space District, Caltrans, State Parks MSHCP Obligations500,000 ACRE347 000ACRES153 000ACRES,RESERVE347,000 ACRESEXISTING CONSERVATION153,000 ACRESADDITIONAL RESERVE LANDS (ARL)56,000 ACRESSTATE / FEDERAL SHARE97,000 ACRESLOCAL SHARE41,000 ACRES FROM DEVELOPMENT56,000 ACRESPURCHASE Additional Commission Activities and Services andLoomingResponsibilitiesand Looming Responsibilities Desired Projects•CoachellaValleyrailCoachella Valley rail•Rail to San Jacinto and Temecula•IntegratedrecreationaltrailsystemIntegrated recreational trail system•Ethanac transportation corridor•Additionalgradeseparationprojects•Additional grade separation projects•Individual city projectsNot Funded –Tomorrow’s Discussion Facing The Future•Much of Measure A is already committedy•New projects are necessary – but lack funding sources•New laws are changing roles and responsibilities:ggp–Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Transportation Plan–Cap and Trade changes long‐held prioritiesMid(llii)d–Maintenance needs (normally a state priority) exceed revenue sources such as the gas taxNow is the time for RCTC to consider what’s next! 2/2/2015 1 Demographics Trends, Workforce Development and Future Opportunity Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments Riverside County Transportation Commission  January 29, 2015 About SCAG Nation’s largest Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)Planning Organization (MPO)38,000 Square Miles 15 Subregions (WRCOG & CVAG)Nation’s Global Gateway for Trade 18.5 Million People 16th Largest Economy in the World 191 Cities 6 Counties 2/2/2015 2 SCAG’s Governance Structure General Assembly Representative from each member jurisdiction Meets once a year Regional Council Comprised of 86 local elected officials (10 from Riverside County) Meets once a month Sets policy direction for the agency Policy Committeeso cy Co ttees 3 major policy committees (9 additional from Riverside County) Meets once a month Makes policy recommendations to the Regional Council SCAG Deals with these Regional Issues 2/2/2015 3 Major Demographic Trends in the SCAG Region 1. Continued Low Population Growth 2. Declining Number of Children 3 Annual Flow of New Immigrants is Plunging3.Annual Flow of New Immigrants is Plunging 4. Foreign Born Peaked or Declining 5. Long Settled Foreign Born 6. Rise of the Immigrant Second Generation 7. Slower Racial and Ethnic Change 8. A Soaring Senior Ratio 9. The Homegrown (growth from native Californians) Revolution 10. Rising Index of Children’s Importance The Intergenerational Partnership Source: Dowell Myers, “The New Generation Future of Los Angeles,” 25th Annual Demographic Workshop, June 9, 2014. 2/2/2015 4 Projected Future Growth SCAG Region Adding the population of itl 18 22 8 9 7Millionschange of 4.2 million change of 1.7 million change of 1.5 million approximately one and a half times Chicago to Southern California 8 6 7 2008 2035 People Jobs Households Where is Population Growth Coming From? SCAG Region 1 651 392 1,697,351 Southern California Sources of Population Growth, 2000-2010 1,651,392 (97.3%) ,, (100.0 %) Source: State of California, Department of Finance, County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year 45,959 (2.7%) Births (less) Deaths Domestic Foreign Migration Total Increase 2/2/2015 5 Population Shifts by Age Cohort SCAG Region Population by Age Group (in millions) 30% 29% 59% 53% 11% 18% 5.5 6.4 10.6 11.8 2.0 4.0 2010 2035 0-20 21-64 65+ Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding Source: US Census Bureau, SCAG Shift in Ages of the Population in the SCAG Region 1,200,000 1,400,000 Age 65+ Population will double 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 SCAG CA Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970-2040. Sacramento, CA, December 1998. 0 200,000 1970-75 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95 1995-2000 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2025039 2030-35 2035-40 2/2/2015 6 Implications of Changing Demographics Increased demand for housing choices in central cities and  mixed communities with shopping health services churchmixed communities with shopping, health services, church  and transportation options Surplus of large‐lot homes and increased demand for small  lot homes Increased demand for health care and social services Downward pressure on tax revenues Changing transportation preferences Poverty  Largely an Inland & LA Issue 32.80% Share of Children Under 18 Living in Poverty27.20%26.50%25.20% 19.80%17.90%17.70% Poverty California Areas, 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012 Imperial Los Angeles Inland Empire SCAG Region San Diego Orange Ventura 2/2/2015 7 Much of Our Future Workforce is Living in Poverty 32.80% Share of Children Under 18 Living in Poverty27.20%26.50% 19.80%17.90%17.70% Poverty California Areas, 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012 Imperial Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Orange Ventura Major Unmet Adult Workforce Education Issue with 1:2 to 1:3 Adults Marginally Educated 52.40%52.10% 46.70%43.40% 35 50%33 90% Share of Population High School or Less C lif i A 35.50%33.90%33.10%29.70% Imperial Central Inland Los Ventura Orange San Diego Bay Area California Areas, 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012 Imperial Central Valley Inland Empire Los Angeles Ventura Orange San Diego Bay Area 5.02 MILLION MARGINALLY EDUCATED ADULTS IN SCAG REGION ALONE 2/2/2015 8 From Poverty to Prosperity:  Increasing Pathways to Jobs & Opportunity MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS IN 2013UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN 2013 $1,714 $1,623 2.3% 2.2%DOCTOR’S DEGREE PROFESSIONAL DEGREE $727 $777 $1,108 $1,329 $, 7.0% 5.4% 4.0% 3.4% PROFESSIONAL DEGREE MASTER’S DEGREE BACHELOR’S DEGREE ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE SOME COLLEGE, NO DEGREE ALL WORKERS: $827ALL WORKERS: 6.1% $472 $651 11.0% 7.5%HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA LESS THAN A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA Median Household Income $80,317 $58,455 2/2/2015 9 California Education Levels Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 43.5% 29.0% Unemployment at a Glance 2/2/2015 10 Riverside & San Bernardino Counties Employment level will exceed pre-Recession level in early 2015. BLS data shows job gain in 2014 should be 48 000 EDD i i d (3 9%)48,000 once EDD revisions are made (3.9%) Economic base led by growth of logistics, construction, and healthcare. Unemployment at 8.1% still exceeds other U.S. metro areas of 1 million or more. Share of Adults, high school or less education: San Bernardino (47.1%); Riverside (45.7%). Sectors with Lower Educational Requirements are Candidates for Good-Paying Job Growth THETHE CORE FIVE LOWER EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, GOOD-PAYING JOB SECTORS 2/2/2015 11 Riverside & San Bernardino Counties OCCUPATION TOTAL JOB OPENINGS MEDIAN ANNUAL WAGES EDUCATION LEVEL RETAIL SALESPERSONS 23,420 $21,003 Less than HS CASHIERS 21,160 $20,134 Less than HS FREIGHT, STOCK AND MATERIAL MOVERS 18,380 $24,727 Less than HS FOOD PREPARATION AND SERVING WORKERS 14,670 $18,863 Less than HS WAITERS AND WAITRESSES 13,180 $18,623 Less than HS HEAVY AND TRACTOR - TRAILER TRUCK DRIVERS 10,910 $40,243 HS Diploma PERSONAL CARE AIDES 10,570 $19,379 Less than HSPERSONAL CARE AIDES 10,570 $19,379 Less than HS STOCK CLERKS AND ORDER FILLERS 9,120 $22,892 Less than HS REGISTERED NURSES 8,950 $81,242 AA OFFICE CLERKS, GENERAL 7,880 $30,368 HS Diploma In April 2012, SCAG unanimously adopted the its first RTP that includes a  Sustainable Communities Strategy that: W d l d th h b tt 2012 RTP/SCS Was developed through a bottoms- up local input process with unprecedented public outreach and stakeholder involvement Invests nearly $525 billion over the next 25 years to upgrade thenext 25 years to upgrade the region’s transportation system Reduces per capita GHG emissions 9% by 2020 and16% by 2035 22 2/2/2015 12 2012 RTP/SCS Key Strategies focus over allocate ONLY 13% capital investment to highways focus over50% growth within3% land area FROM 7:3 single- vs. multi- family units TO 3:7land area 2016 RTP/SCS Development Framework Build on the success of the 2012‐2035 RTP/SCS Key elements for review: o Viable Long-Term Funding Strategies o System Preservation, Safety and Operation o Regional Freight Strategies o Active Transportation o Public Health Strategies o Housing availability/gentrification pressuresoHousing availability/gentrification pressures o Implications of changing demographics o Implications of emerging new technologies 24 2/2/2015 13 Passenger Rail in Southern California Circa 1920 Passenger Rail in Southern California -1990 26 2/2/2015 14 Passenger Rail in Southern California - 2035 Image courtesy Metrolink Image courtesy Metro © 2012 LACMTA 27 2016 RTP/SCS Emerging Trends & Opportunities What About the Millennials? •Rapid adoption of new communication technologies •Travel  fewer  miles and make fewer  trips •Less interested in car and house ownership•Less interested in car and house ownership •Rapidly adopting to the “shared” economy •Favor towards low‐travel urban lifestyles with emphasis on walking, cycling,  ride‐sharing and transit 2/2/2015 15 Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) Urban Mobility Platforms 2016 RTP/SCS Emerging Trends & Opportunities Transportation Technologies Urban Mobility Platforms eBikes Car/Bike Sharing Travel  Planning Apps Connected Vehicle Technologies Semi‐automated drive modes  Adaptive Cruise Control Lane centering Fully Autonomous Vehicles Car 2 Go Car Share NetworkMadsen Cargo eBike 2016 RTP/SCS Framework Bottoms Up Planning Process Provide input to develop forecasts of future land use, population, household Local Jurisdictions ON- GOING and employment growth & draft scenarios Submit updated transportation projects for inclusion in RTP/SCS Jurisdictions County Transportation Commissions GOING Provide input on specific topic areas ON- GOING Provide input on specific topic areas such as active transportation strategies, public health, open space and environmental justice Other Stakeholders ON- GOING 30 2/2/2015 16 Underway: Strategy & Scenario Development S mmer 2015 E tensi e O treach and P blic Workshops 2016 RTP/SCS Framework Timeline & Milestones Summer 2015: Extensive Outreach and Public Workshops October 2015: Release of Draft 2016-2040 RTP/SCS for public review Fall 2015: Elected officials workshops and public hearings Wi t 2016 R i d dd bli tWinter 2016: Review and address public comments April 2016: Adopt 2016-2040 RTP/SCS 31 Oregon’s Road Usage Charge Usage Charge ProgramRiverside County Transportation Commission WorkshopPtd b Presented by: James Whitty, Program Manager, ODOTJanuary 29, 2015 Oregon’s Per-Mile Road Usage Charge LawOregon s Per-Mile Road Usage Charge LawSenate Bill 810 directs implementation of a fully operational per-mile road usage charge program for light vehicles on July 1, 2015The first application will be The first application will be 5,000 volunteers. 2 Why ChargeBy the Mile?By the Mile?3 Motivations for Change in Road FundingDeclining fuel tax revenue and unfairness of fuel Declining fuel tax revenue and unfairness of fuel tax growing worseChanges to nation’s vehicle fleetCAFE standard to 54.5 MPG by 2025Societal inequity resulting from new vehicle purchasesfleetvehicle purchases4 Total Light-duty Vehicle Miles Traveled (1995-2040)(1995-2040)2012HistoryProjections2012HistoryProjections4,0002012HistoryProjections4,0002012HistoryProjections0.9%3,0003,0002,0002,0001.7% annual increase0.7% annual increase1,0001,00001995 2005 2020 2030 204001995 2005 2020 2030 2040Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Report; U.S. Energy Information Administration5 6 U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Energy Use (1995-2040)(19952040)102012History Projections102012History Projections21 58821.5mpg66Million Barrels of Oil 37.2mpg44Equivalent Per Day2200Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Report; U.S. Energy Information Administration1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20407 The Basics of Charging by the MileCharging by the Mile8 Road Usage Charge CollectionggThe Options•Government only collection•Establishment of a commercial Establishment of a commercial market for collection•Combination of commercial and government collection9 The Big QuestionHow will people report their miles?10 Categories of Mileage ReportingCategories of Mileage Reporting1Basic: Reporting all miles driven 1.Basic: Reporting all miles driven (manual or electronic)2Advanced: Reporting miles by location 2.Advanced: Reporting miles by location (electronic)3Switchable: Changeable reporting of 3.Switchable: Changeable reporting of miles (electronic)4Simplified: Assume maximum annual 4.Simplified: Assume maximum annual miles driven (manual)11 Oregon’s Road Usage Charging ProgramCharging Program12 Oregon Road Usage Charge Program•2001:Legislation creates Road User Fee Task Force created and directs first pilotForce created and directs first pilot•2006-07:ODOT conducts first pilot•2010-11:Legislation authorizes second pilot00:egsa o au o es seco d p o•2012-13: ODOT conducts second pilot•2013:SB 810 passed, authorizing Road Usage 03S80p , g U gCharge Program with 5000 volunteers•2013-15: Implementation of Road Usage Ch PCharge Program13 Oregon’s First Per Mile Oregon s First Per Mile Charge Pilot ProgramRoad User Fee Pilot Program 2006-07•Mileage reporting at fuel pump•GPS mileage reporting device selected by ODOT•Payment at fuel pump with fuel purchase14 Public Concerns With Road Usage Charging•Privacy•Government bureaucracy•Complexity•Cost•Fairness15 New Strategic Objective for New Strategic Objective for Road Usage Charging in Oregon“Create a sustainable road usage charge market that is simple and easy for payers and encourages evolution of mileage ti t h l i d b i reporting technologies and business systems into effective, affordable, convenient and attractive options for the convenient and attractive options for the motoring public.” 16 Organizing Principles for Oregon’s Distance Charging SystemOregon s Distance Charging SystemGovernment Design program as open systemGovernment should not select Provide motorists choicestechnologychoicesProvide access to private Make system flexible, scalable and psector account managementscalable and geographically unlimited17 Oregon’s Second Per MileOregon’s Second Per MileCharge Pilot ProgramRoad Usage Charge Pilot Program 2012-13201213•Mileage reporting wirelessly from machine to machine•Commercial market offered three choices for mileage reporting•Payment of periodic billing by check or card18 Oregon’s Per Mile Road Usage Charge Law•Road usage charge program ggpgbegins July 2015•Opensystem Taxpayer choicesfor mileage •Taxpayer choicesfor mileage reporting, one without vehicle location capability5 000 volunteers from Oregon•5,000 volunteers from Oregon•1.5 cents per mile •Fuel tax credit•Requires public private partnerships forCll ti il dtFuel tax credit•Protects personally identifiable informationoCollecting mileage dataoTax processing oAccount management19 How Oregon’s Road Usage Charge How Oregon s Road Usage Charge Program Addresses Main Concerns of the Publicof the Public20 Pbli C ith R d U Ch iPublic Concerns with Road Usage Charging•Privacy•Government bureaucracy•Government bureaucracy•Complexity•Cost•Fairness21 Issue #1: PrivacyStatutory Solutions•Provide choicesfor reporting method and technology•Motorists choose technology from marketplace•Vehicle location technology cannot be requiredVehicle location technology cannot be required•Legal mandate to personally identifiable informationinformation22 Protection of Personally Identifiable InformationProtection of Personally Identifiable InformationStatutory Protections•Constrains use of Personally Identifiable InformationLimits access Imposes obligation to protect Imposes obligation to protect Exception for express approval•Data destruction of mileage data within 30 days after later of:Payment processingPayment processingDispute resolutionNoncompliance investigationRegulatory ProtectionsRight to inquireRight to investigateggRight to correct23 Issue #2: Governmental BureaucracySolution: Bring in private sector and create a marketRFQ for Commercial Account Managers Si k t t t•Sign a market contract•Competition•Multiple types of mileage reporting•Evolution of technologies and business systems•Value added services24 Issue #3: ComplexitySolution: Let the payer choose simplicity •Choice of provider•Choice of how to report•Choice of how to pay25 Issue #4: Cost of OperationsFinancial & Operational Cost ModelIssue #4: Cost of OperationsNumber of Accounts Administrative Costs as% of Revenues10,000 55%100,000 12%500,000 5.2%1,000,000 4.6%4,000,000 3.3%26Source: ODOT Road Usage Charge Economic Viability Report, June 2013 Issue #5: FairnessIssue #5: Fairness•Rural driversPay fuel tax nowMore off-road driving•Fuel efficient vehiclesCurrently not paying fair share for road useAlready avoid cost of fuelAlready avoid cost of fuelRoad Usage Charge not a large burden•Non-resident drivinggUntil regional system developed, still pay fuel taxWestern Road Usage Charge Consortium addressing solutionaddressing solution27 How Oregon’s Road Usage Charge Program Will Workgg28 Oregon’s Road Usage Charge ProgramWill Oregon’s Road Usage Charge Program be a government run, single technology, gggyclosed system that will be expensive to operate and extremely difficult to change?Well NoOregon is establishing a Well, No.Oregon is establishing a commercial marketfor road use chargingfor road use charging29 O’ Pil Ch S tOregon’s Per-mile Charge System•Machine to machine communications via standard il mileage message•DOT certifies private sector entities pto collect mileage data, process the charge and manage accounts30 How Road Usage Charge Transactions Will Work31 Road Usage Charge ggAccount ManagementCreating a Commercial Market•Recruit and choose volunteersAllilihli•Mustacceptanyvolunteer•All mileage reporting technologies that meets standards•Can sell value added services•Can sell mileage data with express approval of RUC payerCommercial Account Managers•Must accept any volunteer•Basic reporting (no GPS)•No value added services•Cannot sell mileage data•Cannot keep mileage data ODOT Account Managementpppy•Can retain mileage data beyond 30 days with consent of RUC payerpgbeyond 30 days32 Volunteer Entry into Road Usage Charge Programyggg1. Select provider via 2. Select mileage 3. Activate mileage pODOT websiteOr, recruitment by commercial account managergreporting method*•Basic•AdvancedSithblgreporting device•Access telematics within vehicle, or•Install aftermarket manager•Switchable*Fuel tax refund automatically refunded•Install after-market device in vehicle4. Drive33 Invoicing and PaymentInvoicing and PaymentInvoice OptionsInvoice Options•mail•e-mail•automatic account accessPayment Options•cash•check•credit•debit•electronic funds transfer34 Timeline for Road Usage Charge ProgramODOT signs contracts with account managers CompleteODOTcertifiestechnologiesandUnderwaythroughMarch2015ODOT certifies technologies and business practices Underway through March2015Operational trial April through May 2015LhJl12015LaunchJuly 1, 2015Issue permanent commercial account manager procurement documents Spring 2015Communications Continuous35 Wt RdU Ch C tiWestern Road Usage Charge ConsortiumMEMBER STATESArizona CaliforniaCaliforniaColoradoIdahoHawaii MontanaNevadaOregon TexasTexasUtahWashington36 Oregon Road Usage Pilot ProgramPilot ProgramJames WhittyManager of Office of InnovativePartnerships and Alternative FundingFunding37 Following Slide Reserved for Q&A38 Most Frequently Suggested Most Frequently Suggested Funding Alternatives• Raise fuel tax•Tax vehicle electricity use•Tax vehicle electricity use• Tax tires•Tax batteries•Tax batteries• Flat annual feeii• Toll interstate highways• General fund39