1 financially constrained investment plan commission meeting july 23, 2008
TRANSCRIPT
1
Financially Constrained Investment Plan
Commission Meeting
July 23, 2008
2
Committee Recommendation (escalated billions of $)
Total = $31.6
Recommendation: Investment Plan for the $31.6 Billion Uncommitted Discretionary Funds(escalated billions $)Investment Category Staff Proposal % of Total Rationale
Maintenance
Transit $6.4 20%Regional investment priority given to vehicles plus 25% of to-be-determined priority guideway (e.g. track and structures) needs
Local Road $7.0 22% Regional investment priority given to MTS pavement needs to maintain current PCI of 64
State Hwy Assumes State responsibility for funding shortfall need
Subtotal $13.4 42%Efficiency
Lifeline $0.4 1%Extends Commission's current 10-year Lifeline commitment ($300 million, which includes means-based pilot program) to 25 years for a total investment of $700 million
Regional Bicycle Plan $1.0 3% Fully funds Regional Bike Plan network, excepting toll bridge facilities
Climate Change/PM Reduction Program
$0.4 1%
Fully funds 5-year Climate Change/Particulate Matter Reduction Program that includes the following elements: 1. Outreach/Incentives Programs - $27 million/yr2. Safe Routes to School/Transit - $ 20 million/yr3. Transit Priority Program - $10 million/yr
Planning $0.3 1% Planning funds for CMAs and Regional Agencies (ABAG, MTC, BCDC)
TLC $2.2 7% Doubles current program from $27 million/yr to $60 million/yr
FPI $1.6 5% Fully funds capital and maintenance/operations costs
Subtotal $5.9 19%
Expansion $12.1 38%Revised HOT revenue estimates increase 25-year projection from $5.1 billion to $6.1 billion; STIP/SLPP amount remains at $6.0 billion
STIP $5.7 SLPP $0.3
HOT $6.1
Cost Risk Contingency $0.2 1%
Includes additional contingency for committed projects to cover potential committed projects cost increases
TOTAL $31.6
Amount
3
Past and Present RTP Discretionary Commitments
2001 2005 2009
Transit Rehab 16 15 21
Local Road Rehab 2 11 23
Regional Operations(e.g. TransLink®, 511)
7 5 6
Lifeline 0 2 1*
Bike/Ped** 0 2 3
TLC 5 8 7
Other 1 2 3
Hwy/Transit Expansion 69 55 36
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%*Percent shown does not account for the $300 million committed to Lifeline Transportation Program, which has a total funding of $700 million** 2005 bike/ped; 2009 is bike only, but ped is included in TLC and Climate Change (part of “Other”.)
4
5
Six Planning Committee Issues:
1. “Committed” funding/projects
2. Bicycle and pedestrian program parity
3. Reconcile local and regional project priorities
4. Recommended ITIP revisions
5. HOT Network Principles
6. Remaining Resolution 3434 Shortfalls
Issue 1. Committed Funds
6
7
Prior Commitment Policies:
• Locally generated or locally subvened funds
• O&M funds as programmed in TIP, specified by law, or defined by MTC policy
• Projects or project elements fully funded in TIP
• Resolution 3434
• Ongoing regional operations programs (511, FSP, TransLink®, FSP/Callbox/Incident Mgmt,
Connectivity)
8
Revised
9
10
11
Committed Projects:- 25% or More “Other Federal/State” Funds, and- In Planning or Environmental Stage, and- Meets One RTP Goal
County Project Total Cost
Committed “Other
Federal/State”
Regional Doyle Dr. Reconstruction $1.0 $0.5
San Mateo US 101/Willow Rd Interchange Modification
$0.05 $0.03
(costs in escalated billions $)
12
TALC’s “Hit List”
Project Comments
Uncommitted ProjectsAla I-580 WB Truck Climbing Lane • Not on county priority list
Mar/Son 101 Novato Narrows • Not a committed project
SM 101 Aux. Lanes (21604, 21610) • Not committed projects
SCl 101-Widen from Monterey to SR25 • Not a committed project
Son 101 HOV Lanes – Old Redwood Highway to Pepper Rd.
• Not a committed project
Committed ProjectsSR 4 HOV Lanes – Loveridge to Somersville
• In design; 60% local/federal earmark funds
SCl 152 Widening (environ/design only) • In design; 90% local funds
SCl 101 Aux. Lanes • In environmental; 90% CMIA/Local funds
SCL 880 HOV Lanes • In environmental; 90% CMIA/Local funds
SM 101 Aux. Lanes (21608) • In environmental; 90% CMIA/Local funds
Son 101 HOV Lanes – Pepper Rd to Rohnert Pk Exwy
• In ROW; 60% CMIA/Local funds
Issue 2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Parity (escalated millions of $)
Projected Revenues
Estimated Ped. Share
Estimated Bike Share
Committed Funds*
$400 $150 $250
Discretionary Funds**
$2,300 $1,550 $750
Regional Bike Plan Funding***
$1,000 $1,000
TOTAL $3,700 $1,700 $2,000
* Projected revenues and shares based on historical fund allocations to bike and ped projects from various fund sources (e.g. TDA Art. 3)
** Discretionary revenues include TLC and Climate Change Programs; TLC shares based on historical allocations while Climate assumes 50/50 split
*** Includes Class I multi-use paths, which also serve pedestrian travel
13
14
Issue 3. Expansion Investment Approach
RTP Performance Evaluation
Results
CMA/Local Priorities
15
CMA Response
AC Transit Priority Measures and Corridor Improvements Phase 2
• Phase 1 fully funded in financially constrained
• Phase 2 not considered high local priority
Alameda I-580 WB Truck Climbing Lane in Altamont Pass
• Conflicts w/ CMA’s Altamont Gateway Policy• Concern w/ ”downstream” congestion impacts
Solano North Connector: Parallel Corridor to I-80 from Red Top to Abernathy
• Included in priority list
Solano Route 12 Capacity, Operations, and Safety Improvements
• Seeking local funding source to construct• High cost – 1/3rd of funding target
Cost-Effective Projects Excluded from Counties’ Priority ListsProjects with B/C >=3 or Strongly Supports >=2 Goals
16
CMA Response
Contra Costa I-680/Norris Canyon Road HOV Direct Connector Ramps
• Local priority: sales tax project; potential Tri-Valley Development Fee project; PDA• Regional model not sensitive to micro-benefits
Contra Costa Route 4 bypass/SR 160 Freeway Connectors
• Local priority: sales tax project; potential ECCCo Regional Fee project; PDA• Removes regional auto and truck trips on local roads• Regional model not sensitive to micro-benefits
San Mateo Route 92 improvements from San Mateo Bridge to I-280 (includes widening and uphill passing lane from U.S. 101 to I-280)
• Local priority-sales tax project• Serves regional travel – main east/west connector
Projects with Uncertain Need Included on Counties’ Priority ListsProjects with B/C <1
17
Issue 4. Proposed ITIP Allocation(escalated millions of $) Committe
d ITIPRevised
ITIPChange
Intercity RailCapitol Corridor
$149— —
Oakland Subdivision ROW (Dumbarton)
$39 $40 —
Hercules Intermodal — $14 —
ACE ROW/Improvements — $75 —
Martinez Subdivision Grade Seps. — $75 —
Regional ProgramI-80/680 Interchange Phase 1 — $197 -$3
SRs 25, 152 Improvements — $242 -$3
I-580/680 I/C Improvements — $572 -$4
Novato Narrows — $176 -$4
I-680/SR4 Interchange — $43 +$43
TOTAL $188 $1,434 +$29
17
18
Issue 5. Regional HOTNetwork
18
19
HOT Network Principles
1. Collaboration and cooperation – CMAs, Caltrans, CHP, BATA
2. Corridor-based focus and implementation – user orientation
3. Reinvestment within the corridor – capital and operating
4. Corridor investment plans – guide reinvestment
5. Simple system – consistent design, signage, marketing
6. Toll collection – BATA
7. Financing – could include BATA toll bridge enterprise
20
T-2035 Assumption: Net Revenue Sharing
County
Share of Net
RevenueStress
Test T2035
Alameda 27 0.4 1.7
Contra Costa 31 0.4 1.9
Santa Clara 38 0.6 2.3
Regional (Toll Bridges)
4 0.1 0.2
TOTAL 100% $1.5 $6.1
(Dollars in billions in year 2033)
21
Net HOT Revenue CorridorProposed Expenditures
• Alameda County— Express Bus/BRT— ITS Management Technologies— Rail Improvements
• Contra Costa County— Corridor Mobility Improvements TBD
• Santa Clara— Transit – 2000 Measure A capital and operating needs— Local Road Rehabilitation— Local Transportation Projects and Enhancements
• Regional (Toll Bridges)— Corridor Mobility Improvements TBD
22
Issue 6. Potential Expenditures for Unanticipated New Revenues• Transit Capital and Operating Shortfalls – $19 billion
• State Highway Shortfall – $13 billion
• Local Roads Shortfall – $11 billion
• Resolution 3434 Shortfalls – $3.2 billion
• Regional Bicycle Program – $900 million
• Lifeline Program – $1.2 billion
• Regional Rail Right-of-Way Preservation – $740 million
• BART Core Capacity Improvements – $4.2 billion
Resolution 3434 Project Status
Project Total Cost
RTP Funding
RTP Status
Tier 1- AC Berk/Oak BRT- BART/WS- eBART- Capitol Corridor- Muni Central Subway- Muni Van Ness BRT- TBT: bus terminal- Tri- Valley Improve.- VTA E. Valley BRT/LRT- Ferry Services
$5.2 $5.2 • Funded through construction
Tier 2- BART/OAK Connector- Caltrain Electrification
$1.1 $1.1 • Funded through construction
Tier 3-SMART-BART/SJ
$6.7 $6.1 • SMART: Funded through design• BART/SJ: funded through construction (HOT revs)
Tier 4- AC Grand BRT- Caltrain Express Ph.2- Dumbarton Rail- ACE Service Expansion - TBT Ph. 2
$4.2 $1.6• AC: Funded through construction • Caltrain: Funded through design • Dumbarton: Funded through ROW • ACE: Funded through ROW • TBT: Funded through ROW
(costs in escalated billions $)
23
24
Follow-on Discussion Issues/Next Steps
• Revisit Vision Policies
• Further Analyses – EIR & Target Achievement
• New Funding Advocacy
• Program Frameworks
• HOT Network Implementation Strategy
• Approve Plan/EIR: March 2009
25
Key RTP Contributors:• Doug Kimsey, Planning Director• Ashley Nguyen, RTP Project Manager• Catalina Alvarado• Alix Bockelman• Carolyn Clevenger• James Corless• Ellen Griffin• Ray Kan• Lisa Klein• Chuck Purvis• Anne Richman• Theresa Romell• Michele Stone• Glen Tepke• Ursula Vogler