SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room Los … · 2019-06-28 · REGULAR MEETING...

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Tess Rey-Chaput at (213) 236-1908 or via email at [email protected]. Agendas & Minutes for the Transportation Committee are available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/committees/Pages/default.aspx SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to participate in this meeting. SCAG is also committed to helping people with limited proficiency in the English language access the agency’s essential public information and services. You can request such assistance by calling (213) 236-1908. We request at least 72 hours notice to provide reasonable accommodations and will make every effort to arrange for assistance as soon as possible.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Transportation Committee Members – January 2017

Members Representing

Chair* 1. Hon. Barbara Messina Alhambra District 34

Vice-Chair* 2. Hon. Karen Spiegel Corona District 63

* 3. Hon. Sean Ashton Downey District 25

* 4. Hon. Rusty Bailey Riverside District 68

* 5. Hon. Glen Becerra Simi Valley District 46

6. Hon. Ben Benoit Wildomar WRCOG

7. Hon. Russell Betts Desert Hot Springs CVAG

* 8. Hon. Art Brown Buena Park District 21

* 9. Hon. Joe Buscaino Los Angeles District 62

10. Hon. Jim B. Clarke Culver City WSCCOG

* 11. Hon. Jonathan Curtis La Cañada Flintridge District 36

* 12. Hon. Gene Daniels Paramount District 24

* 13. Hon. James Gazeley Lomita District 39

* 14. Hon. Jeffrey Giba Moreno Valley District 69

* 15. Hon. Lena Gonzalez Long Beach District 30

16. Hon. Bert Hack Laguna Woods OCCOG

* 17. Hon. Curt Hagman San Bernardino County

* 18. Hon. Jan Harnik Palm Desert RCTC

19. Hon. Dave Harrington Aliso Viejo OCCOG

* 20. Hon. Carol Herrera Diamond Bar District 37

* 21. Hon. Steve Hofbauer Palmdale District 43

* 22. Hon. Jose Huizar Los Angeles District 61

* 23. Hon. Jim Hyatt Calimesa District 3

24. Hon. Linda Krupa Hemet WRCOG

* 25. Hon. Randon Lane Murrieta District 5

26. Hon. James C. Ledford Palmdale North L. A. County

* 27. Hon. Antonio Lopez San Fernando District 67

* 28. Hon. Clint Lorimore Eastvale District 4

* 29. Hon. Ray Marquez Chino Hills District 10

* 30. Hon. Michele Martinez Santa Ana District 16

31. Hon. Marsha McLean Santa Clarita North L. A. County

* 32. Hon. Dan Medina Gardena District 28

* 33. Hon. L. Dennis Michael Rancho Cucamonga District 9

Transportation Committee Members – January 2017

Members Representing

* 34. Hon. Fred Minagar Laguna Niguel District 12

35. Hon. Carol Moore Laguna Woods OCCOG

* 36. Hon. Gene Murabito Glendora District 33

* 37. Hon. Kris Murray Anaheim District 19

* 38. Hon. Frank Navarro Colton District 6

* 39. Hon. Pam O'Connor Santa Monica District 41

* 40. Hon. Sam Pedroza Claremont District 38

41. Hon. Teresa Real Sebastian Monterey Park SGVCOG

42. Hon. Dwight Robinson Lake Forest OCCOG

* 43. Hon. Ali Saleh Bell District 27

44. Hon. Damon Sandoval Morongo Band of Mission Indians

* 45. Hon. Marty Simonoff Brea District 22

46. Hon. Zareh Sinanyan Glendale SFVCOG

* 47. Hon. Jose Luis Solache Lynwood District 26

48. Hon. David Spence La Cañada Flintridge Arroyo Verdugo Cities

49. Hon. Barb Stanton Town of Apple Valley SANBAG

* 50. Hon. Michelle Steel Orange County

51. Hon. Cynthia Sternquist Temple City SGVCOG

52. Hon. Jess Talamantes Burbank SFVCOG

53. Hon. Brent Tercero Pico Rivera GCCOG

* 54. Hon. Cheryl Viegas-Walker El Centro District 1

* 55. Hon. Alan Wapner Ontario SANBAG

* 56. Hon. Chuck Washington Riverside County

* 57. Hon. Michael Wilson Indio District 66

58. Mr. Gary T. Slater Caltrans, District 7 Ex-Officio Member * Regional Council Member

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AG E N D A

JA N U A R Y 5, 2017

i

The Transportation Committee (TC) may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda

regardless of whether they are listed as Information or Action Items.

CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

(The Honorable Barbara Messina, Chair)

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or

items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Committee, must fill out and present a

speaker’s card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. The

Chair may limit the total time for all comments to twenty (20) minutes.

REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS

CONSENT CALENDAR Time Page No.

Approval Item

1. Minutes of the November 3, 2016 Meeting Attachment 1

Receive and File

2. SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program Attachment 8

3. 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy Committees

Attachment 12

ACTION ITEM

4. Release of Draft 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) Amendment No. 1 and Draft 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 (Daniel Tran, SCAG Staff))

Recommended Action: Authorize the release of the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 for public review and comment, officially commencing on January 6, 2017.

Attachment 15 mins. 13

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AG E N D A

JA N U A R Y 5, 2017

ii

INFORMATION ITEMS Time Page No.

5. Norwalk Green Line Extension Study (Philip Law, SCAG Staff)


6. Transit Asset Management (TAM) Final Rule (Philip Law, SCAG Staff)


CHAIR’S REPORT

(The Honorable Barbara Messina, Chair)

METROLINK REPORT

(The Honorable Art Brown, SCAG Representative to Metrolink)

STAFF REPORT

(Courtney Aguirre, SCAG Staff)

FUTURE AGENDA ITEM/S

ADJOURNMENT

The next regular meeting of the Transportation Committee (TC) is scheduled for Thursday, February 2,

2017 and will held at the SCAG Los Angeles Office.

Transportation Committee Meeting of the

Southern California Association of Governments November 3, 2016

Minutes

THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL

MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING IN SCAG’S OFFICE.

The Transportation Committee (TC) met at SCAG’s office in downtown Los Angeles. The meeting was called to order by Chair Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra. A quorum was present.

Members Present:

Hon. Mike Antonovich Los Angeles County

Hon. Sean Ashton, Downey District 25 Hon. Rusty Bailey, Riverside District 68 Hon. Russell Betts, Desert Hot Springs CVAG

Hon. Art Brown, Buena Park District 21 Hon. Diana Lee Carey, Westminster OCCOG Hon. Jim Clarke, Culver City WCCOG Hon. Jonathan Curtis, La Cañada-Flintridge District 36 Hon. Gene Daniels, Paramount District 24

Hon. James Gazeley, Lomita District 39 Hon. Jeffrey, Giba, Moreno Valley District 69 Hon. Curt Hagman San Bernardino County Hon. Jan Harnik, Palm Desert RCTC Hon. Carol Herrera, Diamond Bar District 37 Hon. Steven Hofbauer, Palmdale District 43 Hon. Jim Hyatt, Calimesa District 3 Hon. Jim Katapodis, Huntington Beach District 64 Hon. Linda Krupa, Hemet WRCOG Hon. Clint Lorimore, Eastvale District 4 Hon. Michele Martinez, Santa Ana District 16

Hon. Ryan McEachron, Victorville District 65 Hon. Marsha McLean, Santa Clarita District 67 Hon. Dan Medina, Gardena District 28

Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra (Chair) District 34

Hon. L. Dennis Michael District 9 Hon. Keith Millhouse, Moorpark VCTC

Hon. Fred Minagar, Laguna Niguel District 12 Hon. Carol Moore, Laguna Woods OCCOG Hon. Gene Murabito, Glendora District 33 Hon. Frank Navarro, Colton District 6 Hon. Teresa Real Sebastian, Monterey Park SGVCOG Hon. Ali Saleh, Bell GCCOG Hon. Marty Simonoff, Brea District 22 Hon. David Spence, La Canada-Flintridge Arroyo Verdugo Cities Hon. Karen Spiegel, Corona (Vice Chair) District 63 Hon. Michelle Steel County of Orange

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1

TC Packet --- Page 1 of 86

Hon. Alan Wapner, Ontario SANBAG Hon. Michael Wilson, Indio District 66

Mr. Gary Slater Caltrans District 7

Members Not Present:

Hon. Glen Becerra, Simi Valley District 46

Hon. Ben Benoit, Wildomar WRCOG Hon. Joe Buscaino, Los Angeles District 62 Hon. Gonzalez, Lena, Long Beach District 30 Hon. Bert Hack, Laguna Woods OCCOG

Hon. Dave Harrington, Aliso Viejo OCCOG Hon. Jose Huizar, Los Angeles District 61 Hon. Randon Lane, Murrieta Murrieta Hon. Severo Lara, Ojai VCOG Hon. James C. Ledford Palmdale Hon. Antonio Lopez, San Fernando District 67 Hon. Ray Marquez, Chino Hills District 10 Hon. Kris Murray, Anaheim District 19 Hon. Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica District 41

Hon. Sam Pedroza, Claremont District 38 Hon. Dwight Robinson, Lake Forest OCCOG Hon. Damon Sandoval Morongo Band of Mission Indians Hon. Zareh Sinanyan Glendale Hon. José Luis Solache, Lynwood District 26 Hon. Barb Stanton, Apple Valley SANBAG Hon. Cynthia Sternquist, Temple City SGVCOG Hon. Jess Talamantes SFVCOG Hon. Brent Tercero, Pico Rivera GCCOG Hon. Cheryl Viegas-Walker, El Centro District 1 Hon. Chuck Washington, Temecula Riverside County

CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra, called the meeting to order at 10:16 a.m. Hon. Teresa Real Sebastian, Monterey Park, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Peter Sluis commented on the September 29, 2016 Metrolink discussion and offered alternative analysis regarding statements of commuter rail’s effect on reducing freeway traffic, farebox recovery estimates and the cost of double tracking. Mr. Sluis noted light rail transit would better serve the area with less impact on residents. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes of the September 29, 2016 Meeting

A MOTION was made (Wapner) and SECONDED (Spiegel) to approve the Minutes. The Motion passed by the following votes: AYES: Antonovich, Bailey, Brown, Clarke, Daniels, Gazeley, Giba, Hagman,

Herrera, Hyatt, Lorimore, Martinez, McEachron, Medina, Messina,


Michael, Minagar, Moore, Navarro, Simonoff, Spence, Spiegel, Steel, Wapner, Wilson

NOES: None ABSTAIN: Ashton, Betts, Carey, Curtis, Harnik, Katapodis, Krupa, Murabito, Real Sebastian

Receive and File

2. 2015 Regional Active Transportation Program (ATP) 3. 2017 Local Profiles Update 4. Cap-and-Trade Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Affordable Housing &

Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program and Award Update

5. California Housing Summit: The Cost of Not Housing- Recap

6. SB 375 Target Setting Stress Test Status Report

7. 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy Committees

A MOTION was made (Wapner) and SECONDED (Real Sebastian) to approve Consent Calendar items 2 - 7. The Motion passed by the following votes: AYES: Ashton, Bailey, Betts, Brown, Carey, Clarke, Curtis, Daniels, Gazeley,

Giba, Hagman, Harnik, Herrera, Hofbauer, Hyatt, Katapodis, Krupa, Lorimore, Martinez, McEachron, Medina, Messina, Michael, Minagar, Moore, Murabito, Navarro, Real Sebastian, Simonoff, Spence, Spiegel, Steel, Wapner, Wilson

NOES: None ABSTAIN: None

INFORMATION ITEMS

8. 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment

Margot Yapp, Vice President, Nichols Consulting Engineers, presented findings of the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment. Ms. Yapp stated the study looked at pavement conditions for the state’s 143,000 miles of local streets and roads as well as bridge conditions. She noted the statewide Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was 65, which was a decrease from 66 in 2014 and 68 in 2008. She stated that the PCI for Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties was 71, and she stated that total pavement funding needs was estimated at $70 billion over the next 10 years. She added that there were 9,307 miles of unpaved roads statewide that would require $918 million to maintain over this time. Ms. Yapp then reviewed the benefits and costs savings that could be achieved by recycling existing road materials during construction. Ms. Yapp stated that essential street components such as traffic signals, signs, and storm drains were reviewed and these can amount to 30 percent of total costs. She estimated that $32 billion in funding was needed to maintain essential street components over the next decade. Ms. Yapp reviewed bridge conditions and stated that 12,501 bridges statewide -almost half- were more than 50 years old, which was their planned service life. She stated that 1,448 bridges were structurally deficient, 1,930 functionally obsolete and 2,663 required rehabilitation, which represented a funding need of $4.6 billion. Ms. Yapp noted total pavement, essential components, and bridge funding needs was $106.7 billion over the next 10 years. She noted that existing funding during this time was $20 billion, and the impacts of not meeting this funding gap would cause further decline of the state’s PCI from 66 today to 56 in 2026. She stated that the amount of deferred maintenance funding would


grow from $39 billion to $59 billion, and the number of failed roads would increase during this time from 6.9 percent to 22.2 percent. She stated that it was estimated that $3.5 billion in annual funding was needed to maintain streets and roads at the current PCI rating of 66 and $7 billion annually was needed to maintain roads at the level of Best Management Practices. She stated that once that condition was attained only $2.5 billion was needed annually to maintain it. Ms. Yapp reviewed the effects of balancing the funding shortfall by an increase in the gas tax. Hon. Curt Hagman, San Bernardino County, asked if additional options could be provided to policymakers when there was a need to address a funding shortfall such as modifying the current funding allocation.

Hon. Dan Medina, Gardena, asked if the decline in pavement conditions since 2008 could be related to the increase in population during that time. Ms. Yapp responded that the state’s population had grown nearly one-third in the past 20 years, while the gas tax which funds road maintenance had not been raised during this time so the funding source has been fixed while population and construction costs kept growing.

9. California Transportation Plan 2040 - Implementation

Gary Slater, Deputy Director, California Department of Transportation District 7, reported on the California Transportation Plan 2040 (CTP 2040). Mr. Slater stated federal and state law required the development of a statewide long-range transportation plan and the CTP provided a framework for guiding transportation decisions and investments by all levels of government and the private sector. He stated that it also provides policy recommendations regarding current transportation issues as well as future transit challenges. Mr. Slater noted the state’s growing population, estimated to be approximately 60 million by 2050, and the diverse economy were creating increased demand on the transportation system while revenue for transportation had become more constrained and the aging highway system required more intensive rehabilitation and preservation. Mr. Slater noted the CTP 2040 addressed existing conditions, future needs and opportunities for all modes of transportation as an integrated system including highways, public transit, passenger rail, bicycle and pedestrian, aviation, freight mobility, ports, and waterways. He noted a key aspect of the current CTP 2040 included the evaluation of various scenarios to identify what may be needed to reach the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals by utilizing low- and zero-emission technology and fuels. Mr. Slater stated the vision for the CTP 2040 was to achieve a fully integrated, multi-modal and sustainable transportation system in California. He stated that the CTP 2040 aimed to improve mobility and accessibility for all people, preserve the multi-modal transportation system, support a vibrant economy, improve public safety and security, foster livable and healthy communities, promote social equity, and practice environmental stewardship. Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra, asked about the I-10 interchange approaching downtown Los Angeles and noted it was an increasing chokepoint area. She asked about Caltrans’ ability to address these type of situations. Mr. Slater responded that Caltrans was an operator that maintained the facility and worked to improve safety and operations. He stated that capacity enhancements fell under local purview and would require the use of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or local sales tax measures revenues.


10. SANBAG Advanced Regional Rail Integrated Vision – East (ARRIVE) Corridor

Steve Smith, Director of Planning, San Bernardino Associated Governments, reported on the ARRIVE Corridor. Mr. Smith stated the ARRIVE corridor focusses on the San Bernardino County rail stations along the Metrolink San Bernardino Line. This includes stations in Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino as well as the new Downtown San Bernardino station opening in 2017. The goal of the project is to improve transit-oriented development (TOD) around the stations and transition them to vibrant activity centers over time.

Mr. Smith noted the San Bernardino line is Metrolink’s busiest and while this transition is sought over time there are favorable operational improvements occurring such as a reduced fare structure for short trips, easier ticketing through a mobile ticketing platform, double tracking of segments and increasing service frequency mid-day. Future opportunities to develop a network of transportation options along the corridor include the Gold Line extension to Montclair, Redlands Rail as well as connectivity to Ontario International Airport.

Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and Montclair are developing TODs. Hon. Michael noted the Lewis Group of Companies recently purchased a public golf course in Rancho Cucamonga and will be developing it as a TOD facility. Additionally, the surface parking lot at the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station is being transformed into a TOD development.

METROLINK REPORT

Hon. Art Brown, Buena Park, reported on the October 14th and 28th Metrolink Board meetings. Mr. Brown reported that after 11 years of service, Board member Keith Millhouse is retiring. Proclamations were presented by Senator Feinstein, California Assembly and Senate members and the City of Los Angeles honoring his exceptional service. Also, the procurement process for the new ticket vending machines was approved. Additionally, all BNSF locomotives have been returned to BNSF. The BNSF locomotives were put in service as an additional safety measure. Further, Metrolink has been meeting with law enforcement agencies and bus transit providers such as Antelope Valley Transit Authority and Santa Clarita Transit to speed up incident response times. Mr. Brown stated that it would be useful for policy makers to visit Sacramento lawmakers and express our unique regional needs. Hon. Steven Hofbauer, Palmdale, asked if deputies have been reinstated on the Antelope Valley Line to provide security. Hon. Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County, responded that deputy staffing has been returned to previous staffing levels.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Gary Slater, Caltrans, announced that FASTLANE applications are currently being collected and those will be forwarded to Sacramento with final projects going to FHWA for consideration.


CHAIR’S REPORT

Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra, stated SCAG will hold its 7th Annual Economic Summit at The L.A. Hotel Downtown December 1, 2016 in lieu of the regular monthly meetings. The next regular meeting of the Transportation Committee (TC) is scheduled for Thursday, January 5, 2017.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEM

Hon. Teresa Real Sebastian, Monterey Park, asked for staff analysis regarding the allocation of gas taxes collected in the region.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra, adjourned the meeting at 12:02 p.m.

Courtney Aguirre, Senior Regional Planner Transportation Planning


DATE: January 5, 2017

TO: Regional Council (RC) Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) Community, Economic, and Human Development (CEHD) Committee Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) Transportation Committee (TC)

FROM: Jason Greenspan, Manager of Sustainability, 213-236-1859; [email protected]

SUBJECT: SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and File. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 29, 2016, the Regional Council approved the guidelines and scoring criteria for the

2016 Sustainability Planning Grant (SPG) program. Staff subsequently released the SPG Call for

Proposals and is now providing a summary of applications received by the November 18, 2016

deadline. The SPG is a multi-year program designed to support and implement the policies and

initiatives of the 2016 RTP/SCS and continues the themes of the previous round of grant funded

projects. There is a multi-year SPG funding commitment of $6 million including $1.0 million from

SCAG and $5 million from external sources, for a current program total of $11 million. Any

additional SCAG resources will be requested as part of the budget development process in future

fiscal years. SCAG is providing this preliminary summary of total project proposals received, and

total amount of requested funding. SCAG received a total of 139 project proposals requesting

approximately $35.5M, across all project categories and types.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; and Goal 4: Develop, Maintain and Promote the Utilization of State of the Art Models, Information Systems and Communication Technologies.

BACKGROUND:

Consolidated Sustainability Planning Grant Call for Proposals Since 2004, the SPG (formerly Compass Blueprint) has been a successful component of SCAG’s efforts to assist local jurisdictions and implement RTP/SCS policies. To date, 200 Sustainability Planning Grant-funded local planning projects have been completed or are currently in progress, providing a total funding of $22M. Each of these innovative projects provides an example of integrated transportation and

AGENDA ITEM NO. 2


land use planning, tailored to local needs and aligned with regional priorities that other cities and counties can emulate. A consolidated SPG Call for Proposals framework with associated guidelines and scoring criteria was developed by SCAG staff to help support innovative approaches to addressing and solving regional issues. The SPG guidelines and scoring criteria were presented simultaneously to all three Policy Committees on September 1, 2016, and staff made certain adjustments to respond to comments received. The revised guidelines and scoring criteria were approved by the Regional Council on September 29, 2016. Following the Regional Council’s approval of the 2016 SPG Program guidelines and scoring criteria in September, staff released a call for proposals on and set an application deadline of November 18, 2016 The SPG Call for Proposals seeks to support the following goals:

• Provide needed planning resources to local jurisdictions for sustainability planning efforts • Develop local plans that support the implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS • Increase the region’s competitiveness for federal and state funds, including the California

Active Transportation Program and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds. Active Transportation (AT) grants will fund planning and non-infrastructure projects or programs that promote safety and encourage people to walk and bike more. Integrated Land Use (ILU) grants will continue to focus on sustainable land use and transportation planning. Green Regions Initiative (GRI) grants will assist local jurisdictions in funding sustainability plans or studies, such as climate action plans and water, energy, resiliency or open space studies. The new consolidated Call for Proposals solicited project proposals for all three program areas. SCAG is providing this preliminary summary of total project proposals received, and total amount of requested funding. SCAG received a total of 139 project proposals requesting approximately $35.5M in funding, across all project categories and types. The attached summary report provides a breakdown by project category. Please note this number may change if projects are disqualified, or deemed ineligible.

Evaluation Process The evaluation process was documented in the program guidelines as follows. For AT projects, six (6) evaluation teams, one (1) per county, were established to review, score and rank applications submitted to the SPG. Each team was comprised of staff from the county transportation commissions and SCAG. Projects were ranked against other projects within their respective county, except as noted below. In addition, if a county transportation commission submits a proposal for any of the project types, the application will be reviewed and scored by SCAG staff only. Final awards will be based on application score, regional equity targets and funding eligibility. For ILU/GRI projects three (3) evaluation teams, one (1) for each project category, were established to review, score and rank applications submitted to the SPG. Each team was comprised of staff from partner agencies, stakeholder groups, and from SCAG. Projects were ranked against other projects


within their respective categories. Final awards will be based on application score, regional geographic equity and funding eligibility. Both AT and ILU/GRI Capacity Building Mini-Grants were awarded competitively across the region and were scored by SCAG staff only to avoid any conflicts of interest. Next Steps The tentative schedule for finalizing the proposal evaluation, and announcing results is presented below. Greater details on eligibility, selection criteria and the evaluation process can be found in the Consolidated SPG Guidelines (http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Pages/DemoProjApplication.aspx).

• January 2017: County Transportation Commission Approvals (Active Transportation Program funded projects only)

• February 2, 2017: Regional Council Approval of 2017 SPG proposal rankings

• February 6, 2017: Submit Regional Program to CTC (Active Transportation Project funded projects only)

• March 2017: CTC adopts Regional Program (Active Transportation Program funded projects only)

• March - June 2017: SCAG staff contacts top-ranking project applicants to develop consultant Request for Proposals

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff’s work budget for the current fiscal year is included in FY 2016-17 OWP 065.00137.01 and OWP 150.04094.01 ATTACHMENT:

Sustainability Planning Grant Program Summary Table


SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants January 5, 2017 Regional Council Program Summary

County Projects Total Request Active

Transportation

Shared Vision

Projects

Integrated Land Use /

Green Region

Los Angeles 72 $16,301,481 39 $5,488,534 9 $7,296,843 24 $3,516,104

Orange 16 $4,202,355 10 $1,992,975 3 $1,610,000 3 $599,380

Riverside 27 $6,555,504 11 $2,186,399 5 $2,893,822 11 $1,475,283

San Bernardino 18 $7,570,000 8 $3,225,000 2 $1,490,000 8 $2,855,000

Ventura 4 $466,116 2 $200,000 - - 2 $266,116

Imperial 2 $400,000 1 $200,000 - - 1 $200,000

Total 139 $35,495,456 71 $13,292,908 19 $13,290,665 49 $8,911,883


2017 Meeting Schedule

Regional Council and Policy Committees

All Regular Meetings are scheduled on the 1st Thursday of each month

(Approved by the Regional Council 09-01-16)

Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Community, Economic and Human

Development Committee (CEHD)

10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Transportation Committee (TC) 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Regional Council (RC) 12:15 PM – 2:00 PM

January 5, 2017

February 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

April 6, 2017

May 4 – 5, 2017 (SCAG Regional Conference and General Assembly, JW Marriott Desert Springs)

June 1, 2017

July 6, 2017

August 3, 2017 (DARK)

September 7, 2017 (Note: League of California Cities Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA; Sep. 13 - 15)

October 5, 2017

November 2, 2017

December 7, 2017 (SCAG 8th Annual Economic Summit --- in lieu of the regularly scheduled

Regional Council and Policy Committees’ Meetings)

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3



TO: Transportation Committee (TC)

FROM: Naresh Amatya, Acting Director of Transportation, (213) 236-1885, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Release of Draft 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) Amendment No. 1 and Draft 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Consistency Amendment No. 17-03


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the release of the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 for public review and comment, officially commencing on January 6, 2017.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At its April 7, 2016 meeting, the Regional Council (RC) adopted the 2016 RTP/SCS as developed and

recommended by the Transportation Committee (TC). In response to requests from several county

transportation commissions (CTCs) to amend the 2016 RTP/SCS to reflect additions or changes to

project scopes, costs, and/or schedules, over the past few months, SCAG staff has worked with the

CTCs to develop an amendment to the 2016 RTP/SCS and a concurrent consistency amendment to the

2017 FTIP. Staff is seeking authorization from the TC to release the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment

No. 1 and Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 for a 30-day public review and

comment period beginning January 6, 2017 and ending February 6, 2017. SCAG staff will seek a TC

recommendation to the RC to approve the proposed final 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and 2017

FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 at the March 2, 2017 meeting.

The pending release of the Conformity Analysis associated with the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment

No. 1 and Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 is going before the Energy and

Environment Committee (EEC) as an information item at its meeting today. In addition, the pending

release of the draft California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the Draft 2016

RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 will be presented to the EEC for review at its February 2, 2017 meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan, Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective (a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forward thinking regional plans. BACKGROUND:

SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county region of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura, per federal law (23 USCA §134 et seq.), and the region’s transportation planning agency per state law. As such, it is responsible for developing and maintaining the RTP/SCS and FTIP in cooperation with the State (Caltrans), the CTCs, and public transit

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4


operators. Both the RTP/SCS and FTIP are developed through a “continuing, cooperative and comprehensive” (the 3 C’s) planning approach which is also performance-driven and outcome-based. Starting last summer, SCAG staff received requests from several CTCs to amend the 2016 RTP/SCS to reflect additions or changes to project scopes, costs, and/or schedule for a number of critical transportation projects that are ready to move forward toward the implementation phase. As a result, SCAG staff has developed the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 along with the Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03. Specific changes include 20 project modifications to financially constrained RTP/SCS projects and 53 project modifications to FTIP projects amounting to a total 73 project modifications. Of the 73 project modifications, 4 of the projects are within Imperial County, 37 of the projects are within Los Angeles County, 10 of the projects are within Orange County, 9 of the projects are within Riverside County, 12 of the projects are within San Bernardino County, and one project within various counties. In addition, modifications have been made to the RTP/SCS unconstrained Strategic Projects List. Specifically, 16 project modifications have been made, including the removal of 15 projects, which have been identified as already included as constrained projects in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List. The remaining change included a revision to a project’s system classification from transit to passenger rail. SCAG staff is conducting a programmatic environmental assessment of the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List documented in proposed Amendment No. 1 pursuant to CEQA. If SCAG finds that the projects identified in the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 are programmatically consistent with the analysis and performance-standards based mitigation measures contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and associated Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration, and that adoption of the proposed modifications would not result in either new significant adverse environmental impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant adverse impacts in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, SCAG staff will prepare an Addendum No. 1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, in accordance with the CEQA provisions. The programmatic environmental assessments of all previous RTP and RTP/SCS amendments have resulted in the preparation of PEIR addendums. SCAG staff is requesting authorization to release the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and the Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03, including the Conformity Analysis for a 30-day public review and comment starting January 6, 2017 and ending on February 6, 2017. During the public review period, a public hearing will be held on January 18, 2017 at SCAG’s Los Angeles office with video-conferencing availability from SCAG’s regional offices. The Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and the Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 will be posted on SCAG’s website and noticed via SCAG’s website, newsletters, social media, and meeting announcements. The public will be encouraged to provide comments at the aforementioned public hearing and through formal written comments submitted either by U.S. mail or by email ([email protected]). Upon completion of the public review period, SCAG staff will provide responses to all comments to the proposed final 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03. The proposed final 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 will thereafter be presented to the TC for a recommendation of its approval to the RC at the March 2, 2017 meeting and to the RC for its approval at the April 6, 2017 meeting. The final Conformity Analysis


and applicable CEQA documentation will be presented to the EEC and RC for approval on the same day. Federal certification of the final transportation conformity determination for the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 is expected to occur in June/July 2017. The Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 is accessible at: http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/DRAFT2016RTPSCSAMEND01.aspx.

The Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 is accessible at: http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2017/draft.aspx or www.scag.ca.gov. FISCAL IMPACT:

Work associated with this item is included in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Overall Work Program (WBS No. 15-010.SCG0170.01: RTP Support, Development, and Implementation and WBS No. 15-03-0146A.02 for FTIP). ATTACHMENTS:

1. PowerPoint Presentation: Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 2. Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1 and Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment No. 17-03


11

Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1

January 5, 2017

Daniel Tran, Associate Regional Planner

22

2016 RTP/SCS – Adopted April 7, 2016

What?• Long-term Vision and Investment

Framework• Federal Requirement

– Updated every 4 years to maintain eligibility for federal funding

– Long Range: 20+ years into the future– Financially-constrained: Revenues =

Costs– Passes regional emission standards

(Conformity)

• State Requirement – Must meet SB 375 requirements (address

GHG reductions)

Why?• Transportation knows no boundaries

• Coordinate regional projects

• Facilitates regional/local competitiveness for funding

• Integrates transportation investments and land use strategies

• Allows any federally-funded or regionally-significant projects to maintain their eligibility for federal funding


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1

rey

Typewritten Text

33

2016 RTP/SCS Project List Appendix

� Contains thousands of individual transportation projects including: • Transit • Local Highway • State Highway • Passenger Rail• Other

� Divided into three sections: • FTIP (short range – 1st six years)• RTP (long range – 20+ years)• Strategic (unconstrained)

44

Why Amend the RTP/SCS?

1. Required when a plan revision takes place – e.g., addition or deletion of a project or a major change in project scope, cost and schedule.

2. Projects need to maintain eligibility for federal funding.

3. To move forward with the project approval/environmental document (PA/ED) phase, a project must be part of a conforming RTP/SCS.


55

Types of Project Modifications

� Project currently exists in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List, but needs: • a revised description, • a revised schedule, • a change in total cost, or • a combination of the above

changes. � Project is new and is not currently

included in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List

� Project is being removed from the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List due to changing priorities

66


� Since 2016 RTP/SCS adoption, CTCs need revisions to allow critical projects to move forward

� Changes in Amendment #1 include:

• 73 modifications to financially constrained projects (53 FTIP & 20 RTP)

• 16 modifications to strategic unconstrained projects

� Includes concurrent FTIP Consistency Amendment #17-03 and environmental assessment

� Maintains financial constraint, revenues = costs

� Meets federal and state requirements, including conformity and SB 375 (GHG targets)


77


� Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 can be viewed online here: http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/DRAFT2016RTPSCSAMEND01.aspx

� Draft 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment #17-03 can be viewed online here: http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2017/draft.aspx

� Public hearing on January 18, 2017 at SCAG’s Los Angeles office with video-conferencing to SCAG’s regional offices

� Comments can be submitted via U.S. mail to SCAG or emailed to [email protected]

88

Next Steps

� January 5 - Release amendment for 30-day public review and comment

� January 18 - Public hearing

� February 6 - Public review and comment period ends

� March 2 - TC considers recommending to RC approval of amendment

� April 6 - RC considers approval of amendment

� June/July 2017 - Federal approval of the final transportation conformity determination for the amendment


99

Thank You

[email protected]


THE 2016–2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGYA Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability and a High Quality of Life

DRAFT AMENDMENT #1INCLUDING THE 2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT # 17-03

JANUARY 5, 2017


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

JANUARY 5, 2017

DRAFT AMENDMENT #1INCLUDING THE

2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT #17-03

INTRODUCTION 1

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 1

FISCAL IMPACT 37

SENATE BILL 375 AND THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY 37

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY 38

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 42

CONCLUSION 42

ATTACHMENT: RTP/SCS REVISION SHEET #1 43


DRAFT AMENDMENT #1

PROJECT MODIFICATIONSThe project changes identified in this Amendment can be broadly categorized as follows:

z Project is new and is not currently included in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List.

z Project currently exists in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List, but needs:

� a revised description,

� a revised schedule,

� a change in total cost, or

� a combination of the above changes.

z Project is being removed from the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List.

The tables on the following pages provide details of the project changes from the current Plan and are intended to illustrate a before-and-after scenario for each of the projects. For a complete listing of projects, please refer to the Project List Appendix.

INTRODUCTIONOn April 7, 2016, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS or “Plan” herein) for the six-county region including Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties. The 2016 RTP/SCS reflects the region’s commitment to improve the region’s mobility, sustainability and economy. To achieve these goals, the Plan demonstrates how the region will reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set forth by the federal Clean Air Act.

A major component of the 2016 RTP/SCS is a Project List containing thousands of individual transportation projects that aim to improve the region’s mobility and air quality and revitalize our economy. Since its adoption, some of these projects have experienced technical changes that are time-sensitive. In addition, the county transportation commissions (CTCs) in the SCAG region have also identified new project priorities in addition to projects that are no longer priorities. An amendment to the 2016 RTP/SCS and the Federal Transportation Investment Program (FTIP) is needed in order to allow these projects to move forward in a timely manner.

The purpose of this document is to identify the project changes being made via Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and the associated Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP and provide documentation demonstrating that the 2016 RTP/SCS as amended will continue to be consistent with federal and state requirements, including the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) and Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) planning requirements, the Transportation Conformity Rule and SB 375. Environmental assessment is currently underway to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List as detailed herein.


2 2016 RTP/SCS I DRAFT AMENDMENT #1 INCLUDING THE 2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT # 17-03

TAblE 1 Modifications to FTIP Projects

# COUNTY LEAD AGENCY

RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE

NAME DESCRIPTION COMPLETIONYEAR

COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

1 IMPERIAL EL CENTRO 1161L001 IMP160901 LOCAL HIGHWAY

IMPERIAL AVE IMPERIAL AVENUE EXTENSION SOUTH - NEW ROADWAY FROM I-8 TO MCCABE ROAD. PHASE 1 INCLUDES 6 NEW LANES ON IMPERIAL AVENUE FROM I-8 TO WAKE AVENUE; AND 2 NEW LANES ON WAKE AVENUE FROM IMPERIAL AVENUE TO CYPRESS DRIVE.

2025 $5,556 NEW RTP PROJECT COST.

NEW PROJECT

2 LOS ANGELES EL MONTE 1AL04 LAF3125 LOCAL HIGHWAY

RAMONA BLVD RAMONA CORRIDOR TRANSIT CENTER ACCESS PROJECT. CONSTRUCT A NEW UNDERPASS STRUCTURE ON RAMONA BLVD UNDER SANTA ANITA AVE TO ACCESS THE LOWER LEVEL OF THE EL MONTE TRANSIT CENTER. THE PROPOSED BUS TUNNEL RAMPS WILL BEGIN EAST OF THE SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND RAMONA BOULEVARD INTERSECTION ON RAMONA BOULEVARD AND THE TUNNEL WILL CONTINUE UNDER SANTA ANITA AVENUE (ALONG ROMONA BOULEVARD) TO THE LOWER LEVEL OF THE EL MONTE TRANSIT CENTER AND INCLUDES 1 BUS ONLY LANE IN EACH DIRECTION.

EXISTING: 2016

REVISED: 2020

EXISTING: $15,302

REVISED: $15,830

RTP PROJECT COST INCREASE.

REVISED SCHEDULE AND COST

3 LOS ANGELES INDUSTRY LAF5100 LAF5100 LOCAL HIGHWAY

GRAND AVE SR57/60 CONFLUENCE, IMPROVE GRAND AVENUE INTERSECTION AT GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE: WIDEN GRAND AVE, FROM SR-60 FREEWAY TO LAVENDER DRIVE, A DISTANCE OF 0.2 MILES. PROJECT WILL ADD 1 THRU SB LANE AND 2 THRU NB LANE. WIDEN GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE BETWEEN COPLEY DR AND RACQUET CLUB DRIVE. ADD WB LEFT-TURN LANE AND A DEDICATED RIGHT-TURN LANE, WIDEN SIDEWALKS AND ADD PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2019

$16,819 NO CHANGE TO RTP PROJECT COST. NO FISCAL IMPACT.

REVISED SCHEDULE


DRAFT AMENDMENT #1 INCLUDING THE 2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT # 17-03 3

TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

4 LOS ANGELES LANCASTER 1AL04 LA0G929 LOCAL HIGHWAY

AVENUE K EXISTING: SR138 (SR-14) AVENUE K OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS:1.NB OFF RAMP INTERSECTION AT AVENUE K & 15TH ST W A R-TURN POCKET (UNDER STUDY) 2.INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS AT AVE K & 10TH STREET W (TO SUPPORT R-TURN POCKET UNDER STUDY) 3.AVE K GAP CLOSURE FROM 10TH ST W TO 12TH ST W WIDEN TO 3 LANES IN THE WB DIRECTION (CURRENTLY 2 WB LANES WEST OF 10TH ST. W AND 3 WB LANES WEST OF 12TH ST. W), 4.CLASS I BIKEPATH ALONG AMARGOSA CREEK BTW AVENUE K AND AVENUE J-8 (APOX 0.001 MI), 5. FREEWAY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.

REVISED: SR-138 (SR-14)/AVENUE K INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS. PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE NB OFF RAMP AND INTERSECTION AT AVENUE K & 15TH ST WEST, INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS AT AVENUE K BETWEEN 10TH STREET WEST AND 20TH STREET WEST, AVENUE K GAP CLOSURE FROM 10TH ST W TO 12 ST WEST TO WIDEN TO 3 LANES IN THE WB DIRECTION., AND OTHER ENHANCEMENTS TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTION AT THE INTERCHANGE.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2020


REVISED DESCRIPTION AND SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

5 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES COUNTY

LA9711031 LA9711031 LOCAL HIGHWAY

CASTAIC CUT OFF

CASTAIC CUTOFF FROM LAKE HUGHES RD TO SAN FRANCISQUITO CANYON RD CONTRUCT NEW ROAD 4 12-FOOT LANES AND 10-FOOT SHOULDERS

2018 $7,600 RTP PROJECT COST REMOVED.

LOCALLY FUNDED PROJECT CANCELED


1ITS04 LAF5310 LOCAL HIGHWAY

RAMONA BOULEVARD/BADILLO STREET/COVINA BOULEVARD

RAMONA BOULEVARD/BADILLO STREET/COVINA BOULEVARD TSSP/BSP. IMPLEMENTION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT (TSSP) ON RAMONA BL/BADILLO ST/COVINA BL FROM SANTA ANITA AV TO THE 57 FREEWAY. A BUS SIGNAL PRIORITY (BSP) PROJECT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ON RAMONA BL/BADILLO ST FROM TYLER AV TO GRAND AV TO GIVE TRANSIT PRIORITY FOR FOOTHILL TRANSIT OPERATIONS (APROX. 48 SIGNAL LOCATIONS)

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2020


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT


1AL04 LAF5314 LOCAL HIGHWAY

VARIOUS STREETS IN GATEWAY COG

GATEWAY CITIES FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT - IMPROVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS BY UPGRADING EACH TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL VEHICLE DETECTION TO ENABLE OPERATION AS A FULLY TRAFFIC-ACTUATED SIGNAL, INSTALLING THE APPROPRIATE COMPONENTS TO ENABLE EACH SIGNAL TO BE CAPABLE OF TIME-BASED COORDINATION AND RETIMING SIGNALS TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC.(APROXIMATLY 17 SIGNALS INCLUDED)

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2020


REVISED SCHEDULE



SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COG

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT. THIS PROJECT INCLUDES 6 INTERSECTIONS AT MYRTLE AV/PECK RD BETWEEN HUNTINGTON DR AND CLARK ST AND PROVIDES FOR SYSTEM WIDE COORDINATION, TIMING AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION, EQUIPMENT UPGRADES AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. (APROX. 20+ SIGNALS)

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2020


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT


1ITS04 LAF5316 LOCAL HIGHWAY

SOUTH BAY TSSP VARIOUS STREETS

SOUTH BAY FORUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL CORRIDORS PROJECT - SYSTEMWIDE COORDINATION, TIMING AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION, EQUIPMENT UPGRADES AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUTH BAY REGION. 25 SIGNALS SYSTEM WIDE. ADDITIONALLY, THIS PROJECT WILL INSTALL ANY WARRANTED AND FEASIBLE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE ROUTES TO IMPROVE OVERALL PROGRESSION.

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2020


REVISED SCHEDULE

10 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, CITY OF

LAE2515 LAE2515 LOCAL HIGHWAY

BUNDY DR WIDEN BUNDY DR. BETWEEN WILSHIRE AND SANTA MONICA BLVD - WIDEN FROM 2 LANES TO 4 LANES.


PROJECT CANCELED

11 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, CITY OF


CENTURY BLVD

CENTURY BOULEVARD EXTENSION BETWEEN GRAPE STREET AND ALAMEDA STREET : EXTENDS CENTURY BL BY APPROX 2,600 FT FROM GRAPTE ST TO ALAMEDA ST WITH A 2 LANE ROADWAY, SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES, CLASS II BIKE LANE, PED/BIKE FACILITIES, AND LANDSCAPING.

EXISTING: 2018

REVISED: 2020


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

12 LOS ANGELES PASADENA 1AL04 LAF3522 LOCAL HIGHWAY

CORDOVA ST CORDOVA STREET ROAD DIET PROJECT. CONVERT THE VEHICULAR-ORIENTED STREET TO A COMPLETE STREET BY REMOVING 2 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC LANES TO ACCOMMODATE BIKE AND PED FACILITIES. CITY OF PASADENA- HILL STREET TO ARROYO PARKWAY.


NEW PROJECT

13 LOS ANGELES PASADENA 1NL04 LAF9516 LOCAL HIGHWAY

UNION ST INSTALL A TWO-WAY PROTECTED CYCLE TRACK ON UNION STREET FROM WILSON AVENUE TO ARROYO PARKWAY. A ROAD DIET AND NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS HEADS AT 14 INTERSECTIONS FOR CYCLISTS


NEW PROJECT

14 LOS ANGELES PICO RIVERA 1AL04 LA0G1105 LOCAL HIGHWAY

TELEGRAPH RD

BRIDGE NO. 53C0057 - TELEGRAPH ROAD OVER SAN GABRIEL RIVER BRIDGE; 1. DEMOLISH EXISTING BRIDGE WITH FOUR LANES. 2. CONSTRUCT, TWO PARALLEL, 3-LANE STRUCTURES W/ CIP/PS BOX GIRDERS.

EXISTING: 2020

REVISED: 2023


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

15 LOS ANGELES PICO RIVERA 1AL04 LA0G1106 LOCAL HIGHWAY

WASHINGTON BLVD

EXISTING: BRIDGE NO. 53C0471 - WASHINGTON BOULEVARD OVER RIO HONDO RIVER BRIDGE - REPLACING EXISTING 6-LANE BRIDGE WITH AN 8-LANE BRIDGE INCREASING CAPACITY. UP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE

REVISED: BRIDGE NO. 53C0471 - WASHINGTON BOULEVARD OVER RIO HONDO RIVER BRIDGE - REPLACING EXISTING 6-LANE BRIDGE WITH AN 8-LANE BRIDGE INCREASING CAPACITY.

EXISTING: 2020

REVISED: 2023



16 LOS ANGELES REDONDO BEACH

1O1008 LAF7521 LOCAL HIGHWAY

PROSPECT AVE

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II: (1) ROAD DIET WITH BIDIRECTIONAL CLASS 2 BIKE LANES ON PROSPECT AV (3.33MI) AND ON CATALINA AV (1.63MI). (2) INSTALLS BULBOUTS AT STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS ON CATALINA. (3) INSTALLS ROUNDABOUT ON NORTH HARBOR DR AT YACHT CLUB WY AND AT HERONDO ST. (4) INSTALLS HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS AT ALL-WAY CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS AND AT CROSSINGS APPROACHING THE ROUNDABOUT.


NEW PROJECT



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

17 LOS ANGELES ROSEMEAD LAF5129 LAF5129 LOCAL HIGHWAY

VALLEY BLVD VALLEY BLVD CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. PROJECT WILL IMPROVE A 1.7-MILE SECTION OF VALLEY BL FROM TEMPLE CITY BL TO CHARLOTTE AV BY WIDENING AND RECONFIGURING TO ACCOMMODATE AN ADD'L PEAK-PERIOD TRAVEL LANE IN EACH DIR, RELOCATE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND PED LIGHTS, ADD RAISED CENTER-MEDIAN WITH PED LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, A CLASS III BIKELANE (1.7 MILES)AND WAYFINDING SIGNAGE.


PROJECT CANCELED

18 LOS ANGELES SANTA CLARITA

LA0G754 LA0G754 LOCAL HIGHWAY

VISTA CANYON RD

VISTA CANYON ROAD BRIDGE OVER THE SANTA CLARA RIVER AND ROADWAY FROM VISTA CANYON COMMUNITY (JAKES WAY/LOST CANYON) TO SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD. INCLUDES 750-FOOT LONG BRIDGE, 1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION, CLASS I BIKE LANE. (BIKE LANE LESS THAN 1 MILE)

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2018


REVISED SCHEDULE

19 LOS ANGELES SANTA CLARITA

LA0G755 LA0G755 LOCAL HIGHWAY

NEWHALL RANCH RD

NEWHALL RANCH ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK 6 TO 8 LANES. FROM MCBEAN PKWY TO AVENUE TIBBITTS. BRIDGE NO. 53C2164

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2023

EXISTING: $13,186

REVISED: $15,691





TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

20 LOS ANGELES MANHATTAN BEACH

LA0C8080 LA0C8080 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-1 ROUTE 1: MANHATTAN BEACH: ON ROUTE 1 BETWEEN 33RD STREET & ROSECRANS AV; ADD ONE THROUGH LN TO NORTH BOUND SEPULVEDA BLVD. TO WIDEN EXISTING STRUCTURE FROM 6 TO 7 THROUGH LANES PPNO 2947. PROJECT USING $1,440 OF FEDERAL FUNDS (80%) AND $360 AGENCY MATCH (20%, PROP. C) IN ENG PHASE.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2018


REVISED SCHEDULE

21 LOS ANGELES INDUSTRY 1M0104 LA0D450 STATE HIGHWAY

GRAND AVE RECONSTRUCT SR 60/GRAND AV INTERCHANGE - WIDEN GRAND AV: SB ADD 1THRU LN (2 EXSTNG); NB ADD 1 THRU LN (3 EXSTNG), REPLACE GRAND AV OC, ADD EB LOOP ON-RAMP, CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL EB THRU LN FROM GRAND AVE TRAP LN TO SR57 ADD LN, ADD TWO BYPASS RAMP CONNECTORS, ADD AUX LNS EB AND WB FROM EAST TO WEST JUNCTION OF THE CONFLUENCE.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2024


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

22 LOS ANGELES AGOURA HILLS

REG0703 LA0G1024 STATE HIGHWAY

US-101 EXISTING: (US 101 @ KANAN) KANAN CORRIDOR, BETWEEN AGOURA ROAD AND HILLRISE DRIVE. PROJECT TO INCLUDE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LOOP RAMP LANES, WIDENING OF ROADWAY, AND ADJUSTMENT OF DRY AND WET UTILITIES.

REVISED: (US 101 @ KANAN) KANAN CORRIDOR, BETWEEN AGOURA ROAD AND HILLRISE DRIVE. PROJECT TO INCLUDE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LOOP RAMP LANES, WIDENING OF ROADWAY, AND ADJUSTMENT OF DRY AND WET UTILITIES.(PE&AD)

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2024

$750 NO CHANGE TO RTP PROJECT COST. NO FISCAL IMPACT.


23 LOS ANGELES CALTRANS LA0D451 LA0D451 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-138 EXISTING: ROUTE 138: ROUTE 138 FROM AVE. T TO ROUTE 18-WIDEN 2 TO 4 THRU LANES WITH MEDIAN TURN LANE. EA# 12721,12722,12723,12724(=29350),12725,12728(= 28580 + 28590 + 28600 + 28620 + 28610 + 28630). PPNO# 3325,3326,3327,33289(=4560),3329,3331(= 4351 + 4352 + 5353 + 4356 + 4354 + 4357) (USE TOLL CREDITS AS LOCAL MATCH)

REVISED: ROUTE 138: ROUTE 138 FROM AVE. T TO ROUTE 18-WIDEN 2 TO 4 THRU LANES WITH MEDIAN TURN LANE. EA# 12721,12722,12723,12724(=29350),12725,12728(= 28580 + 28590 + 28600 + 28620 + 28610 + 28630). PPNO# 3325,3326,3327,3328(=4560),3329,3331(= 4351 + 4352 + 5353 + 4356 + 4354 + 4357) (USE TOLL CREDITS AS LOCAL MATCH)

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2023





TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

24 LOS ANGELES EXISTING: INDUSTRY

REVISED: LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA

LA0D442 LA0D442 STATE HIGHWAY

I-605 EXISTING: RETROFITTING THE EXISTING TWO-LANE WIDE PECK ROAD BRIDGE OVER THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER FWY (ROUTE 605) & WIDEN IT TO ACCOMMODATE 4 LANES (2 EACH DIRECTION) TO ELIMINATE BOTTLENECK

REVISED: THE PROJECT INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION OF THE SB I-605 AUXILIARY LANE FROM ROSE HILL ROAD TO SR 60 AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE I-605 OC AT PECK ROAD. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT ALSO FEATURES CONSTRUCTION OF A ROUNDABOUT BETWEEN ROOKS RD. AND SPORTS ARENA DR. TO CONNECT PECK ROAD AND PROPOSED HOOK RAMPS.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2022

EXISTING: $13,600

REVISED: $53,000


REVISED LEAD AGENCY, DESCRIPTION, SCHEDULE, AND COST



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

25 LOS ANGELES EXISTING: INDUSTRY

REVISED: LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA

LA0D441 LA0D441 STATE HIGHWAY

ON-OFF RAMP 605

EXISTING: RECONFIGURATION OF VALLEY BLVD ON-AND-OFF-RAMPS TO THE 605 FREEWAY TO IMPROVE MOBILITY, CIRCULATION, AND RELIEVE THE CURRENT CONGESTION AT VALLEY BLVD. INCLUDES; RIGHT TURN FROM VALLEY ONTO EXISTING SB ON-RAMP, CONSTRUCT DUAL WB TO SB LANES TO SB ON-RAMP AND RECONSTRUCT ENTIRE SB ON-RAMP, IMPROVEMENTS AT VALLEY/TEMPLE/NB 605 OFF-RAMP INTERSECTION, WIDEN EB VALLEY TO 3 LANES IN ADVANCE OF SB RAMPS.

REVISED: THE PROJECT INVOLVES THE RECONFIGURATION OF SB I-605 RAMP BY REMOVING THE HORSESHOE ON-RAMP AND ADDING TWO LANES TO THE ON-RAMP. THE PROJECT WILL ALSO RECONSTRUCT THE SB I-605 LOOP OFF AND ON-RAMPS. LASTLY, THE PROJECT WILL ADD A WB THROUGH LANE ON VALLEY BLVD WEST OF TEMPLE AVE AND ADD A TWO LANE LEFT TURN POCKET FOR SB I-605 ON-RAMP ON WB VALLEY BLVD.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2020

EXISTING: $25,000

REVISED: $15,300

RTP PROJECT COST DECREASE.

REVISED LEAD AGENCY, DESCRIPTION, SCHEDULE, AND COST

26 LOS ANGELES LONG BEACH LA000512 LA000512 STATE HIGHWAY

OCEAN BLVD BRIDGE NO. 53C0065, OCEAN BLVD, OVER ENTRANCE CHANNEL, UP RR, 1.0 MI E STATE ROUTE 47. REPLACE EXISTING 5 LANE GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE (GDB) WITH NEW 6 LANE BRIDGE.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2019

$1,288,101 NO CHANGE TO RTP PROJECT COST. NO FISCAL IMPACT.

REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

27 LOS ANGELES BURBANK GLENDALE PASADENA AIRPORT

7120010 LA000789A TRANSIT - BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT INTERMODAL GROUND ACCESS LINK: CONSTRUCTION OF A LINK BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW METROLINK STATION AT HOLLYWOOD WAY/SAN FERNANDO ROAD ON THE ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE AND A LINK BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. (CONSTRUCTION OF LA000789)

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2018


REVISED SCHEDULE

28 ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY

2A0704 ORA082401 LOCAL HIGHWAY

COW CAMP RD EXISTING: COW CAMP ROAD (4 LANES) FROM ANTONIO PARKWAY TO F STREET (SEGMENT 1 OF ANTONIO TO FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR)

REVISED: COW CAMP ROAD SEGMENT 1 – ADD 2 LANES EACH DIRECTION FROM ANTONIO TO 8500’ EAST OF ANTONIO

2016 $32,320 NO CHANGE TO RTP PROJECT COST. NO FISCAL IMPACT.

REVISED DESCRIPTION


2A0704 ORA170003 LOCAL HIGHWAY

COW CAMP RD COW CAMP ROAD (4 LANES) FROM F STREET TO ORTEGA HIGHWAY (SEGMENT 2). (F STREET AKA I STREET ON MPAH)

REVISED: COW CAMP ROAD SEGMENT 2 – ADD (2-3) LANES EACH DIRECTION FROM 8500’ EAST OF ANTONIO TO ORTEGA HIGHWAY


REVISED DESCRIPTION



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

30 ORANGE PLACENTIA 2A0704 ORA131701 LOCAL HIGHWAY

GOLDEN AVE GOLDEN AVENUE OVER CARBON CANYON CHANNEL - REPLACE 2 TO 4 LANE BRIDGE (BRIDGE # 55C0192)

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2024


REVISED SCHEDULE

31 ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY TRANS AUTHORITY (OCTA)

2M0733 ORA100511 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-55 EXISTING: SR-55 WIDENING BETWEEN I-405 AND I-5 - ADD 1 MF LANE EACH DIRECTION AND FIX CHOKEPOINTS FROM I-405 TO I-5; ADD 1 AUX LANE EA DIR BTWN SELECT ON/OFF RAMP AND NON-CAPACITY OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS (PS&E AND PAED). CONSISTENT WITH THE 2012 RTP. TOLL CREDIT FOR RSTP.

REVISED: SR-55 WIDENING BETWEEN I-405 AND I-5 - ADD 1 MF AND 1 HOV LANE EACH DIRECTION AND FIX CHOKEPOINTS FROM I-405 TO I-5; ADD 1 AUX LANE EA DIR BTWN SELECT ON/OFF RAMP AND NON-CAPACITY OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS (PS&E AND PAED). CONSISTENT WITH THE 2012 RTP. TOLL CREDIT FOR RSTP.

2030 EXISTING: $274,900

REVISED: $369,400


REVISED DESCRIPTION AND COST



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

32 ORANGE ANAHEIM 2TR0701 ORA080908 TRANSIT - A TRANSIT CORRIDOR FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - ANAHEIM RAPID CONNECTION (ARC) FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEM CONNECTING THE ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC) THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE, AND THE ANAHEIM RESORT. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, EIR/EIS, LPA AND CONCEPTUAL AND ADVANCED ENGINEERING, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING.

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2021


REVISED SCHEDULE


ORA030612 ORA030612 TRANSIT - PLACENTIA TRANSIT STATION - E OF SR-57 AND MELROSE ST AND N OF CROWTHER AVE. CONSTRUCT NEW METROLINK STATION AND RAIL SIDEING PPNO 9514

EXISTING: 2018

REVISED: 2020


REVISED SCHEDULE

34 RIVERSIDE CORONA 3161L005 RIV160405 LOCAL HIGHWAY

MAGNOLIA AVE

IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR THE CITY OF CORONA - MAGNOLIA AVE BRIDGE WIDENING FROM 4 TO 6 LANES FROM EL CAMINO AVE TO 1000 FT E/O ALL AMERICAN WY, INCLUDING THE WIDENING OVER THE TEMESCAL CHANNEL; PROJECT TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF MISSING SIDEWALK, BIKE LANES, ADA COMPLIANT RAMPS, AND DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING.

2022 $500 NEW RTP PROJECT COST.

NEW PROJECT



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

35 RIVERSIDE LAKE ELSINORE

3A04WT198 RIV111203 LOCAL HIGHWAY

- EXISTING: IN LAKE ELSINORE - TEMESCAL CANYON RD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT/REALIGNMENT: REPLACE TEMESCAL CANYON RD. 2 LANE BRIDGE WITH A 4 LANE OVER TEMESCAL WASH, 0.42 MI. W/O LAKE STREET AND PROVIDE TRANSITION TO A 2 LANE ROADWAY (BOTH SIDES). OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE CONS SIDEWALK AND STRIPPING FOR 8 FT CLASS II BIKE LNS ON EACH SIDE OF THE BRIDGE. (BRIDGE NO. 56C0050).

REVISED: IN LAKE ELSINORE - TEMESCAL CANYON RD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT/REALIGNMENT: REPLACE TEMESCAL CANYON RD. 2 LANE BRIDGE WITH A 4 LANE OVER TEMESCAL WASH, 0.42 MI. W/O LAKE STREET AND PROVIDE TRANSITION TO A 2 LANE ROADWAY (BOTH SIDES). OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE CONS OF 706 FT OF SIDEWALK AND 8 FT CLASS II BIKE LNS ON EACH SIDE OF THE BRIDGE. (BRIDGE NO. 56C0050).

EXISTING: 2020

REVISED: 2022

EXISTING: $19,452

REVISED: $17,130


REVISED DESCRIPTION, SCHEDULE, AND COST


3161L009 RIV160902 LOCAL HIGHWAY

REALIGNED TEMESCAL CANYON RD.

IN LAKE ELSINORE - CONS OF A NEW 4-LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY, REALIGNING EXISTING TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD AND REPLACE EXISTING 2-LANE UNIMPROVED TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD FROM LAKE STREET TO 650 FT EASTERLY OF CITY'S WESTERLY BOUNDARY. SEGMENT OF THIS REALIGNED ROAD INCLUDES A 706' BRIDGE FUNDED BY HBP LISTED SEPARATELY UNDER RIV111203.


NEW PROJECT



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

37 RIVERSIDE LA QUINTA 3161L001 RIV160901 LOCAL HIGHWAY

AVENUE 50 IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA - WIDEN AVENUE 50 FROM WASHINTON ST TO PARK AVE- WB INCREASE FROM 1 TO 2 LANES; EB EXISTING 2 LANES. PROJECT TO INSTALL 1,700 FT (.3 MI) SIDEWALK AND CLASS II BIKE LANES. TO INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING LOW WATER CROSSING WITH A BRIDGE AND NECESSARY SLOPE AND CHANNEL SCOUR PROTECTION MEASURES.


NEW PROJECT

38 RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

3G0705 RIV071288 LOCAL HIGHWAY

- EXISTING: IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE CO. IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY FOR THE COMMUNITY OF MECCA.– CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-LN (1-LN IN EA DIR) GRADE SEPARATION BYPASS 1,900 FT S/O AVE 66 BEGINNING 1,100 FT E/O SR-86 & CONNECTING BACK TO AVE 66 AT HOME AVE. NEW BYPASS WILL BE APPROX. 1.7 MILES WITH ELEVATED STRUCTURE OVER THE UPRR, HAMMOND RD., AND SH-111.

REVISED: IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE CO. IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY FOR THE COMMUNITY OF MECCA– CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-LN (1-LN IN EA DIR) GRADE SEPARATION BYPASS S/O AVE 66 BEGINNING 2,800 FT E/O SR-86 & CONNECTING BACK TO AVE 66 AT DALE KILER RD. BYPASS WILL BE APPROX. 0.9 MILES WITH ELEVATED STRUCTURE OVER THE UPRR, HAMMOND RD., INCLUDING REALIGNED SH 195. PROJECT INCLUDES REALIGNED CONNECTIONS TO SH-111 & LINCOLN.

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2021





TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT


RIV010206 RIV010206 STATE HIGHWAY

I-15 EXISTING: AT I-15/RR CYN RD IC: CONST 5-MULTI LN ROUNDABOUTS (SUMMERHILL DR - MISSION TR), WIDEN NB ENTRANCE RAMP FROM 2-3 LNS, WIDEN SB ENTRANCE RAMP FROM 1-3 LNS, AND RAMP ACCEL/DECEL LNS AT RR CYN RD (PH I); CONST NEW I-15/FRANKLIN ST IC, ADD AUX LNS FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO MAIN ST IC & FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO RR CYN IC, REALIGN/WIDEN MAIN ST SB ON RAMP 1-2 LNS, AND CONST FRONTAGE RD ON WS AND ES OF I-15 F

REVISED: AT I-15/RR CYN RD IC & NEW I-15/FRANKLIN ST IC: WIDEN RR CYN RD UC FROM 7 TO 8 LANES (SUMMERHILL DR - MISSION TR), RCNSTCT NB EXIT/ENTRY RAMPS TO HOOK RAMP CNECTN TO GRAPE ST, WIDEN SB ENTRANCE RAMP FROM 1-2 LNS, WIDEN SHLDRS SB EXIT RAMP, WIDEN GRAPE ST TO CONST DEDICATED RT TN LN AT NB HOOK RAMP AND RR CYN RD, & CONS RAMP ACCEL/DECEL LNS AT RR CYN RD (PH I); CONS NEW I-15/FRANKLIN ST IC, CONST AUX LNS FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO MAIN ST IC & FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO RR CYN IC, REALIGN & RECONSTRUCT MAIN ST SB ON RAMP FROM 1-2 LNS, ON WS OF I-15 CONST AUTO CENTER DR EXTNSN FROM EX FRANKLIN ST TO ADOBE ST & ON ES OF I-15 AND CONS CNY ESTATE DR EXT FROM EX FRANKLIN ST TO CAMINO DEL NORTE (PH 2)


REVISED DESCRIPTION



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

40 RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COMMISSION (RCTC)

RIV071267 RIV071267 STATE HIGHWAY

I-15 EXISTING: I-15 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY: CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL EXPR LNS (TEL) (2 TE EA DIR) FROM SR60 (PM 51.4) TO HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY (PM 42.9) AND CONS 2 TE LNS (1 TE EA DIR) FROM HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY (PM 42.9) TO CAJALCO RD (PM 36.8). ADVANCE SIGNAGE WILL BE INSTALLED A THE SOUTH END BETWEEN PM 34.7 TO PM 36.8 (CAJALCO RD) AND AT THE NORTH END BETWEEN PM 51.4 (SR60) TO PM 1.3 IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.

REVISED: I-15 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY: CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL EXPRESS LANES (TEL) (2 TEL EA DIR) FROM CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH RD. TO HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY AND FROM THE END OF SR91 TEL TO EL CERRITO RD., AND CONSTRUCT 2 TEL (1 TEL EA DIR) FROM SR60 TO CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH RD., FROM HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY TO THE END OF SR91 TEL, AND FROM EL CERRITO RD TO CAJALCO RD. ADVANCE SIGNAGE WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE SOUTH END BTWN PM 34.7 TO PM 36.6 (CAJALCO RD) & AT THE NORTH END BTWN PM 51.4 (SR60) TO PM 1.3 IN SB CO.

2020 EXISTING: $450,000

REVISED: $489,000





TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT


EXISTING: RIV011232

REVISED (1 OF 1): RIV011232

REVISED (1 OF 2): RIV011232B

EXISTING: RIV011232

REVISED (1 OF 1): RIV011232

REVISED (1 OF 2): RIV011232A

STATE HIGHWAY

I-215 EXISTING: AT I-215/SCOTT RD IC: RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN FROM 2 TO 6 THROUGH LANES BTWN E/O ANTELOPE RD & HAUN RD, RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN RAMPS – NB EXIT 2 TO 3 LNS, NB ENTRY 1 TO 3 LNS, SB EXIT 2 TO 4 LNS, SB ENTRY 1 TO 2 LNS, ADD NB EXIT LOOP RAMP (2 LNS) & SB ENTRY RAMP (3 LNS), ENTRY RAMPS INCLUDE HOV LN, RAMPS INCLUDE EXTENDED ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LNS, ADD EXTENDED RIGHT-TURN LNS (EA: 0A020)

REVISED: AT I-215/SCOTT RD IC: RECONST/WIDEN FROM 2 - 6 LNS (4 THRU & 2 TURN) BTWN ANTELOPE RD & HAUN RD - RECONST/WIDEN RAMPS; NB ENTRY 1 TO 3 LNS; SB EXIT 2 TO 4 LNS; ADD NB EXIT LOOP RAMP (2 LNS) & SB ENTRY LOOP RAMP (3 LNS); ENTRY RAMPS INCLUDE HOV LN; RAMPS INCLUDE EXT. ACCEL/ DECEL LNS, ADD EXT. RT LNS (PROJECT SPLIT INTO 2 PHASES - SEE RIV011232A).

REVISED: AT I-215/SCOTT RD IC: WIDEN FROM 6 TO 11 LANES (7 THRU AND 4 TURN) BTWN ANTELOPE RD AND HAUN RD - RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN RAMPS - NB EXIT INCLUDING DECELERATION LN; SB ENTRY RAMP (1 TO 2 LNS); ENTRY RAMPS INCLUDE HOV LN; RAMPS INCLUDE EXTENDED ACCEL/DECEL LNS, ADD EXTENDED RIGHT-TURN LNS. (PH II OF RIV011232 - NEW SPLIT PROJECT).

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2019

REVISED: 2038

EXISTING: $66,031

REVISED: $57,823

REVISED: $1,300


PROJECT SPLIT, REVISED DESCRIPTION, SCHEDULE, COST, AND MODELING DETAILS



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

42 SAN BERNARDINO

CHINO 200207 200207 LOCAL HIGHWAY

PINE AVE IN CHINO - ON PINE AVE EXTENSION FROM SR 71 TO EUCLID IN THE CITY OF CHINO - WIDEN BRIDGE FROM 2-4 LANES

EXISTING: 2021

REVISED: 2022


REVISED SCHEDULE

43 SAN BERNARDINO

CHINO HILLS 200401 200401 LOCAL HIGHWAY

FAIRFIELD RANCH RD

FAIRFIELD RANCH RD: CONSTRUCT BOX CULVERT (APPROX. 0.40 MILES SOUTH OF STANFIELD CT.) TO RE-OPEN 0.76 MILES OF FAIRFIELD RANCH RD AT CURRENT CLOSURE SOUTH TO PINE AVE. CONSTRUCT RD IMPROVEMENTS AND ADD MARKED BIKE LANES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2022


REVISED SCHEDULE

44 SAN BERNARDINO

HIGHLAND 200213 200213 LOCAL HIGHWAY

3RD ST ON 3RD ST. FROM PALM AVE. TO 5TH ST. WIDEN 3RD ST. E/O PALM AVE. FROM 2 TO 3 LANES AND EXTEND 3RD ST. EASTERLY TO CONNECT 5TH ST.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2019


REVISED SCHEDULE

45 SAN BERNARDINO

HIGHLAND SBD55031 SBD55031 LOCAL HIGHWAY

ALABAMA ST ALABAMA STREET FROM 3RD STREET TO SOUTH CITY LIMITS - WIDEN FROM 2 TO 3 S/B LANES (0.25 MILES)

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2021


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

46 SAN BERNARDINO

ONTARIO 2002160 20150201 LOCAL HIGHWAY

GROVE AVE EXISTING: GROVE AVE CORRIDOR: WIDEN GROVE AVE FROM I-10 TO AIRPORT DRIVE (4-6 LNS) CONCURRENT W I-10/GROVE AVE IC PRJ (2002160)

REVISED: GROVE AVE CORRIDOR: WIDEN GROVE BETWEEN FOURTH ST AND STATE ST / AIRPORT DR (4-6 LNS); AND IMPROVEMENTS TO GROVE AVE / HOLT BLVD INTERSECTION

EXISTING: 2025

REVISED: 2027

EXISTING: $42,830

REVISED: $4,440


REVISED SCHEDULE, DESCRIPTION, AND COST

47 SAN BERNARDINO

RANCHO CUCAMONGA

20010133 20150004 LOCAL HIGHWAY

FOOTHILL BLVD

WIDEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (OLD STATE ROUTE 66) BETWEEN GROVE AVENUE AND SAN BERNARDINO RD: WIDEN 4-6 LNS INCLUDES RAISED MEDIANS, SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTS, LANDSCAPING AND AN ARCH SPANNING FOOTHILL BLVD AS A MONUMENT TO THE HISTORIC ROUTE 66.

EXISTING: 2017

REVISED: 2021


REVISED SCHEDULE

48 SAN BERNARDINO

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

200414 20150002 LOCAL HIGHWAY

DUNCAN RD ON DUNCAN ROAD FROM WILSON RANCH ROAD TO BALDY MESA PAVE DIRT ROAD IN 4 ONE MILE SEGMENTS 1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2021


REVISED SCHEDULE



TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

49 SAN BERNARDINO

SANBAG 4122004 20159902 STATE HIGHWAY

I-10 EXISTING: I-10 CORRIDOR EXPRESS LANE WIDENING (PHASE 1): FROM SAN ANTONIO AVE TO I-10/I-15 IC; IMPLEMENT 2 EXPRESS LNS IN EACH DIRECTION FOR A TOTAL OF 4 GENERAL PURPOSE AND 2 EXPRESS LNS IN EACH DIRECTION AND AUX LANE WIDENING, UNDERCROSSINGS, OVERCROSSINGS, AND RECONSTRUCTION OF RAMPS AND LANE TRANSITIONS WHERE NEEDED.

REVISED: I-10 CORRIDOR EXPRESS LANE WIDENING (CONTRACT 1): FROM SAN ANTONIO AVE TO I-10/I-15 IC; IMPLEMENT 2 EXPRESS LNS IN EACH DIRECTION FOR A TOTAL OF 4 GENERAL PURPOSE AND 2 EXPRESS LNS IN EACH DIRECTION AND AUX LANE WIDENING, UNDERCROSSINGS, OVERCROSSINGS, AND RECONSTRUCTION OF RAMPS AND LANE TRANSITIONS WHERE NEEDED.

2022 EXISTING: $720,049

REVISED: $625,532





TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

50 SAN BERNARDINO


I-10 EXISTING: I-10 CORRIDOR EXPRESS LANE WIDENING (PHASE 2): IMPLEMENT 2 EXPRESS LANES IN EACH DIRECTION FROM I-10/I-15 INTERCHANGE TO CALIFORNIA ST; IMPLEMENT 1 EXPRESS LANE IN EACH DIRECTION FROM CALIFORNIA ST TO FORD STREET IN REDLANDS FOR A TOTAL OF 10-12 LANES, AND AUX LANES, UNDERCROSSINGS, OVERCROSSINGS, RAMP RECONSTRUCTION AND LANE TRANSITIONS WHERE NEEDED.

REVISED: I-10 CORRIDOR EXPRESS LANE WIDENING (CONTRACT 2): IMPLEMENT 2 EXPRESS LANES IN EACH DIRECTION FROM I-10/I-15 INTERCHANGE TO CALIFORNIA ST; IMPLEMENT 1 EXPRESS LANE IN EACH DIRECTION FROM CALIFORNIA ST TO FORD STREET IN REDLANDS FOR A TOTAL OF 10-12 LANES, AND AUX LANES, UNDERCROSSINGS, OVERCROSSINGS, RAMP RECONSTRUCTION AND LANE TRANSITIONS WHERE NEEDED.

2024 EXISTING: $1,206,897

REVISED: $1,142,243





TAblE 1 Continued


RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

51 SAN BERNARDINO


I-15 EXISTING: I-15 EXPRESS LANES: CONST 2 NEW EXPRESS LANES IN EACH DIRECTION FROM CANTU GALLEANO RANCH RD TO SR-210, CONST 1 EXPRESS LANE EACH DIRECTION FROM SR-210 TO DUNCAN CANYON RD. ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO, AUX LN WIDENING, UNDERCROSSINGS, OVERCROSSINGS, AND RECONSTRUCTION OF RAMPS AND LANE TRANSITIONS WHERE NEEDED.

REVISED: I-15 EXPRESS LANES: CONST 2 NEW EX LNS IN EACH DIRECTION B/W SR-60 & SR-210, CONST 1 EX LN IN EACH DIRECTION B/W CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH RD & SR-60 AND 1 EXP LN IN EACH DIRECTION B/W SR-210 AND DUNCAN CANYON RD. ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO AUX LN WIDENING, UNDERCROSSINGS, AND RECONSTRUCTION OF RAMPS AND LANE TRANSITIONS WHERE NEEDED.


REVISED DESCRIPTION




RTPID

FTIPID SYSTEM ROUTE


COST($1,000’s)

FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR

AMENDMENT

52 SAN BERNARDINO

CALTRANS 4M07008 20170102 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-60 EXISTING: SR-60: WIDEN AUX LANES IN EACH DIRECTION; WIDEN CONNECTOR FROM SB-15 TO WB-60 AND EB-60 TO NB/SB-15; WIDEN RAMPS FROM ONE TO TWO LANES

IN ONTARIO: FROM WEST OF CUCAMONGA CREEK TO WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE EASTBOUND OFF RAMP; CONSTRUCT WESTBOUND AUXILIARY AND EASTBOUND DECELERATION LANES. (G13 CONTINGENCY PROJECT)

EXISTING: 2021

REVISED: 2022



53 SAN BERNARDINO

CALTRANS 4M07008 20179701 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-60 IN ONTARIO, ON SR-60: FROM HAVEN AVE TO MILLIKEN AVENUE; CONSTRUCT AUXILIARY LANE AND WIDEN CONNECTOR RAMPS.


NEW PROJECT

TAblE 1 Continued



TAblE 2 Modifications to RTP Projects

# COUNTY LEAD AGENCY RTPID SYSTEM ROUTE DESCRIPTION COMPLETION

YEARCOST

($1,000’s)FISCALIMPACT

REASON FOR AMENDMENT

1 IMPERIAL EL CENTRO 1161L001 LOCAL HIGHWAY

IMPERIAL AVENUE

IMPERIAL AVENUE EXTENSION SOUTH - NEW ROADWAY FROM I-8 TO MCCABE ROAD.


NEW PROJECT

2 IMPERIAL IMPERIAL COUNTY

1161L002 LOCAL HIGHWAY

MENVIELLE ROAD

MENVIELLE ROAD WIDENING, FROM 2 TO 4 LANES BETWEEN CARR ROAD TO SR-98


NEW PROJECT

3 IMPERIAL VARIOUS AGENCIES

6160002 OTHER SR-7 EXISTING: EXPANSION OF THE CALEXICO EAST PORT OF ENTRY - THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION LANES AND BOOTHS FROM EXISTING 3 TO 6 LANES AND BOOTHS; AND WIDEN BRIDGE OVER THE ALL-AMERICAN CANAL (CANAL SERVES AS U.S./MEXICO BORDER). SUBMITTED TO STATE BY REGION FOR PNRS NOMINATION AND WILL BE AMENDED INTO UPCOMING RTP.

REVISED: EXPANSION OF THE CALEXICO EAST PORT OF ENTRY - WIDEN BRIDGE OVER THE ALL-AMERICAN CANAL (CANAL SERVES AS U.S./MEXICO BORDER) AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LANES FROM EXISTING 3 TO 6 LANES; ADD 6 NEW NORTHBOUND PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE (POV) LANES; PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SHADDED SIDEWALKS AND TRANSIT LOT (PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF AREA). SUBMITTED TO STATE BY REGION FOR PNRS NOMINATION AND WILL BE AMENDED INTO UPCOMING RTP.


REVISED DESCRIPTION




YEARCOST



4 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES

1160006 LOCAL HIGHWAY

HARBOR BLVD

EXISTING: HARBOR BLVD IMPROVEMENTS - AS PART OF THE SAN PEDRO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, HARBOR BLVD WILL BE RESTRIPED, AND THE MEDIAN IS REMOVED/RECONSTRUCTED AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE THREE NBT AND SBT LANES BETWEEN THE RECONSTRUCTED SAMPSON WAY/HARBOR BLVD. INTERSECTION AND THE WB ON RAMP/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION. THIS WILL RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF PARKING AND THE BIKE LANE ON THE NORTHBOUND SIDE. THE PARKING AND 5' BIKE LANE ON THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE, SOUTH OF O'FARRELL STREET WILL BE PRESERVED. NORTH OF O'FARRELL STREET, THE PARKING AND THE PARKING LANE ON THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NORTHBOUND DUAL LEFT-TURN LANE. THE INNERMOST NORTHBOUND THROUGH LANE AT THE EB OFF-RAMP INTERSECTION WOULD BECOME A FORCED LEFT-TURN LANE AT THE SR 47 WB ON-RAMP. THIS IMPROVEMENT IS PROJECTED TO BE NEEDED BY THE YEAR 2024.

REVISED: SAN PEDRO WATERFRONT REGIONAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT: WIDENING/RESTRIPING OF HAQRBOR BLVD. BETWEEN SR 47 RAMPS & 7TH STREET TO ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION: REALIGNMENT/WIDENING OF SAMPSON WAY BETWEEN NAGOYA WAY & 22ND STREET TO ADD ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION.

EXISTING: 2027

REVISED: 2024

EXISTING: $1,134

REVISED: $41,000



TAblE 2 Continued




YEARCOST



5 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES


- EXISTING: SR 47-V. THOMAS BRIDGE/FRONT ST INTERCHANGE: NEW WESTBOUND SR 47 ON- AND OFF-RAMPS AT FRONT STREET JUST WEST OF THE VINCENT THOMAS BRIDGE AND ELIMINATE THE EXISTING NON-STANDARD RAMP CONNECTION TO THE HARBOR BOULEVARD OFFRAMP; FRONT STREET IS AN NHS CONNECTOR ROUTE; V.THOMAS BRIDGE IS A STATE-OWNED BRIDGE; ON THE USDOT PFN

REVISED: SR 47/V. THOMAS BRIDGE/HARBOR BLVD. INTERCHANGE: NEW WESTBOUND SR 47 OFF-RAMP; REALIGNED EB SR 47 ON-RAMP, WEAVE AND SR ON-RAMP MERGE; FRONT STREET IS NHS CONNECTOR ROUTE; V. THOMAS BRIDGE IS A STATE-OWNED BRIDGE; ON THE USDOT "PRIMARY FREIGHT NETWORK" (PFN)

EXISTING: 2035

REVISED: 2023

EXISTING: $37,285

REVISED: $17,400



6 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES


- ALAMEDA CORRIDOR TERMINUS/CALIFORNIA COASTAL TRAIL EXTENSION GRADE SEPARATION (PEDESTRIAN/CLASS I BICYCLE PATH BRIDGE)


NEW PROJECT

TAblE 2 Continued




YEARCOST



7 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES


- CALIFORNIA COASTAL TRAIL - PORTS O' CALL PROMENADE (30-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC PROMENADE/CLASS I BIKE PATH)


NEW PROJECT

8 LOS ANGELES

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG)


EXISTING: GREENWOOD AVE (MONTEBELLO)

REVISED: MONTEBELLO BOULEVARD

ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST GRADE SEPARATION


REVISED ROUTE NAME

9 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES

1M0430 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-47 SR 47/NAVY WAY INTERCHANGE: CONSTRUCTION OF INTERCHANGE AT SR-47 / NAVY WAY TO ELIMINATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND MOVEMENT CONFLICTS; THIS PROJECT WAS A S.CA TRADE CORRIDOR TIER II TCIF PROJECT AS SUBMITTED TO THE CTC IN 2008; PROJECT REMOVES LAST SIGNAL ON SR 47 BETWEEN DESMOND AND V. THOMAS BRIDGES; NHS INTERMODAL CONNECTOR ROUTE

EXISTING: 2028

REVISED: 2025

EXISTING: $57,593

REVISED: $50,000



10 LOS ANGELES

-- 1122004 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-138 EXISTING: NW 138 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROXIMATELY 36 MILES, PROVIDING AN IMPROVED 4 TO 6 LANE FACILITY BETWEEN I-5 AND SR 14

REVISED: NORTHWEST 138 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – APPROXIMATELY 36 MILES, PROVIDING AN IMPROVED 4 TO 6-LANE FACILITY FROM I-5 TO SR-14.

2020 EXISTING: $600,000

REVISED: $850,000



TAblE 2 Continued




YEARCOST



11 LOS ANGELES

-- 1M1004 STATE HIGHWAY

I-605 I-605 CORRIDOR "HOT SPOT" INTERCHANGES IN GATEWAY CITIES

2025 $3,200,000 NO CHANGE TO RTP PROJECT COST. NO FISCAL IMPACT.

ADOPTED 2016 RTP/SCS FISCAL ANALYSIS INCLUDED 1M1004 PROJECT COST. 1M1004 EXCLUDED FROM PROJECT LIST IN ERROR.

12 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES

1O0706LA01 OTHER - POLA RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM: WEST BASIN - ALAMEDA CORRIDOR GAP CLOSURE


NEW PROJECT

13 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES

1O0706LA02 OTHER - ZERO EMISSION (ZE)/TRUCK TRIP REDUCTION/FREIGHT EFFICIENCY PROGRAM: TERMINAL ISLAND ON-DOCK RAILYARD EXPANSION (ADDITIONAL LOADING TRACK FOR EVERPORT)


NEW PROJECT

14 LOS ANGELES

PORT OF LOS ANGELES

1O0710 OTHER - OTHER IN-PORT MAINLINE 2033 EXISTING:$1,026,750

REVISED: $792,839


REVISED COST

TAblE 2 Continued




YEARCOST




2A0804 LOCAL HIGHWAY

COW CAMP ROAD

COW CAMP ROAD (4 LANES) FROM ANTONIO TO “I” STREET (SEGMENT 1 OF ANTONIO TO FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR)

2015 $32,320 NONE; DUPLICATE PROJECT STILL IN RTP/SCS.

REMOVED DUPLICATE PROJECT

16 ORANGE VARIOUS AGENCIES

2A0704 LOCAL HIGHWAY

REGIONAL CAPACITY PROGRAM

COMPLETE MPAH, IMPROVE ARTERIAL CAPACITY


REVISED MODELING DETAILS INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF THE MILLER STREET ADDITIONS FROM LA PALMA TO MIRALOMA AND FROM MIRALOMA TO CROWTHER.


2M0733 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-55 EXISTING: ADD 1 MF LANE EACH DIRECTION AND FIX CHOKEPOINTS FROM I-405 TO I-5; ADD 1 AUX LANE EA DIR BTWN SELECT ON/OFF RAMPS AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS

REVISED: ADD 1 MF LANE AND 1 HOV LANE EACH DIRECTION AND FIX CHOKEPOINTS FROM I-405 TO I-5; ADD 1 AUX LANE EA DIR BTWN SELECT ON/OFF RAMPS AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS

2030 EXISTING: $311,657

REVISED: $369,400



TAblE 2 Continued




YEARCOST



18 ORANGE ANAHEIM 2TR0701 TRANSIT ANAHEIM RAPID CONNECTION

ANAHEIM RAPID CONNECTION: FIXED-GUIDEWAY SYSTEM CONNECTING THE ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL CENTER, THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE, AND THE ANAHEIM RESORT

EXISTING: 2019

REVISED: 2021


REVISED SCHEDULE



AVE 66 GS/BYPASS

IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE CO. IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY FOR THE COMMUNITY OF MECCA– CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-LN (1-LN IN EA DIR) GRADE SEPARATION BYPASS S/O AVE 66 BEGINNING 2,800 FT E/O SR-86 & CONNECTING BACK TO AVE 66 AT DALE KILER RD. BYPASS WILL BE APPROX. 0.9 MILES WITH ELEVATED STRUCTURE OVER THE UPRR, HAMMOND RD., INCLUDING REALIGNED SH 195. PROJECT INCLUDES REALIGNED CONNECTIONS TO SH-111 & LINCOLN.


NEW PROJECT

20 VARIOUS CHSRA 7120010 PASSENGER RAIL

- CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL - PHASE 1 (INCLUDES METROLINK AND LOSSAN CORRIDOR SPEED UPGRADES)


REVISED MODELING DETAILS INCLUDING COMPLETION YEAR UPDATES FOR VARIOUS STATIONS.

TAblE 2 Continued



TAblE 3 Modifications to Strategic Projects

# COUNTY LEAD AGENCY RTP ID SYSTEM ROUTE DESCRIPTION REASON FOR AMENDMENT

1 IMPERIAL EL CENTRO S6120019 LOCAL HIGHWAY

IMPERIAL AVENUE

CONSTRUCT SIX LANE PRIME ARTERIAL PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 1161L001.

2 LOS ANGELES BURBANK, LOS ANGELES

S1160078 LOCAL HIGHWAY

CLYBOURN AVE

CLYBOURN AVE: GRADE SEPARATION AT RAILROAD TRACKS / VANOWEN ST / EMPIRE AVE

PROJECT REMOVED. DUPLICATIVE OF RTP S1160087.

3 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES S1160207 STATE HIGHWAY

I-10, I-110 I-10 AND I-110 HOT EXPRESS LANES TOLL SYSTEM OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, MARKETING AND DATA COLLECTION

PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 1OM0702-LA0G819.

4 LOS ANGELES THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES, CALTRANS

S1160270 STATE HIGHWAY

SR-47 SR 47/NAVY WAY: CONSTRUCTION OF INTERCHANGE AT SR-47/NAVY WAY TO ELIMINATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND MOVEMENT CONFLICTS; THIS PROJECT WAS A S.CA TRADE CORRIDOR TIER II TCIF PROJECT AS SUBMITTED TO THE CTC IN 2008; PROJECT REMOVES LAST SIGNAL ON SR 47 BETWEEN DESMOND AND V. THOMAS BRIDGES; NHS INTERMODAL CONNECTOR ROUTE

PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 1M0430.

5 LOS ANGELES CALTRANS, PORT OF LOS ANGELES


SR-47 SR 47/V. THOMAS BRIDGE/FRONT ST INTERCHANGE: NEW WESTBOUND SR 47 ON- AND OFF-RAMPS AT FRONT ST JUST WEST OF VINCENT THOMAS BRIDGE AND ELIMINATE THE EXISTING NON-STANDARD RAMP CONNECTION TO THE HARBOR BLVD OFF-RAMP

PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 1120007.

6 LOS ANGELES CALTRANS, LOS ANGELES, LA COUNTY, HAWTHORNE, LYNWOOD, PARAMOUNT, SOUTH GATE, DOWNEY, NORWALK


I-105 I-105: ADD HOT LANE ON 105 FROM 405 TO 605. PM 1.63/17.82. EA 31450


7 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA


SR-138 ADD 2 MIXED-FLOW LANES IN EACH DIRECTION PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 1122004.

8 LOS ANGELES CALTRANS, SBCCOG, LOS ANGELES, HAWTHORNE, LAWNDALE, REDONDO BEACH, TORRANCE


I-405 I-405: ADD EXPRESS LANES ON I-405 BETWEEN I-110 AND I-105




TAblE 3 Continued

# COUNTY LEAD AGENCY RTP ID SYSTEM ROUTE DESCRIPTION REASON FOR AMENDMENT

9 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA


I-405 I-405 DIRECT HOV CONNECTOR TO LAX PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 7120013.

10 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES S1160297 TRANSIT VERMONT CORRIDOR SUBWAY: VERMONT SHORT CORRIDOR FROM WILSHIRE/VERMONT TO EXPOSITION/VERMONT


11 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES S1160300 TRANSIT METRO GOLD LINE EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 - EXTENSION FROM ITS EXISTING TERMINUS AT ATLANTIC STATION IN EAST LOS ANGELES FARTHER EAST

PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP 1TR0704-LA0G626.

12 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES S1160304 TRANSIT DOWNTOWN STREETCAR: RESTORE THE HISTORIC STREETCAR IN DOWNTOWN LA SERVICING SEVERAL KEY DESTINATIONS; PROVIDE 7 TO 15 MINUTE HEADWAYS; INCLUDES LATE EVENING SERVICE; ESTIMATED DAILY RIDERSHIP IS 10,000

PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP LA0G901.

13 LOS ANGELES BURBANK, LOS ANGELES

S1160309 TRANSIT METRO RED LINE EXTENSION: NORTH HOLLYWOOD TO BURBANK AIRPORT


14 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES S1160325 TRANSIT SEPULVEDA PASS TRANSIT CORRIDOR - CONSIDER MULTIMODAL TUNNEL(S) CARRYING PREMIUM TRANSIT AND TOLLED HIGHWAY LANES. P3 BEING CONSIDERED.


15 LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, BEVERLY HILLS

S1160352 TRANSIT METRO PURPLE LINE EXTENSION TO WESTWOOD/VA

PROJECT REMOVED. THE PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRAINED PORTION OF THE RTP/SCS UNDER RTP S1160325.

16 SAN BERNARDINO

SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS

S4120001 EXISTING: TRANSIT

REVISED: PASSENGER RAIL

REDLANDS RAIL PHASE III REVISED SYSTEM TYPE.



SENATE bIll 375 AND THE SUSTAINAblE COMMUNITIES STRATEGYUpon the adoption of the 2016 RTP/SCS in April 2016, SCAG determined that the Plan met and/or exceeded all of the requirements for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as set forth in SB 375. A description of the SCS and how the requirements are addressed is included in the adopted Plan as Chapters 5 and 8, as well as in the SCS Background Documentation Appendix. At the time of adoption SCAG concluded that State established per-capita greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 had been met and/or exceeded. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) reviewed and approved this conclusion in June 2016 by their Executive Order G-16-066, specifying that SCAG’s adopted SCS would, if implemented, achieve 2020 and 2035 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by the State. This Amendment to the 2016 RTP/SCS makes certain changes to transportation projects and other Plan assumptions as described in this document. Staff has reviewed the Amendment relative to the adopted Plan and to the requirements of SB 375 and has determined that the 2016 RTP/SCS remains valid under SB 375 and continues to meet and/or exceed the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

FISCAl IMPACTThis Amendment includes changes to existing projects, the deletion of existing projects and the addition of new projects. Individual project changes are addressed in the Project Modifications section of this document.

In terms of overall impact on the 2016 RTP/SCS Financial Plan, cost increases from changes to existing projects and the addition of new projects total $581 million, which are offset by $491 million in cost decreases as a result of changes to existing projects, project completions, and deletions. The modifications result in an overall net cost increase of $90 million to the 2016 RTP/SCS Financial Plan.

New projects added as part of this Amendment are being funded in part by the addition of $90 million in Other Local Funds to the 2016 RTP/SCS Financial Plan, which are in addition to 2016 RTP/SCS forecasted revenues.

Based on a review of the funding considerations for each project documented herein, SCAG finds that this Amendment does not adversely impact the financial constraint of the 2016 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS remains financially constrained.

TAblE 4 Fiscal Impact Summary

(Amounts in $1,000’s) Total

Cost Increases: Changes to Existing and New Projects $580,725

Cost Decreases: Changes to Existing Projects and Deleted Projects $491,150

Net Cost Increase (Decrease) $89,575

Additional Funding Sources:

Other Local Funds $89,575

Total Sources $89,575



CONFORMITY FINDINGSSCAG’s conformity findings for Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP are as follows:

z Consistency with 2016 RTP/SCS Test Inclusion of the amended and new projects in the 2016 RTP/SCS and 2017 FTIP would not change any other policies, programs or projects in the federally approved 2016 RTP/SCS.

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP are consistent with the federally approved 2016 RTP/SCS and meet all federal and state requirements and regulations.

z Regional Emissions Tests

� Finding: The regional emissions analyses for Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP update the regional emissions analyses for the federally approved 2016 RTP/SCS and the SCAG adopted 2017 FTIP.

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions analysis for PM2.5 and its precursors (2006 and 2012 NAAQS) meet all applicable emission budget tests for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions for ozone precursors meet all applicable emission budget tests for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo), Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation (Pechanga), SCAB excluding Morongo and Pechanga, South Central Coast Air Basin ([SCCAB], Ventura County portion), Western Mojave Desert Air Basin ([MDAB], Los Angeles County Antelope Valley portion and San Bernardino County western portion of MDAB) and the Salton Sea Air Basin ([SSAB], Riverside County Coachella Valley and Imperial County portions).

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions for NO2 meet all applicable emission budget tests for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years in the SCAB.

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions for CO meet all applicable emission budget tests for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years in SCAB.

At the time this Amendment to the 2016 RTP/SCS is being prepared, ARB is in the process of updating per-capita greenhouse gas reduction targets for all metropolitan planning organizations in the State. SCAG has collaborated and communicated with ARB during this update process and will make recommendations to the State regarding updated 2020 and 2035 targets for the SCAG region in early 2017. SCAG anticipates that per-capita greenhouse gas reduction targets will be approved by ARB for the SCAG region in 2017.

The recent adoption of Senate Bill 32 requires ARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Accordingly, SCAG anticipates that the State may establish higher per-capita greenhouse gas reduction targets for the region in January 2017 to facilitate achieving this statewide goal. While updated per-capita greenhouse gas reduction targets will not apply retroactively to the adopted 2016 RTP/SCS or to any subsequent amendments, they will apply to the forthcoming 2020 RTP/SCS and associated planning process.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITYTransportation conformity is required under the Federal Clean Air Act to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities conform to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Conformity applies to nonattainment and maintenance areas for the following transportation-related criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Under the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) metropolitan planning regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transportation conformity regulations, Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) need to pass five tests: consistency with the adopted 2016 RTP/SCS, regional emissions analysis, timely implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs), financial constraint and interagency consultation and public involvement.

The findings of the conformity determination for Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP are presented here. Details of the regional emissions analysis follow the findings.



z Financial Constraint Test

� Finding: All projects listed in Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP are financially constrained for all fiscal years. Fiscal constraint is analyzed in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

z Interagency Consultation and Public Involvement Test

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP comply with all federal requirements for interagency consultation and public involvement. The Amendments were discussed at the Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG), which includes representatives from the federal, state and local air quality and transportation agencies, on four occasions (August 23, September 27, October 25 and December 6, 2016). The draft conformity analysis will be released for a 30-day public review commencing January 6, 2017 and concluding February 6, 2017 and a public hearing is scheduled to be held on January 18, 2017. All public comments received will be documented and responded to.

REGIONAl EMISSIONS ANAlYSISThe following tables summarize the required regional emission analyses for each of the nonattainment and maintenance areas within SCAG’s jurisdiction based on EMFAC2014 which is the latest emission model approved by U.S. EPA on December 14, 2016. For those areas which require budget tests, the emissions values in the tables below utilize the rounding convention used by ARB to set the budgets (i.e., any fraction rounded up to the nearest ton) and are the basis of the conformity findings for these areas. For paved road dust (PM2.5 and PM10), SCAG uses the approved South Coast AQMD methodology, which uses EPA’s AP-42 for the updated Base Year and a combination of additional growth in center-line miles and vehicle miles traveled for future years.

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions for PM10 and its precursors meet all applicable emission budget tests for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years in SCAB and the SSAB (Riverside County Coachella Valley portion).

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions for PM10 meet the interim emission test (build/no-build test) for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years for the MDAB (San Bernardino County portion excluding Searles Valley portion) and Searles Valley portion of San Bernardino County) and for the SSAB (Imperial County portion).

� Finding: Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #17-03 to the 2017 FTIP regional emissions analysis for PM2.5 and its precursors (2006 and 2012 NAAQS) meet the interim emission test (build/no-build test) for all milestone, attainment and planning horizon years for the SSAB (urbanized area of Imperial County portion).

z Timely Implementation of TCMs Test

� Finding: The TCM project categories listed in the 1994/1997/2003/2007/2012 Ozone SIPs for the SCAB area were given funding priority, are expected to be implemented on schedule and, in the case of any delays, any obstacles to implementation have been or are being overcome.

� Finding: The TCM strategies listed in the 1994 (as amended in 1995) Ozone SIP for the SCCAB (Ventura County) were given funding priority, are expected to be implemented on schedule and, in the case of any delays, any obstacles to implementation have been or are being overcome.



TAblE 5 2008 8-Hour Ozone (Summer Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

South Central Coast Air basin – Ventura County Portion

Pollutant 2020 2030 2040

ROGBudget 13 13 13

RTP 5 3 2

Budget – RTP 8 10 11

NOX

Budget 19 19 19

RTP 6 3 3


South Coast Air basin

Pollutant Nonattainment Area 2017 2020 2023 2031 2040

ROG

Budget SCAB 119 108 99 99 99

RTP

Morongo 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2

Pechanga 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

SCAB excluding Morongo and

Pechanga102.0 79.3 67.3 49.2 37.1

Sum 102.6 79.8 67.7 49.4 37.3

SCAB 103 80 68 50 38

Budget – RTP 16 28 31 49 61

NOX

Budget SCAB 224 185 140 140 140

RTP

Morongo 2.3 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.6

Pechanga 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2

SCAB excluding Morongo and

Pechanga180.4 137.7 86.4 64.0 59.0

Sum 183.6 140.2 88.0 65.0 59.8

SCAB 184 141 89 66 60

Budget – RTP 40 44 51 74 80

TAblE 6 2008 8-Hour Ozone (Summer Planning Emissions [Tons/Day]) (EMFAC 2014)

TAblE 7 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (Annual Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2019 2021 2030 2040

ROGBudget 132 132 132 132

RTP 76 72 48 35

Budget – RTP 56 60 84 97

NOX

Budget 290 290 290 290

RTP 165 136 71 63

Budget – RTP 125 154 219 227

PM2.5*Budget 35 35 35 35

RTP 7 4 -3 -4

Budget – RTP 28 31 38 39

* The Plan PM2.5 emissions for years after 2014 are calculated with the NOx to PM2.5 (10 to 1) trading mechanism as approved by EPA on November 9, 2011.

TAblE 8 PM10 (Annual Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2020 2030 2040

ROGBudget 110 81 81

RTP 73 47 33


NOX

Budget 180 116 116

RTP 149 71 63


PM10

Budget 164 175 175

RTP 85 90 90


TAblE 9 CO (Winter Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2020 2030 2040

COBudget 2,137 2,137 2,137

RTP 573 318 238

Budget – RTP 1,564 1,819 1,8992015 interpolated between 2014 and 2020

TAblE 10 NO2 (Winter Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2020 2030 2040

NO2

Budget 680 680 680

RTP 148 70 62

Budget – RTP 532 610 618 TC Packet --- Page 62 of 86



Pollutant 2020 2026 2031 2040

ROGBudget 22 22 22 22

RTP 8 6 6 5

Budget – RTP 14 16 16 17

NOX

Budget 77 77 77 77

RTP 18 10 9 11

Budget – RTP 59 67 68 66

Western Mojave Desert Air basin – los Angeles County (Antelope Valley Portion ) and San bernardino County (Western Portion of MDAb )

Mojave Desert Air basin – San bernardino County Portion Excluding Searles ValleyTAblE 12 PM10 (Annual Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2021 2031 2040

PM10

No Build 9.8 12.1 14.2

Build 8.9 11.0 12.7

No Build – Build 0.9 1.1 1.5


Pollutant 2021 2031 2040

PM10

No Build 0.0 0.0 0.0

Build 0.0 0.0 0.0


Mojave Desert Air basin – Searles Valley Portion


Pollutant 2020 2026 2031 2040

ROGBudget 7 7 7 7

RTP 4 3 3 3

Budget – RTP 3 4 4 4

NOX

Budget 26 26 26 26

RTP 8 5 4 5

Budget – RTP 18 21 22 21

Salton Sea Air basin – Riverside County Coachella Valley Portion


Pollutant 2021 2031 2040

PM10

Budget 10.9 10.9 10.9

RTP 5.0 5.6 5.9

Budget – RTP 5.9 5.3 5.0

Salton Sea Air basin – Imperial County PortionTAblE 16 2008 8-Hour Ozone (Summer Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2017 2021 2031 2040

ROGBudget 7 7 7 7

RTP 4 3 3 2

Budget – RTP 3 4 4 5

NOX

Budget 17 17 17 17

RTP 7 5 4 4

Budget – RTP 10 12 13 13

TAblE 17 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (Annual Planning Emissions [Tons/Day])

Pollutant 2021 2031 2040

NOX

No Build 2.4 1.6 1.6

Build 2.4 1.5 1.6


PM2.5

No Build 0.2 0.2 0.3

Build 0.2 0.2 0.2



Pollutant 2021 2031 2040

PM10

No Build 1.4 1.6 1.8

Build 1.0 1.2 1.4




CONClUSIONThis Amendment maintains the integrity of the transportation conformity findings of the adopted 2016 RTP/SCS. This Amendment also remains valid under SB 375 and continues to meet and/or exceed the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Appropriate and adequate procedures have been followed in ensuring coordination of this Amendment, allowing all concerned parties, stakeholders and the public ample opportunities to voice concern and provide input. In conclusion, this Amendment to the 2016 RTP/SCS complies with all applicable federal and state requirements, including the Transportation Conformity Rule.

PUblIC REVIEW AND COMMENTSCAG is required to provide a 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Amendment. A Notice of Availability and Public Hearing and the Draft Amendment were posted on SCAG’s websites as of January 5, 2017 at http://scag.ca.gov and http://scagrtpscs.net. Written comments will be accepted until 5:00 PM on Monday, February 6, 2017, via US mail or email to:

Southern California Association of Governments Attention: 2016 RTP/SCS 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 or to [email protected]

A public hearing will also be held at SCAG’s Main Office in Los Angeles on Wednesday, January 18, 2017, at 3:00PM and is accessible via videoconference at SCAG’s regional offices: http://www.scag.ca.gov/about/Pages/SCAGOffices.aspx.

SCAG has also fully coordinated this Amendment with regional stakeholders through SCAG’s committee structure. Specifically, staff provided periodic reports regarding this Amendment to the Transportation Committee (TC), Technical Working Group and Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG).



ATTACHMENT: RTP/SCS REVISION SHEET #1The purpose of the revision sheet is to reflect proposed updates to the 2016 RTP/SCS main book content. Over the course of the past several months, SCAG staff has worked closely with its Technical Working Group and the Community, Economic & Human Development Committee (CEHD) to develop acceptable replacement language relating to access to sub-jurisdictional data. The specific language is located on page 70 of the 2016 RTP/SCS. The existing language will be replaced with the revised language below, which was approved at the November 3, 2016 CEHD meeting, as shown below.

Chapter 4: CREATING A PlAN FOR OUR FUTURE

Page 70 - Scenarios for the Future: It’s Our Choice; Preferred Scenario; Paragraph 5

Existing: Consistent with the above stated principles, the preferred scenario and corresponding forecast of population, household and employment growth is adopted at the jurisdictional level as part of the 2016 RTP/SCS and sub-jurisdictional level data and/or maps associated with the 2016 RTP/SCS is advisory only. For purposes of qualifying for future funding opportunities and/ or other incentive programs, sub-jurisdictional data and/or maps used to determine consistency with the Sustainable Communities Strategy shall only be used at the

discretion and with the approval of the local jurisdiction. However, this does not otherwise limit the use of the sub-jurisdictional data and/or maps by SCAG, CTCs, Councils of Governments, SCAG Subregions, Caltrans and other public agencies for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Any other use of the sub-jurisdictional data and/or maps not specified herein, shall require agreement from the Regional Council, respective policy committees and local jurisdictions.

Revised: Consistent with the above stated principles, the preferred scenario and corresponding forecast of population, household and employment growth is adopted at the jurisdictional level as part of the 2016 RTP/SCS and sub-jurisdictional level data and/or maps associated with the 2016 RTP/SCS is advisory only. For purposes of qualifying for future funding opportunities and/ or other incentive programs, sub-jurisdictional data and/or maps used to determine consistency with the Sustainable Communities Strategy shall only be used at the discretion and with the approval of the local jurisdiction. However, this does not otherwise limit the use of the sub-jurisdictional data and/or maps by SCAG, CTCs, Councils of Governments, SCAG Subregions, Caltrans and other public agencies for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Access to sub-jurisdictional data will be in accordance with the Regional Council approved “Protocol for Distributing Sub-jurisdictional Population, Household and Employment Data”.


JANUARY 5, 2017

DRAFT AMENDMENT #1INCLUDING THE

2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT #17-03

REGIONAl OFFICESImperial County 1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 El Centro, CA 92243 Phone: (760) 353-7800 Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County OCTA Building 600 South Main Street, Suite 1233 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (714) 542-3687 Fax: (714) 560-5089

Riverside County 3403 10th Street, Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 784-1513 Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County Santa Fe Depot 1170 West 3rd Street, Suite 140 San Bernardino, CA 92410 Phone: (909) 806-3556 Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County 950 County Square Drive, Suite 101 Ventura, CA 93003 Phone: (805) 642-2800 Fax: (805) 642-2260

MAIN OFFICE818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2472 2016.12.20 TC Packet --- Page 66 of 86



FROM: Philip Law, Transit/Rail Manager, 213-236-1841, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Norwalk Green Line Extension Study


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

For Information Only - No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

SCAG staff will provide an overview of the Norwalk Green Line Extension Study, which was recently

initiated to examine the feasibility of extending the Metro Green Line east from its current terminus

in Norwalk to connect to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan, Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective: a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forward thinking regional plans. BACKGROUND:

Study Scope and Schedule. This is a planning study examining the feasibility of extending the Metro Green Line east to connect to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station. The study scope includes comprehensive public and stakeholder outreach; travel market assessment; purpose and need; alternatives development and evaluation; ridership forecasting; station area and land use planning; first/last mile strategies; and cost estimates and financial strategies. SCAG staff have formed a Project Development Team (PDT) to provide technical input and guidance to SCAG and its consultant team. The PDT includes staff representatives from the Cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and Metrolink. SCAG staff are committed to a transparent and collaborative process to ensure a successful study. The study is expected to be completed by March 2018. Study recommendations regarding project alternatives (including routes, vertical alignment, land use and station area planning, and first/last mile strategies) will be presented to the Transportation Committee and then the Regional Council. The approved recommendations and final study report will then be provided to Metro. As the implementing agency and operator of the Metro Rail system, Metro will have the discretion to continue with further technical study of the Green Line extension, including the engineering and environmental phases of project development. The Cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, who have local jurisdiction over land use decisions, will have the discretion to continue with further study of any land use alternatives. As part of the public and stakeholder participation for the study, SCAG has scheduled two community “open house” meetings for Saturday, January 7, 2017 from 1:00pm to 3:00pm, and Wednesday, January

AGENDA ITEM NO. 5


11, 2017, from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. The meetings will be held in the City of Norwalk (see Attachment 2, Community Meeting Flyer). The purpose of the meetings is to introduce the study, provide information on the study purpose, scope, and schedule, and seek input to assist in the development of the project purpose and need, alternatives, and evaluation criteria. Project History. The Metro Green Line provides east-west light rail transit service in Los Angeles County between Redondo Beach and Norwalk, with its eastern terminus at the I-605 freeway in Norwalk. In the early 1990s, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) studied an extension of the Green Line east for approximately 2.8 miles to connect to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station, which is served by Metrolink’s Orange County and Riverside Lines. Aerial and underground options were considered, and the LACTC ultimately selected the underground option as the environmentally superior alternative. However, the extension was never implemented, due to community opposition and lack of funding. A number of recent events have led to renewed interest in extending the Green Line in Norwalk. Metro and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) are working to provide a direct connection from the regional transit network to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). This will be accomplished by Metro’s new Airport Metro Connector (AMC) 96th Street Transit Station, which will connect the Metro Crenshaw/LAX and Green Lines to the LAX central terminal area via an automated people mover to be built and operated by LAWA. This work by Metro and LAWA, together with extending the Green Line in Norwalk to connect to Metrolink, would provide a regional transit alternative to facilitate multi-modal inter-county travel, including travel to LAX. Additionally, the California High-Speed Rail Authority is studying a potential high-speed rail station at the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station, as part of the Los Angeles to Anaheim section of the Phase 1 high-speed rail system. Collectively, these projects could result in a major new transit hub in Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, connecting travelers to local, regional, and inter-regional transit and rail services. Project Funding. On November 8, 2016, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure M, Metro’s transportation sales tax ballot measure. The Measure M expenditure plan includes $200 million for the “Green Line Eastern Extension (Norwalk),” available in Fiscal Year 2046. The Measure M expenditure plan identifies a cost estimate of $770 million. SCAG’s study will develop cost estimates for different alternatives, and it is unlikely that the $200 million will fully fund the Green Line extension. Other funding sources could potentially include local, state, and federal sources. The study scope includes the development of funding strategies and the evaluation of the feasibility and applicability of innovative financial arrangements for the Green Line extension. FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for staff work on this issue is included in FY16/17 OWP 140.SCG00121.07. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Project Fact Sheet 2. Community Meeting Flyer 3. PowerPoint Presentation: Norwalk Green Line Extension Study


S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S

ENVISIONING COMMUNITY CONNECTIONSThe Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, is conducting a planning study to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives for extending the Metro Green Line east from the Norwalk Station to connect to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station. The goal is to discover how this strategic connection can best serve the economic, cultural and quality-of-life needs of Norwalk, while providing economic and mobility benefits for the entire region.

TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE CONNECTIONSThe Norwalk Green Line Extension Study will evaluate alternative routes, including street-level and bridge or subway options, and potential station locations for the Green Line extension. The study will also identify ways to provide safe and convenient access to stations (called “first/last mile” strategies), for bicyclists, pedestrians, bus transit and automobiles. Just as importantly, the study will identify and evaluate opportunities to develop transit-oriented land uses around the stations that support community needs and goals.

LOCAL & REGIONAL CONNECTIONSThe study will evaluate how the Green Line extension can provide residents with improved connections to destinations and opportunities across Southern California through the Metro Rail system, Metrolink commuter rail and future projects such as the Los Angeles International Airport automated people mover and California High-Speed Rail. Residents, workers and travelers will benefit by having access to an attractive alternative to driving, while helping reach regional, state and federal goals for easing congestion and reducing greenhouse gases.

GET CONNECTED WITH THE STUDYSCAG is seeking input from residents, businesses and community stakeholders to understand the possible community, economic and environmental benefits and costs of the project, and to help identify and shape the development of transportation and land use strategies so that they best support community goals. The study process seeks a consensus-driven vision of how the Green Line extension, and the land uses that may develop with it, can benefit Norwalk and Southern California.The study is anticipated to be completed by March 2018, with the following key activities (schedule is subject to change):• Fall 2016- Study initiation• January 2017- Community “open house” meetings• Spring/Summer 2017- Alternatives development & evaluation• Spring/Summer 2017- Land use & station planning• July 2017- Community “open house” meetings• Winter 2017/2018- Study conclusion & recommendationsCommunity stakeholders will have the opportunity to participate in two rounds of community meetings held at key points in the study.

NORWALK GREEN LINE EXTENSION STUDY

please recycle 2781. 2016.11.16


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1

OCNorwalk/Santa Fe SrpingsStation

Norwalk Station §̈¦5

§̈¦605

§̈¦105

S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S

STUDY OUTCOMESAt the conclusion of the study, technical recommendations regarding project alternatives (including routes, station area planning and first/last mile strategies) will be presented to the SCAG Regional Council for approval. The approved recommendations will then be provided to Metro. As the implementing agency and operator of the Metro Rail system, Metro will have the discretion to continue with further technical study of the Green Line extension, including engineering and environmental phases of project development, consistent with state and federal requirements. The cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, who have local jurisdiction over land use decisions, will have the discretion to continue with further study of any land use alternatives.

CONTACT USFor more information please visit the Study web page at www.scag.ca.gov/metrogreenlinestudy, call 213-236-1897, or e-mail [email protected].

MEASURE M On November 8, 2016, voters in Los Angeles County approved Measure M, the sales tax ballot measure called the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan. Measure M allocates $200 million towards the implementation of the Green Line extension. The study conclusions and recommendations will include cost estimates for the project alternatives.

NORWALK GREEN LINE EXTENSION STUDY

HOW CAN WE CONNECT THE METRO GREEN LINE TO METROLINK?


ENVISIONING COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

plea

se re

cycle

278

1. 2

016.

11.1

8

Imagine the Metro Green Line continuing to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station. Imagine how this strategic connection can best serve the economic and cultural needs of Norwalk, while providing economic and mobility benefits for the entire region.Imagine how your input will help us understand the potential community, economic, and environmental opportunities and whether they match your community’s values and goals.

Join us. Talk to us.

COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE #1Saturday, January 7, 2017 1 p.m. – 3 p.m.

COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE #2 Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.

LOCATION FOR OPEN HOUSES Sproul Reception Center 12239 Sproul Street, Norwalk, CA 90650

Both Open Houses will have the same content and format. Please attend the meeting that best meets your schedule. Spanish interpretation will be available. Families and children are welcome. Refreshments will be provided.

About the Study The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, is conducting a planning study to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives for extending the Metro Green Line east from the Norwalk Station to connect to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station.

For More InformationVisit: www.scag.ca.gov/norwalkgreenlinestudy Call SCAG: 213-236-1897 Email: [email protected]


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

11

Norwalk Green Line Extension Study

January 5, 2017

Philip Law, Transit/Rail Manager

22

Norwalk Green Line Extension

� 2.8-mile light rail extension

� Included in 2016 RTP/SCS

� Measure M ballot measure provides $220 million starting in FY 2046


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 3

33

Project History

� Environmental Impact Report completed in 1993

� Aerial and underground options studied

� Underground option selected

� Not implemented due to lack of funding and community opposition

44

Potential Local, Regional, and Inter-Regional Connections

Airport Metro Connector 96th Street station linking Metro Green Line and Crenshaw/LAX Line to LAX terminals via automated people mover

Connections to:

�Metrolink to Orange and Riverside Counties

� Potential future high-speed rail service to Northern California


55

City Hall

66

Norwalk City Council Briefing

� City Council work session on Nov. 15, 2016

� Key issues identified:

• Parking spillover at Norwalk Green Line station

• Construction fatigue from I-5 widening

• Identification of local benefits; study includes analysis of land use and potential economic development opportunities at stations

• 3% local contribution required by Measure M, a $20+ million cost to City

• At-grade versus elevated and underground alignments


77

Study Scope and Process

� Planning and feasibility study � Travel market analysis, purpose and need

� Alternatives development and evaluation

� Land use, station area planning, economic development opportunities

� Ridership forecasts� Cost estimates and financial strategies

88

Public and Stakeholder Participation

� Project Development Team (staff)• Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Gateway Cities COG, Metro, Metrolink

� Meetings and Presentations• Community meetings• Stakeholder briefings and presentations

� Communication Methods• Project website, e-mail, phone number

• Flyers on buses and light rail vehicles• E-mails, city newsletter, newspaper ads, social media, etc.

Photo by Steve Hymon/Metro

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode


99

Schedule

� Fall 2016 – study initiation� January 2017 – two “open house” community meetings

� Spring/Summer 2017 –alternatives development & evaluation, including land use and station planning

� July 2017 – two community meetings

� Winter 2017/2018 – final report and recommendations

Photo by Steve Hymon/Metro


1010

Outcomes

� Recommendations to Transportation Committee and Regional Council for approval

� Final report to Metro for further study, including engineering and environmental phases

� Land use recommendations to Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs for further study


1111

1212

Thank You

www.scag.ca.gov/[email protected]




FROM: Philip Law, Transit/Rail Manager, 213-236-1841, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Transit Asset Management (TAM) Final Rule


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

For Information Only - No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Final Rule, effective October 1, 2016, regarding

transit asset management requirements from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

(MAP-21). The Final Rule calls for the development of a National Transit Asset Management (TAM)

System, requires transit providers to develop TAM plans, defines “state of good repair,” and requires

States, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and transit providers to collaboratively develop

performance targets and report on progress towards meeting the targets. The Final Rule is available

at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/TAM/rulemaking.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan, Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective: a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forward thinking regional plans. BACKGROUND:

Staff previously reported to the Transportation Committee (TC) regarding new requirements for TAM and state of good repair (SGR), and the federal rulemaking process initiated by the FTA. The rulemaking was initiated in response to the performance-based planning requirements included by Congress in MAP-21. Staff comments during the proposed rulemaking process focused on the need for flexibility to develop mutually-agreed-upon local processes to address the requirements for target setting and integration of transit providers’ TAM plans into the metropolitan planning process. The Final Rule (49 CFR 625) establishes a National TAM System to monitor and manage public transportation capital assets to enhance safety, reduce maintenance costs, increase reliability, and improve performance. The FTA defines SGR as the condition in which a capital asset is able to operate at a full level of performance. SGR standards must be met in order for an asset to achieve a state of good repair. These SGR standards include: the capital asset is able to perform its designed function; the use of the asset in its current condition does not pose a known and unacceptable safety risk; and the life-cycle investment needs of the asset have been met or recovered, including all scheduled maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacements. The FTA identifies four asset categories of SGR performance measures (equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities) with one measure for each asset class within each category.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6


The requirements for TAM apply to all recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance under 49 USC Chapter 53 that own, operate, or manage capital assets used for providing public transportation. Although SCAG is the designated recipient of certain FTA funds, it does not own, operate, or manage capital assets used for providing public transportation. SCAG does have responsibilities for coordination and target setting as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) development, under the Metropolitan Planning Final Rule (23 CFR 450) available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/transportation-planning/final-rule-statewide-and-nonmetropolitan. Requirements for Transit Providers Transit providers are separated into two tiers. All tier I providers (having 101 or more vehicles in peak revenue service, or operating rail fixed-guideway service) must develop and implement an individual TAM Plan. Group TAM plans are to be developed by a State or a direct recipient to cover tier II transit providers (those with 100 bus vehicles or less and which do not operate any rail service) and all subrecipients under the 5311 Rural Area Formula Program. Native American tribes can elect to participate in a group TAM plan or develop their own TAM plan. Tier II providers must carry out the TAM plan. Transit providers that are also direct recipients of FTA Section 5307 funds must develop their own tier I or tier II TAM plan. Requirements for TAM plans include:

• TAM plans must include an inventory of capital assets and a condition assessment;

• TAM plans must include a project-based prioritization of investments, by year;

• TAM plans must cover at least four years, be updated every four years, and coincide with the Federal Transportation Improvement Program and Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP/FSTIP);

• An initial TAM plan must be developed within two years of the effective date of the rule; and,

• Tier I providers have additional TAM plan requirements, including a TAM and SGR policy, implementation strategy, list of key annual activities, identification of resources, and evaluation plan.

Requirements for target setting include:

• SGR performance targets must be set for the following fiscal year for each asset class in the TAM plan, and this must be done within three months of the effective date of the rule;

• At least once every fiscal year, every transit provider or group TAM plan sponsor must set performance targets for the following fiscal year; and

• To the maximum extent practicable, a transit provider or group TAM plan sponsor must coordinate with the State and MPO in selecting the State and MPO performance targets.

Requirements for documentation and reporting include:

• A transit provider or group TAM plan sponsor must make its TAM plan and any supporting documents available to the State and MPO to aid in the planning process; and

• Annual reports must be submitted to FTA’s National Transit Database (NTD) including targets for the following fiscal year, a current assessment of the condition of the provider’s system, and a narrative description about the progress made to meet targets set in the previous year.


TAM plans are self-certified by the transit provider’s designated Accountable Executive, such as their Chief Executive Officer or General Manager, who is responsible for ensuring that the necessary resources are available to carry out the TAM plan. FTA will review TAM plans and progress during Triennial and State Management Reviews, as well as during MPO Certification Reviews. SCAG’s next MPO Certification Review is expected to begin in late 2017. Requirements for MPOs MPO requirements for the development of performance measures and target setting are included in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Final Rule (23 CFR 450). TAM targets must be set every four years in the MPO’s RTP. Each MPO must establish initial targets within 180 days after the State or transit provider establishes their performance targets. MPOs must integrate into their RTP, either directly or by reference, the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets from the transit providers’ TAM plans. The RTP must include a system performance report evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the performance targets, including progress achieved in meeting the performance targets in comparison with system performance recorded in previous reports, including baseline data. Similarly, the FTIP must include, to the maximum extent practicable, a description of the anticipated effect of the FTIP toward achieving the targets identified in the RTP, linking investment priorities to those performance targets. The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Final Rule also includes requirements that MPOs, the State, and transit providers cooperatively determine mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process, and that these responsibilities be clearly identified in written agreements among the MPO, the State, and transit providers. Under MAP-21, these metropolitan planning agreements may include jointly agreed upon, specific written provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related to transportation performance data and the selection and reporting of performance targets. Otherwise, the written provisions must be documented in some other means, as collectively determined by the MPO, State, and transit providers. SCAG has metropolitan planning agreements in place with the county transportation commissions (CTCs) and transit providers, which were executed in 2007. These agreements acknowledge the role of the CTCs within the SCAG region for countywide planning and programming, and specify that the CTCs will coordinate with the transit providers in their respective county to ensure that transit projects, plans and programs are recommended to SCAG for inclusion in the RTP and FTIP. It is within this framework, with the CTCs responsible for countywide coordination with their respective transit providers, that regional TAM targets will be developed. However, given that the existing metropolitan planning agreements were executed in 2007, they must be updated to incorporate the new MAP-21 requirements, along with several other issues that have been raised by FTA in recent Triennial Reviews of the transit providers in the SCAG region. Timeline and Next Steps SCAG staff have been coordinating with the CTCs to address the TAM requirements, including initiating discussions about regional targets and the updating of the metropolitan planning agreements.


SCAG staff will also continue to coordinate with the CTCs and transit providers through the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee and other forums as necessary. Transit providers must complete their initial TAM plans by October 1, 2018. However, initial targets must be set earlier, by January 1, 2017, due to requirements specified by Congress in MAP-21. As the MPO, SCAG must set its initial TAM targets within 180 days after the transit providers establish their targets, by July 1, 2017. The FTA has recognized the difficulty of setting initial targets before completion of the initial TAM plan, and therefore is not requiring transit providers or group TAM plan sponsors to report their initial targets to the NTD. The first annual data reports are due to NTD within four months of the end of the transit provider’s fiscal year 2018, and must include condition information for the transit provider’s system and performance targets for the following year. The first annual narrative reports are due to NTD within four months of the end of the transit provider’s fiscal year 2019, and must include a description of any change in the condition of the provider’s transit system from the previous year, and a description of the progress made to meet the performance targets set in the previous year. Staff will continue to report to the TC on progress towards meeting the TAM requirements, including development of initial targets by July 1, 2017, and development of written provisions for inclusion in the metropolitan planning agreements. However, it should be noted that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA have not completed the rulemaking process for all of the performance measures required by MAP-21. Staff may not be able to complete the update of the agreements until the rulemaking for all of the performance measures have been completed. FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for staff work on this issue is included in FY16/17 OWP 140.SCG00121.01. ATTACHMENT:

PowerPoint Presentation: “Transit Asset Management – Final Rule”


11

Transit Asset Management

January 5, 2017

Final Rule


22

Performance Based Planning� MAP-21 established a performance- and

outcome-based transportation program� Investments will make progress toward

achievement of national goals:• Safety• Infrastructure condition• Congestion reduction• System reliability• Freight movement and economic

vitality• Environmental sustainability• Reduced project delivery delays

Los Angeles Railway (LARy), 16th Street Bus Repair Area (interior), 1928Photo from Metro Library and Archive



33

Definitions

� Transit Asset Management (TAM) is a business model that uses the condition of assets to guide the optimal prioritization of funding at transit properties in order to keep our transit networks in a State of Good Repair.

� State of Good Repair is the condition in which a capital asset is able to operate at a full level of performance

44

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Final Rule� Effective Oct. 1, 2016� Statutory authority under MAP-21 (49 USC 5326)

� Establishes a National TAM System:• “State of good repair” definition

• TAM plans• Annual reporting Division 12 Pacific Electric at Fairbanks Yard

Photo from Metro Library and Archivehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode


55

Requirements for Transit Providers

� Categories of transit providers:• Tier I: operates rail, or more than 100 vehicles in peak service

• Tier II: operates 100 or fewer vehicles in peak service

� Individual TAM plan or group TAM plan

� Annual targets� Designated Accountable Executive� Self-Certification� Annual Reporting

Los Angeles Railway Mechanical Engineer working on a 1700 type coach,June 28, 1937


66

TAM Plan Elements

� Four-year time frame� Inventory of capital assets:

• Equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, facilities

� Condition assessment� Decision support tools� Investment prioritization� Additional requirements for Tier I providers

Los Angeles Railway, Division 5 Yard & Administration Building, 1912Photo from Metro Library and Archive



77

MPO Responsibilities

� Set targets in RTP� Integrate transit providers’ TAM plans into RTP, directly or by reference

� Report on system performance and progress towards meeting targets

Pacific Electric Railway Company's Orange Station, circa 1945

Photo from Metro Library and Archive

Donated by Alan Weeks


88

Coordination is Required

� Transit providers must:• Make TAM plan and data available to State and MPO to aid in planning process

• To the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with State and MPO in selection of State and MPO targets

� Written agreements are required for cooperative development of plans and targets

Double Slip SwitchPhoto from Metro Library and Archive



99

Next Steps

� Continue to coordinate with county transportation commissions and transit providers

� Collect providers’ initial targets

� Develop initial regional targets by July 2017

� Report on progress to TCUtility truck (Mack) at Division 2


1010

Thank You


[email protected], 213-236-1841


SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room Los … · 2019-06-28 · REGULAR MEETING...

Documents

Transcript of SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room Los … · 2019-06-28 · REGULAR MEETING...