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