sta.ca.gov · 2019-08-22 · the complete sta tac packet is available on sta’s website: solano...

The complete STA TAC packet is available on STA’s website: www.sta.ca.gov

Solano Transportation Authority Member Agencies:

Benicia ♦ Dixon ♦ Fairfield ♦ Rio Vista ♦ Suisun City ♦ Vacaville ♦ Vallejo ♦ Solano County

One Harbor Center, Ste. 130, Suisun City, CA 94585-2473 ♦ Phone (707) 424-6075 / Fax (707) 424-6074 Email: [email protected] ♦ Website: sta.ca.gov

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

1:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 28, 2019 Solano Transportation Authority

STA Conference Room 1 One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City, CA 94585

MEETING AGENDA

ITEM STAFF PERSON

Daryl Halls, Chair

Johanna Masiclat

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT(1:30 -1:35 p.m.)

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES(1:35 – 1:45 p.m.)

5. CONSENT CALENDARRecommendation:Approve the following consent items in one motion.(1:45 – 1:50 p.m.)

A. Minutes of the TAC Meeting of June 26, 2019Recommendation:Approve TAC Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2019.Pg. 5

B. Updated Intercity Bus Replacement Capital Plan Recommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board for approval of the following:

1. Updated Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan (September 2019) as specified in Attachment B adding four SolanoExpress buses for expansion of the Red Line;

Brandon Thomson

TAC MEMBERS William Tarbox Joe Leach Paul Kaushal

(Interim) Robin Borre Matthew Medill Shawn Cunningham Terrance Davis Matt Tuggle

City of Benicia

City of Dixon

City of Fairfield

City of Rio Vista

City of Suisun City

City of Vacaville

City of Vallejo

County of Solano

1

http://www.sta.ca.gov/


2. Authorize the Executive Director to allocate $1.4 million inFiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 STAF for the purchase of twoSolanoExpress buses by Solano County Transit (SolTrans);and

3. Program $700,000 in FY 2020-21 STAF for the funding of oneSolanoExpress Bus by SolTrans.

Pg. 11

C. 2019 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis StudyRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize theExecutive Director to:

1. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); and2. Enter into a contract for the SolanoExpress Ridership and

Analysis Study for an amount not-to-exceed $125,000.Pg. 19

Brandon Thomson

D. STA Support of Full Implementation of SolTrans AVL/APCSystemRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize theExecutive Director to:

1. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); and2. Enter into a contract not to exceed $75,000 for the support of

SolTrans transition to an automated AVL/APC system.Pg. 23

Jim McElroy

Vincent Ma

6. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. None.

7. ACTION NON-FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Legislative UpdateRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to endorse the Final Draft of Caltrans’ California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Consensus Principles Document as shown in Attachment J.(1:50 – 2:00 p.m.)Pg. 25

B. Addendum to the 2019 Solano County Pothole Report Recommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the addendum to the 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report as shown in Attachment A (to be provided under separate cover) .(2:00 – 2:10 p.m.)Pg. 77

Erika McLitus

2



Robert Guerrero

Lloyd Nadal

Anthony Adams

Janet Adams

Janet Adams

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Status of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Production Areas (PPAs) Designation and Implementation(2:10 – 2:20 p.m.)Pg. 79

B. Solano Safe Routes to School Program 4th Quarter Report for FY 2018-19(2:20 – 2:25 p.m.)Pg. 91

C. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 4th Quarter Update Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19(2:25 – 2:30 p.m.)Pg. 99

D. I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange - Construction Package 2 Update(2:30 – 2:35 p.m.)Pg. 103

E. 2020 Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Programming(2:35 – 2:40 p.m.)Pg. 107

F. One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 3 Funding Guidelines and Schedule(2:40 – 2:50 p.m.)Pg. 163

Erika McLitus

NO DISCUSSION

Triana Crighton

Johanna Masiclat

G. Summary of Funding OpportunitiesPg. 167

H. Draft Meeting Minutes of STA Board & Advisory Committees Pg. 171

I. STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019Pg. 177

Johanna Masiclat

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

September 2019A. CTP Elements - Equity & Land Use ChaptersB. Draft Legislative Platform for 2020C. Bike Facilities DemoD. Solano-Napa Activity Based Model ValidationE. Mode Transition Plan/Parking Study Update

3



F. Programming of 2020 STIP G. Highway Projects Update: I-80, SR 12, SR 29, SR 37 and SR 113

10. ADJOURNMENT

The next regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee is tentatively scheduled at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 25, 2019.

Meeting Schedule for the Calendar Year 2019

1:30 p.m., Wed., September 25, 2019 No Meeting in October

1:30 p.m., Wed., November 20, 2019 (Special Date) 1:30 p.m., Wed., December 18, 2019 (Special Date)

Translation Services: For document translation please call:

Para la llamada de traducción de documentos: 對於文檔翻譯電話

Đối với tài liệu gọi dịch: Para sa mga dokumento tawag sa pagsasalin:

707-399-3239

4


Agenda Item 5.A August 28, 2019

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT Minutes for the Meeting of

June 26, 2019

1. CALL TO ORDERThe regular meeting of the STA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order byDaryl Halls at approximately 1:30 p.m. in the Solano Transportation Authority (STA)’sConference Room 1.

TAC MembersPresent: William Tarbox City of Benicia

Joe Leach City of Dixon Paul Kaushal City of Fairfield Matt Medill City of Suisun City Tracy Rideout for Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville Terrance Davis City of Vallejo Matt Tuggle County of Solano

TAC Members Absent: Robin Borre City of Rio Vista

Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville

STA Staff and Others Present: (In Alphabetical Order by Last Name)

Anthony Adams STA Janet Adams STA Katelyn Costa STA Triana Crighton STA Ron Grassi STA Robert Guerrero STA Daryl Halls STA Vince Ma STA Johanna Masiclat STA John McKenzie STA Erika McLitus STA Lloyd Nadal STA Krishal Sharma STA High School Intern Nouae Vue City of Benicia

5

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On a motion by Matt Tuggle, and a second by Terrance Davis, the STA TAC approved the agenda. (6 Ayes)

3.

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT None presented.

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES STA staff made the following announcements:

1. Erika McLitus distributed a detailed report on each City’s current Pavement Condition Index (PCI).

2. Ron Grassi announced the ribbon cutting event of the Solano Vehicle Share Program which will be held at 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 28, 2019 in the courtyard located in the front of the County Government Center.

3. Anthony Adams presented the status of the Active Transportation Plan 4. Robert Guerrero announced the Active Transportation Committee is scheduled to meet at

10:30 a.m., Monday, July 1, 2019 at the STA. Joe Leach, City of Dixon, arrived at the meeting.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR On a motion Joe Leach, and a second by Matt Tuggle, the STA TAC approved Items A through D. (7 Ayes)

A. Minutes of the TAC Meeting of May 29, 2019 Recommendation: Approve TAC Meeting Minutes of May 29, 2019.

B. Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Matrix – July 2019 – City of Vacaville (City Coach), Solano County Transit (SolTrans), and Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the July 2019 TDA Matrix for FY 2019-20 which includes TDA Claims for the City of Vacaville (City Coach), Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and STA for FY 2019-20 as shown in Attachment B.

C. Submittal of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Grant for State Route (SR) 37 Corridor Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Pilot Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize the STA Executive Director to jointly apply for the BAAQMD Pilot Trip Reduction Program grant along with NVTA, SCTA and TAM to pilot a coordinated TDM approach focused on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and congestion on the SR 37Corridor.

D. Commuter Profile and Marketing Research Request for Proposal (RFP) Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize the Executive Director to:

1. Make a budget modification of $100,000 to the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Program’s department budget; and

6

2. Use the funds to hire a consultant(s) to create an updated Commuter Profile of Solano County commuters and commute patterns and additional marketing research to encourage use of SolanoExpress and other alternative travel modes.

6. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. None.

7. ACTION NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Solano-Napa Activity Based Model Update

Robert Guerrero reviewed the scope of work that addresses the deficiencies to update the model. He commented that a better performing model with up to date data is necessary for the 2019 Congestion Management Program Update and Solano Express Lanes project, and also necessary for the upcoming Short Range Transit Plan updates planned for later this year as well as any new projects requiring VMT CEQA analysis. He noted that staff recommends a continued partnership with NVTA for cost savings from common tasks and data acquisition.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the Scope of Work to update the Solano Napa Activity Based Model contingent on input from the STA Model Technical Advisory Committee as shown in Attachment A.

On a motion by Terrance Davis, and a second by Matt Tuggle, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (7 Ayes)

B. Water Transit Feasibility Study and Conceptual Plan Completion Triana Crighton provided an update to the development of the Water Transit Feasibility Study for Solano County focusing primarily in the cities of Benicia, Rio Vista, and Vallejo. She commented that the Study analyzed current feasibility for water transit and/or expansions to existing services, project ridership for specific inter-county routes, minimum thresholds for service levels, and other overall assumptions related to potential water transit services – both public and private. She concluded by noting that the Study’s ridership projections revealed low potential for ferry service from Rio Vista to Antioch, Martinez, Benicia, and/or Vallejo.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the 2019 Solano County Water Transit Feasibility Study and Conceptual Plan.

On a motion by Terrance Davis, and a second by Matt Tuggle, the STA TAC unanimously

approved the recommendation. (7 Ayes)

C. Legislative Update Vince Ma reviewed staff’s recommendation for the STA Board to take a Watch position on SB 592, which is currently in the Assembly Committee on Housing & Community Development, and the Committee on Local Government and to Support H.R.3193 as it aligns with 2019 STA Legislative Objective #6: “Oppose efforts to reduce or divert funding from transportation projects.”

7

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to take the following position:

• Watch SB 592 • Support H.R.3193

On a motion by Matt Tuggle, and a second by Joe Leach, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (7 Ayes) At this time, City of Vacaville’s Tracy Rideout requested STA staff to monitor the Governor’s budget including Senate Bill (SB) 87 – Transportation. After further discussion, the TAC voted to amend the recommendation by adding a “watch” position to SB 87 – Transportation as noted below shown in bold italics. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to take the following position:

• Watch SB 592 • Support H.R.3193 • Watch SB 87 – Transportation

On a motion by Tracy Rideout, and a second by William Tarbox, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (7 Ayes)

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 3rd Quarter Update FY 2018-19 Anthony Adams reported that for the third quarter of FY 2018-19, a total of $378,325.05 has been collected for all RTIF districts, and that the previous 2 quarters have been well above the historical average as compared with other previous quarters. He also mentioned that the County and STA have scheduled a meeting on July 10th at 4pm at Suisun City Hall to discuss this update and any changes in fee schedules. While the meeting is focused on briefing STA Board Members and City Managers/County CAO, TAC members are welcome to attend this meeting.

B. Schedule for 2020 Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Janet Adams reviewed the list of projects being considered and outlined the development schedule for the 2020 STIP.

C. Status of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Production Areas (PPAs) Designation and Implementation Robert Guerrero provided a detailed status report on the designation and implementation process of PDAs and PPAs. He noted that several funding opportunities for housing and employment production are anticipated this year and in the coming years for PDAs and PPAs from the State and the region. He cited that STA staff is recommending each agency to consider modifying their current designations in order to be eligible to take advantage of anticipated transportation and housing funding and funding for PCAs is anticipated to continue to be provided by MTC/ABAG through the OBAG as part of the next funding cycle.

8

NO DISCUSSION

D. Summary of Funding Opportunities

E. Draft Meeting Minutes of STA Board & Advisory Committees

F. STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

August 2019 A. CTP Equity & Land Use Chapters B. OBAG Cycle 3 Funding Guidelines and Priorities C. Pedestrian Safety/SR2S Summit

September - October 2019

A. 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) B. SolanoExpress Service Update C. Solano-Napa Activity Based Model Validation D. Mode Transition Plan/Parking Study Update

10. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee is scheduled at, 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 28, 2019.

9

This page is left intentionally blank.

10


DATE: August 20, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Mary Pryor, NWC Partners Consultant

Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: Updated Intercity Bus Replacement Capital Plan

Background: In 2013, the Intercity Transit Funding Working Group met and jointly developed a plan for funding SolanoExpress intercity bus replacements. The Plan was approved by the STA Board on March 13, 2013. Under this Plan, the STA would provide 20% of the funding, 20% of the funding would be requested from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the other members of the Intercity Transit Funding Group will provide the remaining 60% of the funding.

On January 14, 2015, the STA Board approved an updated funding plan based on input from the Consortium members. The January 2015 Plan included the assumption that the replacement vehicles will be Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) instead of hybrid diesel vehicles, included the identified funding from Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and Solano County Transit (SolTrans), and included the purchase of ten vehicles in the next three years.

On January 13, 2016, the STA Board approved a second update to the funding plan based on input from the Consortium members. Under the January 2016 Plan, the FAST vehicles were assumed to be diesel, and the procurement of the SolTrans CNG buses was accelerated. These changes reduced the overall cost of the program by approximately $4.6 million from the January 2015 cost. In addition, in comparison with the January 2015 Plan, the 2016 Plan included one additional vehicle for a total of 35 vehicles used for SolanoExpress service and funded by the Intercity Funding Agreement formula. The January 2015 Plan had included 34 Solano Express buses plus one bus to be used for the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) service and funded by SolTrans and/or WETA. The funding amounts were updated to include all of the funds committed by STA, bringing STA’s share to 23.5% and the local agency share to 56.5%.

On May 10, 2017, the STA Board approved a third update to the funding plan based on input from the Consortium members. This Plan included the further acceleration of the SolTrans vehicle procurements and the acceleration of 3 vehicles under the FAST procurement. These changes resulted in savings of approximately $1 million. SolTrans was able to accelerate their procurements through the identification of $9.3 million in Federal and local funds to complete the acquisition of sixteen vehicles in the near term. SolTrans’ total commitment to the replacement program is $4,073,846. The replacement plan approved in May 2017 includes the other local transit agencies and STA reimbursing SolTrans with local funds under a five-year repayment term. The May 2017 Plan also included several funding swaps to incorporate additional Federal funds into the Plan and accelerate the use of Prop 1B funds.

11

On October 11, 2017, the STA Board approved a fourth update to the funding Plan based on input from the Consortium members. The fourth update to the Plan included the revision of the FAST procurement schedule to place an order for 9 vehicles in FY 2017-18, and up to an additional 3 vehicles in FY 2018-19 if their procurement partners (Yuba-Sutter Transit and El Dorado Transit) do not maximize the total number of vehicles allowed under their joint procurement. The pricing for the FAST vehicles was updated to reflect the procurement pricing of $646,000 per vehicle. In combination with changes to escalation based on the updated schedule, the new prices resulted in approximately $84,000 in savings. On May 9, 2018, the STA Board approved a fifth update to the funding plan based on input from the Consortium members. The Plan approved by the STA Board in May 2018 is provided as Attachment A. This update included changes to the FAST and SolTrans procurement schedules and pricing, which resulted in approximately $466,680 in savings. Discussion: Cost and Schedule Since May 2018, several elements of the Plan’s cost and schedule have continued to evolve. The revised plan is included as Attachment B. These changes include the following:

• With the expansion of the Red Line service, SolTrans has requested additional vehicles to improve service reliability and to accommodate the expanded hours between Vallejo and Fairfield/Suisun City. The recommended amendment to the current plan includes four additional CNG vehicles to be procured in FY 2019-20. SolTrans’s current procurement contract allows for the purchase of these four additional vehicles.

• SolTrans has sufficient cash on hand to fund the purchase of two of the four vehicles. The plan assumes that STA will advance the funding for the remaining two vehicles in FY 2019-20.

• STA would repay SolTrans for one bus in FY 2020-21 or later, depending on the availability of funds. This would result in STA funding three buses, and SolTrans funding one. None of the other Consortium partners are being requested to participate in funding the four additional vehicles.

• This inclusion of four new vehicles in the plan would increase the total cost by approximately $3.39 million, from $25.14 million to $28.53 million.

Attachment B provides a summary of the procurement and reimbursement for the additional vehicles. A cash flow will be developed and presented to the STA Board based on input from the Consortium for the timing of upcoming procurements and reimbursement. Funding Shares The funding plan has also been updated by STA. Since the adoption of the May 2018 Plan, STA has committed additional STAF to the replacement program. With the inclusion of the four new vehicles and additional funds from STA, the funding share planned to come from MTC or other sources has been reduced from 17.7% to 8.7%. Under the currently proposed Plan (September 2019), STA’s share is 39.3% of the program. The local funding share under the current plan would be reduced from 56.7% to 52%. STA is still working with MTC to secure 8.7% of the cost from regional sources. Identified Funding STA has requested information from each of the Consortium members regarding the status of funding their commitments. Attachment C provides details of the commitments by agency as of June 2018. STA will continue to work with the Consortium members to secure the funding for

12

the intercity bus replacement plan, including the recommended procurement and reimbursements to SolTrans and FAST’s upcoming procurements. Funding Agreements STA has entered into funding agreements with the City of Dixon, Solano County, and Vacaville for their contributions to the vehicle replacement plan. STA staff is working with FAST and SolTrans to develop funding agreements to reflect the adopted plan. The mechanics of the fund transfers will depend on the funding source; some transfers will be based on reimbursement requests, while other transfers may be included in the annual TDA funding matrix. The agreements will also cover the reimbursements to SolTrans for the advancement of funds for the bus procurements. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board for approval of the following:

1. Updated Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan (September 2019) as specified in Attachment B adding four SolanoExpress buses for expansion of the Red Line;

2. Authorize the Executive Director to allocate $1.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 STAF for the purchase of two SolanoExpress buses by Solano County Transit (SolTrans); and

3. Program $700,000 in FY 2020-21 STAF for the funding of one SolanoExpress Bus by SolTrans.

Attachments:

A. Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan Approved by STA Board May 9, 2018 B. Proposed Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan dated August 20, 2019 C. Agency Funding Status for Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan as of June 2018

13


14

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Costs and Funding Attachment APrepared by NWC Partners 13-Apr-18 Page 1 of 2

Approved by STA Board 9-May-18

Based on Interim Funding PlanScenario 2A: All Buses Replaced by FY 22-23, 56.7% Funding by Locals Using Intercity Funding Agreement Formula

Funded Fundeda

Year of Replacementb FY 14‐15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 TotalTotal Buses to be Replaced 0 6 4 15 3 0 0 5 2 35

FAST: All Diesel 0 0 0 9 3 5 2 19SolTrans: All CNG 0 6 4 6 16

Unit Cost ‐‐ 45 ft Over‐the‐Road Dieselc 637,000$ 645,000$ 610,000$ 610,000$ 669,000$ 689,070$ 709,742$ 731,034$ Unit Cost ‐‐ 45 ft CNGd 792,774$ 795,642$ 811,269$ 835,607$ 860,675$ 886,495$ 913,090$ 940,483$ Vehicle Cost ‐$ 4,756,647$ 3,182,569$ 10,357,613$ 1,830,000$ -$ -$ 3,548,711$ 1,462,069$ 25,137,607$

FundingNear Term: STA CommitmentsFederal Earmarks 1,260,000$ 1,260,000$ Prop 1B Lifeline + Interest 475,937$ 528,247$ 1,004,184$ Prop 1B Pop Base + Interest Swapped for TDA 547,224$ 2,381,151$ 2,928,375$ STAF 581,467$ 581,467$

-$ Funding Share Commitments25.5% Funding from STAe 681,000$ 1,333,719$ 599,539$ 1,048,115$ 20,696$ 3,683,069$

Fairfield Train Station Loan Repaymentf 1,048,115$ 211,508$ 1,259,623$ 17.7% Funding from MTC or Otherg ‐‐ Proposed 1,391,690$ 2,040,631$ 3,432,321$ 56.7% Funding by Locals

Dixon 1.8% 38,622$ 191,929$ 121,861$ 352,412$ FASTh 23.0% 1,478,957$ 933,226$ 1,807,774$ 229,064$ 4,449,021$ SolTransi 21.0% 2,473,531$ 4,080,815$ 2,760,075$ (1,048,115)$ (1,048,115)$ (1,048,115)$ (1,048,115)$ (1,048,115)$ 4,073,846$ Vacaville 10.4% 746,071$ 237,068$ 946,011$ 84,000$ 2,013,150$ Unincorporated County 0.5% 65,511$ 34,628$ 100,139$

Total Bus Replacement Funding -$ 4,756,692$ 8,252,680$ 4,343,165$ 3,204,945$ 0$ 0$ 3,118,057$ 1,462,069$ 25,137,608$

Annual Balance -$ 45$ 5,070,111$ (6,014,448)$ 1,374,945$ 0$ 0$ (430,654)$ 0$ 0$

Cumulative Balance -$ 45$ 5,070,156$ (944,292)$ 430,654$ 430,654$ 430,654$ (0)$ 0$

Train Station Loan Funding Plan f

STA Loan of Prop 1B 1,259,623$ 1,259,623$ Fairfield Loan Repayment 314,906$ 314,906$ 314,906$ 314,906$ 1,259,623$ Cumulative Loan Balance 1,259,623$ 944,717$ 629,812$ 314,906$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NotesBlue revenues identified for FAST procurement; orange for SolTrans procurement or repayment.a.

b.c.d.e.

f.g. Proposed MTC or other funding. Cost savings reduce the amount required.h. FAST has identified additional funding (FTA 5339 and local match) for earlier acquisitions.i.

STA has loaned Fairfield $1,259,623 in Prop 1B funds for the Train Station project. Fairfield will repay loan to STA over 4 years. Loan repayment proceeds will be used as portion of STA's contribution.

STA Board approved the Prop 1B and STAF funding on Feb 13, 2013. In April 2017, SolTrans requested to swap $2,360,208 (plus interest earnings) in TDA funds for the Prop 1B Population funds held for FAST. FAST may subsequently swap out an estimated $700,000 of the TDA funds with 5307 funds.

SolTrans has identified Federal and local funding to complete purchase of 16 vehicles, which exceed their share of the overall funding. Other funding agencies to reimburse SolTrans with local funds. Repayment shown as negative amounts, repaid over five years.

Year of replacement reflects the cash flow requirement; programming for these expenditures would be needed 2 years prior to the year of replacement.

Funding from STA - STA is committed to providing the local match for the Intercity SolanoExpress Bus Replacement from a combination and STAF and Prop 1B funds. Currently, STA has a reserve of STAF funds and will continue to build the reserve on an annual basis until the local match is met. In March 2017, STA requested $333,719 in Transit Performance Initiative funds (STP/CMAQ) for the FAST buses as part of a swap with STAF for bus stop improvements. In June 2017, STA requested $1 million in TPI funds to swap with STAF for the Fairgrounds project.

CNG Vehicle prices from SolTrans procurement, with 3% annual escalation after FY17-18. Diesel Vehicle price in FY17-18 and FY18-19 from FAST procurement, from MTC's FY19-20 pricelist plus $20,000 per vehicle based on FAST procurement information, with 3% annual escalation after

15

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Costs and FundingPrepared by NWC Partners 13-Apr-18 Attachment BApproved by STA Board 9-May-18

Page 2 of 2

Total Buses to be ReplacedFAST: All Diesel 12 7 19SolTrans: All CNG 16 16

Vehicle Cost 12,806,828$ 7,320,000$ 5,010,779$ 25,137,607$

FundingNear Term: STA CommitmentsFederal Earmarks 1,260,000$ 1,260,000$ Prop 1B Lifeline 1,004,184$ 1,004,184$ Prop 1B Pop Base Swapped for TDA 547,224$ 2,381,151$ 2,928,375$ STAF 581,467$ 581,467$

- Funding Share Commitments24.9% Funding from STA 681,000$ 1,333,719$ -$ 1,668,350$ 3,683,069$

Fairfield Train Station Loan Repayment 1,259,623$ 1,259,623$ 19.7% Funding from MTC ‐‐ Proposed 1,742,341$ 1,689,980$ 3,432,321$ 56.7% Funding by Locals -$

Dixon 230,551$ 121,861$ 352,412$ FAST 2,412,183$ 1,807,774$ 229,064$ 4,449,021$ SolTrans 9,314,421$ (5,240,574)$ 4,073,846$ Vacaville 746,071$ 1,030,011$ 237,068$ 2,013,150$ Unincorporated County 65,511$ 34,628$ 100,139$

Total Bus Replacement Funding 12,806,829$ 7,750,653$ 4,580,126$ 0$ 25,137,608$

Balance 0$ 430,653$ (430,653)$ 0$ 0$

a.

TotalSolTrans

RepaymentPhase 1: SolTrans

Phase 3: Longer Term

FASTa

Excess Phase 2 funding is FAST TDA identified as local match for FAST's Federal grants; may be able to use other TDA as match. Funds included in Phase 2 timeframe as contingency for unforseen revenue timing issues.

Phase 2: FASTa

16

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Costs and FundingPrepared by NWC Partners 20-Aug-19

DRAFT

Total Buses to be ReplacedFAST: All Diesel 12 7 19SolTrans: All CNG 16 4 20

Vehicle Cost 12,806,828$ 7,320,000$ 5,010,779$ 3,391,979$ -$ 28,529,586$

FundingNear Term: STA CommitmentsFederal Earmarks 1,260,000$ 1,260,000$ Prop 1B Lifeline 1,004,184$ 1,004,184$ Prop 1B Pop Base Swapped for TDA 547,224$ 2,381,151$ 2,928,375$ STAF 581,467$ 581,467$

-Funding Share Commitments33.1% Funding from STA 681,000$ 2,372,757$ 903,066$ 1,187,421$ 1,695,989$ 847,995$ 7,688,228$

Fairfield Train Station Loan Repayment 1,259,623$ 1,259,623$ 10.2% Funding from MTC ‐‐ Proposed 985,573$ 985,573$ 1,971,146$ 56.7% Funding by Locals

Dixon 121,861$ 230,551$ 352,412$ FAST 229,064$ 2,412,183$ 1,807,774$ 4,449,021$ SolTrans 9,314,421$ (5,240,574)$ 1,695,989$ (847,995)$ 4,921,841$ Vacaville 237,068$ 746,071$ 1,030,011$ 2,013,150$ Unincorporated County 34,628$ 65,511$ 100,139$

Total Bus Replacement Funding 12,806,829$ 0$ 7,320,000$ 5,010,779$ 3,391,979$ -$ 28,529,586$

Balance 0$ 0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0$

a.

b. Phase 4 assumes SolTrans and STA will each fund 2 vehicles in near-term, with STA repaying SolTrans for one vehicle in the future.

Total

SolTrans Phase 1

RepaymentPhase 2:

FASTaPhase 1: SolTrans

Phase 3: Longer Term

FASTa

Excess Phase 2 funding is FAST TDA identified as local match for FAST's Federal grants; may be able to use other TDA as match. Funds included in Phase 2 timeframe as contingency for unforseen revenue timing issues.

Phase 4: SolTrans

2019b

SolTrans Phase 4

Repayment

17

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Funding Status Attachment CIdentified Funding as of June 2018

Dixon County FAST SolTrans Vacaville STA MTC or Other Total

Funding Need 352,412$ 100,139$ 4,449,021$ 4,921,841$ 2,013,150$ 8,947,851$ 1,971,146$ 22,755,560$

Identified FundingFairfield Loan Repaymenta 1,259,623$ 1,259,623$ TDA 702,407$ 2,013,150$ 2,715,557$ STAF 3,810,525$ 3,810,525$ Transit Performance Initiativeb 1,333,719$ 1,333,719$ FTA 5307c (awarded/pending) 3,828,114$ 3,828,114$ FTA 5307 (planned per TCP) 3,240,458$ 3,240,458$ FTA 5309 Earmark 30,598$ 30,598$ TDA swapped for FTA 5311d 352,412$ 100,139$ 452,551$ FTA 5339e (awarded/pending) 1,112,085$ 1,124,817$ 2,236,902$ FTA 5339 (planned per TCP) 739,618$ 736,414$ 1,476,032$ FTA 5339 (planned per TCP, for FY 21-22) 567,705$ Auction Proceeds 58,381$ 58,381$ AB 664 (estimate) 330,133$ 330,133$ Sources for 2019 Procurement -$

-$Total Identified Funding 352,412$ 100,139$ 3,121,815$ 9,348,915$ 2,013,150$ 6,403,867$ -$ 21,340,298$

Balance to be Funded (0)$ 0$ 1,327,206$ (4,427,074)$ -$ 2,543,984$ 1,971,146$ 1,415,262$

Proposed Sources Dixon County FAST SolTransf Vacaville STA MTC or Otherg

TDA replaced with Federal funds as grants become available

Notes:a. Fairfield Loan Repayment sources are Fairfield's AB1600 (1/3) and Northeast TIF funding (2/3).b.

c.

d.

e. SolTrans FTA 5339 includes $767,581 for FY13 & FY14 request and $357,236 FY16/17/18 request pending approval.f.

g.

SolTrans FTA 5307 includes $416,385 for FY13 and $975,000 in FY14, obligated in August 2015; additional SolTrans FTA 5307 for FY16, FY17, and FY18 from pending grants and pending TIP approvals.

SolTrans has identified Federal and local funds through FY18 to fund their bus purchases. These identified funds exceed their commitment to the replacement program. The other partner agencies could meet their commitment through providing local funds to SolTrans as reimbursement of the excess funds provided by SolTrans.

Dixon & County funds swap FTA 5311 with TDA. County's identified funds to flow through Dixon. Includes revised FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 amounts as of April 11, 2018. Includes $38,781 of $65,000 in FY18 5311 re-programmed from FAST to Dixon; balance of $65,000 to Dixon for local needs.

In March 2017, STA requested $333,719 inTransit Performance Initiative funds (STP/CMAQ) for the FAST buses as part of a swap with STAF for bus stop improvements. In June 2017, STA requested $1 million in TPI funds to swap with STAF for the Fairgrounds project.

Potential sources could include Federal, bridge toll, cap & trade, or other funds. Cost reductions reduce the needed amount.18

Agenda Item 5.C August 28, 2019

DATE: August 18, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: 2019 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis Study

Background: The intercity transit routes that serve Solano County are operated by the two largest transit operators in the County: Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and Solano County Transit (SolTrans). Although operated by two transit operators, they are funded by contributions from six cities (Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo) and the County of Solano and Regional Measure 2 (RM 2) funds determined by the STA Board.

The STA has been working with local jurisdictions through the Intercity Transit Funding (ITF) Working Group over the past seven years and developed an ITF Agreement to stabilize the funding for these services. The cost-sharing for each route is based on residence of the ridership (80%) and population share (20%). The last ridership update was in 2018 which consisted of SolanoExpress five (5) intercity routes.

Discussion: The 2019 Ridership Survey and Analysis Study will be used to help update the calculation of the new Intercity Funding Agreement formula. In addition to meeting the needs of the ITF Agreement, the 2019 Study will include an on-board passenger survey and analysis, on-time performance and on and off counts. With Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the SolanoExpress services changes being completed, this information will be useful to make any necessary service adjustments to the new system. STA staff is preparing to have the surveys conducted in early November 2019 in preparation of any service adjustments and modifications for July 1, 2020. STA plans to offer passengers a chance to win bus passes for the SolanoExpress Intercity Routes to encourage passengers to fill out surveys. This strategy has been successful in the last three ridership surveys conducted and the Transit Operators provided the passes.

The survey questions that were utilized during the 2018 ridership survey are Attachment A. The 2019 surveys will be provided in all Title VI required languages. The timeline for the Request for Proposal (RFP) is outlined in Attachment B. STA is requesting feedback on the 2018 survey from the transit operators participating in the ITF to improve the 2019 survey questions and STA will be hosting a separate meeting with all SolanoExpress funding partners the week of September 2, 2019 to review and finalize the survey questions.

Fiscal Impact: State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) in the amount not-to exceed $125,000 is included in the FY 2019-20 budget for the Ridership and Analysis Study for SolonoExpress Routes approved by the STA Board.

19

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize the Executive Director to:

1. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); and 2. Enter into a contract for the SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis Study for an amount

not-to-exceed $125,000. Attachment:

A. 2018 Ridership Survey

20

2018 ON BOARD TRANSIT SURVEY

The Solano Transportation Authority and your local transit operator need you to help improve transit service by answering the questions below and returning this form before you get off the bus. All responses are CONFIDENTIAL. Please fill out this form only once per day.

1. What is the CITY YOU LIVE IN?Benicia Dixon Fairfield Suisun City Rio Vista Vallejo

7. Where will you GET OFF this bus?(Specify street address/name or landmark)

Vacaville Unincorporated Solano County Napa County Elsewhere outside Solano County

2. Is your trip today part of a round trip on this busline?

Yes No Don’t Know

3. Where are you coming from?Work School (K-12 students) Business Appointment College (Students Only) Your Home Airport Social/Recreational Medical/Dental Shopping/Errands Other (Specify):

4. What is the location of that place?(Specify street address/name or landmark)

Street No. Street Name

Nearest Cross Street



City Zip

8. Where are you going to now?Work School (K-12 students) Business Appointment College (Students Only) Your Home Airport Social/Recreational Medical/Dental Shopping/Errands Other (Specify):_

9. What is the location of that place?(Specify street address/name or landmark)


City Zip Nearest Cross Street

5. How did you get to the stop for this bus?Transferred from another bus: Route number?Transit Operator? Dixon Readi-Ride SolTrans Fairfield Suisun Transit Vacaville City Coach Rio Vista Delta Breeze Other (Name: )

Transferred from BART

City Zip

10. How will you get from this bus to yourdestination?

Transfer to another bus: Route number? Transit Operator? Dixon Readi-Ride SolTrans

Transferred from Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK/RT Fairfield Suisun Transit Vacaville City Coach Transferred from Ferry Rio Vista Delta Breeze Other (Name: ) Walked (How many minutes? ) Car as driver (How many miles? ) Car as passenger (How many miles? ) Bicycle (How many miles? ) Other (Please describe )

6. Where did you board this bus?(Specify street address/name or landmark)



City Zip

Transfer to BART Transfer to Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK/RT

Transfer to Ferry Walk (How many minutes? ) Car as driver (How many miles? ) Car as passenger (How many miles? ) Bicycle (How many miles? ) Other (Please describe )

11. How would you have made this trip if you couldNOT ride this bus?

Would not have made this trip Walk Drive alone Taxi Get a ride Train Casual Carpool Bike Carpool/Vanpool Other

over

SS ttaarrttiinngg PPooiinntt OONNEE-- WWAAYY EEnnddiinngg PPooiinntt

21

12. How often do you ride this bus line? (Choose ONE)

□ 6-7 days/week □ 1-2 days/week □ 5 days/week □ Once a month or less □ 3-4 days/week □ First time riding (Skip to Q14)

13. How long have you been riding this bus line?

20. If we had an earlier bus, would you take it?

Always Sometimes

21. If we had a later bus, would you take it?

Always Sometimes

Less than 6 months 3 to 5 years 6 to 12 months 6 to 9 years 1 to 2 years 10 or more years

14. How many cars or other vehicles are available for use by all the people in your home?

□ 0 Cars □ 1 Car □ 2 cars □ 3 or more cars

15. Did you have a car that you could have used today

instead of the bus/?

No Yes, but with inconvenience to others

16. How did you pay to use this bus? (Please select ONE from each column)

Payment Method Fare Type

Transfer Adult Cash Senior Multi Ride Student/Youth Monthly Pass Disabled Clipper Other

17. Please rate the service on this bus line on each of the following:

No Excellent Good Fair Poor Opinion

a. On-time performance b. Frequency of service c. Driver courtesy d. Rider information e. Cleanliness of vehicles f. Safety/security g. Ease of transfers h. Availability of Intercity

Connections i. System easy to

understand j. Fares (Cost k. Overall service

18. Where do you currently get your transit

22. Are you: Male Female

23. Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino?

24. Which of the following do you identify with?

White/Caucasian Black/African American American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Other:

25. Do you speak a language other than English at

home? Yes (Specify ) No

26. How old are you? □ 10 or younger □ 25-34 □ 11-13 □ 35-49 □ 14-17 □ 50-64 □ 18-24 □ 65 and older

27. What is your employment status?

Full-time Part Time Student Homemaker Retired Unemployed

28. Do you possess a driver’s license?

29. How many people are in your household, including yourself?

30. What is the total yearly income of all the people in

your home? (Please choose ONE category)

□ Under $10,000 □ $75,000 - $99,999 □ $10,000 - $24,999 □ $100,000- $149,999 □ $25,000 - $34,999 □ $150,000 or over □ $35,000 - $49,999 □ Don’t Know □ $50,000 - $74,999

31. Are there any other comments you would like to

add about the service on this bus line?

information? (Select one or more)

511.org myStop NextBus Transit Website Information at Stops Brochure Other (Please explain )

19. If a mobile payment App were available, would you use it?

Yes No Not sure

Thank you for your participation! To enter to win a Kindle, monthly passes and other prizes, please provide:

First Name: Phone: ( )

No Yes

No Yes

Yes

Never

Never

22

Agenda Item 5.D August 28, 2019

DATE: August 19, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator

James McElroy, STA Consultant RE: STA Support of Full Implementation of SolTrans Automated Vehicle Location

and Automated Passenger Counting (AVL/APC) System

Background: Small and medium transit agencies tend to struggle with producing reliable ridership and other information. Many systems have purchased sophisticated, but complicated, tools to generate real time information and statistics; but these systems tend to be significantly different from the existing more manual systems. Both Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) have acquired the systems and have struggled with their functionality. Recently, STA and SolTrans have been working together to fully integrate and validate their system’s functionality.

Discussion: As mentioned above, some time ago SolTrans purchased an Automated Vehicle Location and Automated Passenger Counting (AVL/APC) system. These systems are now ubiquitous within the industry but are notoriously challenging to implement and maintain, yet they are critical to supplying passenger information, operating headsigns, providing on board annunciators required by ADA, providing real time operating information for dispatchers, supplying passenger counts for service planning, providing data for certain grant reporting functions, and more. This agenda item seeks authorization to issue an RFP to provide services to support that work.

The core of the struggle for transit agencies, is that they must continue to maintain their existing, less sophisticated, systems while implementing the newer and more technical AVL/APC systems. For example, SolTrans must continue maintaining staff-intensive manual surveying structure for federal reporting while at the same time trying to implement, validate, and operate the newer AVL/APC system. This problem is repeated in various functions within the organization as they try to shift from old systems to new technology that is proven but challenging to implement.

STA staff views the AVL/APC tools as important to tracking and improving the SolanoExpress service, as they provide on and off counts by stop, track schedule adherence for purposes of improving route schedules, provide counts by route and other formats, and more. In summary, the systems provide data that is critical in monitoring and improving the regional service. Therefore, it is in STA’s interest to help SolTrans fully integrate the AVL/APC system in addition to assisting the agency with an otherwise locally important project.

Therefore, on behalf of SolTrans and STA, it is recommended the STA hire an independent consultant team to perform the following:

23

1. Review AVL/APC operations, maintenance, and administration; and, assess reliability, resilience, stability, and functionality, and identify shortcomings.

2. Develop, document, and implement operating and administrative policies and procedures to fully integrate AVL-APC system into transit agency operations and administration.

3. Develop and execute tasks to attain Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval to collect, process, and submit appropriate federal grant data using automated sampling to replace manual sampling system.

4. Provide an ongoing structure to operate and maintain the system going forward.

Here are the general tasks that would be carried out by the selected consultant:

Task 1: Assessment Phase: Produce a report that validates functionality of the AVL/APC system, including review of policies, procedures, documentation, usability, practices, and so on. Identify shortcomings and propose solutions. Task 2: Implementation Phase: Assist operator to implement solutions identified in Task 1. Task 3: Federal Reporting Certification Phase: Develop and execute tasks to attain FTA approval to collect, process, and submit appropriate required federal reporting data using automated sampling to replace manual sampling system. Task 4: Maintenance Phase: Propose a plan to provide ongoing service to the transit agency to support stability of the AVL/APC system; and, a plan to carry required federal reporting activities supported by the AVL/APC system. Staff estimates this effort to be $75,000 and funded with State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) already approved by the STA Board to support SolanoExpress service implementation. Financial Impact: The project will be funded with $75,000 of STAF budgeted and available for the SolanoExpress Implementation activities. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize the Executive Director to:

1. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); and 2. Enter into a contract not to exceed $75,000 for the support of SolTrans transition to an

automated AVL/APC system.

24


DATE: August 16, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Vincent Ma, Marketing and Legislative Program Manager RE: Legislative Update

Background: Each year, STA staff monitors state and federal legislation that pertains to transportation and related issues. On February 13, 2019, the STA Board approved its 2019 Legislative Platform to provide policy guidance on transportation legislation and the STA’s legislative activities during 2019.

Monthly legislative updates are provided by STA’s State and Federal lobbyists and are attached for your information (Attachments A, and D). An updated Legislative Bill Matrix listing state bills of interest is available at: https://sta.ca.gov/operations/legislative-program/current/

Discussion: On June 13, the Legislature passed California’s FY 2019-20 Budget Bill, and Governor Newsom signed the Budget on June 27th. Among the trailer bills that were also passed and signed by the Governor was Senate Bill 87 (SB 87) – Transportation (full text of the bill is available at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB87). This trailer bill eliminates the Local Transportation Loan Account and the Transportation Deferred Investment Fund and shifts any remaining assets and liabilities to the State Highway Account. It also includes $236 million in Prop. 42 loan repayment and repays outstanding transportation weight fees loaned to the General Fund. SB 87 makes an appropriation of up to $7.2 million for infrastructure improvements necessary to facilitate short-line railroads becoming more compatible in supporting modern rail freight traffic. SB 87 also gives the Caltrans inspector general the authority to examine all records, files, documents, accounts, reports, correspondence, or other property of the department and external entities that receive state and federal transportation funds from the department.

The trailer bill on housing, Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101) - Housing Development and Financing, was signed by Governor Newsom on July 31st. AB 101 requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to publish an annual list of cities that have failed to adopt a HCD certified housing element. If a city fails to bring the housing element into compliance, a court may impose fines ranging from $10,000 to $600,000 per month. Additionally, extra points and other preferences will be awarded for certain state funding programs for cities that have “pro-housing” policies. (A summary of AB101 is attached, see Attachment B, and the full text of the bill is available at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB101)

Neither of the trailer bills included the Governor’s request to link Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding to housing production.

25

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB87

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB101

On August 12th, the Legislature returned from the summer recess. Committee hearings will be held until the end of August when bills must pass out of committee to the full floor. Floor sessions will occur from September 3rd to September 13th, which is the deadline for each house to pass bills to the Governor. The current status of bills where STA is Seeking Amendments:

• Assembly Bill 1413 (AB 1413) Transportation: transactions and use taxes. As introduced, AB 1413 would allow any local transportation to participate; however, on August 13th, AB 1413 was amended to only include transportation authorities in Placer and San Diego Counties. On August 16, STA modified its position from Support to Seek Amendments (See Attachment C). This bill is currently on the Senate Floor.

• Assembly Bill 1487 (AB 1487) San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act would establish the Housing Alliance for the Bay Area (HABA) and seeks to raise $1.5 billion for affordable housing production. The bill passed in the Senate Committee on Appropriations (by Senate Rule 28.8) and is currently on the Senate Floor

The current status of bills that STA Supports:

• AB 252 (Daly) Caltrans NEPA Delegation – Signed by the Governor on July 31, 2019 • ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local government financing: affordable housing and public

infrastructure: voter approval – Currently on the Assembly Floor • SB 137 (Dodd) Federal transportation funds: state exchange programs – Currently in the

Assembly Committee on Appropriations • SB 152 (Beall) Active Transportation Program – Held in Committee

The current status of bills that STA Opposes:

• AB 1568 (McCarty) Housing law compliance: prohibition on applying for state grants – Hearing postponed by Committee

The current status of bills that STA are Monitoring:

• AB 101 Housing development and financing – Signed by the Governor • AB 148 Regional transportation plans: sustainable communities strategies – Dead • AB 185 California Transportation Commission: transportation policies: joint meetings –

Passed Senate Committee on Transportation (9-2-1), referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations

• SB 87 – Transportation – Signed by the Governor • AB 847 Transportation finance: priorities: housing - Hearing canceled at the request of

author • SB 5 Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program – Currently

in Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development • SB 50 The Housing Accountability Act – Held in Committee (2 year bill) • SB 592 – Housing Accountability Act – Currently in the Assembly Committee on

Appropriations State Legislative Update (Shaw/Yoder/Antwih, Inc.): The State Budget Bill was passed by the Legislature on June 13 and signed by Governor Newsom. The Governor’s proposal to link Senate Bill 1 (SB1) funds to housing production was not approved as a part of the Budget Bill submitted to the Governor. Summer recess ended in August 12th, and committees will continue to hold hearings until the end of the month.

26

Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment A: • Legislative Update • Funding for Zero Emission Buses in Budget • Recent Appointments • Bills of Interest

Federal Legislative Update (Akin Gump): On June 19th, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing for Fix America Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) Reauthorization: Transportation and Safety Issues. This was followed on July 29th, when The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee released the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (ATIA). The Committee favorably reported the amended bill by a vote of 21 ‐0. A summary prepared by the Committee is attached (Attachment E). The Committee adopted five amendments to the reauthorization bill, including one that would allow any funds leftover from making grants to state user fee pilot projects to be used for a national user fee research program, and vice versa. The Committee also passed bill S. 1992, which amends the FAST Act to repeal section 1438 of the FAST Act. Under the current law, section 1438 rescinds any unobligated balances of the $7.6 billion on July 1, 2020. Before ATIA reaches the Senate Floor, other committees, including The Senate Commerce Committee, must also provide markup proposals. Additionally, the House of Representative must also develop their version of an authorization bill. On June 25th, the House of Representatives passed a minibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3055) that would provide $383.3 billion in FY 2020 appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, Interior, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. The Department of Transportation section would provide $86.6 billion in funding ($167 million more than the 2019 enacted level and $3.7 billion over the Administration’s request), including:

• $1 billion for National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER/BUILD), $100 million above the 2019 enacted level and equal to the President’s budget request.

• $10 million to start a new Highly Automated Systems Safety Center of Excellence. This program was not in the 2019 enacted bill or the President’s budget request.

• $17.7 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), $267 million above the 2019 enacted level and $614 above the President’s budget request.

o $1.6 billion for Aviation Safety, $267 million above the 2019 enacted level and $276 million above the President’s budget request.

o $500 million for discretionary Airport Improvement Grants, equal to the 2019 enacted level and $500 million above the President’s budget request.

• $48.9 billion for the Federal Highway Administration, $404 million below the 2019 enacted level and $1.7 billion above the President’s budget request.

o $1.75 billion for discretionary Highway Infrastructure Programs, $1.5 billion below the 2019 enacted level and $1.45 billion above the President’s budget request.

• $677 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, $10 million above the 2019 enacted level and $1 million above the President’s budget request.

• $1 billion for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, $44 million above the 2019 enacted level and $81 million above the President’s budget request.

• $3 billion for the Federal Railroad Administration, $96 million above the 2019 enacted level and $877 million above the President’s budget request.

o $350 million for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, $95 million above the 2019 enacted level and $20 million above the President’s budget request.

27

o $350 million for Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair, $50 million below the 2019 enacted level. The President’s budget request proposed eliminating this program.

o $2 billion for Amtrak, $50 million above the 2019 enacted level and $1.1 billion above the President’s budget request. $700 million for Northeast Corridor Grants, $50 million above the 2019

enacted level and $375 million above the President’s budget request. $1.3 billion for National Network Grants, equal to the 2019 enacted level

and $681 million above the President’s budget request. • $13.5 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, $60 million above the 2019 enacted

level and $1.1 billion above the President’s budget request. o $2.3 billion for Capital Investment Grants, equal to the authorized level, $251

million below the 2019 enacted level, and $797 million above the President’s budget request.

o $750 million for Transit Infrastructure Grants, $50 million above the 2019 enacted level and $250 million above the President’s budget request.

• $40 million for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, $4 million above the 2019 enacted level and $12 million above the President’s budget request.

• $1.1 billion for the Maritime Administration, $63 million below the 2019 enacted level and $395 million above the President’s budget request.

o $300 million for the Maritime Security Program, equal to the 2019 enacted level and the President’s budget request.

o $225 million for the Port Infrastructure Development Program, $68 million below the 2019 enacted level. The President’s budget request did not include funding for this program.

o $300 million for school construction, equal to the 2019 enacted level and $95 million above the President’s budget request.

Caltrans’ California Federal Affairs Work Group released the Final Draft of the California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Consensus Principles Document (Attachment J) and Caltrans is seeking STA’s endorsement of this document. STA staff is recommending that STA endorse the document as it aligns with STA’s 2019 Legislative Platform Legislative Objective #8 “Monitor/support/seek/sponsor, as appropriate, legislative proposals in support of initiatives that increase funding for transportation infrastructure, operations and maintenance in Solano County.” Status update on STA Washington D.C. Trip follow-up items:

• INFRA Grant by Caltrans for Solano I-80 Express Lanes– unsuccessful • BUILD Grant for I-505 Project – City of Vacaville to request support letters:

o Request support letter from Senator Dianne Feinstein – Completed o Request support letter from Senator Kamala Harris – Completed o Request support letter from Representative John Garamendi – Completed o Request support letter from Senator Bill Dodd - Completed o Request support letter from Assembly Member Jim Frasier - Completed o Request support letter from STA Board - Completed

• No-Lo Grant for buses – SolTrans (unsuccessful) • Bus and Bus Facilities – SolTrans to:

o Request support letter from STA - Completed • FLAP Grant – City of Fairfield to:

o Determine project scope and request STA to schedule meeting with Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Pending

28

• Mare Island Dredging – City of Vallejo to: o Schedule meeting with the Corps San Francisco District Office – In Progress o Follow up with congressional delegation to request submission of support letters to

the Army Corps and the House and Senate appropriations committees - Pending o Follow up after meeting with Army Corps district office to ask Congressman

Thompson to meet with the Army Corps and advocate for funding in the FY 2020 work plan - Pending

STA’s federal legislative advocate (Susan Lent of Akin Gump) continues to work with STA staff to craft STA’s strategic objectives to align with those of available federal transportation funds. Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment D:

• Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations o Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD)

• Legislation o H.R. 3193: The Transportation Emergency Relief Funds Availability Act o H.R. 3388: Moving and Fostering Innovation to Revolutionize Smarter

Transportation (Moving FIRST) Act • Congressional Hearings

o Senate Commerce Hearing on the FAST Act o House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on proposed Safer Affordable

Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles proposed rule. Congressman John Garamendi introduced H.R.3193: Transportation Emergency Relief Funds Availability Act (additional co-sponsors include Representative Mike Thompson) would repeal the current 2-year regulatory deadline for spending “emergency relief” funds awarded for highway and public transportation projects if those projects, and would instead provide up to 6 years for transportation projects funded through an Emergency Relief Program to advance to construction. Staff recommended, and the STA Board approved, to Support H.R.3193 as it aligns with 2019 STA Legislative Objective #6: “Oppose efforts to reduce or divert funding from transportation projects.” The Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rules for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicle Rule). The SAFE Vehicle Rule would roll back national fuel-efficiency standards would limit the ability of STA to deliver transportation projects in Solano County. Additionally, the Rule would interfere with goods movement across the State. Attached (Attachment H) is an update from the California Council of Governments (CALCOG). Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to endorse the Final Draft of Caltrans’ California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Consensus Principles Document as shown in Attachment J. Attachments:

A. State Legislative Update B. Housing Trailer Bill AB 101/SB 102 Fact Sheet C. STA Letter to Seek Amendments to AB 1413

29

D. Federal Legislative Update E. Summary of America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (ATIA) F. House Energy and Commerce Hearing on Fuel Economy Standards G. House Transportation Roundtable on Mobility on Demand H. CalCOG Proposed SAFE Vehicle Rule Update I. List of STA projects at risk with SAFE Vehicle Rule J. Caltrans’ Final Draft California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization

Consensus Principles Document

30

June 24, 2019

TO: Board of Directors, Solano Transportation Authority

FM: Joshua W. Shaw, Partner Matt Robinson, Legislative Advocate

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – July 2019

Legislative Update The Legislature passed the FY 2019-20 State Budget Bill on June 13 and it is now awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature. Worth noting: The Governor’s proposal to link SB 1 funds to housing production has not been approved as part of the budget. Policy Committees are back in full swing, hearing bills from the opposite house, and have until July 12 to meet. The Legislature will break for Summer Recess on July 12, returning August 12. We are tracking a number of bills for STA, some of which are identified under Bills of Interest below.

Funding for Zero Emission Buses in Budget The FY 2019-20 State Budget includes a one-time appropriation of $182 million in Cap and Trade auction revenue to the California Air Resources Board for clean buses and trucks. A significant portion of this funding will pass through ARB’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Project, which provides point-of-sale vouchers to offset the incremental cost of zero-emission bus and truck purchases. The proposed budget is expected to be signed by Governor Newsom in the coming weeks, with the new fiscal year starting July 1.

In addition to this funding for ZEBs, the Legislature is considering AB 784 (Mullin), which would provide an exemption from the state portion of the sales tax for the purchase of zero-emission buses. This bill, which would save California transit agencies upwards of $30,000 on each zero-emission bus purchase, will be heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on June 18. SamTrans is in support of this bill.

Recent Appointments Governor Gavin Newsom announced the appointments of David S. Kim as Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and Brian Annis as the Chief Financial Officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Prior to this announcement, Brian C. Annis had been serving as the CalSTA Secretary, first appointed as acting Secretary under then-Governor Brown. Prior to the appointment by Governor Newsom, David S. Kim served as Vice President of Governmental Affairs at Hyundai Motor Company. Kim also served as deputy administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and other positions at California based public offices. Governor Newsom also recently appointed Elissa Konove to serve as Undersecretary at CalSTA. Elissa Konove has served as deputy Chief Executive Officer at the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) since 2015. Prior to her service at Metrolink Elissa Konove also held several positions at the FHWA, including Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Budget.

ATTACHMENT A

31

Bills of Interest SB 5 (Beall) Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program* This bill would establish the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program, which would be administered by the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority or transit village development district to apply to the Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the Committee to approve or deny applications for projects meeting specific criteria. Upon approval of a project application, the bill would require the Committee to issue an order directing the county auditor to reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be contributed to the county’s ERAF from the applicant by the annual reduction amount approved. The bill would require a county auditor, if the applicant is an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization investment authority, to transfer to the district or authority an amount of property tax revenue equal to the reduction amount approved by the Committee. SB 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Equitable Communities Incentives* This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would require that a residential development eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive waivers from maximum controls on density and automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit, up to 3 additional incentives or concessions under the Density Bonus Law, and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 1/2-mile or 1/4-mile radius of a major transit stop. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee and is now a 2-year bill. SB 127 (Wiener) Complete Streets Projects on State Highways This bill would require the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consider incorporating complete streets elements on specified portions of the state highway system that serve as surface streets in cities, towns and neighborhoods. SB 137 (Dodd) Federal Transportation Funds: State Exchange Programs Existing federal law apportions transportation funds to the states under various programs, including the Surface Transportation Program and the Highway Safety Improvement Program, subject to certain conditions on the use of those funds. Existing law provides for the allocation of certain of those funds to local entities. Existing law provides for the exchange of federal and state transportation funds between local entities and the state under certain circumstances. This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to allow the above-described federal transportation funds that are allocated as local assistance to be exchanged for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program funds appropriated to the department. STA SUPPORTS this bill (February 13 Meeting). SB 152 (Beall) Active Program Funding This bill would increase the share of active transportation (ATP) funds dedicated to regional agencies to 75 percent, distributed by population. Currently, regional agencies receive 40 percent of the funding in

32

the ATP funds for distribution. This bill would give MTC additional resources to program for ATP projects. STA SUPPORTS this bill (April 10 Meeting). SB 277 (Beall) Local Partnership Program This bill would direct funds set aside for the Local Partnership Program (LPP) to be apportioned by formula, versus allocated by the CTC as is current practice. The bill would direct the CTC to develop new guidelines, in conjunction with local agencies, for the apportionment of the funds. The LPP receives $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account and funds are available to self-help counties with sales taxes and/or developer fees used for transportation purposes. SB 592 (Wiener) Housing Accountability Act

This bill would amend the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to further strengthen the law applicability to new housing development permits and disapprovals from local governments. The bill would clarify the definition of “lower density” under the HAA and applies the HAA to accessory dwelling units, new bedrooms in an existing home, and single-family housing. In addition, it would provide that the HAA applies to any form of land use decision by a local agency, including a ministerial or use by right decision, in addition to a discretionary approval. The bill would also open local agencies up to liability for failing to comply with the HAA. AB 185 (Grayson) HCD at CTC Meetings Existing law requires the CTC and the State Air Resources Board to hold at least two joint meetings per calendar year to coordinate their implementation of transportation policies. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to participate in those joint meetings. AB 252 (Daly) Caltrans NEPA Delegation Existing law, until January 1, 2020, provides that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts regarding the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities it assumed as a participant in the program. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely. STA SUPPORTS this bill (March 13 Meeting). AB 1413 (Gloria) Local Sales Tax Measures Existing law authorizes, upon approval of two-thirds of the voters, to impose a retail transaction and use tax for specified transportation purposes. This bill would authorize a local agency to impose a tax applicable to only a portion of its county if two-thirds of the voters voting on the measure within the portion of the county to which the tax would apply. STA SUPPORTS this bill (April 10 Meeting). AB 1487 (Chiu) Regional Housing Funding* This bill would enact the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act and establish the Housing Alliance for the Bay Area (HABA), a regional entity governed by members of MTC and ABAG. HABA would be tasked with establishing a regional funding program to address housing needs in the Bay Area. The funding source is unspecified and left to HABA to determine what’s likely to meet the region’s needs and garner voter-approval. A portion of the revenues would be returned to each county and a portion would be controlled by HABA. STA is SEEKING AMENDMENTS to this bill. ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval. This constitutional amendment would lower the necessary voter threshold from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent to approve local general obligation bonds and special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. STA SUPPORTS this measure (January 9 Meeting).

33

Bills marked with an * are being tracked by MTC as implementing elements of the CASA Compact. These bills are not sponsored by MTC. The above list does not include all bills MTC has identified as others are included in the attached matrix.

34

Housing Trailer Bill AB 101 /SB 102

HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY:

Support for cities & counties:

Creates a new law that awards bonus points to Pro-Housing jurisdictions, helping them more successfully compete for over $1 billion in annual discretionary housing grants from the State.

o HCD will designate cities and counties as pro-housing if they voluntarily adoptlocal ordinances -determined through a stakeholder process – that will lead tohousing being produced faster.

o “Pro-housing local policies” is defined in statute as policies that, “facilitate theplanning, approval, or construction of housing.”

o These pro-housing ordinances may include, for example: accessory dwelling unitstreamlining, adoption of by-right zoning, impact fee caps, reduced parkingminimums, or significant transit-oriented upzonings. (The legislation specifiesthat these policies may differ based on the differing needs of rural, suburban, andurban jurisdictions.)

• Access to these funds is in addition to the $750 million approved in the Budget to providetechnical assistance and infrastructure grants to cities and counties as they plan for morehousing.

AB 101/ SB 102 respond to concerns of the Governor and others that a handful of jurisdictions still are not complying with the state’s housing element laws, which require local communities to plan for meeting their existing and projected housing needs. For these local governments, the legislation includes additional measures:

• Creates expanded judicial remedies that the State can seek against jurisdictions that haveengaged in a sustained pattern and practice of failing to adopt or implement a housingelement and have been determined by a court to be out of compliance. This all followssignificant due process steps meant to bring a jurisdiction into compliance. A jurisdictionwill have at least one year following a court order to come into compliance prior to a courtimposing enhanced penalties.

o The Court may impose fines on the jurisdiction and require the jurisdiction todeposit any fines collected into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund. The fineshall be in a minimum amount of $10,000 up to $100,000 per month and may beincreased further if the jurisdiction fails to comply in a prompt manner. For any jurisdiction that fails to pay the court ordered fines, the Court may

direct the State Controller to intercept any state or local funds for thepurpose of paying the fines. Only funds that could be used to pay the finesunder the California Constitution are subject to being intercepted.

o An agent of the court may be appointed with all the powers necessary to bring thejurisdiction’s housing element into compliance.

ATTACHMENT B

35

Due Process for Local Jurisdictions: • Create several new processes that creates structured engagement between cities, counties, and

HCD, all with the goal of bringing jurisdictions into Housing Element compliance. • Among other due process provisions, this includes:

o the requirement that the State offer at least two meetings and one written statement of findings before bringing a suit against a local jurisdiction for Housing Element non-compliance, and

o several structured timelines to allow jurisdictions opportunities to move towards compliance.

PLANNING, PRODUCTION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Local Government Planning Support Grants Program. Provides for the division of $250 million in planning grants between regions and local jurisdictions. Specifically, the bill provides $125 million to regional entities and $125 million to local jurisdictions for technical assistance, preparation and adoption of planning documents, and process improvements to accelerate housing production and facilitate compliance to implement the sixth cycle of the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) process.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program of 2019. Provides for the distribution of $500 million in grant funds for housing related infrastructure. Provides that $90 million shall be set aside for an over the counter program for counties with a population of less than 250,000 as of January 1, 2019, or any city within those counties, and $410 million for a competitive grant program for larger jurisdictions.

Low Income Housing Tax Credits Program. Provides for the allocation of $500 million in new state low-income housing tax credits for new construction projects that receive the federal 4 percent tax credit, and increases the eligible basis for these projects to 30 percent. Requires at least $300 million of this to be available to new construction projects receiving the federal 4 percent tax credit. Allows up to $200 million available to projects receiving assistance from the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Mixed Income Program.

Mixed Income Program. Appropriates $500 million for CalHFA’s Mixed Income Program, which provides financing for mixed-income housing developments. HOMELESSNESS Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program. Provides for the distribution of $650 million in funds to assist local governments in addressing homelessness. Specifically, provides that $275 million be provided to cities with a population greater than 300,000 with $175 million distributed to counties and $190 million to Continuums of Care.

36

August 16, 2019 Sent Via Electronic Mail

The Honorable Todd Gloria California State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 2176 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SEEK AMENDMENTS – AB 1413: Reliable Transportation Funding (As Amended 8/13/19)

Dear Assembly Member Gloria:

The Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board would like to express our concerns with regards to recent amendments to Assembly Bill 1413 (AB 1413). On April 11, 2019, the STA provided a letter of support for the original version of AB 1413, which would have allowed a local transportation authority in any county to levy a retail transaction and use tax for only a portion of its jurisdiction with two-thirds approval by its voters. As currently amended (8/13/19), AB 1413 would only allow Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, and four transportation agencies in San Diego County to levy a special transit tax. The STA would like to request an amendment to AB 1413 adding back in the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) (See Attachment A).

Solano County is located in the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area/Sacramento Megaregion, and is the most diverse of the nine Bay Area Counties. An estimated quarter of all Solano County resident commute out of the County to work every day. Congestion on the I-80 Corridor continues to worsen and our two most prevalent transit services, the SF Bay Ferry’s Vallejo route is often over capacity and the Capitol Corridor, is often standing room only during commute times. Solano County is the only Bay Area County without a local sales tax for transportation.

In terms of housing, Solano County is the most affordable of the nine Bay Area Counties and more residents continue to move their families to Solano County, but they are keeping their jobs in Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. Solano County continues to plan for and build housing for Solano County and the Bay Area. This puts a tremendous burden on Solano County’s transportation network and regional transit systems. Funding is needed to improve the existing infrastructure, but also needed for expanding capacity so Solano County can continue supporting the increasing migration of the Bay Area’s workforce, which is seeking affordable housing.

Solano County has tried to pass a self-help measure several times before, twice reaching over 60% support, but not the required two-thirds approval. If Solano County were to be included in AB 1413, Solano County residents would have the option and flexibility to be able to decide for

ATTACHMENT C

37

of 3 STA Letter. To The Honorable Todd Gloria. dated: August 16, 2019

RE: SB 1413 (Gloria) Support if Amended themselves which transportation and transit project and services require additional resources, and would provide an additional funding vehicle to supplement existing transportation funding to address these areas of concern. Attached are the requested amendments (see Attachment A) to AB 1413 and we urgently and respectfully request your consideration for these amendments. If you or staff have any questions, please contact STA’s Executive Director, Daryl K. Halls at (707) 424-6075 Sincerely, Harry Price STA Board Chair Mayor of City of Fairfield Cc: The Honorable Bill Dodd, State Senate District 3 The Honorable Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Assembly District 4

STA Board Members Daryl K. Halls, Executive Director, STA Joshua W. Shaw, Legislative Advocate, Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc. Matt Robinson, Legislative Advocate, Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc.

38

of 3 STA Letter. To The Honorable Todd Gloria. dated: August 16, 2019

RE: SB 1413 (Gloria) Support if Amended

Attachment A:

The Solano Transportation Authority may impose a transaction and use tax applicable to the entirety of, or a portion of, the County of Solano at a rate not to exceed 1 percent if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The agency adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax subject to any applicable voting approval requirement. (b) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting on the ordinance pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution. (c) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code). (d) The portion of the county to which the tax would apply shall be determined by the agency before the electors vote on the measure. (e) If the tax only applies to a portion of the county, both of the following shall apply: (1) The incorporated area of each city and of contiguous cities within the county shall be either wholly included within that portion or wholly excluded from that portion. For purposes of this paragraph, “contiguous cities” means two or more cities with shared borders. (2) The entire unincorporated area of the county shall either be wholly included within that portion or wholly excluded from that portion. (f) The revenues derived from the tax shall be spent within, or for the benefit of, the portion of the county to which the tax applies, and shall be spent only on transportation and transit infrastructure and services.

39


40

M E M O R A N D U M

June 24, 2019

To: Solano Transportation Authority

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: June Report

During the month of June, we monitored developments in Washington and brought them to the attention of STA staff. We also contacted Congressman Thompson’s office regarding the proposed SR 37 corridor land acquisition.

Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations

The House passed a minibus of four appropriations bills for FY 2020 on June 18. The minibus combines the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Defense; State and Foreign Operations; and Energy and Water bills. The House also began debate on a second minibus that combines the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (T-HUD); Interior and Environment; Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs; Commerce, Justice, and Science; and Agriculture bills. President Trump has threatened to veto the second minibus bill due to provisions that would block his Administration’s attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not marked up any bills to date. We expect the Senate will mark up its bills with lower funding levels than the House. Ultimately, the House and Senate must agree on overall budget numbers and will have to reconcile their spending bills. It is not clear whether Congress will be able to agree on and pass spending bills before the new fiscal year begins on October 1. If Congress cannot pass its bills by the end of the current fiscal year it likely would attempt to pass a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown.

Legislation

On June 4, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing on Senator John Cornyn’s (R-TX) Transit Infrastructure Vehicle Security Act (S. 846). The bill would prevent federal funds from being used by transit agencies to purchase rail cars or buses manufactured by Chinese government owned, controlled, or subsidized companies. On June 13, the House Armed Services Committee approved the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 (H.R. 2500). The bill includes a provision that would prohibit public transit agencies from using federal funds to purchase railcars manufactured by companies owned, controlled, or subsidized by foreign states.

ATTACHMENT D

41

Solano Transportation Authority June 24, 2019 Page 2 On June 10, the House passed the Strengthening Local Transportation Security Capabilities Act (H.R. 2539). The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prioritize the assignment of DHS and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intelligence analysts at state, local, and regional fusion centers in areas that have high risk public transit assets. On June 18, Representative John Joyce (R-PA) introduced legislation (H.R. 3318) that would direct TSA to establish a task force to conduct an analysis of emerging and potential future threats to surface transportation security.

On June 11, Representative John Garamendi (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3193, The Transportation Emergency Relief Funds Availability Act, which would repeal the current two year deadline to spend funds made available under the Department of Transportation’s Emergency Relief program after a disaster and give recipients six years (after the date of the disaster declaration) to advance a transportation project to construction. The bill has 25 cosponsors, which are all Democratic members from California. The bill was referred to the House Transportation Committee. There is no date set for a hearing or markup of the bill. There also is no companion bill in the Senate at this time. The bill would need bipartisan support for it to advance in the Senate.

On June 21, Representative Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) introduced the Moving and Fostering Innovation to Revolutionize Smarter Transportation (Moving FIRST) Act. The bill would create a grant program for large and medium sized cities to fund efficient, creative, and innovative transportation projects. The bill would provide these cities with up to $50 million to advance projects such as autonomous vehicle technology and sensor-based infrastructure deployment.

Congressional Hearings

The House Ways and Means Committee’s oversight subpanel was scheduled to hold a hearing on a provision in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that subjects charities, nonprofits, and religious organizations to a 21% tax on benefits such as public transportation subsidies. Although the hearing was eventually cancelled, the panel released the written testimony of its planned witnesses. David Thompson, Vice President of Public Policy at the National Council of Nonprofits, wrote that propose guidance issued by the Treasury Department in an attempt to resolve nonprofits’ issues with the tax bill did not address the transit tax benefit. Andrea Barton Reeves, a member of several nonprofit alliances, wrote that the tax bill saddled her organization with burdensome costs due to the qualified transportation fringe benefits tax. Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Christopher Augostini of Emory University, and John Graham of the American Society of Association Executives similarly wrote that the transit tax provisions have caused harm to their organizations and should be revisited.

42

Solano Transportation Authority June 24, 2019 Page 3 On June 19, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on transportation and safety issues associated with reauthorizing the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. We provided a summary of this hearing in a separate memo.

On June 20, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, “Driving In Reverse: The Administration’s Rollback of Fuel Economy and Clean Car Standards”. The purpose of the hearing was to hear testimony regarding the Trump Administration’s proposed Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles proposed rule. We have attached a separate memo that summarizes the hearing. As background, the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed rule in July 2018 that would freeze the fuel economy and emissions standards for light duty vehicles at their 2020 levels for six years. The proposed rule also would eliminate California's authority to set its own auto emissions standards, which are stricter than the federal standards. The Trump administration had said it would issue the final rule in June, but that date has slipped. California and other states are expected to file a lawsuit to stop the rule from going into effect.

.

43


44

America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act

America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 is the largest amount of funding provided for highway

reauthorization legislation in history. The bill authorizes $287 billion from the Highway Trust Fund over five

years in investments to maintain and repair America’s roads and bridges and to keep our economy moving. The

legislation includes provisions to improve road safety, accelerate project delivery, improve resiliency to

disasters, reduce highway emissions, and grow the economy. Below are a few of the highlights of the bill.

Funds Our Highways and Grows Our Economy

The bill provides $287 billion in highway spending from the Highway Trust Fund over five years, of which

$259 billion, or over 90%, is distributed to states by formula. The five-year funding level is more than a 27%

increase above the FAST Act and will be the largest highway bill in history. The legislation maintains each

state’s share of highway formula funding and expands the flexibility and eligible uses of formula funds

provided out of the Highway Trust Fund.

INFRA Funding

The bill increases funding for the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, known as

“INFRA,” by providing $5.5 billion over five years. The bill increases funding flexibilities, and prioritizes

certain critical interstate projects. The bill increases the minimum amount (from 10 percent to 15 percent) of

INFRA funds to go towards smaller projects. The bill sets aside $150 million per year for a pilot program that

prioritizes projects offering a higher non-federal match. The bill also creates new grant administration

transparency requirements.

Enhances and Improves Road and Bridge Safety

New Competitive Grants for Bridges

The legislation authorizes over $6 billion over five years, including $3.3 billion from the Highway Trust Fund,

for a competitive bridge program to address the backlog of bridges in poor condition nationwide. Every state

with a well-justified proposal will receive funding to improve the condition and safety of its aging bridges. In

addition, in order to enable agencies to support the large bridge projects that they often struggle to complete due

to lack of adequate funding, no less than 50% of the program will support bridges with a total project cost larger

than $100 million.

ATTACHMENT E

45

Safety Incentive Programs

In addition to increases in the existing Highway Safety Improvement Program, the bill includes a new safety

funding supplemental of $500 million per year distributed to states based on their current formula share to

support projects that would lower driver and pedestrian fatalities. States can receive greater project flexibility if

they meet certain safety planning requirements. In addition, states can compete for additional funding awards by

making progress on reducing fatalities.

Program to Reduce Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions

The bill provides $250 million over 5 years for a new grant program for projects designed to reduce wildlife-

vehicle collisions. In addition, the bill adds new funding eligibilities for the construction of wildlife crossing

structures within formula and competitive programs, and prioritizes the research and development of animal

detection systems to reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions.

Cuts Red Tape

The bill codifies core elements of the “One Federal Decision” policy for highway projects including

establishing: a 2-year goal for completion of environmental reviews; a 90-day timeline for related project

authorizations; a single environmental document and record of decision to be signed by all participating

agencies; and an accountability and tracking system managed by the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary). In

addition, the bill provides project sponsors with the flexibility to apply the core elements of the “One Federal

Decision” policy to highway projects that require an environmental assessment.

The bill provides flexibility to the Department of Transportation (DOT) during the environmental review

process, allowing the agency to set a schedule for projects, and limiting a possible extension request for other

participating agencies to only one year. In addition, the bill requires the Secretary to provide a list of categorical

exclusions applicable to highway projects to regulatory agencies and directs those agencies to publish a notice

of proposed rulemaking to adopt relevant categorical exclusions within one year.

To accelerate project delivery and to ensure the equitable treatment of states by the Department of

Transportation, the bill requires the Secretary to exercise all available flexibilities under current law, as long as

they are in the public interest. The bill requires the Secretary to develop a simplified template for federal-state

stewardship agreements and to remove non-statutory approval requirements from such agreements. The bill

amends DOT regulations to lower paperwork burdens on states associated with traffic management plans for

highway projects, work zone process reviews, and intelligent transportation system standards.

Delivers Projects Cheaper and Faster

The bill increases funding for the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program. These funds include $100

million in new and innovative construction technologies for smarter, accelerated project delivery.

46

Reinvests in Tribal and Federal Lands

The legislation provides increased funding for tribal and federal lands transportation programs, which includes

$2.9 billion for the Tribal Transportation Program and $2.1 billion for the Federal Lands Transportation

Program over five years. In addition, the bill provides $250 million over five years in dedicated funding for the

Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects program, which will fund the construction and

rehabilitation of nationally significant projects on federal and tribal lands.

The bill also requires the Secretary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, to develop a national

strategy to carry out the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program to perform critical

maintenance, urgent repairs, and improvements on National Forest System roads, trails, and bridges.

Improves Resiliency, Protects the Environment and Reduces Pollution Emissions

New Formula and Competitive Grants for Resiliency Projects

The bill invests $4.9 billion over 5 years in a new resiliency program to protect roads and bridges from natural

disasters such as wild fires, and extreme weather events such as hurricanes, flooding, and mudslides. The new

program will include both formula and grant funding. This program will distribute funding to states based on

their current formula share. From the $4.9 billion it establishes an annual competition ($1 billion over 5 years)

for resiliency projects nationwide, including projects designed to improve resilience in coastal states and funds

for emergency evacuation routes.

Carbon Emissions Incentive Programs

The bill includes $3 billion over 5 years in new funding distributed to states based on their current formula

share to support projects that would lower highway-related carbon emissions. States can receive greater project

flexibility if they meet certain emissions planning requirements. In addition, states can compete for $500

million over 5 years in additional funding by making progress on lowering their per capita emissions.

Competitive Grants for Alternative Fuel Infrastructure

In preparation for the expected increase of alternative fuel vehicles, the bill establishes a competitive grant

program funded at $1 billion over 5 years, for states and localities to build hydrogen, natural gas, and electric

vehicle fueling infrastructure along designated highway corridors, which lack such infrastructure.

Other Emissions Reduction Provisions

The bill authorizes a new program to help states reduce traffic congestion ($200 million over 5 years), and a

new program to reduce truck idling at ports ($370 million over 5 years). Other provisions include

reauthorization of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program, which reduces emissions from diesel

engines, and the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act, to support carbon

capture, utilization, and sequestration research.

###

http://epw.senate.gov

47


48

M E M O R A N D U M

June 24, 2019

To: Solano Transportation Authority


Re: House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on Fuel Economy Standards

On June 20, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, “Driving In Reverse: The Administration’s Rollback of Fuel Economy and Clean Car Standards.” The Subcommittees heard from two panels of federal and state government officials as well as transportation industry representatives regarding the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles proposed rule. The Subcommittees heard from:

- William Wehrum: Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

- Heidi King: Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA)

- Mary Nichols: Chair, California Air Resources Board (CARB)

- David Friedman: Vice President of Advocacy, Consumer Reports

- Ramzi Hermiz: President and Chief Executive Officer, Shiloh Industries and Member,Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association

- Josh Nassar: Legislative Director, United Auto Workers

- Shoshana Lew, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation

- Jeff Landry: Attorney General, State of Louisiana

- David Schwietert: Interim Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of AutomobileManufacturers

- Nick Loris: Fellow, Heritage Foundation

ATTACHMENT F

49

Solano Transportation Authority June 24, 2019 Page 2 In her opening remarks, Consumer Protection and Commerce Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said that the Obama Administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have been a “resounding success.” She said that the proposed SAFE Vehicles rule is a misnomer and would not increase safety, vehicle affordability, or fuel efficiency. She said the proposal would eliminate jobs and called for the Trump Administration to abandon the rulemaking.

Environment and Climate Change Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) agreed that rolling back fuel economy standards would result in job losses. He predicted that American automakers would lose their competitive edge in the global marketplace. Tonko said that attempts to loosen standards would compromise jobs, public health, and the economy. Full Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said that rolling back standards would only help the oil industry. He said that consumers, manufacturers, the environment, and public health would suffer. Pallone predicted that more deaths would result from a rollback.

Consumer Protection Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) argued in favor of the SAFE Vehicles rulemaking. She said that assumptions made by the Obama Administration when crafting CAFE standards have proven to be incorrect. She specifically pointed to the Obama Administration’s predictions that gas prices would continue to rise; consumers would prefer cars over trucks; and hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs) would become widespread as examples of assumptions that were incorrect. Rodgers said that fuel economy standard should be regulated at the federal level to ensure uniformity and that individual state mandates “undercut” the goal of the proposed “one national program.” Rodgers argued that the country needs one true national standard that matches what consumers want and the reality of market forces. She said that current fuel economy standards make buying newer and safer cars more difficult for consumers.

Environment Ranking Member John Shimkus (R-IL) agreed that there should be one national standard set at the federal level. Full Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) cautioned that complicated and duplicative fuel economy regulations could “suffocate” innovation. He called for increased freedom for automakers and preserving choices for consumers. Walden said that the federal government should consider that most consumers are not buying electric vehicles and hybrids.

Witness Panel I

Deputy NHTSA Administrator Heidi King told the Subcommittees that the agency’s “fresh consideration” of fuel economy standards has revealed that assumptions made by the Obama Administration have turned out to be incorrect. Representatives Bob Latta (R-OH) and Jeff

50

Solano Transportation Authority June 24, 2019 Page 3 Duncan (R-SC) as well as and Ranking Member Rodgers agreed that the initial assumptions underpinning CAFE standards are not correct.

King said that overly ambitious standards that dramatically increase the price of a new car can be counterproductive and hinder safety by discouraging people from replacing their older cars with cleaner, safer, and newer cars. She argued that consumer gains diminish as fuel economy improves, but each additional fuel economy improvement becomes much more expensive. King told the Subcommittees that automakers are struggling to meet existing standards. Bill Wehrum, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, and Representatives Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Jeff Duncan (R-SC) agreed that greenhouse gas emissions standards have caused car prices to increase to levels out of reach for many families. He agreed with King that the SAFE Vehicles rule would prevent fatalities by ensuring consumers can afford newer cars.

King noted that the SAFE Vehicles rule does not contain any language that would prevent automakers from designing and building next-generation highly fuel-efficient vehicles, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, battery electric vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids in response to market demands. King said that the rule would increase choices for consumers. Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL), disagreed and argued that fuel economy standards encourage innovation. Castor noted that automakers have asked the Administration not to reverse or freeze CAFE standards.

Chair Schakowsky said that the SAFE Vehicles rule is based on “sham” science and noted repeatedly that reports from within the federal government, including from career EPA scientists, have disputed the accuracy and findings of the alleged benefits of the propose rule. She said that the Trump Administration has overstated the safety benefits of the rule and argued that the methodology used “cannot stand public scrutiny.” Chairman Tonko similarly said that professional staff at NHTSA and EPA have not been as involved in developing the rule as they should have been. Representative Darren Soto (D-FL) said that NHTSA is using “untested” models to craft its rule. Wehrum responded that fuel economy standards are complicated and accordingly there are often disagreements among experts. Wehrum, King, and Ranking Member Rodgers repeatedly noted that no final decision has been made on a rollback.

Ranking Member Shimkus said that CAFE and greenhouse gas requirements do not result in the development of engines that make the best use of available fuel formulations. He asked if consumers would therefore benefit from a more holistic or harmonious federal approach to fuel and fuel economy standards and if raising octane levels of regular gasoline increase fuel economy in vehicles designed to use higher octane fuel. Wehrum responded affirmatively to both questions.

51

Solano Transportation Authority June 24, 2019 Page 4 Representative Johnson said that natural gas vehicles are important and argued that any final rule should ensure regulatory parity between natural gas vehicles and EVs. Wehrum pledged to work with the natural gas vehicle industry.

Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) cautioned that litigation is inevitable if the Administration continues to pursue the SAFE Vehicles rule and thereby lead to uncertainty in the auto industry. Representative Marc Veasey (D-TX) also cautioned against wasted time and money over inevitable litigation. The witnesses dismissed these arguments and said that litigation is inevitable for virtually any federal rule.

Witness Panel II

CARB Chair Mary Nichols testified that the SAFE Vehicles rule would cost Americans more money in fuel costs; result in job losses; harm the environment and public health; and undermine the auto industry. David Friedman of Consumer Reports disagreed with the Administration and Committee Republicans that there is an affordability issue in the auto market. He said that the proposed fuel economy and emissions standards rollback would harm consumers and automakers and reduce safety. He said that automakers will not adopt new technologies unless standards increase. Friedman also argued that low-income households benefit the most from strong standards and noted that most American consumers support strong fuel economy standards.

Nichols said the rulemaking is based on junk science, illogical assumptions, and outdated technologies. Colorado Department of Transportation Executive Director Soshana Lew also spoke out against the SAFE Vehicles rule, arguing that the rulemaking is not based in accurate science. She said NHTSA did not accurately model consumer behavior and that the faulty assumptions have led to incorrect safety conclusions. Friedman agreed that the SAFE Vehicles rule is based on “numerous errors” and unrealistic assumptions.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry spoke in favor of the SAFE Vehicles rule, agreeing with arguments that it would prevent the pricing out of consumers and increase safety. He also agreed that a national standard is needed and that states should not be allowed to circumvent Congress in setting their own standards.

Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation said that fuel economy standards are not good policy because they constrain choices, drive up costs, and price buyers out of the auto market. Loris said that fuel economy standards are difficult to set correctly because of challenges with predicting future gas prices. Loris also told the Subcommittees that CAFE standards are not an effective tool against climate change and that consumers should decide what kind of cars they want to drive.

52

Solano Transportation Authority June 24, 2019 Page 5

Ramzi Hermiz of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association supported continued yearly improvements to CAFE standards and the greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks. He said such improvement would drive technology development, assist American manufacturing domestically, and help the U.S. auto industry remain competitive in the global marketplace. Hermiz specifically offered support for alternatives 6 and 8 of the proposed rule. Alternative 6 would keep existing standards through model year 2020 and then 2 percent annual increases for passenger cars and 3 percent annual increases for light trucks for model years 2021-2026, and alternative 8 would keep existing standards through model year 2021 and then 2 percent annual increases for passenger cars and 3 percent annual increases for light trucks for model years 2022-2026. Hermiz asked the federal government to set objectives for fuel economy without prescribing specific solutions.

David Schwietert of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers similarly called for yearly increases in fuel economy but added that these increases should align with market demand. He supported a data driven final rule and one national program. Schwietert agreed with Deputy Administrator King’s assessment that adjustments to CAFE are needed because the initial assumptions made do not match with present reality. Schwietert told the Subcommittees that unattainable standards do not help consumers or manufacturers. He said that what truly matters is what consumers buy, not what automakers produce.

Josh Nassar of United Auto Workers opposed the preferred alternative in the proposed rule, arguing that it would stifle innovation. He spoke in favor of the current standards’ credit system and footprint model and said that the current standards provide a framework on which needed adjustments can be made. Nassar called for a solution that would keep jobs in the United States.

Schwietert told the Subcommittees that he supports adjusting standards to account for past errors because regulatory litigation causes uncertainty. Nassar also warned of “legal chaos” that would drive away investment in the auto industry.

Nichols and Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) warned that under the SAFE Vehicles rule, construction projects may no longer conform to air quality plans as required by federal law. They said that the rulemaking could jeopardize federal transportation dollars for states like California.

Nichols told the Subcommittees that public education and charging infrastructure are impediments to EV adoption. Lew noted that Colorado is working to improve EV adoption and deployment of associated charging infrastructure. Nassar argued that CAFE standards helped the auto industry when it was falling behind global competitors on EV technology. He said that the U.S. should be at the forefront of EV technology and infrastructure to ensure American businesses are competitive.

53


54

M E M O R A N D U M

June 26, 2019


Re: House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Roundtable on Mobility on Demand

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Highways and Transit Subcommittee held a roundtable on June 25 entitled “Examining the Role of Mobility on Demand (MOD) in Surface Transportation Policy.” The Subcommittee heard from local government officials and transportation experts the integration of regarding emerging transportation technology into existing systems. The panel heard from:

- Scott Bogren: Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America

- Faye Dastgheib: Senior Policy Analyst, District Department of Transportation

- Michael Hayes: Director of Government Affairs, Consumer Technology Association

- Tim McHugh: Chief Information Officer, Tri-County Metropolitan TransportationDistrict of Oregon

- Brad Miller: Chief Executive Officer, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority

- Greg Regan: Secretary-Treasurer of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Benefits of MOD

Subcommittee Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) began the hearing by playing a video describing the benefits of MOD technology. The video said that the future of transportation is based on emerging modes and technologies such as tunnel-based transportation systems, autonomous vehicles, and scooters. The video called for expanding options in the multimodal transportation system and providing an integrated planning and payment system for passengers. The video claimed that MOD deployment would result in saved time, environmental benefits, and enhanced health and wellbeing. It also said MOD would result in more diverse transportation options, improved land use planning, reduced congesting, and better data collection.

Scott Bogren of the Community Transportation Association of America agreed that MOD services have the potential to increase mobility options, decrease healthcare costs, and improve human service delivery. Michael Hayes of the Consumer Technology Association said that

ATTACHMENT G

55

June 26, 2019 Page 2 MOD provides environmentally friendly options and can help passengers plan trips by allowing them to compare options and book simply.

MOD Integration

Full Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) expressed interest in having a transportation system where users can see all conceivable options available to them through one comprehensive platform. Subcommittee Chair Norton said MOD both relieves and enhances public transit. Scott Bogren said MOD can increase transit ridership and enhance community public transit efficiency. Brad Miller of Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority similarly said that MOD services increase the value of existing parts of transit system. Faye Dastgheib of the Washington, DC Department of Transportation said that public transit is the backbone of mobility, but that ridesharing options, scooters, and bikes can build on that backbone.

Scott Bogren said that MOD services change the existing transit model from asking passengers to fit their trip into what options are available to seeing how the transportation system can meet the needs of the passenger.

Tim McHugh of the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon agreed that mass transit is the backbone of transportation but cautioned that haphazardly allowing every new MOD service could result in chaos. McHugh said that cities should work to achieve their transportation access goals thoughtfully rather than flood their citizens with options. He said that different modes of transportation should be visible to create efficiency. McHugh encouraged transportation agencies to provide an integrated payment system and a single platform to display available transit options. McHugh also told the Subcommittee that mass transit’s road needs should be prioritized over other road users such as single occupant cars.

Data and Security

Faye Dastgheib said that transportation agencies must strike a balance between their need for passenger and trip data to better inform city planning and the passenger’s need for privacy. She said that Congress and transportation agencies should discuss how to use data management platforms to interact with MOD services. Dastgheib said that data supplied to transportation agencies by MOD providers is helpful but does not always provide enough data. She agreed that passenger data must be secured to prevent against consumer harm in the event of a data breach.

Michael Hayes agreed that sharing data is a key component of MOD. He said that cities should ensure they have data sharing agreements that provide fair accessibility to MOD user data to ensure optimal city planning. Hayes cautioned that agreements between cities and providers

56

June 26, 2019 Page 3 should ensure personal data is safe from hacking and misuse. Tim McHugh said that cities should be create more “aggressive” conditions of operation for MOD providers that ensure open access to data. McHugh and Dastgheib agreed that any form of travel pattern data should be exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests.

Accessibility

Michael Hayes said that ridesharing “democratizes” access to transportation. He said that ridesharing and other MOD services provides access to low-income areas underserved by other modes of transportation.

Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ) expressed concern that new MOD options only benefit those who can afford them. He asked the panel how MOD can be made accessible to low income riders. Hayes noted that many MOD options are used in low-income areas that are not served by other modes of transportation. He said that in those cases MOD services provide the only “lifeline” in the neighborhood.

Representative Payne suggested that autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be required to develop at least one model that can accommodate passengers with disabilities. Scott Bogren supported this idea, arguing that transportation providers should avoid having to retrofit systems into accessibility and should instead purpose-build them from the start.

Brad Miller agreed that new mobility options have cast a spotlight on accessibility issues within the transportation industry. He said that transportation providers should ensure they have enough wheelchair accessible vehicles to provide disabled users who cannot use new modes with comparable response times. Hayes said that MOD provides some benefits for individuals with non-ambulatory impairments, such as hearing impairments, which reduces demand on wheelchair accessible vehicles that would have otherwise been used to transport non-ambulatory impaired passengers.

Representatives Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and Carol Miller (R-WV) expressed concern that MOD services provide ample benefits for urban areas but may not be beneficial for rural areas that are less profitable. Scott Bogren said MOD services can reduce isolation in rural areas.

Federal Role in MOD Development

Subcommittee Chair Norton said that Congress has to catch up to meet the needs of MOD systems that are already in use and that Congress should determine how to create an even playing field for MOD providers. Subcommittee Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-IL) said that

57

June 26, 2019 Page 4 Congress should ensure that MOD is safe but cautioned against stifling innovation through unnecessary bureaucracy.

Scott Bogren said that the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act reauthorization should provide federal investment in and incentives for MOD. Brad Miller said that the federal government should invest in all transit options to improve mobility but should recognize that new transit options are now a permanent part of cities’ systems. Miller said that rides that connect to or complement transit systems should count towards federal formulas for existing funding, regardless of mode. He also asked Congress to support the Federal Transit Administration’s MOD Sandbox program.

Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) said that Congress and transportation agencies should plan for emerging MOD options rather than reacting as new modes become available. He supported incentivizing transportation and mobility planning.

Full Committee Chairman DeFazio asked the panelists if they would support a federal incentive, subsidy, or tax break to encourage the use of modes that can help reduce congestion and decrease fossil fuel pollution. He also proposed a zero occupancy vehicle tax. Michael Hayes said that congestion pricing could be a useful tool in reducing emissions but said that MOD providers have not agreed on a blanket solution for the industry.

Brad Miller said that MOD providers such as rideshare companies may increase congestion and gridlock. He said that investment in high capacity transit, bus rapid transit, and rail systems should continue. Miller said that rideshare companies can complement transit but that transit will always be needed in main corridors and urban centers.

Greg Regan agreed that the federal government should invest in robust transit systems that include trains, high occupancy buses, and passenger rail to reduce greenhouse emissions. He said that modes that cut transportation emissions already exists and should be more accessible. Regan said that Congress should ensure that existing transit systems are running clean vehicles, growing their services, and providing better services. DeFazio said he completely agrees and noted he recently asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for $100 billion to bring transit “up to speed.”

Regan disagreed that federal funds should be dedicated for MOD services such as ridesharing platforms. He said that public transit funds should not provide subsidies to companies that do not pay their employees well and \ are not upfront about how they use consumer data.

58

June 26, 2019 Page 5 Regan also said that Congress should ensure that MOD providers comply with the same regulations as public transit providers. He noted that new modes are not subject to certain Americans with Disabilities Act compliance and training standards as well as regulations ensuring certain neighborhoods have access to the transportation service. He said that MOD providers should especially be subject to these regulations when they supplant existing public transit. Regan and Representative Miller agreed that Congress should create uniform standards for ridesharing security, such as standardized background checks for drivers.

Hayes said that Congress should modernize how rideshare trips and other new mobility trips are incorporated into national transit database reporting from and to transit hubs. Tim McHugh acknowledged that ridership is an important metric to track but encouraged officials to consider other performance metrics, such as carbon emissions and congestion, as well.

59


60

CALCOG Last Updated 6.18.19

PROPOSED SAFE VEHICLES RULE UPDATE

Proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule Moves One Step Closer to Finalization With submission to the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in May 2019, the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule moved one step closer to finalization. This is one of the last steps in the federal rule making process. OMB is the agency responsible for regulatory policy, including coordination and review of all significant Federal regulations by executive agencies. The OMB review averages approximately 90-days before final rule making; although, it is possible that the review may move faster or slower than 90-days. Under this schedule, as previously stated by U.S. EPA Administrator Wheeler, the final SAFE Vehicles Rule is currently anticipated early Summer 2019.

17 Major Automakers Urge NHTSA/EPA & Governor Newsom to Find Middle Ground Seventeen automakers sent a letter to President Trump expressing the auto industry’s opposition to the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule. The carmakers called on U.S. EPA and U.S. DOT to jointly promulgate a final rule that results in broad support, arguing it would provide stability and increased affordability by allowing the industry to proceed without fear of litigation – note, ARB is on record stating they will litigate the final rule. The letter urged President Trump to resume negotiations with the California Air Resources Board. A similar letter was sent to Governor Newsom as well.

The Trump administration rejected the automakers pleas. White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere stated, that ARB had failed to propose a “productive alternative” to the administration’s plan to ease requirements for tailpipe emissions and fuel economy standards. “We [the federal government] are moving forward to finalize a rule with the goal of promoting safer, cleaner, and more affordable vehicles,” Deere said in a statement.

Transportation California and California Laborers Join the Opposition On June 12, 2019, Transportation California in coordination with 14 industries representing labor and trade organizations. The letter can be found here.

CALCOG Pens Letter to Secretary Chao and Administrator Wheeler

CALCOG on behalf of impacted regions statewide submitted a letter and project list (attachment 3) to highlight the proposed rule’s impacts on transportation throughout the state. As the letter states, the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule, hampers the ability of California’s transportation agencies to deliver approximately 2,000 projects totaling more than $130 billion. These projects support a robust state economy and create important middle-class jobs. In addition, the proposed rule would interfere with California’s ability to deliver improved goods movement infrastructure that serves the entire nation. Other important goals—such as

ATTACHMENT H

61

https://calcog.org/clientuploads/Policy_Tracker/SAFE%20Vehicle%20Rule/Auto%20Manufactureers%20Letter/Trump_GHG_CAFE_Letter_June_6_2019_Automakers.pdf

https://calcog.org/clientuploads/Policy_Tracker/SAFE%20Vehicle%20Rule/Auto%20Manufactureers%20Letter/Trump_GHG_CAFE_Letter_June_6_2019_Automakers.pdf

https://calcog.org/clientuploads/Policy_Tracker/SAFE%20Vehicle%20Rule/Transportation%20CA%20Letter/Transportation_CA_SAFE_Rule_Coalition_Oppose_06.12.19_FINAL.pdf

https://calcog.org/clientuploads/Policy_Tracker/SAFE%20Vehicle%20Rule/CALCOG%20Letter/Final_CALCOG_Secretary_Chao_Administrator_Wheeler_Proposed_SAFE_Vehicles_Rule_Letter_6.14.19_Minus_Project_List.pdf

https://calcog.org/clientuploads/Policy_Tracker/SAFE%20Vehicle%20Rule/Impacted%20Project%20List%20Files/Final_Combined_14_MPO_List_with_NCTC_(locked)_Formatted_for_Print_(1).pdf

CALCOG Last Updated 6.18.19

congestion relief, transportation system reliability, public health, housing, environmental sustainability, and equity—also would be significantly compromised for as much as 93 percent of the state’s population. CARB Pens Transportation Impact Comment Letter In August 2018, ARB submitted 400 pages of comments on the proposed rulemaking. Although robust in nature, that submission included only a handful of pages documenting the transportation related impacts of the proposed rule. ARB has since submitted a supplemental comment letter focused primarily on the rules impacts to transportation project delivery. Please see attachment 4 for additional information. Joint House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce and Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change Hearing Set for June 20, 2019 at 10 a.m. EST (7:00 a.m. PST) The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a joint hearing on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 10 a.m. in the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building on the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll back Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and carbon pollution regulations from light duty cars and trucks. The hearing is entitled, "Driving in Reverse: The Administration’s Rollback of Fuel Economy and Clean Car Standards." The memorandum from Chairman Pallone to Joint Subcommittee members can be found here. https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Briefing%20Memo_ECCCPC%20Hearing_2019.06.20_Vehicle%20Standards%20Rollback_Final.pdf For those interested, the hearing can be viewed here: https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-driving-in-reverse-the-administration-s-rollback-of-fuel CALCOG website provides continuing updates. Please visit the CALCOG Policy Tracker (www.calcog.org/policytracker) for up to date information regarding the Proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule.

62

https://calcog.org/clientuploads/Policy_Tracker/SAFE%20Vehicle%20Rule/Impacted%20Project%20List%20Files/Final_Combined_14_MPO_List_with_NCTC_(locked)_Formatted_for_Print_(1).pdf

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Briefing%20Memo_ECCCPC%20Hearing_2019.06.20_Vehicle%20Standards%20Rollback_Final.pdf



https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-driving-in-reverse-the-administration-s-rollback-of-fuel

https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-driving-in-reverse-the-administration-s-rollback-of-fuel

http://www.calcog.org/policytracker

Potential Impact of SAFE Vehicles Rule Change to Solano County Projects

Projects in the 2019 TIP & Plan Bay Area 2040 (RTP/SCS)

County Sponsor Project Name Project LimitsAffected

Project CostPotential Impact

Solano STAI-80/I-680/SR 12 InterchangeImprovements

Phase 2 (Jameson Canyon Connector to Eastbound I-80)

$ 76,000,000.00 Requiring Federal Action by October 2019 (ACOE) and April 2020 FHWA Approval of CON funding

Solano MTCI-80 Express Lanes - Fairfield & VacavillePh I&II

I-80 from Red Top Rd to I-505INFRA Grant pending, SB1 Submittal Fall 2019 - If awarded SB1 FHWA Approval of CON Funding June 2020

SolanoSolano County

SR 37/Fairgrounds Dr Interchange Improvements

SR-37/Fairgrounds Dr Interchange $ 22,000,000.00 TIP Amendment required (Summer 2019), FHWA Allocation PS&E add 'l funding Summer 2019

Solano FairfieldFairfield/Vacaville Intermodal Rail Station

Along the Capitol Corridor at Vanden Rd and Peabody Rd

$ 12,000,000.00 If federal funding is (STIP) is programmed, the CON allocation by FHWA - 2022

Solano STA Jepson Pkwy - Segment 1B In Vacaville on Leisure Town Rd from Elmira Rd to Horse Creek

$ 21,852,842.00 FY 2021-22 FHWA Approval of CON Funding

Solano BATA SR 37 Segment BOn SR 37 Bewtween Mare Island and SR 121

$ 150,000,000.00 Approval of Permits for Interium Projects (ACOE and USFWS)

Solano Various Local Streets & Roads Throughout Solano County $ 8,000,000.00 FHWA Approval of CON Funding

Solano Various Safe Routes to Schools Throughout Solano County $ 5,000,000.00 FHWA Approval of CON Funding

ATTACHMENT I

63

This page intentionally left blank.

64

California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Principles Final Draft – DEADLINE TO SIGN ON FRIDAY 9/13/2019

1

` Transportation is vital to California’s economy - the world’s fifth largest economy - representing 12 percent of the U.S. population. Measured by value, more international goods enter California than any other state moving through its 12 seaports, 12 major cargo-handling airports and 3 land ports of entry with Mexico. So, investment in California’s transportation infrastructure powers the entire national economy, and Californians are stepping up and doing their part to support infrastructure investment.

● California has joined cities, counties, regions and states across the country toincrease infrastructure funding. Senate Bill (SB) 1, the landmark Road Repair andAccountability Act of 2017, which was backed by a broad coalition ofsupporters, invests $54 billion over the next decade - $5.4 billion annually - to fixroads, freeways, bridges, and put more dollars toward transit, safety programsand active transportation infrastructure in communities across California.

● What is more, residents of California’s “Self-Help Counties”, representing morethan 88 percent of the state’s population, have voted to fund regionaltransportation improvements. Twenty-five California counties have passedmeasures that will provide over $194 billion in funding over the next 30 to 40 yearsfor multimodal transportation improvements across the State.

With the passage of SB 1 and local sales tax measures, Californians have prioritized funding for transportation projects – including nationally significant projects and the preservation of federal-aid highways. California is eager to partner with the federal government, and we stand ready and willing to match increased federal infrastructure investment.

Yet state, local and tribal governments across America continue to need a strong federal partner to make needed “fix it first” investments to preserve our existing assets, deliver transportation infrastructure improvements that will create jobs, increase safety, improve mobility, address emerging issues including climate change resiliency and keep the economy growing in California and across the nation. We also believe that federal infrastructure investment should recognize and reward states like California that come to the table with new funding to support successful partnership with the federal government.

We recommend the principles below guide the development of Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation. We would also note that the U.S Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has already advanced the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 reauthorization legislation, which moves in certain policy directions that are consistent with a number of principles we have outlined.

Restore Highway Trust Fund Solvency and Provide a Multi-Year Surface Transportation Reauthorization

To simply maintain the current federal Highway Trust Fund spending levels adjusted for inflation after the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, P.L. 114-94)

ATTACHMENT J

65


2

expires in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020, Congress will need to identify an additional $114 billion for a six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill. At the same time, it is crucial that federal transportation programs provide long-term funding stability for transportation projects that can take multiple years to plan and construct. ● Any new Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation should include new

sustainable, user-based revenues to ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and provide for increased, multi-year direct federal investment. Federal revenue options can draw upon the experience of California and 30 other states that have successfully enacted transportation revenue packages since 2012.

● California supports a six-year Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill that will

provide funding stability and certainty and allow for deliberate infrastructure planning and investment.

● In addition to robust General Fund support, Surface Transportation

Reauthorization legislation should ensure that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs continue to receive their historical funding share from the Highway Trust Fund.

● The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted the nation’s

largest vehicle miles traveled (VMT) road charge pilot to date, which included 5,000 participating vehicles travelling more than 37 million miles. Congress should continue proving funding to states willing to research or pilot innovative transportation user-based revenue mechanisms.

Build on Bipartisan FAST Act Structure and Address Emerging Issues – Climate Resiliency and New Mobility Technologies California strongly supported the passage of the bipartisan FAST Act. Adopted in 2015, the FAST Act provides long-term certainty needed to advance multi-year highway, transit, passenger rail and multimodal freight improvements. Any new Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation should increase funding for the core highway, transit, passenger rail, and multimodal freight programs authorized by the FAST Act. Congress should also explore ways to improve core FAST Act programs to provide states greater flexibility to achieve national goals, such as improving safety. Policy recommendations follow: ● Congress should repeal FAST Act section 1438 that requires the rescission of $7.57

billion in unobligated contract authority for core FAST Act highway programs; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) estimates that California may have approximately $693.2 million in unobligated contract authority subject to rescission in FFY 2020 because of FAST Act section 1438. Congress should also exclude any rescission in the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization.

66


3

● California supports maintaining the federal and local match for transportation projects, so that the required local match for projects does not increase unless state or local grantees opt to voluntarily increase their match. Additionally, Congress should maximize the use and flexibility of federal funds by eliminating requirements for non-federal matches, particularly in rural and tribal areas that have less resources.

● California supports increasing Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

funding, consistent with our request to grow the core highway programs, and we recommend restoring flexibility to HSIP funds to be used for non-infrastructure safety programs such as behavioral efforts, public awareness, education, enforcement, research, improving system resilience, and pilot or experimental projects. To improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, Congress should consider targeting a portion of HSIP funding to address vulnerable user safety in areas where user fatalities are above the national average.

● California has maintained the Highway Bridge Program for locally-owned bridges

that was eliminated by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, P.L. 112-141). Consistent with our request to grow core highway programs, California supports increased funding for the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and Surface Transportation Program Block Grant Program (STBG program), which support California’s local Highway Bridge Program. California also supports maintaining the flexibility Congress provided in the FAST Act to use NHPP funding for bridges on non-National Highway System federal-aid roads. The current California local Highway Bridge Program need greatly exceeds the $300 million allocated annually to the program. Any new bridge program Congress creates must distribute funding on needs-based criteria.

While California supports the FAST Act program structure as the starting point for a Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill, Congress should also consider new funding programs, flexibility or policies to ensure our infrastructure is prepared for rapidly emerging issues, including: making our infrastructure more resilient to climate change and preparing it for new mobility technologies. In recent years, California has experienced extreme weather exacerbated by climate change. Through emergency repair work in the aftermath of the 2017 winter storms and 2018 wildfires, California incurred hundreds of millions in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Emergency Relief-eligible costs. Sea level rise due to climate change, in combination with storm surges, has the potential to inundate hundreds of miles of the coastal highway by the end of the century. California’s 2018 4th Climate Change Assessment shows that increasing temperatures are expected to increase road construction costs between 3 and 9 percent. ● Congress should increase planning funds to help state and local governments

identify and address complexities around climate change.

67


4

● Congress should create a new needs-based multi-modal formula program that will make our transportation networks resilient in the face of a changing climate.

● AASHTO has noted that certain federal requirements slow the delivery of

transportation projects using the FHWA’s Emergency Relief funds, and it has called for the program to be streamlined. At the same time, federal regulations require Emergency Relief eligible projects to be ready for funding obligation within two years of the disaster event. California believes the Emergency Relief Program should be streamlined, and that state and local governments should be provided five to six years to obligate federal Emergency Relief funds, as called for in H.R. 3193, Transportation Emergency Relief Funds Availability Act.

California is also a national leader in technology and intelligent transportations systems. We urge Congress to consider emerging transformative technologies - including connected and autonomous vehicles; app-enabled crowd-sourced data gathering; and integrated, automated multi-modal ticketing that will ease accessibility to all modes of transportation - and the need to take advantage of and prepare our infrastructure for these technologies. ● Congress should create a new flexible program to fund transportation capital

and operational investments to take advantage of and prepare our transportation infrastructure for emerging technologies that are transforming the way people and goods are moved.

Freight/Goods Movement California is the nation’s international trade leader in terms of value and quantity of goods handled by its seaports, airports, railroads and roadways; In fact, more than 40 percent of the total containerized cargo entering the U.S. arrives through California and almost 30 percent of the nation’s exports flow through ports in the Golden State. The State’s agricultural sector, supported by California’s rural freight infrastructure, is a critical source of goods for export and is the largest producer of food in the U.S. With the passage of SB 1 and local sales tax measures, California is coming to the table with significant new, non-federal funding to keep goods moving efficiently and boost national economic growth. Nevertheless, in 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Announced $2 billion in discretionary Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants. In those two years, California received five BUILD grants totaling $81.5 million, representing only 4 percent of the total funding from the 132 grants awarded nationwide. Likewise, during that period California was awarded two Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grants totaling $97 million, representing only 6.3 percent of the $1.53 billion awarded. Congress and the U.S. DOT can do better to ensure federal freight/goods movement programs prioritize eligibility for regions with nationally significant freight flows – which clearly include several parts of California!

68


5

● California supports freight funding programs to address critical issues facing our nation’s major freight corridors and mitigating the impacts on local transportation systems and public health. A Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill should increase funding for freight/goods movement programs and discretionary freight funding programs should prioritize eligibility for regions with nationally significant freight flows, major port complexes and rural/agricultural freight networks, including support for short line rail freight operators to maintain the region’s economic competitiveness.

● California supports increasing funding for the National Highway Freight Program

(NHFP), removing the 10 percent cap on non-highway investment and providing flexibility for states to use discretion in determining the amount of NHFP formula funding dedicated to multimodal freight projects identified in the state’s freight investment plan. Congress should also consider apportioning NHFP funding based on need. Additionally, Congress should remove the caps on the INFRA Program used for grants to freight rail, water (including ports), or other freight intermodal projects.

● Congress should reestablish the National Cooperative Freight Research Program

(NCFRP) to provide research products to assist states in their delivery of freight transportation projects with funding beyond the amount prescribed for the federally managed Research Technology & Education Programs, and State Planning & Research funded programs.

Sustainability and Climate Action

California is a national leader in efforts to address climate change, with more than decade of policy leadership that includes the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), which requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to create “sustainable communities strategies” to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in their long-range transportation plans. California state and local agencies are working to reduce the transportation sector’s GHG emissions consistent with state goals, and to adapt the system so it is more resilient to climate risk. Additionally, some California agencies are investigating pricing strategies, such as tolled express lanes, toll bridges, and cordon pricing, as a means of reducing VMT and providing revenue for transit and active transportation improvements, to subsidize transportation costs for low income households, or to attract private investment. Moreover, California supports policies that will empower and reward transportation agencies for operating, investing in and managing the transportation system to more efficiently move people and goods with lower environmental, health and climate impacts, through higher vehicle occupancy, support of Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV) technology, increased use of rail, transit, cycling and walking, and other strategies. We are very concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to amend Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and GHG emissions standards for passenger

69


6

cars and light trucks. The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 (SAFE Vehicle Rule) would also revoke California’s waiver of preemption to set more stringent vehicle emissions standards than the federal government, and potentially harm the delivery of transportation projects that must demonstrate conformity with air quality plans. ● Federal policy should further reward states like California that have made

significant multi-modal investments to improve air quality and advance sustainability strategies.

● Congress should authorize an incentive grant program that rewards states, local

governments, tribal governments and MPOs that have adopted or are willing to adopt “Best Practices” to reduce VMT and GHG emissions (including congestion pricing) and integrate transportation planning and investment decisions with other land-use, economic development, pricing and other strategies, and also provide financial incentives for rural sustainability initiatives.

● Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program funds,

STBG and other flexible highway and transit programs support California in implementing innovative carbon reduction strategies and, as noted earlier in our letter, we support growing those core programs.

● Congress should provide assistance for data collection, and determining and

quantifying GHG emissions, and other important data for addressing climate change. Congress should also provide funding, training, tools, and uniform standards for the collection and sharing of roadway and traffic data specifically for local, rural and tribal roadways, including assistance and funding for data collection required by federal performance management rules.

● Current federal restrictions on commercial activity (and the charging of fees)

along interstate right-of-ways (23 U.S.C. § 111) inhibit public-private partnerships to deploy ZEV charging infrastructure. California continues to urge Congress to provide the flexibility needed to encourage private investment in ZEV infrastructure and facilitate its successful deployment along the federal-aid and interstate right-of-way. California also supports S. 674, the Clean Corridors Act of 2019, which would provide grant funding for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and hydrogen fueling infrastructure along designated corridors across the National Highway System.

● A new Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill should facilitate the expanded

use of tolling by lifting restrictions on tolling existing interstate general purpose surface lane capacity. California also supports reversing the FTA policy of excluding bus service provided in HOT lanes from the 49 U.S.C. § 5337 “High Intensity Motorbus” funding program; this policy reduces funding for regions across California that convert high-occupancy vehicle lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes.

70


7

● California supports funding for wildlife crossings and programs to prevent wildlife-vehicle collisions.

● California strongly opposes the NHTSA/EPA SAFE Vehicle Rule’s revocation of

California’s waiver of preemption to set more stringent vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

Fund Multimodal Mobility Solutions

The transportation sector in California accounts for 50 percent of the state’s total GHG when accounting for associated fuel production, making it the single largest source of emissions in the state. At the same time, cities across California suffer from tremendous gridlock – in fact, 5 of the 20 most congested cities in North America are in California. Additionally, California’s population is aging: between now and 2026, the number of Californians 65 or older is expected to climb by 2.1 million; An ageing state requires transportation solutions for those who cannot drive. And when 50 percent of California households cannot afford the cost of housing in their local markets, the transportation system must still provide access to jobs and opportunity for those who do not have cars. Changing this reality requires a multimodal approach to mobility and increased investment – from all levels of government – in proven solutions like public transportation, active transportation and passenger rail. In California, we are doing our part – SB 1, the state’s landmark transportation funding package, directs significant funding annually to public transportation, active transportation, and passenger rail; and counties across the state are choosing to tax themselves to invest in an “all of the above” approach to mobility. Public Transportation: California urges Congress to ensure that the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill recognizes California’s significant commitment to public transportation programs, and we request that Congress craft policies to reward California’s public transit agencies for this commitment. Additionally, in December 2018 the California Air Resources Board adopted the Innovative Clean Transit regulation (ICT). The regulation establishes a zero-emission bus purchase mandate, beginning as soon as 2030 (2023 for large transit agencies), with the goal of converting all transit buses in California to zero-emission (battery-electric, fuel cell) technologies by 2040. The successful implementation of the ICT will eliminate climate-changing fossil fuels from more than 10,000 buses in California. Components and supply chains developed for transit buses, as a result of the ICT, may one day support electrification in other heavy-duty sectors. ● California supports growing core federal transit programs and transit-eligible

highway programs, which have proven effective in delivering essential funds to transit operators to address their pressing state of good repair and capital investment needs. Specifically, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation should increase funding for the following formula programs: FTA’s Section 5307 and Section 5311 Urbanized Area and Non-Urbanized Area formula;

71


8

FTA’s Section 5337 State of Good Repair; FTA’s Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities; FHWA STBG and CMAQ Programs.

● California supports increased investment in the FTA’s Capital Investment Grants

(CIG) Program (greater than $2.6 billion annually) to fully fund existing Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) and support new FFGAs. California also supports legislative language directing the U.S. DOT to expeditiously execute FFGA and administer CIG Program as intended by Congress.

● California urges Congress to increase funding of the federal transit program for

Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (49 U.S. § 5310) to address the growing transportation needs for these target populations.

● The Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill should help states and transit

agencies transitioning to ZEVs by tailoring FTA’s Low Emission/No Emission Program to incentivize and reward pursuing aggressive climate change solutions, while also increasing the funding authorized for the Program.

● California supports actions to grow on the successes found through the FTA’s

Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Pilot Program. Mobility on Demand and/or Micro Transit projects implemented by local transit agencies and/or transit agency partnerships with shared mobility providers are proving successful for enhancing mobility for the traveling public. These solutions could not be possible without the advent of travel planning application technology. These tools are enabling on-demand ride-hailing-sharing services, and in many cases proving to increase transit’s share of overall transportation trips taken regionally and interregionally.

● The FTA’s Section 531l(f) Program allocates discretionary grants to California’s

rural transit agencies. These agencies use this funding to provide critical intercity bus services that connect rural and urban populations. However, funding for this program is not adequate. Caltrans routinely receives more applications than the program can fund. As California’s population continues to grow, and the need for transportation between California’s communities continues to grow, funding for intercity bus services will become critical to the interregional transportation systems that move people across the State and beyond. California therefore requests an increase to the 5311(f) Program without decreasing the regional apportionments currently allocated to rural transit agencies for services funded through the 5311(f) parent program – FTA’s Section 5311.

● California supports initiatives to develop and retain the workforce necessary to

successfully deliver transit services, including additional flexibility on the use of federal funds like FTA’s sections 5307 and 5311 for training purposes, as well as a significant increase in the funding authorized for FTA’s Section 5314 Program. This funding could be used for apprenticeship and other workforce development programs and to expand funding for regional and statewide training consortium

72


9

programs that provide advanced transit specific training through local community colleges, transit associations and similar educational institutions.

● California supports flexibility in the State of Good Repair Program, including

reduction of the waiting period for eligibility to access Section 5337 fixed guideway funds. Flexibility will allow public transit agencies that receive funding under both the High-Intensity Fixed Guideway and High-Intensity Motorbus Elements to apply their formula shares toward their highest-priority state of good repair needs.

Active Transportation: Investing in active transportation furthers the State’s sustainability and climate preparedness objectives and improves the quality of life and public health of Californians. California has made a major commitment to walking and bicycling through investment in our Active Transportation Program, and we want to continue to increase that investment with new federal funding. ● California supports increasing funding for both the STBG Program, including

proportionate growth for the Transportation Alternatives (STBG-TA) set-aside, and HSIP. Funding from STBG-TA and HSIP support California’s Active Transportation Program. Congress should ensure that active transportation projects continue to be eligible for funding from the Highway Trust Fund.

● To address the low obligation rate of STBG-TA funding, Congress should take

steps to ease the obligation of STBG-TA funds, including: allowing up to 5 percent of these funds to be used for staff or consultant technical assistance to strengthen potential grant applications and allowing HSIP funding to serve as a state or local match for STBG-TA projects that address a safety concern.

● Congress should authorize a competitive grant program to fund planning, design

and construction of regional active transportation networks and long-distance inter-regional cycling infrastructure. Congress should also authorize a study to determine best available estimate of the total amount of nonhighway recreational fuel taxes received by the Department of the Treasury and transferred to the Highway Trust Fund to support the Recreational Trails Program.

Passenger Rail: California is making significant investments in intercity passenger and commuter rail, and therefore supports dedicated long-term federal investment in passenger rail programs. Modernizing the state’s passenger rail system will: reduce emissions by enabling more Californians to switch from driving and flying to traveling by clean, fast and efficient rail service; open freight capacity to enhance the flow of goods from our fields and ports; connect regional economies (e.g., the Central Valley and the Coast) and sustain an innovative state economy that will help drive America’s economic competitiveness. Any new Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation should provide significant funding for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program, establish dedicated funding for intercity passenger and commuter rail, increase funding for the FHWA’s Railway-Highway Crossings Program (23 U.S.C. § 130), and reauthorize and fully fund FAST Act authorized Federal Railroad Administration intercity passenger

73


10

rail grant programs, including the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant Program and State of Good Repair (SOGR) Program. ● Congress should establish a dedicated formula capital funding program for

intercity passenger rail that is additive to existing transit formula programs. The program should cover capital projects to improve and expand passenger rail service and capital maintenance of equipment. Eligible project costs should be made available under multi-year federal support agreements, with partial funding of project elements (without independent utility) not impacting future applications for additional allocations.

● Railroad crossing incidents are the second leading cause of rail-related deaths in

America. California supports strengthening Section 130 to accelerate the number of critically important safety projects that are constructed each year and providing 100 percent federal contribution for Section 130 projects. Many communities are doing what they can to improve safety at at-grade crossings, but the most effective method – grade separation - is often expensive. Additionally, recent requirements for 10 percent non-federal matching funds has created significant challenges as railway-highway grade crossing projects often involve railroad companies, small cities or counties with little or no resources. Increasing Section 130 federal participation to 100 percent would help ensure the selection of projects for this program would continue to be data driven and not influenced by the availability, or lack of, the 10 percent matching funds.

● California supports reauthorizing the CRISI Grant Program, and the SOGR, at no

less than FFY 2018 funding levels. California also supports expanding the eligibility of the SOGR Program. The current program is limited to publicly owned assets. This restriction limits the ability for States to partner with private freight railroads to invest in critical assets that are required to serve passenger rail. The program should expand eligibility to allow for funding for non-public assets with the requirement that such funding results in some guaranteed level of public access (e.g., railroad slots) or shared public ownership. Such an approach will incentivize privately owned railroads to partner with public agencies and potentially expand the provision of passenger railroad service.

● California supports creating a legislative resolution to the issue of “States as

Railroads” and System Safety Program responsibility. States who sponsor, but do not operate, intercity passenger rail services, are not railroads nor are they railroad carriers. Section 225 of the Railroad Advancement of Innovation and Leadership with Safety (RAILS) Act includes language that clarifies that States are not rail carriers if they do not operate a rail service.

● Congress should include a multi-billion dollar, dedicated and sustainable Positive

Train Control Operations and Maintenance support program for intercity passenger and commuter rail operators.

74


11

● California stands with the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Public Transportation Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Transportation Trades Department AFL-CIO and others in requesting Congress prohibit the U.S. DOT from terminating its cooperative grant agreements with the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Shorten Project Delivery Time and Provide Flexibility To Fully and Efficiently Utilize Federal Funds

California transportation agencies are proactively identifying efficiencies and policy improvements to responsibly manage the public’s money and assets. For example, under Assembly Bill (AB) 1282, the California State Transportation Agency has convened a multi-agency Transportation Permitting Task Force to establish reasonable deadlines for transportation project permit approvals and provide for greater certainty of permit approval requirements. Additionally, SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, requires Caltrans to achieve $100 million in annual efficiencies that can be redirected towards maintaining and rehabilitating the State Highway System. And since 2007, Caltrans has performed federal responsibilities for environmental decisions and approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for highway projects in California funded by the FHWA. Through “NEPA Assignment,” Caltrans has been able to cut the regulatory burden on thousands of road projects, achieving time savings of months and years in reviewing and approving environmental documents. ● California strongly supports efforts to streamline federal regulations to facilitate

more expeditious project delivery without diminishing environmental standards and safeguards.

● Given California’s successful track record in the NEPA Assignment Program,

California supports extending statutory term of years for NEPA Assignment agreements from five to ten years.

Public/Private Partnerships and Financing

Public-private partnership (P3) procurement methods are not a substitute for robust direct federal transportation investment nor a solution for federal infrastructure funding challenges. Rather, the financing element of P3 projects, in some instances, may leverage private sector resources in addition to mitigating design, construction, maintenance, and operations risks for the public sector. These arrangements often involve a project-related revenue stream, such as vehicle tolling and/or federal credit assistance programs. ● California supports innovative financing tools and urges Congress to fund and

streamline the application process for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Finance (RRIF) Programs, ensuring continuing eligibility for Transit Oriented Development

75


12

(TOD) projects in both programs, and clarify that federal loans should be classified as local funds on federal grant applications.

● California supports expanding tolling options on the interstate highway system,

and authorizing the America Fast Forward Transportation Bonds and Build America Bonds to provide a powerful new finance tool for transportation agencies to use when financing major capital projects, and restoring tax exemption for advance refunding bonds.

● California supports new and increased funding for FTA’s Section 3005(b)

Expedited Project Delivery Program. Tribal Transportation

California has 109 federally recognized Native American tribes and is home to 750,000 Native Americans, the highest population of any state. There are over 580,000 acres of Tribal trust lands found throughout California. Tribal governments provide transportation infrastructure, including road and bridge construction and maintenance. In many states, the Native American population is disproportionately represented in fatalities and crash statistics. Native Americans’ risk of motor-vehicle related death is about four times that of the general population. The risk is even higher for the population between 4 and 44 years old. Tribal communities must have the tools and funding to provide safe and efficient infrastructure. ● California supports an overall increase in federal transportation spending,

including an increase in Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) and TTP planning funds.

● California administers a tribal set-aside for projects using HSIP funding, and

California supports an overall increase in HSIP funding that can be used to improve tribal transportation safety.

● The California Native American Advisory Committee has expressed concerns

with the new centralized formatting of the Tribal Transportation Technical Assistance Program (TTAP), including reduced quality of training, a lack of one-on-one interaction with trainers, a lack of relevant training subject matter for California tribal transportation programs, and inconvenient course locations. California urges Congress to review recent changes to the TTAP to ensure that it meets the needs of tribal customers, including possibly authorizing a Government Accountability Review of TTAP. Additionally, the TTAP curriculum should include quality instruction on grant application writing and grant administration.

● California supports tribal transit pass programs or other mobility support for tribal

members in areas with existing public transit services.

76

Agenda Item 7.B August 28, 2019

DATE: August 14, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Erika McLitus, Project Assistant RE: Addendum to the 2019 Solano County Pothole Report

Background: The first Solano County Pothole Report was developed in 2011 and its latest iteration to date is the 2014 Solano County Pothole Report, which was updated to reflect data collected by MTC for their 2013 Annual Pothole Report. The STA Board approved the 2014 Solano County Pothole Report on September 10, 2014 after previously reviewing the report and allowing a 30-day period for public comment. The report details the condition of all roads in Solano County according to jurisdiction, offers predictions regarding how the overall condition of the road systems will improve or decline over time depending on different maintenance scenarios, and highlights funding shortfalls that complicate the process of maintaining the Local Streets and Roads (LS&R) network.

In light of the influx of additional funding for transportation projects from Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), STA staff has worked with public works staff from the seven cities and the County to update the Solano County Pothole Report and educate local residents about the benefits to local roads of SB 1 funds and the current and future status of Solano County road local repair and maintenance needs.

In late 2017, STA received a Pavement Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) grant from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through Solano County in the amount of $15k. With this grant, STA hired Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE), who runs the StreetSaver program for the Bay Area region, to assist in analysis, editing, and graphic design on the forthcoming Pothole Report. This award was the first of its kind in the region, with the goal of providing a countywide pothole report that other Bay Area County transportation agencies can use as an example. NCE fully redesigned the Pothole Report to create a more cohesive layout, add clarity, and ensure that all information is presented in a format that is easy to digest and disseminate. At their meeting on May 8, 2019, the STA Board adopted the 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report.

Discussion: In March of 2018, NCE presented informative content at the Solano Project Delivery Working Group (PDWG) meeting to help local agencies better utilize StreetSaver software to catalog road maintenance needs, evaluate the efficacy of potential treatments, estimate costs and maximize budgets, and monitor road network conditions. STA staff worked with PDWG members to attain accurate LS&R Budgets for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 for each jurisdiction and utilized this data to develop an “Average Budget” for each jurisdiction to project Pavement Condition Indices (PCI) into future years. This report also incorporated a modified road assessment grading using the same PCI 0-100 point system, but using four ratings of very good, good, poor, and very poor. The previous assessment had a fifth level of four.

77

The 2019 Solano County Pothole Report illustrates all funding shortfalls for LS&R maintenance and demonstrate that SB 1 funds will help bridge these funding gaps, but the jurisdiction specific summaries were excluded form the Report to allow STA staff more time to collaborate with local agency staff, ensuring that each summary has been thoroughly reviewed and customized to fit each jurisdiction’s needs. At their July 25th meeting, the Solano PDWG completed a final review of the individual jurisdiction summaries. The final drafts incorporate all proposed revisions from both Solano PDWG and STA TAC members. Pending approval by the STA TAC and Board, the proposed Addendum will augment the approved 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report with individual Summaries that delve into the prognosis for each jurisdiction’s local streets and roads network. The Summaries also explore the unique challenges that each jurisdiction faces, including budgetary constraints, while also highlighting successful pavement management practices and projects completed with SB 1 funding. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. The Solano Annual Pothole Report for 2019 was funded by a grant provided by MTC. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the addendum to the 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report as shown in Attachment A (provided under separate cover) . Attachment:

A. Addendum to the 2019 Solano County Pothole Report – Individual Jurisdiction Summaries (provided under separate cover)

78


DATE: August 20, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Robert Guerrero, Director of Planning RE: Status of Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Priority Production Areas (PPAs)

Designation, and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) and Implementation

Background: The Solano Transportation Authority (STA) and its member agencies have identified opportunity areas called Priority Development Areas (PDA) to prioritize housing and job growth in each city near transit locations. In addition, locations in the unincorporated area were identified as opportunity sites for agricultural preservation, open space and/or farm to market locations called Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). Solano County initially had 8 PDAs and 5 PCAs in 2008. These were selected by the cities and County of Solano and formally approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for future focused planning and implementation. Since then, Solano County has increased the number of PDAs to 13 and has evaluated and added 4 sites for potential PCA designations.

The significance of PDAs and PCAs for the STA is that transportation funding was prioritized by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for those locations since the first federal One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) cycle in 2013. Solano County and the other North Bay counties were required to program 50% of the county OBAG share (approximately $10 million out of $20 million) within PDAs with a separate allocation of $1.25 million for PCAs. This funding requirement and amounts carried over into OBAG 2 with $2.5 million for Solano County and will likely be similar in the 2022-23 OBAG 3 cycle.

With a greater focus at the regional and state level on housing and job production, the implementation of PDAs, and potentially future PCAs, will be affected by the CASA Compact recommendations and strategies identified in MTC’s Regional Growth Strategies Perspective Paper.

Discussion: MTC/ABAG has announced an open call for new PDAs, PCAs and a new Priority Production Area (PPA) designations. The new PPA is a pilot for identifying locations for manufacturing type employment locations. This is fortuitous for Solano County, the cities and County of Solano. In partnership with Solano Economic Development Corporation (EDC), Solano County has developed an economic plan called “Moving Solano Forward”, for Solano County that includes an analysis of key economic catalyst sites that provides extensive economic data that could be the basis for potential PPA designations.

The basic framework for the call for PDA, PCA and PPA pilot designations is outlined in the attached Regional Growth Framework Revisions: Next Steps memo from MTC/ABAG which

79

was provided to the STA TAC at their June meeting. As part of this call, the seven cities and the County of Solano are requested to respond to ABAG/MTC on whether the jurisdiction plans to maintain their PDA, adjust existing PDA and PCA boundaries or if desires to include new PDA, PCAs and the new PPA designation. The last time MTC/ABAG formally opened the designations for new locations or adjustments was in 2012 as part of their Regional Transportation Plan: One Bay Area 2035 effort. It would likely be a several years until the next opportunity to provide new designations or adjust current boundaries. MTC/ABAG’s process for the call is to provide letters of interest by September 16, 2019 and resolutions of approval by December 2019. MTC/ABAG released the format for letters of interest on Monday, June 17th. Example letters were also provided to the STA TAC at their June meeting and can be viewed at the following link provided by MTC: https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/focused-growth-livable-communities/priority-development-areas

In addition, MTC also provided an Action Plan list for existing PDAs which indicates what action needs to be taken in order to maintain current designations (Attachment A). Three cities were listed for further action related to their PDA status. The three cities are Benicia, Dixon and Fairfield. In addition, the PDA in Rio Vista was left off MTC/ABAG list. STA is working with MTC to clarify and correct assumptions made in their action plan and will work with the cities to update the action listed.

STA staff continues to meet with the cities and the county Planning Directors to discuss the designation status of the PDAs/PCAs/PPAs during the summer months. In addition, STA staff has facilitated discussions with both the California Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Strategic Growth Council staff and cities and County of Solano during that time. The meetings with the state agencies were separate, but had the same objective- to find funding solutions to implement housing production. Attendees received the benefit of direct communication with State grant staff on successful grant application advice and techniques.

STA staff also provided an update on the PDA/PCA/PPA status at the August 8, 2019 City County Coordinating Council (4C’s) meeting. The new Regional Housing Needs Allocation process was a related item on the agenda. Attachment B provides a detailed schedule of the upcoming RHNA process. This cycle of housing allocations is anticipated to be significate in two ways: 1) increased housing unit assignments provided by HCD to ABAG (likely to be more than double than the last cycle) and 2) potential new policies and penalties/incentives for not meeting the housing production, including potential restrictions or incentives for State transportation funds.

STA staff will continue to monitor and inform the STA TAC and STA Board on the progress of these designations as well as the new RHNA process as the process continues.

Fiscal Impact: None at this time.

Recommendation: Informational.

Attachments: A. MTC PDA Action PlanB. MTC/ABAG RHNA schedule

80

https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/focused-growth-livable-communities/priority-development-areas

https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/focused-growth-livable-communities/priority-development-areas

2019 PDA Update Action Guide

Alameda Alameda Naval Air Station Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Alameda Northern Waterfront Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Alameda Alameda County Castro Valley BART Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Alameda County

East 14th Street and Mission

Boulevard Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Alameda County Hesperian Boulevard Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction County

Alameda Alameda County Meekland Avenue Corridor tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit County/CTA

Alameda Albany

San Pablo & Solano Mixed Use

Neighborhood Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Alameda Berkeley Adeline Street Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Berkeley Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Berkeley San Pablo Avenue Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Alameda Berkeley South Shattuck Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Berkeley Southside/Telegraph Avenue Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Berkeley University Avenue Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Dublin Town Center3 Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Emeryville Mixed‐Use Core Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Fremont Centerville

Connected Community

(High Resource Area) None n/a

Alameda Fremont City Center

Connected Community


Alameda Fremont Irvington District

Connected Community


A L A M E D A

LOC From:

How to use this table:

(1) Look under the "Jurisdiction" column to find your city or county.

(2) Identify the action(s), if any, needed for each of your PDAs in the "Summer 2019 Action" column.

(3) If action is needed, download the appropriate form here: https://www.planbayarea.org/priority.

(4) If any information in this table is incorrect, contact [email protected].

County Jurisdiction PDA NameUpdated PDA

DesignationSummer 2019 Action

LOC‐VMT Reduction = Letter of Confirmation to adopt VMT‐Reduction policies

LOC‐Plan = Letter of Confirmation to adopt PDA Plan, EIR, and Zoning

LOC‐Transit = Letter of Confirmation to meet transit criteria (to be completed by CTAs)

CTA = County TransportationAgency

181


LOC From:County Jurisdiction PDA NameUpdated PDA






Alameda Fremont Warm Springs tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Alameda Hayward Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Hayward Mission Boulevard Corridor Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Alameda Hayward South Hayward BART Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Alameda Hayward South Hayward BART Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Hayward The Cannery Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Livermore Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Livermore East Side tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Alameda Livermore

Isabel Avenue/BART Station

Planning Area3 Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Newark

Dumbarton Transit Oriented

Development tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Alameda Newark Old Town Mixed Use Area tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Alameda Oakland Coliseum BART Station Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Oakland Downtown & Jack London Square Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Oakland Eastmont Town Center Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Alameda Oakland Fruitvale and Dimond Areas Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Alameda Oakland Golden Gate/North Oakland Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Alameda Oakland MacArthur Transit Village Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Alameda Oakland TOD Corridors Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

Alameda Oakland

TOD Corridors ‐ International

Boulevard Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Oakland

TOD Corridors ‐ San

Antonio/Central Estuary Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Oakland West Oakland Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Pleasanton Hacienda tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Alameda San Leandro Bay Fair BART Village Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda San Leandro

Downtown Transit Oriented

Development Transit‐Rich None n/a

282








Alameda San Leandro East 14th Street Transit‐Rich None n/a

Alameda Union City Intermodal Station District Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Antioch Hillcrest eBART Station tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Antioch Rivertown Waterfront tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Concord

Community Reuse Area/Los

Medanos tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Concord

Community Reuse Area/Los

Medanos tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Concord Downtown Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Contra Costa Contra Costa County Contra Costa Centre Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Contra Costa County Downtown El Sobrante Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction County

Contra Costa Contra Costa County Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Contra Costa County Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Contra Costa County

West Contra Costa Transportation

Advisory Committee San Pablo

Avenue Corridor tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Danville Downtown Connected Community LOC‐VMT Reduction City

Contra Costa Danville Downtown

Connected Community


Contra Costa El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Hercules Central Hercules Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Contra Costa Hercules Waterfront District Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Hercules



Avenue Corridor tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Contra Costa Lafayette Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Martinez Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Moraga Moraga Center

Connected Community


C O N T R A C O S T A

383








Contra Costa Oakley Downtown tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Oakley Employment Area tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Oakley Potential Planning Area tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Contra Costa Orinda Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Pinole Appian Way Corridor tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Pinole Old Town San Pablo Avenue tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Pittsburg Downtown Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Contra Costa Pittsburg Railroad Avenue eBART Station Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Contra Costa Pleasant Hill Buskirk Avenue Corridor tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa Pleasant Hill Diablo Valley College Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

Contra Costa Richmond

Central Richmond & 23rd Street

Corridor (area 1) Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City


Central Richmond & 23rd Street

Corridor (area 2) Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa Richmond South Richmond Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City




Avenue Corridor tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Contra Costa

Richmond

(w/ CCC.) North Richmond tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Contra Costa San Pablo Rumrill Boulevard Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

Contra Costa San Pablo

San Pablo Avenue & 23rd Street

Corridors Transit‐Rich None n/a

Contra Costa San Ramon City Center

Connected Community


Contra Costa San Ramon North Camino Ramon

Connected Community


Contra Costa Walnut Creek Core Area

Connected Community


Marin Marin County Unincorporated Marin County tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit County/CTA

Marin San Rafael Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

N A P A

M A R I N

484








Napa American Canyon Highway 29 Corridor tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Napa Napa

Downtown Napa and Soscol

Gateway Corridor Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

San Francisco San Francisco 19th Avenue Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Balboa Park Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco

Bayview/Hunters Point

Shipyard/Candlestick Point Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Downtown‐Van Ness‐Geary Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Eastern Neighborhoods Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Market‐Octavia/Upper Market Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Mission Bay Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Mission‐San Jose Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Port of San Francisco Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco Transit Center District Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco San Francisco

Treasure Island & Yerba Buena

Island Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Francisco

San Francisco &

Brisbane

San Francisco/San Mateo Bi‐County

Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo Belmont Villages of Belmont Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo Burlingame Burlingame El Camino Real Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo Colma El Camino Real Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

San Mateo Daly City Bayshore Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

San Mateo Daly City Mission Boulevard Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo East Palo Alto Ravenswood Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

San Mateo Menlo Park

El Camino Real Corridor and

Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo Millbrae Transit Station Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

S A N F R A N C I S C O

S A N M A T E O

585








San Mateo Redwood City

Broadway/Veterens Boulevard

Corridor Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

San Mateo Redwood City Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

San Mateo San Bruno Transit Corridors Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo San Carlos Railroad Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo

San Francisco &

Brisbane

San Francisco/San Mateo Bi‐County

Area Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

San Mateo San Mateo Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo San Mateo El Camino Real Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo San Mateo Grand Boulevard Initiative Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

San Mateo San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo San Mateo County El Camino Real (North Fair Oaks) Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction County

San Mateo San Mateo County

El Camino Real (Unincorporated

Colma) Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan County

San Mateo South San Francisco Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

San Mateo South San Francisco El Camino Real Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Santa Clara Campbell Central Redevelopment Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Cupertino

Santa Clara Valley Transportation

Authority City Cores, Corridors &

Station Areas Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Santa Clara Gilroy Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Gilroy



Station Areas tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Santa Clara Los Altos El Camino Real Corridor Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Santa Clara Milpitas



Station Areas Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Santa Clara Milpitas Transit Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Morgan Hill Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

S A N T A C L A R A

686








Santa Clara Mountain View Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Mountain View El Camino Real Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Mountain View North Bayshore Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Santa Clara Mountain View San Antonio Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Mountain View Whisman Station Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Palo Alto California Avenue Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Bascom TOD Corridor

Connected Community


Santa Clara San Jose Bascom Urban Village

Connected Community


Santa Clara San Jose Berryessa Station Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Camden Urban Village

Connected Community

(High Resource Area) LOC ‐ Plan City

Santa Clara San Jose Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Santa Clara San Jose Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Santa Clara San Jose Communications Hill Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Cottle Transit Village (Hitachi) Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Downtown "Frame" Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose

East Santa Clara/Alum Rock

Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Greater Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose North San Jose Transit‐Rich None n/a


Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban

Village Transit‐Rich None n/a



Station Areas Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Saratoga TOD Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara San Jose Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a


West San Carlos and Southwest

Expressway Corridors Transit‐Rich None n/a

787








Santa Clara San Jose Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village

Connected Community



Winchester Boulevard TOD

Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Santa Clara El Camino Real Focus Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Station Focus Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Sunnyvale Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Sunnyvale East Sunnyvale Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

Santa Clara Sunnyvale El Camino Real Corridor Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Sunnyvale Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit‐Rich None n/a

Santa Clara Sunnyvale Tasman Crossing Transit‐Rich LOC ‐ Plan City

Solano Benicia Downtown tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Solano Benicia

Northern Gateway ‐ Benicia's

Industrial Park tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Solano Dixon Downtown tbd (action required) LOC ‐ Plan/Transit City/CTA

Solano Fairfield Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Transit‐Rich None n/a

Solano Fairfield Fairfield‐Vacaville Train Station tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Solano Fairfield North Texas Street Core Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

Solano Fairfield West Texas Street Gateway Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Solano Suisun City Downtown & Waterfront Transit‐Rich None n/a

Solano Vacaville Allison Area Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Solano Vacaville Downtown Connected Community LOC‐VMT Reduction City

Solano Vallejo Sonoma Boulevard Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Solano Vallejo Waterfront & Downtown Transit‐Rich None n/a

Sonoma Cloverdale Downtown/SMART Transit Area tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

S O L A N O

S O N O M A

888








Sonoma Cotati Downtown and Cotati Depot tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Sonoma Petaluma Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Transit‐Rich None n/a

Sonoma Rohnert Park Central Rohnert Park tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Sonoma Rohnert Park Sonoma Mountain Village tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Sonoma Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

Sonoma Santa Rosa

Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa

Avenue Corridor Connected Community

LOC ‐ Plan/VMT‐

Reduction City

Sonoma Santa Rosa North Santa Rosa Station Transit‐Rich None n/a

Sonoma Santa Rosa Roseland Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Sonoma Santa Rosa Sebastopol Road Corridor Connected Community LOC ‐ VMT Reduction City

Sonoma Sebastopol Core Area tbd (action required) LOC‐Transit CTA

Sonoma Windsor

Station Area/Downtown Specific

Plan Area Transit‐Rich None n/a

989

June 2019

ABAG 2022‐2030 RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050 Key Milestones Per Government Code §65588(e)(3)(A), the Housing Element Due Date is 18 months after adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Plan Bay Area 2050, the next regional plan, is scheduled to be adopted in June 2021, with the Housing Element Due Date in December 2022. This schedule assumes that there are subregions. Dates are tentative and subject to change.

Key Milestones Deadline

1 Plan Bay Area 2050 and RHNA Kickoff September 2019

2 Release Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, Adopt Growth Framework Update September 2019

3 Jurisdiction Survey on RHNA factors, Fair Housing1 December 2019

4 Deadline for Subregions to Form2 February 2020

5 Adopt Final Plan Bay Area 2050 Regional Growth Forecast; Release Plan Bay Area 2050

Draft Preferred Scenario

April 2020

6 Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Issues RHND3 April 2020

7 Release Proposed Methodology,4 Release Draft Subregion Shares May 2020

8 Public Hearing on Proposed Methodology, Subregion Shares June 2020

9 Adopt Plan Bay Area 2050 Preferred Scenario July 2020

10 Assign Subregion Shares5 July 2020

11 Release Draft Methodology and Submit to HCD for Review6 September 2020

12 Release Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Plan and EIR January 2021

13 Adopt Final Methodology after 60‐day HCD Review Period7 January 2021

14 Release Draft Allocation8 January 2021

15 Deadline for Appeals to Draft Allocation9 March 2021

16 Comment Period on Appeals Received10 April 2021

17 Public Hearing on Local Appeals11 May 2021

18 Decision on Appeals, Issue Final Allocation12 May 2021

19 Adopt Plan Bay Area 2050Final Plan and EIR June 2021

20 Public Hearing to Adopt Final Allocation Plan13 July 2021

21 HCD Determination of Consistency with Housing Element Law14 August 2021

22 Local Governments Adopt Housing Element Update December 2022

Glossary of Acronyms ABAG – Association of Bay Area Governments EIR – Environmental Impact Report HCD – California Department of Housing and Community Development RHNA – Regional Housing Need Allocation RHND – Regional Housing Need Determination RTP – Regional Transportation Plan SCS – Sustainable Communities Strategy

1 GC §65584.04(b). No more than 6 months before draft methodology release. 2 GC §65584.03(a). No later than Aug 2020. 3 GC §65584.01(b)(1). No later than Oct 2020. 4 GC §65584.04. ABAG/Subregion must conduct at least one public hearing prior to releasing draft methodology. No later than Dec 2020. 5 GC §65584.03(c). No later than Nov 2020. 6 GC §65584.04(h). 7 GC §65584.04(i). 8 GC §65584.05(a). No later than Jun 2021. 9 GC §65584.05(b). Within 45 days of draft allocation. 10 GC §65584.05(c). Within 45 days of appeal deadline. 11 GC §65584.05(d) Hearing must be no later than 30 days after the appeals comment period ends, with 21 days prior notice. 12 GC §65584.05(e). No later than 45 days after public hearing. 13 GC §65584.05(g). Within 45 days after final allocation issued. 14 Within 30 days after HCD receives Final Plan.

90

Agenda Item 8.B August 28, 2019

DATE: August 5, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Lloyd Nadal, Program Services Division Manager

Karin Bloesch, Senior Program Coordinator RE: Solano Safe Routes to School Program 4th Quarter Report for FY 2018-19

Background: The Solano Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program works to increase the number of students walking and bicycling to school by helping to make the journey safe, fun and healthy. Using a comprehensive approach, the program includes 6 “E’s”: education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, engagement and evaluation. The Program is available to all schools countywide and focuses on activities and programs that educate students on safety, health awareness and identifying improvements within communities countywide to enhance active student travel safety.

In 2008, the STA Board adopted Solano's first Safe Routes to School Plan (Plan) and authorized STA staff to create a Safe Routes to School Program in Solano County. This Plan provided the direction for the SR2S Program through 2012 when the STA and the various SR2S Advisory Committees began the process of updating the 2008 Plan. The updated Plan was adopted by the STA Board in October 2013 and the SR2S Program has continued to grow increasing participation of schools each year. STA staff, along with its partner agency, Solano Public Health, are currently engaging the Safe Routes to School Community Task Forces in each city including the school district to update the Plan and engage them on the Program’s 5-year vision which includes evaluating the effectiveness of the Program. One of the Program’s primary goals is to work with pilot schools to invest in changing the culture to a more walkable and bikeable school.

Discussion: The Solano SR2S Program had another successful 2018-2019 school year with 359 events, reaching 21,731 students through programs and events. This included several new pilot activities at schools in several districts.

SR2S Evaluation Project During the 2018-2019 school year, the Solano SR2S Program began working with a consultant to perform walkability assessments and audits at 12 Solano County schools and researching best methods for evaluating the program’s overall effectiveness especially in relation to how it ties to Safe Routes to School infrastructure projects. The walk audits were provided to the cities in Solano County for comments on the potential project suggestions. These audits will be shared and discussed at city/school district community task force meetings to help identify and prioritize projects that will be included in an update of the SR2S Plan.

91

The Evaluation Project also included piloting new program elements at targeted schools and evaluating the effectiveness of these new programs. The Project will conclude at the end of 2019 with the written evaluation and potential improvements intended to increase program effectiveness. 2018-2020 Law Enforcement Education and Enforcement Grant In June 2018, the SR2S Program with STA Board approval, awarded the Benicia Police Department $150,000 for FYs 2018-20, to duplicate the model piloted by the Suisun City Police Department in FYs 2016-18. The Benicia Police Department hired a non-sworn staff person to partner with the SR2S Program at Benicia schools. In addition to working with Benicia PD, the SR2S program extended the work with the Suisun City Police Department using an excess of funds from a vacancy created in early 2018, when the School Safety Traffic Officer (SSTO) Gonzalez left the department. In October 2018, Suisun City PD hired a part-time non-sworn officer to work with the SR2S Program at Suisun City Schools, this new SSTO will provide parking enforcement and encouragement for walking and biking programs. In September 2018, finishing the FYs 2016-2018 Grant with Rio Vista Police Department, the SR2S Program worked with officers to host a Youth Safety Fair in the City of Rio Vista. This safety fair included a SR2S Bike Rodeo, Helmet Fitting, and walking and biking safety information. 2018-2019 Office of Traffic Safety Grant The SR2S Program received a 2nd Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant for $85,000 to collaborate with Solano Public Health (SPH), the Solano Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Schools and School Districts, City Police and Public Works Departments, California Highway Patrol (CHP) and other relevant stakeholders to host five Community Pedestrian Safety Workshops including a Solano County Pedestrian Symposium in 2018-2019. At each of these events in varying cities, the SR2S Program engaged the community around pedestrian safety education, distracted walking, distracted driving and addressed student travel safety in nearby schools. At these local meetings, STA also provided a safety analysis of the area (based on the Safety Plan data) and shared potential infrastructure projects in these areas to increase pedestrian safety. During FY 2018-19, the SR2S Program and STA held Community Task Force Meetings and Pedestrian Workshops in the cities of Vallejo, Suisun City and Vacaville. The Program will continue to meet with these cities as a follow up to discussions started, and to develop a prioritized list of potential projects. SR2S staff will also reach out to other cities that have not had a recent community task force meeting to discuss pedestrian safety for the youth in each city and potential SR2S Projects. STA’s SR2S staff will be evaluating each of the program’s six Es and will provide an update at a future meeting as part of FY 2018-19 Annual Report. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Informational. Attachment:

A. School District and School Participation by City FY 2018-19

92

Safe Routes to School Events and Participation by City FY2018-2019

2018-2019 School Year: 359 Events - 21,731 Students Back to School/Family Night Presentations 2 Events Bike Rodeos 11 Schools and Community Events Community Task Force Meetings 3 Citywide Meetings Countywide Community Events 19 Events Fall Travel Tally Surveys 32 Schools, 382 Classrooms Surveyed International Walk to School Day Participation 48 Schools, 8654 Students National Bike to School Day Participation 28 Schools, 1786 Students Safety Assemblies 15 Schools, 8190 Students Schools with Walking Programs/WSB 6 Schools Spring Travel Tally Surveys 26 Schools, 307 Classrooms Surveyed SR2S Annual Poster Contest 18 Schools, 198 Entries

Benicia

Benicia School Participation – 1,897 Students: Event # of Schools that

Participated Event # of Schools that

Participated International Walk to School Day

4 Schools Walking Wednesday Program

1 School

National Bike to School Day

1 School “Rock the Block” Safety Assembly

2 Schools

Fall Student Travel Tally Survey

4 Schools (42 Classrooms)

SR2S Poster Contest 1 School

Spring Student Travel Tally Survey


• SR2S Staff worked with Mary Farmar Elementary School to develop a school site SR2Steam. This “Safe Passage Coalition” is comprised of district staff, Police Departmentstaff, city officials, staff and parents from the school. SR2S staff provided input andsupport to develop this team and identify the school’s needs to increase walking andbiking for students in an effort to relieve traffic congestion around the school.

• In June 2018, the SR2S Program awarded the SR2S 2018-2020 Law EnforcementEducation and Enforcement Grant for $150,000 to the Benicia Police Department. Thefunds will pay for a Community Service Officer (CSO) to provide support for the SR2Sprograms at City of Benicia schools. The CSO will provide parking enforcement, andwork with SR2S and school staff to implement walking and biking programs at theBenicia schools, as well as working with existing School Resource Officers to helpreduce unsafe driving behavior during school pick-up and drop-off times.

Attachment A

93

• In June 2018, the Solano SR2S Program entered into a contract with the Benicia Unified

School District to provide funding during the 2018-2019 School Year for Walking Program leaders at school sites, beginning with Mary Farmar. At Mary Farmar Elementary, school staff leads a weekly Walking Wednesday. The Walking Wednesday Program started in January of 2019, and had an average of 50 students participating during the winter and spring months. This program encourages parents to let their children walk or bike to school, knowing that their student will be supervised by school staff.

Dixon Dixon School Participation – 2,497 Students:

Event # of Schools that Participated


International Walk to School Day

5 Schools

Walk or Wheel (WOW) Wednesday Program

1 School


4 Schools “Rock the Block” Safety Assembly

3 Schools



SR2S Poster Contest 2 Schools



Bike Rodeo 1 School

• As part of the SR2S Evaluation Project a Walk Audit was held at Anderson Elementary

in the spring of 2017. As follow up and part of the Pilot Program for the Evaluation Project, a parent focus group was held in May 2019. The discussion identified key areas of concern from parents regarding traffic and students walking and biking to school. As part of the pilot program, materials will be designed to help encourage parents and students to walk or bike to school, and potentially launch walking programs at the school for the 2019-2020 school year.

• In fall 2018, Dixon Montessori Charter School launched a Walk or Wheel Wednesday program. Parents and staff from the school meet at a park several blocks away, and supervise students as they bike, scooter and walk to school. This event is well attended and the City of Dixon Police Department has attended several times to encourage students to participate.

Fairfield Fairfield School Participation – 6,982 Students:




10 Schools *5 new schools participated

Walking School Bus/WOW Program

2 Schools

94


9 Schools “Rock the Block” Safety Assembly

5 Schools

Fairfield School Participation continued- Fall Student Travel Tally Survey


SR2S Poster Contest 6 Schools



Bike Rodeo 2 School

• As Community Outreach, SR2S staff also attended and provided program information at

the Annual Tomato Festival in Downtown Fairfield and the FSUSD Back to School Backpack Giveaway and Resource Fair, in August 2018. The SR2S Program also attended the Annual Earth Day Festival in April 2019, the Solano County Resilient Solano Summit at Fairfield High School in May 2019, and the annual Fairfield Library Bike Mobile Bike Repair event in June 2019.

• SR2S staff regularly attends the quarterly 3Es Meeting with the City of Fairfield Traffic Engineering Department, the Fairfield Police Department Traffic Unit, and the FSUSD Facilities Department. As part of the SR2S Evaluation Project, walk audits were completed at Fairview Elementary, Cleo Gordon Elementary, and Armijo High School, during the spring of 2018. The list of projects will be discussed and prioritized at these meetings, and included in the final Walk Audit documents as well as the updated SR2S plan.

• Rolling Hills Elementary began a WOW Wednesday program for SY2018-2019, and B. Gale Wilson is continued their Walking School Bus Program for the 5th year.

Rio Vista Rio Vista School Participation – 825 Students:




Riverview Middle DH White

“Rock the Block” Safety Assembly

DH White


DH White Fall Student Travel Tally Surveys

DH White (8 Classrooms)

Bike Rodeo *Rio Vista Safety Fair

77 Participants Spring Student Travel Tally Surveys

DH White (8 Classrooms)

• SR2S continued the partnership with the City of Rio Vista Police Department for the

second half of the 2 year Enforcement and Education Grant (FY 2016/18) ending December 31, 2018. The police department provided directed enforcement around the schools to encourage safe driver behavior at peak times for student travel. In September 2018, in partnership with the Rio Vista Police Department, SR2S Staff attended the Rio Vista Police Department Safety Fair, providing support for a bike rodeo, helmet fitting, and SR2S information outreach, reaching 77 youth in attendance.

95

Suisun City Suisun City School Participation – 1,415 Students:




3 Schools Walking School Bus/WOW Program

1 School


3 Schools SR2S Poster Contest 3 Schools (71 entries)



Bike Mobile Event 1 School (50 bikes)



Bike Rodeo 1 school

• In June 2018, STA extended the Public Safety Education and Enforcement Grant to

Suisun City Police Department for FY 2018-2020, using an excess of funds from a vacancy created in early 2018 from the FY 2016-18 grant. With this Public Safety Grant funding, the Suisun Police Department hired a new School Safety Traffic Officer (SSTO) and continued to work with students to provide bike and pedestrian education, parking enforcement and safe driving education around high volume traffic times at schools, supported SR2S events, and provided helmet diversion education for youth violating helmet safety laws while biking.

• As part of the SR2S Evaluation Project, Dan O Root Health and Wellness Academy was chosen as a Pilot School to test new program elements, and work towards deeper engagement with parents and students at the school. A Resource Fair was held during the school lunch periods in January 2019, reaching 250 students. At this event, students were able to visit several stations to learn about pedestrian safety, proper helmet fit and bike safety. A “Grow Good Habits” challenge also took place and gave students that walked or wheeled to school the opportunity to visualize the number of students participating by asking students to put a leaf on a paper tree if they walked or rode a bike or scooter to school that day. In February 2019, a focus group with Dan O Root parents was facilitated by the Evaluation Project consultants. The participants were asked about their school travel habits, concerns, and feelings about active transportation to and from school. SR2S staff worked closely with the staff and parents at the school to educate and encourage students to participate in the weekly Walk or Wheel Wednesday Program at the school, and is continuing to work to begin Walking School Bus routes for the upcoming school year.

• In October 2018, all 3 Suisun City elementary schools participated in International Walk to School Day. Suisun Elementary hosted a ½ mile walk with several hundred students, the group was joined by former Mayor Pete Sanchez. Participating students were escorted by an officer from the Suisun City Police Department, and were greeted as they arrived at the school by cheering parents and staff members.

• In April 2019, Crystal Middle School held a Bike Mobile event. At this event, over 50

96

students were able to have bikes repaired for free. Solano Public Health and SR2S staff also provided bike helmets and proper helmet fitting for students.

Vacaville Vacaville School Participation – 5,459 Students:



Bike Mobile Event 1 School 1 Community Event

“Rock the Block” Safety Assembly

4 Schools (2286 students)

Bike Rodeo 3 schools Spring Student Travel Tally Survey




SR2S Poster Contest

4 Schools


10 Schools Walking School Bus/WOW Program

2 Schools


6 Schools

• On September 9, 2018 the SR2S program attended a community event along the Rocky

Hill Trail. At the “Night out on the Rocky Hill Trail” event, SR2S staff was joined by Solano Public Health staff and provided information on the SR2S Program, and safe walking and biking education for the area youth. The Bay Area Bike Mobile also attended the event and 23 bikes were repaired for free for students and residents of the community.

• At the beginning of the 2018-19 school year, SR2S staff met with Callison Elementary staff and Vacaville Unified School District staff to pilot a paid Walking School Bus Program, with the option to expand to additional schools in the future. This effort was part of the outreach from the ATP 1 Grant. The Walking School Bus was re-established at Callison Elementary as a partnership with the VUSD and school staff to provide a reliable Walking School Bus daily before and after school. Based on the success of these routes, this effort will be continued for the 2019-2020 school year.

• As part of the SR2S Program and Evaluation Project, walk audits were held at Padan and Callison Elementary schools. The City of Vacaville engineering staff provided comments on the list of suggested projects, the final walk audit documents are to be shared with the local community task force. Padan Elementary was also chosen to pilot new marketing materials to encourage an increase in walking and biking to school. Padan Principal Cicely Rodda, met with the project consultants and SR2S staff to provide direction on information to include in the new materials. These materials will be targeted to both parents and students to encourage more physical activity and an increase in participation of the school’s weekly Walk or Wheel to School Day.

97

• In August 2018, staff held a Bike Rodeo in conjunction with a safety fair at the Vacaville Kaiser Medical Office location. SR2S staff also attended the City of Vacaville Kid Fest event in October 2018, reaching 286 youth and parents about pedestrian and bike safety.

• On May 8, 2019, 6 Vacaville schools participated in Bike to School Day. Fairmont Charter, Foxboro and Callison Elementary schools expanded the yearly event from a day into a weeklong challenge, encouraging their students to skip the car and ride to school each day.

Vallejo Vallejo School Participation – 2,469 Students:



Bike Mobile Event 2 Schools International Walk to School Day

14 Schools

Bike Rodeo 1 School 2 Community events





SR2S Poster Contest 1 School

Helmet Fitting and Education Event

3 Schools 2 Community Events

Walking School Bus/WOW Program

4 Schools


4 Schools

• In September 2018, SR2S staff attended a community biking event with the Vallejo

Police Department, providing information, helmet fitting, and the Bay Area Bike Mobile. A bike rodeo was organized and staffed by the Vallejo Police Department.

• A Community Task Force meeting was held in conjunction an OTS funded Pedestrian Workshop in February 2019. This event had 30 attendees including SR2S Stakeholders from the city of Vallejo, including representatives from the Vallejo City Unified School District, Vallejo Police Department, school site administration, SafeTREC and engaged community members. The Task Force identified several schools to focus on for potential infrastructure projects and SR2S programs, and engaged community leaders interested in helping VCUSD schools address traffic congestion and safety around schools.

• During the spring of 2019, SR2S staff performed bike and pedestrian counts at Lincoln and Johnston Cooper Elementary Schools as part of the SR2S Evaluation and Intervention Project. This data will be used to evaluate effectiveness of the upcoming ATP Cycle 2 infrastructure projects planned at these schools.

• In May 2019, in coordination with Supervisor Erin Hannigan’s office the SR2S staff attended a “Call to Action” event at Solano Middle School. SR2S provided bike helmet fitting and education, the Bay Area Bike Mobile for free bike repair, and pedestrian and bike safety information.

98

Agenda Item 8.C August 28, 2019

DATE: August 12, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Anthony Adams, Project Manager RE: Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 4th Quarter Update

Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19

Background: The STA and the County of Solano coordinates on the collection and management of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF), a transportation component of the County’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF). In response to a request from the STA Board, the County Board of Supervisors added a $1,500 per dwelling unit equivalent dedicated to the RTIF program as part of the PFF at on December 3, 2013. The RTIF collection formally began on February 3, 2014 with more than $7.4 million collected as of the end of the 4th Quarter of FY 2018-19.

Seven RTIF Working Groups were created to administer the RTIF funds for transportation projects that address development growth. Five of the seven RTIF Working Groups are geographically based with the City of Fairfield (3 of 5) and the County of Solano (5 of 5) located in multiple Working Groups. The remaining two working groups were created separately with a 10% off the top revenue dedication (5% each) for both the unincorporated County area and transit related projects. The selected RTIF eligible transportation projects for each Working Group are the following:

1. Working Group District 1- Jepson Parkway2. Working Group District 2- Hwy 12/Church Road Project - (Update Needed)3. Working Group District 3- Fairgrounds Drive4. Working Group District 4- Green Valley Overcrossing (Update Needed)5. Working Group District 5- Dixon Advanced Traffic & Rail Study (Update Needed)6. Transit Working Group District 6- Fairgrounds Drive7. County Unincorporated Working Group District 7- Dixon Advanced Traffic & Rail

Study (Update Needed)

The RTIF Working Groups meet at least once annually to provide a status update on the RTIF program funding and the progress of selected project.

Discussion: Update to the RTIF Portion of PFF As is required by law, every 5 years the County must update the Nexus study for the PFF. This study was complete in April of 2019. As part of this update, a recommendation was presented by County staff to increase the amount collected for RTIF from $1,500 to $2,500 for each dwelling unit equivalent (DUE). An increase to $2,500 per DUE would mean that the RTIF, as projected, average would increase to over $2M per year, rather than the $1.2M a year it has been averaging.

99

This recommendation was presented to various stakeholder groups, including the STA Board, STA TAC, developer groups, and City Managers. The proposed increase in the RTIF amount was not source of controversy during these meetings with support from STA, as the overall PFF amount was not proposed to increase, just the portion allocated to the RTIF. The Board of Supervisors passed the updated PFF, with an increased RTIF amount at the August 6th meeting. The updated PFF schedule of fees is expected to be effective starting on October 6, 2019. RTIF Revenues for 4th Quarter of FY 2018-19 Solano County has received RTIF checks from each member agency for FY 2018-19 for Q4. A total amount of $7.41M has been collected since the inception of the RTIF program. For the fourth quarter of FY 2018-19, a total of $562,840.40 has been collected for all RTIF districts; this is the largest amount in an individual quarter in the past 5.5 years of the RTIF program. The previous 3 quarters have also been well above the historical average. This bodes well for working group available funding balances to advance RTIF projects and highlighted the increasing development activities in Solano County. A summary of revenues, project commitments, and uncommitted funds can be found in attachment A. Working Group Meetings Requested As part of the commitment to manage the RTIF program, STA committed to hosting working group meetings at least annually. The last time every working group met to prioritize projects was in February 2018, prioritizing FY 2018-19 funds. FY 2019-20 funds are now being collected and each working group needs to meet to reaffirm their project commitments and priorities. Four working groups (#2, #4, #5, and #7) in particular need to identify a new priority project for RTIF funding. Fiscal Impact: None to the STA Budget. Funding is provided by the Solano County Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF). Recommendation: Informational. Attachments:

A. RTIF Revenue and Uncommitted Funds Summary

100

FY 2018‐19 4th

Quarter GrandTotalRTIF Collection $574,327 $6,274,658

Interest $2,974

2% STA Administration $11,486.54 $125,493$0 As of End of Q4 FY 2018/19

RTIF Revenue for Eligible

Projects $562,840.4 $7,414,617

Total

Disbursements

Remaining

Funds

Current Funding

Commitment

Uncommitted

Funds Current Priority Project

Annual Average

Revenue ($1,500)

Potential Average

Revenue ($2,500)

District 1 Jepson Corridor $258,795.3 $3,407,069 $1,375,192 $2,031,876 $3,500,000 N/A Jepson Parkway Vacaville Phases $608,962 $1,016,966

District 2 SR 12 Corridor $81,602.0 $594,516 $121,481 $473,035 N/A $473,035 Railroad Ave Extension or Pennsylvania Ave Grade Separation $92,045 $153,715

District 3 South County $33,467.1 $305,886 $60,000 $245,886

Through FY 2021‐

22 N/A SR37 Fairgrounds Dr SolanoExpress Bus Stop $46,318 $77,351District 4 Central County $34,530.4 $1,606,448 $1,280,000 $326,448 N/A $326,448 Green Valley Overcrossing (Needs Updating) $263,442 $439,948

District 5 SR 113 $98,161.5 $561,803 $183,571 $378,232 $60,000 $318,232 Dixon Advanced Traffic and Rail Safety Study $97,233 $162,380District 6 Transit (5%) $28,142.0 $342,019 $208,128 $133,891 $300,000 N/A SR37 Fairgrounds Dr SolanoExpress Bus Stop $61,556 $102,798

District 7 County Road (5%) $28,142.0 $596,877 $121,760 $475,117 $90,000 $385,117 Dixon Advanced Traffic and Rail Safety Study $61,556 $102,798Total RTIF Revenue Received

for Eligible Projects: $562,840.4 $7,414,617 $3,350,133 $4,064,485 Varies $1,502,831 $1,231,111 $2,055,955

RTIF Revenue Status by District

101


102

Agenda Item 8.D August 28, 2019

DATE: August 21, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects RE: I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange - Construction Package 2 Update

Background: Since 2001, STA staff has been working with project consultants, Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to complete improvements to the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Complex. In order to advance improvements to the Interchange in a timely fashion, four separate projects were identified for delivery including the I-80 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Project, the North Connector Project, the I-80 Eastbound Cordelia Truck Scales Relocation Project and the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project.

The I-80 HOV Lanes Project has been completed, the North Connector (east portion) Project has been completed (with the exception of the mitigation monitoring), the I-80 Eastbound Cordelia Truck Scales Relocation Project has been completed and the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange was approved in December 2012. The I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange – project is planned to be implemented through 8 individual construction packages. Construction Packages 1-3 now in various phases of implementation. The Initial Construction Package (ICP) construction contract has been completed and ICP is in the closeout phase, Construction Package 2 is the current active delivery project, and Construction Package 3 has been designed to the 65% level. Construction Package 2, (Attachment A) is the subject of this staff report.

Discussion: As mentioned above, the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – project is planned to be implemented through 8 individual construction packages, with Construction Package 2 being the next construction package to be implemented. The Construction Package 2 Project includes the construction of a new SR12W Eastbound to I-80 Eastbound Connector. Additionally, the existing weave on Eastbound I-80 with the SR 12 Eastbound on-ramp and the Green Valley/I-680 off ramp will be eliminated with the construction of braided ramps.

Construction Package 2A is funded with $9M State Transportation Improvement Program, $13.8M Bridge Tolls and $53.2M 2018 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP). Caltrans is the lead agency for the design and construction and the STA is the lead for the right-of-way appraisals and acquisitions. Caltrans requested the STA to be the lead for the right-of-way due to the tight schedule for the project. The project must begin construction in the summer of 2020 to meet the funding deadlines of the TCEP obligations. Further, the project is being delivered with Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) approach. This delivery method provides an integrated approach to planning, designing and constructing a project. Owners, designers and contractors work collaboratively to develop the project scope, optimize the design, improve quality and manage cost. When design is complete, the CMGC contractor will provide a price to construct the project. If the price is acceptable, the CMGC contractor will become the general contractor and will construct the project. Kiewit has been selected as the CMGC.

103

At this time, Caltrans has completed the 35% design with the 65% due in September 2019. The STA has made offers to eight property owners. Of these 8, 6 owners own multiple parcels. In order to meet the deadlines of the project funding, the STA must be ready to certify the right-of-way by February 2020. As such, the STA Board will need to move ahead in parallel paths for condemnation while continuing the discussions with the property owners for potential resolution of the acquisitions. Fiscal Impact: The acquisitions are funded through bridge tolls which have been allocated to the project already. Recommendation: Informational. Attachment:

A. I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Package 2 Layout

104

•• •

- •

•

KEY:

•

•

•

-

'

••

WESTBOUND 1-80 CONNECTOR TO WESTBOUND SR12 CWESTJ, I-BO/GREEN VALLEY ROAD IC

PACKAGE 2 -I

EASTBOUND SR12 TO EASTBOUND 1-80 CONNECTOR, GREEN VALLEYROAD OFF RAMPS

••

..

•• ..... .

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB:

1" = 100' 136"x80"l

AUGUST 2016

81-52008-128-Rev 3

,_

•

•

--

• •

L� . .

.

'

• ,l,

. . .

�

"

d

. . . .

•

�

i

' '

•

... . • . . . •

..

• •

• •

ALTERNATIVE C, PHASE 1

New Proposed Construction Package 2A

l-80/ 1-680/ SR-12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT

• • . -�

• • •

• • •

-

-. -

• • "" �

�51 c;� it n;i,�-,:i t 0 -=J:

•

• / =:.a..;;�=•

'

MARK THOMAS & COMPANY Providing Engineering, Surveying & Planning Services

105


106

Agenda Item 8.E August 28, 2019

DATE: August 16, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects

Anthony Adams, Project Manager RE: 2020 Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Estimate and

Potential Projects

Background: The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from state gas tax which is placed into the State Highway Account. The STIP is composed of two sub-elements: 75% to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), with projects decided by regional agencies, and 25% to the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). STA is responsible for programming the RTIP and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) programs the ITIP. The STIP cycle is programmed every two years and covers a five-year period. Historically, Solano County averages about $10M per STIP cycle in population shares of STIP funds (the RTIP) share for Solano.

The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in April of 2017. This Bill raised the state gas tax, among other revenue sources, to help fund transportation improvements. The passage of this bill means that STIP shares will be more stable in the future and as the gas tax, which funds the STIP, will include a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjuster.

Discussion: Future STIP Funding Priorities and Prior Commitments The STA Board has prioritized three regionally significant projects that will seek funding from newly created SB1 funding categories. The prioritized projects that are eligible for this funding include the I-80 Express Lanes, I-80 WB Truck Scales, and I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange. With the large project costs associated with these funding priorities, a large local match will need to be made available to be competitive.

Over the past 10 years, Solano’s STIP shares have gone to projects such as the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, Fairfield Vacaville Train Station, West B Undercrossing in Dixon, and Jepson Parkway (Fairfield and Vacaville). Jepson Parkway has received the bulk of this investment, which resulted in environmentally clearing all remaining segments, completing right of way and design, and constructing 2 segments: Two priority segments still remain in Fairfield. STA and Vacaville have entered into a funding agreement for completed funding for their remaining Jepson Parkway segment, utilizing a mixture of remaining 2018 STIP shares and development impact fees and Regional Traffic Impact Fees. The City of Fairfield’s remaining unfunded segment is estimated at a cost of $7M and is estimated to be delivered in FY 2024-25.

107

The 2018 STIP programmed funding for the following projects: • Jepson Pkwy, 4-lane widen, Elmira Rd-New Ulatis Crk - $9.296M • I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange - Package 2A - $9M • SR 12/Church Rd., intersection improvements - $1.939M • SR 37/Fairgrounds Interchange - $5M

2020 STIP Fund Estimate and Preliminary Project Considerations The 2020 STIP Fund Estimate is significantly less than what was originally estimated. This decrease in expected funds is primarily due to a delay by the Board of Equalization to increase the gas tax in 2018. This gas tax increase was projected into 2018 STIP share estimates, and without the additional revenue, 2020 STIP shares were decreased. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) RTIP Policies Attachment A is MTC proposed policies. These policies reflect the CTC adopted language on match for SB 1 grants. The 2020 STIP fund estimate for Solano County is approximately $9M. $5M of this amount has been previously prioritized in the 2018 STIP for SR37, but not yet programmed to a particular project along that corridor; STA is proposing the project is the Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange project. This funding will match bridge toll funding to be committed to the project. The remaining $4M in STIP shares is available to be programmed for Fiscal Years 2023-24 – FY 2024-25. Based upon discussions with member agencies and STA Board priorities, STA staff is considering the following projects for the 2020 STIP funding:

• $5M: SR37 Fairgrounds Dr Interchange Improvements - FY 2021-22 o City of Vallejo would commit to funding any remaining shortfall

• $3M: Jepson Pkwy, 4-lane widen, Canon Rd to south of Leisure Town Rd – FY 2024-25 o City of Fairfield would commit to funding any remaining shortfall

• $1M: SR 12 Rio Vista Downtown Complete Street – FY 2023-24 – to match Caltrans SHOPP funding and local funds provided by Rio Vista.

• $225K Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (FYs 2023-24 and 2024-25) 2020 STIP Development Schedule The following is a 2020 STIP development schedule including STA TAC, STA Board, MTC, and CTC meetings:

September 25, 2018 TAC recommends 2020 STIP project recommendations to STA Board

October 9, 2019 STA Board approves 2020 STIP Solano project recommendations to MTC

November 1, 2019 Deadline for CMAs to submit project listings to MTC

December 18, 2019 MTC approves 2020 Bay Area RTIP recommendations to CTC

March 21, 2020 CTC adopts 2020 STIP

Fiscal Impact None

108

Recommendation Informational. Attachment:

A. MTC RTIP Policies

109


110

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee

September 4, 2019 Item Number 3a Resolution No. 4398

Subject: Policies and Procedures for the 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).

Background: MTC is responsible for developing the region’s funding priorities for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and for submitting the proposed projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for adoption into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Resolution No. 4398 establishes MTC’s policies, procedures, project criteria, schedule, and funding targets for the 2020 RTIP, and will include the program of projects due to the CTC by December 15, 2019. The 2020 STIP covers the fiscal years 2020-21 through 2024-25.

The 2020 RTIP provides about $70 million in new programming capacity to the nine-county MTC region. Senate Bill (SB) 1, signed by the governor in 2017, stabilized the revenues for the State Highway Account that funds the STIP.

In addition to the new programming capacity in the 2020 RTIP, sponsors have the opportunity to update existing project funding plans and schedules. To meet the CTC deadline, the Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (CTAs) must submit their final project nominations to MTC in early November. Staff will evaluate all submitted project nominations for compliance with the policies and procedures. This Committee will review the project listing on December 11, 2019. The Commission is scheduled to consider adoption of the final 2020 RTIP at its December 18, 2019 meeting, via an amendment to this resolution. The 2020 guidance includes the latest updates to the CTC STIP Guidelines adopted on August 14, 2019 (see Attachment 1).

Staff met with the region’s CTAs to solicit input on the proposed policies and procedures.

Staff recommends minor changes in the 2020 RTIP Policies and Procedures. A full summary of the proposed changes to the regional guidance is included in Attachment 2.

Issues: 1. Housing compliance requirements are expected to be part of a broaderMTC and ABAG housing policy and governance discussion anticipated tooccur over the next several months. Staff does not recommendconditioning 2020 RTIP funds to housing production or state lawcompliance requirements because of limited capacity in this RTIP cycle,and short notice for CTAs and sponsors to comply with potentiallychanging state housing laws.

DRAFT

ATTACHMENT A

111

Programming and Allocations Committee Agenda Item 3a September 4, 2019 Page 2 of 2

2. CTC’s 2020 STIP guidelines allow sponsors to match SB1 competitiveprogram projects with STIP funds. If the CTC does not select a project forfunding in a competitive SB1 program, and alternative funding is notidentified within six months, a STIP amendment will be required to deleteor substitute the project for a project with a full funding plan commitment.MTC strongly encourages sponsors to use RTIP funds to match SB1competitive program applications and will require match come from RTIPbefore committing other regional discretionary funding. If a county’s RTIPshares are pre-committed or otherwise unavailable, MTC expects the CTAto examine local funds as match before MTC will consider committingother regional discretionary funding.

Recommendation: Refer MTC Resolution No. 4398 to the commission for approval.

Attachments: Attachment 1 – Highlights of CTC 2020 STIP Guidelines Attachment 2 – MTC 2020 RTIP Changes to Policies and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398

Therese W. McMillan

J:\PROJECT\Funding\RTIP\20 RTIP\P&Ps\tmp-4398.docxDRAFT

112

ATTACHMENT 1 September 4, 2019

Programming and Allocations Committee Agenda Item 3a

Highlights of CTC 2020 STIP Guidelines • Fund Capacity

The 2020 STIP Fund Estimate identifies net new capacity only in the two years added to the STIP, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. No new capacity is identified for the first three years. Due to the lack of new capacity in the early years of the STIP, projects with cost increases that are currently programmed in the first three years of the STIP may be delayed to the last two years of the STIP.

• Uncommitted funding for STIP projects The CTC will consider programming projects with uncommitted funds only from the Local Partnership Program, Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, and Trade Corridors Enhancement Program provided that the uncommitted funding is secured within six months of the adoption of these programs. If the funding commitment from these programs, or alternative funding, is not secured by the established date, a STIP amendment will be required to delete or substitute the project for a project with a full funding plan commitment.

• Public Transportation Account Although the overall statewide capacity for the 2020 STIP Fund Estimate identifies new capacity for the STIP period, the 2020 STIP Fund Estimate indicates a negative program capacity for the Public Transportation Account (PTA). SB 1 did not provide additional funding for the PTA; instead, PTA resources for the STIP decreased as a result of SB 1. Therefore, all transit projects programmed in the STIP will need to be delivered with other STIP funds, if eligible. Regions may nominate transit and rail projects in its RTIP within SHA and Federal funding constraints (rolling stock may only be funded with Federal funds).

• Advance Project Development Element There is no Advance Project Development Element capacity identified for the 2020 STIP. Therefore, Counties will have limited opportunity to advance county shares to develop new STIP projects for future STIP cycles.

J:\PROJECT\Funding\RTIP\20 RTIP\P&Ps\tmp-4398.docx

DRAFT

113

ATTACHMENT 2 September 4, 2019

Programming and Allocations Committee Agenda Item 3a

MTC 2020 RTIP Changes to Policies and Procedures • Senate Bill 1 Competitive Programs Match

CTC’s 2020 STIP guidelines allow sponsors to match SB1 competitive program projects with STIP funds. If the CTC does not select a project for funding in a competitive SB1 program, and alternative funding is not identified within six months, a STIP amendment will be required to delete or substitute the project for a project with a full funding plan commitment. MTC strongly encourages sponsors to use RTIP funds to match SB1 competitive program applications and will require match come from RTIP before committing other regional discretionary funding. If a county’s RTIP shares are pre-committed or otherwise unavailable, MTC expects the CTA to examine local funds as match before MTC will consider committing other regional discretionary funding.

• Regional Communications Infrastructure MTC Resolution No. 4104, Traffic Operations System Policy, requires the installation and activation of freeway traffic operations system elements. In order to facilitate implementation of technology-based strategies focused on enhancing safety, mobility and economic vitality of communities, and to expand interoperability among partner agencies, projects must install fiber communications conduit infrastructure if project limits overlap with a proposed project in the final 2019 Regional Communications Strategic Investment Plan, when both financially feasible and consistent with goals stated in the Bay Area Regional Communications Infrastructure Plan. Projects proposed for programming in the 2020 RTIP, seeking funds for environmental or plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) phases should consider incorporating communications infrastructure into project design, ideally at the project scoping phase leading to programming. A checklist of technical recommendations is listed in the final 2019 Regional Communications Infrastructure Plan (available at the MTC website at https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/operate-coordinate/intelligent-transportation-systems/regional-communications-network). For future RTIP funding commitments on new projects, project sponsors should work with Caltrans and MTC to identify the appropriate communications component to support the completion of regional communications network throughout the Bay Area. A project is considered “new” if it does not have an approved Project Study Report or applicable scoping document as of December 15, 2019.

• PPM Escalation Rate

MTC has programmed Regional PPM amounts based on a letter of understanding from MTC’s executive director Steve Heminger to the CMA directors in 2005. The letter based MTC’s PPM amount on a base amount of $500,000 in FY 2005-06 escalated annually thereafter. The 2020 RTIP Policies and Procedures memorializes the escalation rate, 3.5%. MTC has used a 3.5% escalation factor for calculating the annual funding levels based on the standard escalation rate used since FY 2005-06. The 3.5% rate ensures MTC staff will continue to meet the increased requirements in planning, programming, and monitoring.

J:\PROJECT\Funding\RTIP\20 RTIP\P&Ps\tmp-4398.docx

DRAFT

114

https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/operate-coordinate/intelligent-transportation-systems/regional-communications-network


Date: September 25, 2019 W.I.: 1515 Referred by: PAC

ABSTRACT Resolution No. 4398

This resolution adopts the policies, procedures, and program of projects for the 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for the San Francisco Bay Area, for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), consistent with the provisions of Senate Bill 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes 1997). Attachment A – Policies and Procedures for the 2020 RTIP (with appendices) Attachment B – 2020 RTIP Program of Projects Attachment C – STIP Amendment / Extension Rules and Procedures

Further discussion of these actions is contained in the Summary Sheet to the MTC Programming and Allocations Committee dated September 4, 2019.

DRAFT

115

Date: September 25, 2019 W.I.: 1515 Referred by: PAC RE: Adoption of 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Program Policies, Procedures, Project Selection Criteria, and Program of Projects

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4398

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code Section 66500 et seq.; and WHEREAS, MTC has adopted and periodically revises, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66508 and 65080, a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and WHEREAS, MTC shares responsibility with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for developing and implementing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals (Government Code Section 65080(b) 2(B)). WHEREAS, MTC adopts, pursuant to Government Code Section 65082, a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) when additional State Transportation Improvement Program funding is available, that is submitted, pursuant to Government Code Section 14527, to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and WHEREAS, MTC has developed, in cooperation with Caltrans, operators of publicly owned mass transportation services, congestion management agencies, countywide transportation planning agencies, and local governments, policies, procedures and project selection criteria to be used in the development of the 2020 RTIP, and a five-year program for the funding made available for highways, roadways and state-funded mass transit guideways and other transit capital improvement projects, to include projects programmed in fiscal years 2020-21 through 2024-25; and

DRAFT

116

MTC Resolution No. 4398 Page 2 WHEREAS, using the process and criteria set forth in the Attachments to this resolution, attached hereto as though set forth at length, a set of capital priorities for the 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) was developed; and WHEREAS, the 2020 RTIP has been developed consistent with the policies and procedures outlined in this resolution, and with the STIP Guidelines adopted by the CTC on August 14, 2019; and WHEREAS, the 2020 RTIP will be subject to public review and comment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that MTC approves the process and criteria to be used in the evaluation of candidate projects for inclusion in the 2020 RTIP, as set forth in Attachment A of this resolution, and be it further RESOLVED, that MTC adopts the 2020 RTIP Program of Projects, attached hereto as Attachment B and incorporated herein as though set forth at length, and finds it consistent with the RTP; and, be it further RESOLVED, that MTC approves the STIP Amendment / Extension Rules and Procedures to be used in processing STIP amendment and extension requests, as set forth in Attachment C of this resolution, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Executive Director may make adjustments to Attachment B in consultation with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA) or County Transportation Planning Agency, Collectively known as the Bay Area County Transporation Agencies (CTAs), to respond to direction from the California Transportation Commission and/or the California Department of Transportation; and, be it further RESOLVED, that MTC’s adoption of the programs and projects in the 2020 RTIP is for planning purposes only, with each project still subject to MTC’s project review and application approval pursuant to MTC Resolution Nos. 3115 and 3757; and, be it further

DRAFT

117

MTC Resolution No. 4398 Page 3 RESOLVED, that the Executive Director shall forward a copy of this resolution, and such other information as may be required to the CTC, Caltrans, and to such other agencies as may be appropriate. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Scott Haggerty, Chair The above resolution was entered into by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in San Francisco, California, on September 25, 2019.

DRAFT

118

Date: September 25, 2019 W.I.: 1515

Referred by: PAC

Attachment A Resolution No. 4398 Page 1 of 30

2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program

Policies and Procedures September 25, 2019

MTC Resolution No. 4398 Attachment A

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Section http://www.mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest

DRAFT

119

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest

Date: September 25, 2019 W.I.: 1515 Referred by: PAC Attachment A Resolution No. 4398 Page 2 of 30

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Page 2 September 25, 2019

2020 RTIP

Regional Transportation Improvement Program Policies and Procedures

Table of Contents

Background ................................................................................................................................... 4 2020 RTIP Development............................................................................................................... 4 Key Policies and Guidance ........................................................................................................... 4 Key Eligibility Policies .................................................................................................................. 4

Consistency with Regional and Local Plans ....................................................................... 4 CTC Guidance .................................................................................................................... 5 2020 RTIP Development Schedule ..................................................................................... 5 RTIP County Share Targets ................................................................................................ 5 Project Eligibility ................................................................................................................ 5 RTIP Project Solicitation .................................................................................................... 5 Public Involvement Process ................................................................................................ 6 RTIP Projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .................................... 6

Regional Policies............................................................................................................................ 6 Regional Set-Aside Programming ...................................................................................... 6 Housing Production and Preservation Incentive ................................................................. 6 Senate Bill 1 Competitive Programs Match........................................................................ 7 County Programming Priorities .......................................................................................... 7 Regional Advanced Mitigation Program (RAMP) ............................................................. 8 Regional Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds ...................................... 8 Caltrans Project Nomination ............................................................................................... 8 Title VI Compliance ........................................................................................................... 9 Intelligent Transportation Systems Policy .......................................................................... 9 MTC Resolution No. 4104 Compliance – Traffic Operations System Policy .................... 9 Regional Communications Infrastructure ......................................................................... 10 Bay Area Forward and Regional Express Lane (HOT) Network ..................................... 10 Bay Area Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) Priorities ............. 10 MTC Resolution No. 3866 Compliance – Transit Coordination Implementation Plan ... 11 Accommodations for Bicyclists, Pedestrians and Persons with Disabilities .................... 11

State Policies ................................................................................................................................ 12 Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) Bonding ............................................. 12 AB 3090 Project Replacement or Reimbursement ........................................................... 13 SB 184 Advance Expenditure of Funds ............................................................................ 13 AB 608 Contract Award Provisions ................................................................................. 14 Federal and State-Only Funding ....................................................................................... 14 Article XIX Compliance for Transit Projects ................................................................... 14

DRAFT

120

2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment A Policies and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398 September 25, 2019 Page 3 of 30


Matching Requirements on Highway and Transit Projects .............................................. 14 Governor’s Executive Orders ........................................................................................... 15

General Guidance ....................................................................................................................... 15 Project Advancements ...................................................................................................... 15 Advance Project Development Element (APDE) ............................................................. 15 Unprogrammed Shares...................................................................................................... 15 Countywide RTIP Listing ................................................................................................. 15 Project Screening Criteria, Including Readiness .............................................................. 16 RTIP Applications ............................................................................................................ 16 STIP Performance Measures: Regional and Project-Level Analyses ............................... 16 Completed Project Reporting ............................................................................................ 16 Regional Projects .............................................................................................................. 17 85-115% Adjustments ....................................................................................................... 17 MTC Resolution No. 3606 Compliance – Regional Project Delivery Policy .................. 17 Allocation of Funds - Requirements ................................................................................. 17 Notice of Cost Increase ..................................................................................................... 18 Cost Escalation for Caltrans-Implemented Projects ......................................................... 18 Notice of Contract Award ................................................................................................. 18

Appendix A-1: 2020 RTIP Development Schedule ................................................................. 19 Appendix A-2: 2020 RTIP County Targets ............................................................................. 20 Appendix A-3: 2020 RTIP Project Screening Criteria ........................................................... 21

Eligible Projects ................................................................................................................ 21 Planning Prerequisites ....................................................................................................... 21 Project Costs and Phases ................................................................................................... 21 Readiness Standards.......................................................................................................... 23 Other Requirements .......................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A-4: 2020 RTIP Project Application ...................................................................... 26 Part 1: Sample Resolution of Local Support.................................................................... 26 Part 2: Project Study Report (PSR), or equivalent ........................................................... 29 Part 3: Project Programming Request (PPR) Form ......................................................... 30 Part 4: Performance Measures Worksheet ....................................................................... 30 Part 5: Complete Streets Checklist .................................................................................. 30

DRAFT

121



2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Policies and Procedures

Background The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides funding for transportation projects around the State. As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is responsible for developing regional STIP project priorities for the nine counties of the Bay Area. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is the region’s proposal to the State for STIP funding, and is due to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by December 15, 2019. The 2020 STIP will include programming for the five fiscal years from 2020-21 through 2024-25. 2020 RTIP Development The following principles will frame the development of MTC’s 2020 RTIP, the region’s contribution to the 2020 STIP. • MTC will work with CTC staff, each Congestion Management Agency and Countywide

Transportation Planning Agency, collectively known as the Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (CTAs), transit operators, Caltrans, and project sponsors to prepare the 2020 STIP.

• Investments made in the RTIP must carry out the objectives of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and be consistent with its improvements and programs.

• MTC may choose to consult with counties to consider programming a portion of their RTIP shares for projects that meet a regional objective.

• MTC will continue to work with CTAs, transit operators, Caltrans and project sponsors to aggressively seek project delivery solutions. Through the use of AB 3090 authority, GARVEE financing, and federal, regional, and local funds and funding exchanges, MTC will work with its transportation partners to deliver projects in the region.

• Each county’s project list must be constrained within the county share limits unless arrangements have been made with other counties to aggregate the county share targets. MTC continues to support aggregation of county share targets to deliver ready-to-go projects in the region. CTAs that submit a list that exceeds their county share must identify and prioritize those projects that exceed the county share target.

Key Policies and Guidance The following policies serve as the primary guidance in the development of the 2020 RTIP.

Key Eligibility Policies

Consistency with Regional and Local Plans RTP/SCS Consistency

Plan Bay Area 2040, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), lays out a vision of what the Bay Area land use patterns and transportation network could look like in 2040. An objective of Plan Bay Area 2040 is to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation and development of a regional intermodal transportation system

DRAFT

122



that will serve the mobility needs of people and goods. Programming policies governing the STIP and other flexible, multi-modal discretionary funding sources such as the federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funds must be responsive to the strategies and goals of the Plan. New projects submitted for RTIP consideration must be included in the current RTP and should include a statement addressing how the project meets the strategies and goals set forth in the RTP.

Local Plans Projects included in the RTIP must be included in a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

CTC Guidance The California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2020 STIP Guidelines were adopted on August 14, 2019. The MTC 2020 RTIP Policies and Procedures includes all changes in STIP policy implemented by the CTC. The entire CTC STIP Guidelines are available on the internet at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-capital-improvement-programming-ocip or https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program. All CTAs and project sponsors must follow the MTC and CTC STIP Guidelines in the development and implementation of the 2020 RTIP/STIP. 2020 RTIP Development Schedule Development of the 2020 RTIP under these procedures will be done in accordance with the schedule outlined in Appendix A-1 of these policies and procedures. RTIP County Share Targets Appendix A-2 of the Policies and Procedures provides the county share targets for each county for the 2020 RTIP. Each county’s project list, due to MTC in draft form by October 9, 2019, should be constrained within these county share limits. It is expected that MTC’s RTIP will be developed using a region-wide aggregate of county-share targets. Project Eligibility SB 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes 1997) defines the range of projects that are eligible for consideration in the RTIP. Eligible projects include state highway improvements, local road improvements and rehabilitation, public transit, intercity rail, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, and grade separation, transportation system management, transportation demand management, soundwall projects, intermodal facilities, and safety projects. RTIP Project Solicitation Each CTA is responsible for soliciting projects for its county share of the RTIP where the county target is greater than $0. The CTA must notify all eligible project sponsors, including Caltrans and transit operators, of the process and deadlines for applying for RTIP funding. If the CTA does not conduct a solicitation of projects, that CTA must provide justification to MTC that conforms to the

DRAFT

123

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-capital-improvement-programming-ocip


https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program



public involvement process described in the next section, and approved by that CTA’s governing body. Public Involvement Process MTC is committed to having the CTAs as full partners in development of the RTIP. That participation likewise requires the full commitment of the CTAs to a broad, inclusive public involvement process consistent with MTC’s adopted Public Participation Plan (available online at http://mtc.ca.gov/about-mtc/public-participation/public-participation-plan) and federal regulations, including Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal regulations call for active outreach and public comment opportunities in any metropolitan planning process, and such opportunities an important step to any project selection process for the RTIP. CTAs shall document their public involvement opportunities, including how they included communities covered under Title VI, and submit the documentation along with their list of candidate projects. RTIP Projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) In accordance with state and federal requirements, RTIP-funded projects must be programmed in the TIP prior to seeking a CTC allocation. In addition, a federal authorization to proceed (E-76) request must be submitted simultaneously with the RTIP allocation request to Caltrans and the CTC when the request includes federal funds. In the 2020 RTIP, all projects are subject to be a mix of federal and state funds, and may require a federal authorization to proceed. Additionally, all STIP projects are to be included in the TIP and must have funds escalated to the year of expenditure, in accordance with federal regulations.

Regional Policies Regional Set-Aside Programming In order to expedite obligation and expenditure of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds, and to address the State’s lack of funding at the time, MTC programmed $31 million in ARRA funds to backfill unavailable STIP funds for the Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore project. Of the $31 million, $29 million came from Contra Costa’s STIP county share, and $2 million from Alameda’s STIP county share. Further, in 2012, MTC programmed $15 million to the Improved Bicycle/Pedestrian Access to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge project from a portion of each county’s STIP share (from former Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds). To address lack of funding in the 2016 STIP, MTC de-programmed both the $31 million and $15 million commitments to regional projects (total $46 million). In January 2017 MTC committed the $46 million to additional contingency for the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), through MTC Resolution No. 4267. If these funds are not needed for the PCEP, the RTIP funds will be re-programmed the Housing Production and Preservation Incentive Program (see next section), or to another regional priority project(s) at MTC’s discretion. These funds have the highest priority for funding in the RTIP, after GARVEE, AB 3090, and PPM projects. Housing Production and Preservation Incentive On October 24, 2018, MTC approved Resolution No. 4348, which establishes the framework and qualifying criteria for the Housing Incentive Pool (HIP), an incentive program to reward Bay Area

DRAFT

124

http://mtc.ca.gov/about-mtc/public-participation/public-participation-plan



local jurisdictions that produce or preserve the most affordable housing. This resolution builds on the HIP established in OBAG 2, MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised. As part of the 2020 RTIP, the OBAG 2 Housing Production Incentive challenge grant program described immediately above is augmented with $46 million of regionally-controlled RTIP funds identified in the regional set-aside programming section above, conditioned on these funds not being needed for Caltrain’s project contingency, either because the project can be completed within budget or because substitute contingency funds are identified. The RTIP funding provided may be either federal or state funds, must be used only for federally- or State Highway Account-eligible transportation purposes, and must meet CTC STIP Guideline requirements.

Senate Bill 1 Competitive Programs Match CTC’s 2020 STIP guidelines allow sponsors to match SB1 competitive program projects with STIP funds. If the CTC does not select a project for funding in a competitive SB1 program, and alternative funding is not identified within six months, a STIP amendment will be required to delete or substitute the project for a project with a full funding plan commitment. MTC strongly encourages sponsors to use RTIP funds to match SB1 competitive program applications and will require match come from RTIP before committing other regional discretionary funding. If a county’s RTIP shares are pre-committed or otherwise unavailable, MTC expects the CTA to examine local funds as match before MTC will consider committing other regional discretionary funding.

County Programming Priorities Alameda County Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Resolution No. 14-007 (Revised) identifies RTIP funds as a source to meet ACTC’s $40 million commitment to AC Transit’s East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Further, Commission action for the Regional Measure 2 (RM2) Strategic Plan in May 2014, and the March 2015 RM2 allocation to AC Transit for the BRT project require that ACTC commit the RTIP or other funds for the BRT project in order to retire the BRT commitment. Since the CTC removed the proposed AC Transit programming from the 2018 STIP, MTC expects ACTC to program its remaining commitment to AC Transit in the 2020 STIP, and reserves the right to program funds directly from Alameda County’s STIP share if no other fund source is identified. San Francisco County MTC Resolution No. 4035, Revised, which sets forth the second cycle of federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (STP/CMAQ) funding, advanced $34 million in federal funds for the Doyle Drive Replacement / Presidio Parkway project. In exchange, $34 million San Francisco’s STIP share shall be reserved for regional Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)/Columbus Day Initiative (CDI)/Express Lanes projects. San Francisco shall commit these funds after PPM programming and the remaining commitment to the Central Subway project (about $40.7 million).

DRAFT

125



San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties MTC Resolution No. 4267 identifies RTIP funds as a source to meet MTC’s $50 million contingency commitment to the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, with the $46 million identified in the “Regional Set-Aside Programming” section of these policies and procedures. If the PCEP cost exceeds the estimated project delivery cost and previously budgeted contingency, or a shortfall in revenue occurs, $4 million would be reserved from future San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara county shares. If the $50 million contingency commitment is not needed for PCEP, MTC will not withhold the $4 million from the three counties’ RTIP shares. Regional Advanced Mitigation Program (RAMP) As a part of Plan Bay Area 2040 and through MTC Resolution No. 4290, MTC identified Regional Advance Mitigation Program (RAMP) as a mitigation strategy for the Bay Area. RAMP would mitigate certain environmental impacts from groups of planned transportation projects, rather than mitigating on an inefficient per-project level. RTIP funds may be used to implement RAMP, including purchasing mitigation land bank credits, establishing a greenfield mitigation site, contributing to an existing Habitat Conservation Plan, and purchasing conservation land easements and their endowments, as allowed under state and federal law. In instances where RTIP funds are not eligible for RAMP implementation, MTC encourages sponsors to exchange RTIP funds with eligible non-federal funds for RAMP. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy, MTC Resolution No. 3331.

Regional Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds Passage of Assembly Bill 2538 (Wolk, 2006) allows all counties to program up to 5% of their county share to Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) purposes in the STIP. Appendix A-2 identifies PPM amounts each county may program. As agreed with the CTAs, MTC will program a portion of each county’s PPM for regional PPM activities each year beginning with a base amount of $500,000 in FY 2005-06 escalated 3.5% annually thereafter. MTC’s currently programmed amounts for regional PPM activities in FY 2020-21 through FY 2022-23 will not change in the 2020 RTIP; the CTAs may choose to redistribute their county portion of the PPM funds programmed in FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23, and FY 2023-24. Due to county share period restrictions, new PPM amounts may only be programmed in the amounts and years identified in Attachment 2.

Caltrans Project Nomination Senate Bill 1768 (Chapter 472, Statutes 2002) authorizes the Department of Transportation to nominate or recommend projects to be included in the RTIP to improve state highways using regional transportation improvement funds. To be considered for funding in the RTIP, the Department must submit project nominations directly to the applicable CTA. The Department should also identify any additional state highway improvement needs within the county that could be programmed within the 3 years beyond the end of the current STIP period. The Department must submit these programming recommendations and identification of state highway improvement needs to the CTA within the timeframe and deadline prescribed by the applicable CTA. In addition, the Department must also provide a list of projects and funding amounts for projects currently planned on the State Highway System over the 2020 STIP period to be funded with local and regional funds.

DRAFT

126



Title VI Compliance Investments made in the RTIP must be consistent with federal Title VI requirements. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, disability, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Public outreach to and involvement of individuals in low income and minority communities covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Executive Order pertaining to Environmental Justice is critical to both local and regional decisions. The CTA must consider equitable solicitation and selection of project candidates in accordance with federal Title VI and Environmental Justice requirements. Intelligent Transportation Systems Policy In collaboration with federal, state, and local partners, MTC developed the regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture. The San Francisco Bay Area Regional ITS Architecture is a roadmap for integrated and collaborative ITS projects in the Bay Area over the next 10 years and beyond. The Architecture provides the knowledge base necessary to make the most out of technological advances for planning and deployment of intelligent transportation systems that are connected and standardized across the region and beyond. MTC, state and federal agencies require projects funded with federal highway trust funds to meet applicable ITS Architecture requirements. Since the 2006 RTIP, MTC requires all applicable projects to conform to the regional ITS architecture. Through the on-line Fund Management System (FMS) application process, 2020 RTIP project sponsors will identify the appropriate ITS category, if applicable. Information on the regional ITS architecture can be found at: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/operate-coordinate/intelligent-transportation-systems-its. MTC Resolution No. 4104 Compliance – Traffic Operations System Policy All major new freeway projects included in Plan Bay Area 2040 and subsequent regional transportation plans shall include the installation and activation of freeway traffic operations system (TOS) elements to effectively operate the region’s freeway system and coordinate with local transportation management systems. MTC requires all applicable RTIP projects to conform to the regional policy. For purposes of this policy, a major freeway project is a project that adds lanes to a freeway, constructs a new segment of freeway, upgrades a segment to freeway status, modifies a freeway interchange, modifies freeway ramps, or reconstructs an existing freeway. TOS elements may include, but are not limited to, changeable message signs, closed-circuit television cameras, traffic monitoring stations and detectors, highway advisory radio, and ramp meters. As set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104, for any jurisdiction in which MTC finds that ramp metering and TOS elements are installed but not activated or in operation, MTC will consider suspending fund programming actions for STIP funding until the Ramp Metering Plan is implemented and the ramp meters and related TOS elements are activated and remain operational, and MTC deems the requirements of the regional TOS policy have been met. Furthermore, in any county in which a jurisdiction fails to include the installation and activation of TOS elements in an applicable freeway project, including ramp metering as identified in the Ramp Metering Plan, projects to install and activate the appropriate ramp meters and TOS elements omitted from the project shall have priority for programming of new STIP funding for that county. STIP projects that

DRAFT

127

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/operate-coordinate/intelligent-transportation-systems-its

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/operate-coordinate/intelligent-transportation-systems-its



do not meet the provisions of MTC Resolution No. 4104 are subject to de-programming from the federal TIP. Regional Communications Infrastructure MTC Resolution No. 4104, Traffic Operations System Policy, requires the installation and activation of freeway traffic operations system elements. In order to facilitate implementation of technology-based strategies focused on enhancing safety, mobility and economic vitality of communities, and to expand interoperability among partner agencies, projects must install fiber communications conduit infrastructure if project limits overlap with a proposed project in the final 2019 Regional Communications Strategic Investment Plan, when both financially feasible and consistent with goals stated in the Bay Area Regional Communications Infrastructure Plan. Projects proposed for programming in the 2020 RTIP, seeking funds for environmental or plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) phases should consider incorporating communications infrastructure into project design, ideally at the project scoping phase leading to programming. A checklist of technical recommendations are listed in the final 2019 Regional Communications Infrastructure Plan (available at the MTC website at https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/operate-coordinate/intelligent-transportation-systems/regional-communications-network). For future RTIP funding commitments on new projects, projects sponsors should work with Caltrans and MTC to identify the appropriate communications component to support the completion of regional communications network throughout the Bay Area. A project is considered “new” if it does not have an approved Project Study Report or applicable scoping document as of December 15, 2019. Bay Area Forward and Regional Express Lane (HOT) Network All projects on the state highway system must demonstrate a scope and funding plan that includes Traffic Operations System (TOS) elements, consistent with the section above. Projects must also include any additional traffic operations and advanced technology improvements, and transportation demand management recommendations resulting from MTC’s Bay Area Forward (BAF). Additionally, projects on the State Highway System proposed for programming in the 2020 RTIP should be consistent with the planned Regional Express Lane (High-Occupancy Toll) Network. For new RTIP funding commitments on the Regional Express Lane Network, the CTAs should work with MTC to determine the appropriateness of advance construction elements (such as structures and conduit) to support the future conversion of general purpose/HOV lanes to express lanes if identified. Bay Area Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) Priorities In order to support Caltrans District 4 in successfully programming ITIP projects in the Bay Area, MTC worked with the CTAs and District to formulate four guiding principles for prioritizing ITIP projects. The principles are: • Support high cost-benefit ratio projects on the State Highway System • Support High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane gap closures, with emphasis on those that support

the Regional Express Lane Network. • Support high speed rail early investments and intercity/commuter rail

DRAFT

128





• Support future goods movement and trade corridors These principles are consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 assumptions. MTC supported these principles in a comment letter to Caltrans regarding the 2015 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP). MTC Resolution No. 3866 Compliance – Transit Coordination Implementation Plan On February 24, 2010, MTC approved Resolution No. 3866, which documents coordination requirements for Bay Area transit operators to improve the transit customer experience when transferring between transit operators and in support of regional transit projects. If a transit operator fails to comply with Res. 3866 requirements, MTC may withhold, restrict or reprogram funds or allocations. Res. 3866 supersedes MTC’s earlier coordination plan, Res. 3055. One goal in establishing Res. 3866 was to incorporate detailed project information through reference rather than directly in the resolution in order to facilitate future updates of project-specific requirements. Transit operators must comply with these more detailed documents in order to comply with Res. 3866. MTC may periodically update these documents in consultation with transit agencies.

Accommodations for Bicyclists, Pedestrians and Persons with Disabilities Federal, state and regional policies and directives emphasize the accommodation of bicyclists, pedestrians, and persons with disabilities when designing transportation facilities. Of particular note is Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 which stipulates: “pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities must be considered in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations, and project development activities and products.” In addition, MTC’s Resolution No. 3765 requires project sponsors to complete a checklist that considers the needs of bicycles and pedestrians for applicable projects. MTC’s Regional Bicycle Plan, adopted as a component of the 2001 RTP, requires that “all regionally funded projects consider enhancement of bicycle transportation consistent with Deputy Directive 64”. In selecting projects for inclusion in the RTIP, the CTAs and project sponsors must consider federal, state and regional policies and directives regarding non-motorized travel, including, but limited to, the following:

Federal Policy Mandates The Federal Highways Administration Program Guidance on bicycle and pedestrian issues makes a number of clear statements of intent, and provides best practices concepts as outlined in the US DOT “Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations.” (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/policy_accom.cfm) State Policy Mandates The California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) of 2008 encourages cities to make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve public health by encouraging physical activity to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Government Code Section

DRAFT

129

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/policy_accom.cfm



65302(b)(2)(A) and (B) states that any substantial revision of the circulation element of the General Plan to consider all users. California Government Code Section 65089(b)(1)(B)(5) requires that the design, construction and implementation of roadway projects proposed for funding in the RTIP must consider maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. Caltrans Deputy Directive 64, states: “the Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations, and project development activities and products. This includes incorporation of the best available standards in all of the Department’s practices. The Department adopts the best practices concept in the US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure.” Regional Policy Mandates All projects programmed during the RTIP must consider the impact to bicycle transportation, pedestrians and persons with disabilities, consistent with MTC Resolution No. 3765. The Complete Streets Checklist (also known as “Routine Accommodations Checklist”) is incorporated as Part 5 of the Project Application. Furthermore, it is encouraged that all bicycle projects programmed in the RTIP support the Regional Bicycle Network. Guidance on considering bicycle transportation can be found in MTC’s 2009 Regional Bicycle Plan (a component of Transportation 2035) and Caltrans Deputy Directive 64. MTC’s Regional Bicycle Plan, containing federal, state and regional policies for accommodating bicycles and non-motorized travel, is available on MTC’s Web site at: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian-planning. To be eligible for RTIP funds, a local jurisdiction with local streets and roads must have either a complete streets policy or resolution, or general plan updated after 2010, that complies with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 prior to January 31, 2016. Further information is available online at: http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/OBAG_2_Reso_Guidance_Final.pdf.

State Policies Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) Bonding

Chapter 862 of the Statutes of 1999 (SB 928) authorizes the State Treasurer to issue GARVEE bonds and authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to select projects for accelerated construction from bond proceeds. Bond repayment is made through annual set asides of the county share of future State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. Bond repayments are typically made over several STIP programming periods. In accordance with state statute and the CTC GARVEE guidelines, GARVEE debt repayment will be the highest priority for programming and allocation within the particular county Regional Improvement Program (RIP) share until the debt is repaid. In the event that the RIP county share balance is insufficient to cover the GARVEE debt service and payment obligations, the RIP county

DRAFT

130

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian-planning

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian-planning

http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/OBAG_2_Reso_Guidance_Final.pdf



share balance for that particular county will become negative through the advancement of future RIP county share. Should a negative balance or advancement of capacity be unattainable, then funding for other projects using RIP county share within that particular county would need to be reprogrammed or deleted, to accommodate the GARVEE debt service and payment obligations. The CTC is responsible for programming the funds, derived from federal sources, as GARVEE debt service and the State Treasurer is responsible for making the debt service payments for these projects. In the 2020 STIP, CTC will consider new GARVEE projects via STIP amendment only, and not during the 2020 STIP process.

AB 3090 Project Replacement or Reimbursement AB 3090 (Statutes of 1992, Chapter 1243) allows a local jurisdiction to advance a project included in the STIP to an earlier fiscal year through the use of locally-controlled funds. With the concurrence of the appropriate CTA, MTC, the California Transportation Commission and Caltrans, one or more replacement state transportation project shall be identified and included in the STIP for an equivalent amount and in the originally scheduled fiscal year or a later year of the advanced project. Alternately, the advanced project can be reimbursed in the originally scheduled fiscal year or a later year. Projects approved for AB 3090 consideration must award a contract within six months of the CTC approval. The allocation of AB 3090 reimbursement projects is the highest priority in the MTC region. In the 2020 STIP, CTC will consider new AB 3090 requests via STIP amendment only, and not during the 2020 STIP process. Sponsors wishing to use AB 3090s for their projects should contact MTC and CTC for inclusion in the AB 3090 Plan of Projects, which is updated on an as-needed basis.

SB 184 Advance Expenditure of Funds SB 184 (Statutes of 2007, Chapter 462) authorizes a regional or local entity to expend its own funds for any component of a transportation project within its jurisdiction that is programmed in the current fiscal year and for which the Commission has not made an allocation. The amount expended would be authorized to be reimbursed by the state, subject to annual appropriation by the Legislature, if (1) the commission makes an allocation for, and the department executes a fund transfer agreement for, the project during the same fiscal year as when the regional or local expenditure was made; (2) expenditures made by the regional or local entity are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with state and federal laws and procedures; and (3) the regional or local entity complies with all legal requirements for the project, as specified. MTC cautions against the use of SB 184 since allocation of funds is not guaranteed. If pursued, sponsors risk expending local funds with no guarantee that the STIP funds will be allocated. Should a sponsor want to proceed with an SB 184 request, the sponsor must notify the CTA, MTC and Caltrans in writing on agency letterhead in accordance with Caltrans Local Assistance procedures.

DRAFT

131



AB 608 Contract Award Provisions AB 608 authorizes the adjustment by the CTC of a programmed project amount in the STIP if the Caltrans-sponsored construction contract award amount for a project is less than 80% of the engineer’s final estimate, excluding construction engineering. The CTC will not approve any AB 608 request after 120 days from the contract award. Sponsors intending to take advantage of AB 608 project savings must notify Caltrans and the CTA within 30 days of the contract award, to ensure the request to the CTC can be processed in time to meet the CTC’s deadline. Federal and State-Only Funding In 2017, the state adopted SB1, which stabilizes the excise tax on gasoline and pegs it to adjust with inflation. Excise taxes are deposited into the State Highway Account, which also includes federal funds. While SB1 stabilize STIP revenues, Caltrans determines the funding split between state-only and federal funding for projects funded in the STIP. Therefore, projects programmed in the 2020 STIP may receive a combination of state and federal funds. Project sponsors must federalize their projects by completing NEPA documentation and complying with federal project delivery rules, if they are assigned federal funds.

Article XIX Compliance for Transit Projects Article XIX of the California State Constitution restricts the use of State Highway Account (SHA) funds on transit projects. In order for existing and new projects to be programmed in the STIP, the project sponsor or the CTA must provide documentation that verifies the STIP transit project is either 1) eligible for federal funds, or 2) meets Article XIX requirements that only fixed guideway projects in a county that has passed a measure authorizing the use of SHA funds on transit projects may use SHA funds. Also refer to the next section regarding “Matching Requirements.” Matching Requirements on Highway and Transit Projects A local match is not required for projects programmed in the STIP, except under special situations affecting projects subject to Article XIX restrictions established by the State Constitution. Article XIX limits the use of state revenues in the State Highway Account (SHA) to state highways, local roads, and fixed guideway facilities. Other projects, such as rail rolling stock and buses, are not eligible to receive state funds from the SHA. Article XIX restricted projects must therefore be funded with either a combination of federal STIP funding and matching STIP funds from the Public Transportation Account (PTA), or with 100 percent federal STIP funds in the State Highway Account (which requires a non-federal local match of 11.47% from a non-STIP local funding source or approved use of toll credits). Project sponsors wishing to use STIP PTA funds as matching funds for Article XIX restricted projects must note such a request in the “Special Funding Conditions” section of the RTIP Application Nomination sheet, and obtain approval from Caltrans through the state-only approval process as previously described. Caltrans has not identified any PTA capacity for the 2020 STIP. Therefore, the CTC will assume any Article XIX restricted STIP project will be funded with 100 percent federal funds using toll credits, or have the appropriate local match.

DRAFT

132



Governor’s Executive Orders The STIP Guidelines adopted by the CTC recognizes two proclamations and executive orders by Governor Brown. First, in recognition of the historic drought, the CTC expects any landscape projects currently programmed but not yet allocated and awarded, or any new landscape projects, will include drought tolerant plants and irrigation. Second, consistent with Executive Order B-30-15 (April 29, 2015), projects proposed for RTIP funds must consider the State’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Projects subject to a project-level performance evaluation are expected to include measures and analyses that address greenhouse gas emission reductions.

General Guidance Project Advancements If a project or project component is ready for implementation earlier than the fiscal year that it is programmed in the STIP, the implementing agency may request an allocation in advance of the programmed year. The CTC will consider making advanced allocations based on a finding that the allocation will not delay availability of funding for other projects programmed in earlier years than the project to be advanced and with the approval of the responsible regional agency if county share funds are to be advanced. In project and financial planning, sponsors should not expect the CTC to advance any projects. Advance Project Development Element (APDE) The 2020 STIP Fund Estimate does not identify funding for APDE. APDE funds may not be proposed in any year of the 2020 STIP. Unprogrammed Shares The counties and the region may propose to leave county share STIP funds unprogrammed for a time to allow adequate consideration of funding options for future projects. The CTC particularly encourages Caltrans and the regional agencies to engage in early consultations to coordinate their ITIP and RTIP proposals for such projects. Counties intending to maintain an unprogrammed balance of its county share for future program amendments prior to the next STIP must include a statement of the intentions for the funds, including the anticipated use of the funds, as well as the amount and timing of the intended STIP amendment(s). However, access to any unprogrammed balance is subject to availability of funds, and may not be approved by the CTC until the next STIP programming cycle. Countywide RTIP Listing By October 9, 2019, each CTA must submit to MTC a draft proposed countywide RTIP project listing showing the proposed programming of county shares. The final list is due to MTC by November 1, 2019, and must include the final project applications for any new projects added to the STIP (or any significantly revised existing STIP projects), details of projects completed since the last STIP, and appropriate project level performance measure analysis.

DRAFT

133



Project Screening Criteria, Including Readiness In addition to the CTC Guidelines, all projects included in the 2020 RTIP must meet all MTC project-screening criteria listed in Appendix A-3 of this guidance, including the planning and the project readiness requirements. RTIP Applications Project sponsors must complete an application for each new project proposed for funding in the RTIP, consisting of the items included in Appendix A-4 of this guidance. In addition to MTC’s Fund Management System (FMS) application, project sponsors must use the latest Project Programming Request (PPR) forms provided by Caltrans for all projects. CTAs should submit PPRs for all projects (including existing projects with no changes) on the revised form provided by Caltrans. The nomination sheet must be submitted electronically for upload into the regional and statewide databases. Existing projects already programmed in the STIP with proposed changes should propose an amendment in MTC’s FMS, and submit both electronically and in hard copy a revised PPR provided by Caltrans. STIP Performance Measures: Regional and Project-Level Analyses The CTC continues to require performance measures in the RTIP and ITIP review process for the 2020 RTIP. According to the STIP Guidelines, a regional, system-level performance report must be submitted along with the RTIP submission. MTC staff will compile this report, focusing on applying the measures at the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) level. In addition, the 2020 STIP Guidelines require a project-level performance measure evaluation on all projects with total project costs over $50 million or over $15 million in STIP funds programmed. The project-level evaluation should address performance indicators and measures identified in Table A of the 2020 STIP Guidelines (see Appendix A-4 Part 4). The evaluation should also include a Caltrans-generated benefit/cost estimate, estimated impacts the project will have on the annual cost of operating and maintaining the state’s transportation system, and estimated impact to greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The project-level evaluation must also be completed, if it has not already, on existing STIP projects with construction programmed, that exceed $50 million in total project cost/$15 million in STIP programming, and have had CEQA completed after December 2011. The CTAs are required to submit the project-level performance measures to MTC by the final application due date. Completed Project Reporting The 2020 STIP Guidelines require a report on all RTIP projects over $20 million in total project cost completed between the adoption of the RTIP and the adoption of the previous RTIP (from December 2017 to December 2019). The report must include a summary of the funding plan and programming/allocation/expenditure history, as well as a discussion of project benefits that were anticipated prior to construction compared with an estimate of the actual benefits achieved. The CTAs are required to submit the completed project reporting information to MTC by the final application due date.

DRAFT

134



Regional Projects Applications for projects with regionwide or multi-county benefits should be submitted to both MTC and the affected county CTAs for review. Regional projects will be considered for programming in the context of other county project priorities. MTC staff will work with the interested parties (CTAs and project sponsors) to determine the appropriate level of funding for these projects and negotiate county contributions of the project cost. County contributions would be based on population shares of the affected counties, or other agreed upon distribution formulas. 85-115% Adjustments MTC may, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 188.8 (k), pool the county shares within the region, provided that each county shall receive no less than 85 percent and not more than 115 percent of its county share for any single STIP programming period and 100 percent of its county share over two STIP programming cycles. MTC may recommend use of the 85%-115% rule provided for in SB 45 to ensure, as needed, that the proper scope of projects submitted for programming can be accommodated. MTC will also work with CTAs to recommend other options, such as phased programming across STIP cycles, to ensure that sufficient funding and concerns such as timely use of funds are adequately addressed. MTC Resolution No. 3606 Compliance – Regional Project Delivery Policy SB 45 established strict timely use of funds and project delivery requirements for transportation projects programmed in the STIP. Missing critical milestones could result in deletion of the project from the STIP, and a permanent loss of the funds to the county and region. Therefore, these timely use of funds deadlines must be considered in programming the various project phases in the STIP. While SB 45 provides some flexibility with respect to these deadlines by allowing for deadline extensions under certain circumstances, the CTC is very clear that deadline extensions will be the exception rather than the rule. MTC Resolution No. 3606, Revised, details the Regional Project Delivery Policy for Regional Discretionary Funding, which are more restrictive than the State’s delivery policy. For instance, MTC expects STIP projects to request allocation of funds by January 31st of the programmed fiscal year. Further, MTC expects regular status reports from sponsors that will feed into the region’s state allocation plan. See Attachment C to MTC Resolution No. 4398 for additional extension and amendment procedures. Allocation of Funds - Requirements To ensure there is no delay in the award of the construction contract (which CTC guidelines and MTC Resolution No. 3606 require within six months of allocation), STIP allocation requests for the construction phase of federally-funded projects must be accompanied by the complete and accurate Request for Authorization (RFA) package (also known as the E-76 package). Concurrent submittal of the CTC allocation request and the RFA will minimize delays in contract award. Additionally, for the allocation of any non-environmental phase funds (such as for final design, right of way, or construction), the project sponsor must demonstrate that both CEQA and NEPA documents are completed and certified for federalized projects.

DRAFT

135



Notice of Cost Increase For projects with a total estimated cost over $25 million, the implementing agency must perform quarterly project cost evaluations. If a cost increase greater than 10 percent of the total estimated cost of the particular phase is identified, the implementing agency must notify and submit an updated Project Programming Request (PPR) form to the appropriate CTA and MTC. In the event that a project is divided into sub-elements, the implementing agency will include all project sub-elements (i.e. landscaping, soundwalls, adjacent local road improvements) in the quarterly cost evaluation. Early notification of cost increases allows the CTA and MTC to assist in developing strategies to manage cost increases and plan for future county share programming.

Cost Escalation for Caltrans-Implemented Projects CTC remains very critical of unexpected cost increases to projects funded by the STIP. In order to ensure that the amounts programmed in the STIP are accurate, MTC encourages the CTAs to consult with Caltrans and increase Caltrans project costs by an agreed-upon escalation rate if funds are proposed to be shifted to a later year. This will currently only apply to projects implemented by Caltrans.

Notice of Contract Award Caltrans has developed a procedure (Local Programs Procedures LPP-01-06) requiring project sponsors to notify Caltrans immediately after the award of a contract. Furthermore, Caltrans will not make any reimbursements for expenditures until such information is provided. Project sponsors must also notify MTC and the appropriate CTA immediately after the award of a contract. To ensure proper monitoring of the Timely Use of Funds provisions of SB 45, project sponsors are required to provide MTC and the county CTA with a copy of the LPP-01-06 “Award Information for STIP Projects – Attachment A” form, when it is submitted to Caltrans. This will assist MTC and the CTA in maintaining the regional project monitoring database, and ensure accurate reporting on the status of projects in advance of potential funding lapses. In accordance with CTC and Caltrans policies, construction funds must be encumbered in a contract within six months of allocation.DRAFT

136

J:\PROJECT\Funding\RTIP\20 RTIP\P&Ps\tmp-4398_A-1_Schedule.docx

MTC Resolution No. 4398 Attachment A-1

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program

Development Schedule (Subject to Change) August 5, 2019

March 13, 2019 Caltrans presentation of draft STIP Fund Estimate Assumptions (CTC Meeting – Los Angeles)

May 15, 2019 CTC adoption of STIP Fund Estimate Assumptions (CTC Meeting – San Diego)

June 26, 2019 Caltrans presentation of the draft STIP Fund Estimate and draft STIP Guidelines (CTC Meeting – Sacramento)

June 27, 2019 Governor signed State Budget

July 22, 2019 STIP Fund Estimate and Guidelines Workshop (Sacramento)

August 14, 2019 CTC adopts STIP Fund Estimate and STIP Guidelines (CTC Meeting – San José)

August 28, 2019 Draft RTIP Policies and Procedures published online and emailed to stakeholders for public comment

September 4, 2019 MTC Programming and Allocations Committee (PAC) scheduled review and recommendation of final proposed RTIP Policies and Procedures

September 25, 2019 MTC Commission scheduled adoption of RTIP Policies and Procedures

October 9, 2019 BACTAs submit to MTC, RTIP projects summary listings and identification of projects requiring project-level performance measure analysis. Deadline to submit Complete Streets Checklist for new projects.

November 1, 2019

Final Project Programming Request (PPR) forms due to MTC. Final RTIP project listing and performance measure analysis due to MTC. Final PSR (or PSR Equivalent), Resolution of Local Support, and Certification of Assurances due to MTC (Final Complete Applications due)

December 4, 2019 Draft RTIP scheduled to be available for public review

December 11, 2019 PAC scheduled review of RTIP and referral to Commission for approval

December 15, 2019 2020 RTIP due to CTC (PAC approved project list will be submitted)

December 18, 2019 MTC Commission scheduled approval of 2020 RTIP (Full RTIP to be transmitted to CTC within one week of Commission approval)

January 30, 2020 CTC 2020 STIP Hearing – Northern California (TBD)

February 6, 2020 CTC 2020 STIP Hearing – Southern California (TBD)

February 28, 2020 CTC Staff Recommendations on 2020 STIP released

March 25, 2020 CTC adopts 2020 STIP (CTC Meeting – Los Angeles) Shaded Area – Actions by Caltrans or CTC

DRAFT

137

DRAFT MTC Resolution No. 4398

Attachment A-2 Numbers based on Updated DRAFT 2020 STIP FE (Published 7/12/19)

2020 RTIP Fund Estimate County Targets 7/30/2019

Metropolitan Transportation Commission All numbers in thousands

Table 1: County Share Targets

Through Advanced Regional MTC PPM 2020 STIPFY 2024-25 Carryover Set-aside* FY 2023-24 CTA Target**

New Distrib. and Lapsed & FY 2024-25Alameda 16,481 18,188 (5,063) (338) 29,268Contra Costa 11,284 24,969 (31,090) (220) 4,943Marin 3,086 (25,337) (571) (63) 0Napa 2,032 428 (376) (39) 2,045San Francisco 8,370 1,548 (1,548) (173) 8,197San Mateo 8,518 683 (1,598) (179) 7,424Santa Clara 19,526 (6,957) (3,632) (395) 8,542Solano 5,114 5,147 (945) (104) 9,212Sonoma 6,284 (5,739) (1,177) (124) 0County Totals 80,695 12,930 (46,000) (1,635) 69,631Note: Counties with negative balance have a "$0" new share.* Regional set-aside includes $31 million from ARRA/Caldecott payback, and $15 million from SFOBB Bike/Ped Access projects** Does not include CTA PPM programming

Table 2: Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Amounts FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24

PPM Limit MTC PPM PPMFY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 Available for

through through FY 2023-24 orFY 2023-24 FY 2023-24 earlier

CTA Share***

Alameda 2,260 632 1,535 0 0 0 93Contra Costa 1,545 410 355 356 356 0 68Marin 423 118 287 0 0 0 18Napa 278 72 65 64 64 0 13San Francisco 1,146 322 260 259 259 0 46San Mateo 1,167 334 263 262 262 0 46Santa Clara 2,674 738 912 912 0 0 112Solano 700 194 159 159 159 0 29Sonoma 860 232 197 197 197 0 37County Totals 11,053 3,052 4,033 2,209 1,297 0 462Note: Counties may redistribute PPM amounts across all four fiscal years*** CTA PPM share has not been subtracted from 2020 STIP CTA target identified in Table 1

Table 3: Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Amounts FY 2024-25

PPM MTC Share CTA ShareAvailable for for for

Programming FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25***

MTC+CTAFY 2024-25

Alameda 566 172 394Contra Costa 387 112 275Marin 106 32 74Napa 70 20 50San Francisco 287 88 199San Mateo 292 91 201Santa Clara 670 201 469Solano 176 53 123Sonoma 216 63 153County Totals 2,770 832 1,938*** CTA PPM share has not been subtracted from 2020 STIP CTA target identified in Table 1

J:\PROJECT\Funding\RTIP\20 RTIP\FE Targets\[2020 STIP FE Targets.xlsx]2019-7-12

DRAFT7/30/19

Programmed CTA PPMCurrent Share Period

FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24

DRAFT

138



2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Policies and Procedures

Appendix A-3: 2020 RTIP Project Screening Criteria Eligible Projects A. Eligible Projects. SB 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes 1997) defined the range of projects that are eligible

for consideration in the RTIP. Eligible projects include, state highway improvements, local road improvements and rehabilitation, public transit, intercity rail, grade separation, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transportation system management, transportation demand management, soundwall projects, intermodal facilities, and safety projects. Due to the current fund make up of the STIP, sponsors should expect that all projects programmed in the STIP include a mix of state and federal funds.

Planning Prerequisites B. RTP Consistency. Projects included in the RTIP must be consistent with the adopted Regional

Transportation Plan (RTP), which state law requires to be consistent with federal planning and programming requirements. Each project to be included in the RTIP must identify its relationship with meeting the goals and objectives of the RTP, and where applicable, the RTP ID number.

C. CMP Consistency. Local projects must also be included in a County Congestion Management Plan

(CMP), or in an adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for counties that have opted out of the CMP requirement, prior to inclusion in the RTIP.

D. PSR or PSR Equivalent is Required. Projects in the STIP must have a complete Project Study

Report (PSR) or, for a project that is not on a state highway, a project study report equivalent or major investment study. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the project scope, cost and schedule have been adequately defined and justified. Projects with a circulating draft or final environmental document do not need a PSR. This requirement is particularly important in light of SB 45 timely use of funds requirements, discussed below.

The required format of a PSR or PSR equivalent varies by project type. Additional guidance on how

to prepare these documents is available on the internet at the addresses indicated within Part 3 (PSR, or equivalent) of Appendix A-4: 2020 RTIP Project Application, which includes a table categorizing PSR and PSR equivalent requirements by project type.

Project Costs and Phases E. Escalated Costs. All projects will count against share balances on the basis of their fully escalated

(inflated) costs. All RTIP project costs must be escalated to the year of expenditure. As required by law, inflation estimates for Caltrans operations (capital outlay support) costs are

based on the annual escalation rate established by the Department of Finance. Local project sponsors

DRAFT

139

2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment A Policies and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398

September 25, 2019 Page 22 of 30


may use the state escalation rates or their own rates in determining the escalated project cost in the year programmed.

F. Project Phases. Projects must be separated into the following project components:1. Completion of all studies, permits and environmental studies (ENV)2. Preparation of all Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)3. Acquisition of right-of-way (ROW)4. Construction and construction management and engineering, including surveys and

inspections.” (CON)Note: Right-of-way and construction components on Caltrans projects must be furtherseparated into capital costs and Caltrans support costs (ROW-CT and CON-CT).

The project sponsor/CTA must display the project in these four components (six for Caltrans projects) in the final submittal. STIP funding amounts programmed for any component shall be rounded to the nearest $1,000. Additionally, unless substantially justified, no project may program more than one project phase in a single fiscal year. Caltrans-sponsored projects are exempt from this prohibition. Additionally, right of way (ROW) funds may be programmed in the same year as final design (PS&E) if the environmental document is approved. ROW funds may be programmed in the same year as construction (CON) only if the project does not have significant right of way acquisition or construction costs that require more than a simple Categorical Exemption or basic permitting approvals (see section L). The CTC will not allocate PS&E, ROW, or CON funding until CEQA and NEPA (if federalized) documents are complete and submitted to CTC.

All requests for funding in the RTIP for projects on the state highway system and implemented by an agency other than the Department must include any oversight fees within each project component cost, as applicable and as identified in the cooperative agreement. This is to ensure sufficient funding is available for the project component.

G. Minimum Project Size. New projects or the sum of all project components per project cannot beprogrammed for less than $500,000 for counties with a population over 1 million (from 2010 U.S.Census data: Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties), and $250,000 for counties with apopulation under 1 million (Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma Counties),with the following exceptions:(a) Funds used to match federal funds;(b) Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM);(c) Projects for landscaping and mitigation of State highway projects, including soundwalls;(d) Caltrans project support components not allocated by the Commission; and(e) Right-of-way capital outlay for Caltrans, which is not allocated by the Commission on a project

basis.Other exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis.

H. Fiscal Years of Programming. The 2020 STIP covers the five-year period from FY 2020-21through 2024-25. If a project will not be ready for allocation in a certain year, project sponsorsshould delay funds to a later year of the five-year STIP period.

DRAFT

140



Readiness Standards I. Project Phases Must Be Ready in the Year Proposed. Funds designated for each project

component will only be available for allocation until the end of the fiscal year in which the funds are programmed in the STIP. Once allocated, the sponsor will have two additional years beyond the end of the programmed fiscal year to expend pre-construction STIP funds. For construction, the sponsor will have six months to award a contract and three years to expend funds after project award. Project sponsors must invoice at least once in a six-month period following the allocation of funds. It is therefore very important that projects be ready to proceed in the year programmed.

J. Completion of Environmental Process. Government Code Section 14529(c) requires that funding

for right-of-way acquisition and construction for a project may be included in the STIP only if the CTC makes a finding that the sponsoring agency will complete the environmental process and can proceed with right-of-way acquisition or construction within the five year STIP period. Furthermore, in compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the CTC may not allocate funds to local agencies for design, right-of-way, or construction prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federally-funded projects. Therefore, project sponsors must demonstrate to MTC that these requirements can be reasonably expected to be met prior to programming final design, right-of-way, or construction funds in the RTIP. Final CEQA documents (aside from Categorical Exemptions, or CEs) must be submitted to CTC prior to allocation. Additional information is available at: https://catc.ca.gov/programs/environmental.

K. Programming Project Components in Sequential STIP Cycles. Project components may be

programmed sequentially. That is, a project may be programmed for environmental work only, without being programmed for plans, specifications, and estimates (design). A project may be programmed for design without being programmed for right-of-way or construction. A project may be programmed for right-of-way without being programmed for construction. The CTC recognizes a particular benefit in programming projects for environmental work only, since projects costs and particularly project scheduling often cannot be determined with meaningful accuracy until environmental studies have been completed. As the cost, scope and schedule of the project is refined, the next phases of the project may be programmed with an amendment or in a subsequent STIP.

When proposing to program only preconstruction components for a project, the implementing

agency must demonstrate the means by which it intends to fund the construction of a useable segment, consistent with the regional transportation plan or the Caltrans interregional transportation strategic plan. The anticipated total project cost and source of any uncommitted future funding must be identified.

L. Sequential Phasing. For most projects, the different project phases should be programmed

sequentially in the STIP, i.e. environmental before design before right of way before construction. Projects with significant right of way acquisition or construction costs that require more than a simple Categorical Exemption or basic permitting approvals, must not be programmed with the right of way and construction components in the same year as the environmental. Project sponsors must provide sufficient time between the scheduled allocation of environmental funds and the start of

DRAFT

141

https://catc.ca.gov/programs/environmental



design, right of way or construction. As prescribed in Section F, projects may not have more than one phase programmed per fiscal year, with the exceptions of Caltrans-sponsored preconstruction phases, and right of way (ROW) funds programmed with final design (PS&E) or construction (CON) where there are no significant ROW acquisitions necessary.

M. The Project Must Have a Complete Funding Commitment Plan. All local projects must be

accompanied by an authorizing resolution stating the sponsor’s commitment to complete the project as scoped with the funds requested. A model resolution including the information required is outlined in Appendix A-4 - Part 1 of this guidance.

The CTC may program a project component funded from a combination of committed and

uncommitted funds. Uncommitted funds may only be nominated from the following competitive programs: Local Partnership Program, Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, or Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. All local projects requesting to be programmed with uncommitted funds must be accompanied with a plan for securing a funding commitment, explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and its plan for securing an alternate source of funding should the commitment not be obtained. If the funding commitment is not secured with the adoption of these programs and alternative funding is not identified within six months, the projects will be subject to deletion by the Commission. Projects programmed by the Commission in the STIP will not be given priority for funding in other programs under the Commission’s purview.

The CTC will regard non-STIP funds as committed when the agency with discretionary authority

over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including STP, CMAQ, and Federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by Federal TIP adoption. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval.

All regional agencies with rail transit projects shall submit full funding plans describing each overall

project and/or useable project segment. Each plan shall list Federal, State, and local funding categories by fiscal year over the time-frame that funding is sought, including funding for initial operating costs. Moreover, should the project schedule exceed the funding horizon, then the amount needed beyond what is currently requested shall be indicated. This information may be incorporated in the project application nomination sheets.

N. Field Review for Federally Funded Local Projects. One way to avoid unnecessary STIP

amendment and extension requests is to conduct a field review with Caltrans as early as possible, so potential issues may be identified with sufficient time for resolution.

For all projects in the 2020 RTIP (anticipated to be a mix of federal and state funding), the project

sponsor agrees to contact Caltrans and schedule and make a good faith effort to complete a project field review within 6-months of the project being included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). For the 2020 STIP, Caltrans field reviews should be completed by September 1, 2020 for federal aid projects programmed in 2020-21 and 2021-22. The requirement does not apply to planning activities, state-only funded projects, or STIP funds to be transferred to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

DRAFT

142



Other Requirements O. Availability for Audits. Sponsors must agree to be available for an audit if requested. Government

Code Section 14529.1 “The commission [CTC] shall request that the entity receiving funds accept an audit of funds allocated to it by the commission, if an audit is deemed necessary.”

P. Interregional Projects May Be Proposed Under Some Restrictive Circumstances. The project

must be a usable segment and be more cost-effective than a Caltrans alternative project. Government Code Section 14527 (c) “A project recommended for funding by the RTPA in the Interregional Improvement Program shall constitute a usable segment, and shall not be a condition for inclusion of other projects in the RTIP.” Government Code Section 14529 (k) “... the commission [CTC] must make a finding, based on an objective analysis, that the recommended project is more cost-effective than a project submitted by the department….”

Q. Premature Commitment of Funds. The project sponsor may not be reimbursed for expenditures

made prior to the allocation of funds by the CTC (or by Caltrans under delegation authority), unless the provisions of Senate Bill 184 are met in accordance with the CTC Guidelines for Implementation of SB 184. Under no circumstances may funds be reimbursed for expenditures made prior to the funds being programmed in the STIP or prior to the fiscal year in which the project phase is programmed. In addition, the sponsor must make a written request to Caltrans prior to incurring costs, in accordance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures for SB 184 implementation.

R. State-Only Funding. The 2020 RTIP is expected to be funded with a mix of federal and state funds.

Project sponsors must federalize their projects by completing NEPA documentation and complying with federal project delivery rules. Project sponsors are expected to meet all requirements of Article XIX in selecting projects receiving state-only funding. This includes sponsors or the CTA providing documentation verifying the county passed a measure allowing for the use of state-only State Highway Account funds on fixed guideway projects, should RTIP funds be proposed for use on non-federalized fixed guideway transit projects.

S. Federal Transportation Improvement Program. All projects programmed in the STIP must also

be programmed in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), regardless of fund source. Project sponsors are encouraged to submit TIP amendment requests immediately following inclusion of the project into the STIP by the CTC. The project listing in the TIP must include total project cost by phase regardless of the phase actually funded by the CTC. STIP projects using federal funds will not receive federal authorization to proceed without the project being properly listed in the TIP.

T. Agency Single Point of Contact. Project sponsors shall assign a single point of contact within the

agency to address programming and project delivery issues that may arise during the project life cycle. The name, title, and contact information of this person shall be furnished to the CTA and MTC at the time of project application submittal. This shall also serve as the agency contact for all FHWA-funded projects.

DRAFT

143

2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment A Policies and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398



2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Appendix A-4: 2020 RTIP Project Application

Project sponsors must submit a completed project application for each project proposed for funding in the 2020 RTIP. The application consists of the following five parts and are available on the Internet (as applicable) at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/

1. Resolution of local support2. Project Study Report (PSR), or equivalent3. RTIP Project Programming Request (PPR) form (with maps) (must be submitted electronically)4. Performance Measures Worksheet (if applicable)5. Complete Streets Checklist (if applicable: check with CTA or on MTC’s website, listed above)

Part 1: Sample Resolution of Local Support Note: Use the latest version of the Resolution of Local Support at:

https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2

Resolution No. _____

Authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to MTC and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the project

WHEREAS, (INSERT APPLICANT NAME HERE) (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for (INSERT FUNDING $ AMOUNT HERE) in funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, which includes federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and federal or state funding administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) such as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding, Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside/Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the (INSERT PROJECT TITLE(S) HERE) (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the (INSERT MTC PROGRAM(S) HERE) (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress from time to time enacts and amends legislation to provide funding for various transportation needs and programs, (collectively, the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT) including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149) and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside (23 U.S.C. § 133); and

WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code §182.6, §182.7, and §2381(a)(1), and California Government Code §14527, provide various funding programs for the programmingdiscretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency(RTPA); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal or state funds for a regionally-significant project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO, or RTPA, as applicable, for review and inclusion in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and

DRAFT

144

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/

https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2



WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

• the commitment of any required matching funds; and • that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed at the

programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and

• the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

• that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and

• that APPLICANT has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and

• in the case of a transit project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which sets forth the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region; and

• in the case of a highway project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 4104, which sets forth MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy to install and activate TOS elements on new major freeway projects; and

• in the case of an RTIP project, state law requires PROJECT be included in a local congestion management plan, or be consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the countywide transportation agency; and

WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and

WHEREAS, MTC requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for

DRAFT

145



the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation and transit projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a highway project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of an RTIP project, PROJECT is included in a local congestion management plan, or is consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the countywide transportation agency; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further

RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming.

DRAFT

146

2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment A Policies and Procedures – RTIP Project Application MTC Resolution No. 4398 September 25, 2019 Page 29 of 30


RTIP Project Application

Part 2: Project Study Report (PSR), or equivalent

The required format of a PSR or PSR equivalent varies by project type. The following table categorizes PSR and PSR equivalent requirements by project type. Additional guidance on how to prepare these documents is available on the Internet at the addresses indicated below, or from MTC.

Project Study Report (PSR) Requirements PSR and Equivalents by Project Type

Project Type Type of

Document Required *

Where to get more information

State Highway

Full PSR or PD/ENV Only

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/apdx-l-template.docx

Local Roadway a. rehabilitation b. capacity increasing or other project

PSR for local rehabilitation PSR equivalent – project specific study with detailed scope and cost estimate

In most cases completing the Preliminary Environmental Study and Field Review forms in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual should be sufficient. These forms can be found at: Preliminary Environmental-- https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/guidelines-and-procedures/local-assistance-procedures-manual-lapm then look in chapter 6 pg 6-31. Field Review -- https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/guidelines-and-procedures/local-assistance-procedures-manual-lapm then look in chapter 7 pg 7-13.

Transit State of California Uniform Transit Application

This file is being remediated and is available upon request

Other PSR equivalent with detailed scope and cost estimate

To be determined on a case by case basis

* In some instances a Major Investment Study (MIS) prepared under federal guidance may serve as a PSR equivalent where

information provided is adequate for programming purposes.

DRAFT

147

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/guidelines-and-procedures/local-assistance-procedures-manual-lapm






2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment A Policies and Procedures – RTIP Project Application MTC Resolution No. 4398 September 25, 2019 Page 30 of 30


RTIP Project Application

Part 3: Project Programming Request (PPR) Form

Applicants are required to submit a Project Programming Request (PPR) form in order to be considered for funding from the 2020 RTIP. The PPR for new projects will be made available at the following location: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-capital-improvement-programming-ocip The PPRs for existing projects can be downloaded from the following location: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/ca-transportation-improvement-program-system-ctips

Part 4: Performance Measures Worksheet

Applicants submitting nominations for projects with total project costs exceeding $50 million, or have over $15 million in STIP funds programmed, are required to submit a Performance Measure Worksheet. The Worksheet template is available at the following location: https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program Select the “2020 STIP Guidelines” document. The template begins on page 10 and continues on page 44 of the guidelines, under “Appendix B: Performance Indicators and Measures”.

Part 5: Complete Streets Checklist Applicants are required to include the Complete Streets (Routine Accommodations) Checklist with the application submittal to MTC for projects that will have an impact on bicycles or pedestrians. The Checklist is available from the Congestion Management Agencies and at the MTC website at http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian-planning/complete-streets.

DRAFT

148



https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/ca-transportation-improvement-program-system-ctips

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/ca-transportation-improvement-program-system-ctips

https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian-planning/complete-streets

Date: September 25, 2019Attachment B

MTC Resolution No. 4398Referred by: PAC

Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 8/12/2019

MTC 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program

2020 RTIPCounty Agency PPNO Project Total 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25Alameda County Shares

- - - - - - Alameda County Total - - - - - -

Contra Costa County Shares- - - - - -

Contra Costa Total - - - - - - Marin County Shares

- - - - - - Marin County Total - - - - - -

Napa County Shares- - - - - -

Napa County Total - - - - - - San Francisco County Shares

- - - - - - San Francisco County Total - - - - - -

San Mateo County Shares- - - - - -

San Mateo County Total - - - - - - Santa Clara County Shares

- - - - - - Santa Clara County Total - - - - - -

Solano County Shares- - - - - -

Solano County Total - - - - - - Sonoma County Shares

- - - - - - Sonoma County Total - - - - - -

2020 RTIP Total - Bay Area - - - - - - J:\PROJECT\Funding\RTIP\20 RTIP\P&Ps\[tmp-4398_B_Program of Projects.xlsx]MTC 2019-10 Note: Detail on project programming by year and phase will be submitted to CTC

2020 RTIPSeptember 25, 2019

(all numbers in thousands)

2020 RTIP Funding by Fiscal YearNote: Project information will be included via amendment to this resolution in December 2019

DRAFT

149

Date: September 25, 2019 W.I.: 1515 Referred by: PAC Attachment C Resolution No. 4398 Page 1 of 13

2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program

STIP Amendments / Extensions

Rules and Procedures

September 25, 2019

MTC Resolution No. 4398 Attachment C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Section

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest

DRAFT

150

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest

Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment C STIP Amendments / Extensions Rules and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398 September 25, 2019 Page 2 of 13

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Page 2 of 13 September 25, 2019

RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program

STIP Amendments / Extensions

Rules and Procedures Table of Contents

What is the STIP? ......................................................................................................................... 3 When are Amendments and Extensions Allowed? .................................................................... 3

STIP Amendments .................................................................................................................... 3 One-time Extension Requests ................................................................................................... 3

Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 4 Requesting STIP Amendments and Extensions ......................................................................... 5

Step 1: Project Sponsor Requests STIP Amendment or Extension .......................................... 5 For currently programmed Caltrans projects: ................................................................... 5

For a STIP Amendment: ............................................................................................... 5 For an Extension: .......................................................................................................... 6

For currently programmed local projects: ......................................................................... 6 For a STIP Amendment: ............................................................................................... 6 For an Extension: .......................................................................................................... 7

For all new projects: ........................................................................................................... 8 Step 2: MTC Review and Concurrence .................................................................................... 8

Major versus minor changes ............................................................................................... 9 Additional/Supplemental Funds .................................................................................................. 9 Allocation of Funds ..................................................................................................................... 10 Timeline for STIP Amendment/Extension Approval .............................................................. 12 STIP Amendment Form/TIP Amendment Form..................................................................... 12 Contacts for STIP Amendments/Extensions: ........................................................................... 13

DRAFT

151



Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) STIP Amendments / Extensions Rules and Procedures

What is the STIP? The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the State’s spending program for state and federal funding. The STIP is comprised of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). The program is updated every two years and covers a five-year period. STIP funded projects, like all other state and federally funded projects, must be listed in the TIP in order for the sponsor to access the funding. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the funding in the STIP flows to regions by formula through their RTIPs. Regions throughout the state are charged with developing an expenditure plan for the funds. Eligible project types include improvements to state highways, local roads, public transit, intercity rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, grade separations, transportation system management, transportation demand management, soundwall projects, intermodal facilities, and safety. The remaining 25% of the funding flows to the ITIP, which is a statewide program managed by Caltrans. This funding is directed to projects that improve interregional transportation and is closely linked to Caltrans’s Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP). Eligible project types include intercity passenger rail, mass transit guideways, grade separation, and state highways. When are Amendments and Extensions Allowed?

STIP Amendments An amendment may change the cost, scope or schedule of a STIP project and its components. For instance, if the final cost estimate for a project is higher (or lower) than the amount programmed, a STIP amendment may be requested to increase or (decrease) the amount programmed. Or, as a project progresses through project development, it may be time to add the next component or phase. Likewise, if the project schedule is delayed significantly, an amendment may be warranted to request a change in program year of the funding in order to prevent a funding lapse. STIP amendments may also be requested to delete project funding or to add a new project into the STIP. Important Tip: Once a state fiscal year (July 1 – June 30) has begun, the CTC will not allow STIP amendments to delete or change the funding programmed in that fiscal year. Instead, the project sponsor may request a one-time extension as described below. One-time Extension Requests SB 45 established deadlines for allocation, contract award, expenditure and reimbursement of funds for all projects programmed in the STIP. The CTC may, upon request, grant a one-time extension to each of these deadlines for up to 20 months. However, the CTC will only grant

DRAFT

152



an extension if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. Furthermore, the extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributable to the extraordinary circumstance. Generally, the CTC does not grant extensions longer than 12 months. Additionally, project sponsors must be present at the CTC meeting where action is taken on any extension request, to answer questions the CTC staff or commissioners may have.

Roles and Responsibilities The STIP Amendment and Extensions process requires review and approval by various agencies to ensure the action requested is appropriate, and consistent with state statutes, CTC guidance, Caltrans procedures and regional policies. Projects must be included in a county Congestion Management Program (CMP) or county Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to be programmed in the RTIP. Therefore, any additions or changes that may impact the priorities established within these documents must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate agency. Furthermore, improperly programmed funds or missed deadlines could result in funding being permanently lost to the region.

Project sponsors are responsible for reviewing and understanding the procedures, guidance and regulations affecting projects programmed in the STIP. Project sponsors must also assign a Single Point of Contact – an individual responsible for submitting documentation for STIP amendments and extensions that must have read and understood these policies and procedures, particularly the CTC STIP Guidelines available on the internet at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-capital-improvement-programming-ocip and the MTC RTIP Policies and Application Procedures posted on the internet at: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and. Project sponsors are ultimately responsible for ensuring the required documentation is provided to Caltrans by the deadlines established by MTC’s Regional Project Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606) and Caltrans for all allocations, extensions, and additional supplemental funds requests. The Congestion Management Agencies/Transportation Authorities, collectively known as the Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (CTAs), are responsible for ensuring the packages submitted by the project sponsors are complete, and the proposed changes are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CTAs check to ensure the proposed changes meet MTC, CTC and other state or federal guidance and regulations. As mentioned in the Guiding Principles of the 2020 RTIP Policies and Procedures, the CTA must consider equitable distribution of projects in accordance with Title VI. Following CTA concurrence of the request, the complete package is forwarded to MTC. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area, provides concurrence for the STIP requests and formally submits all STIP Amendments to Caltrans for approval by the CTC. MTC also verifies compliance with established state and regional policies. Although MTC provides concurrence on extensions, additional supplemental funds

DRAFT

153



http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and

http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and



requests and some allocation requests, it is the responsibility of the project sponsor, not MTC, to ensure the required documentation is submitted to Caltrans by the established deadlines for these action requests. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) processes the requests and makes recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in accordance with Department procedures and CTC policies and guidelines. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) approves or rejects the requests based on state statutes and its own established guidance and procedures.

Requesting STIP Amendments and Extensions As described below, the procedures for processing STIP amendments and extensions vary depending on whether the project is sponsored by Caltrans or a local agency, and whether it has already received STIP funding. Extension Requests and STIP Amendments to delay projects programmed in the following fiscal year must be submitted to MTC and Caltrans by January 31 for CTC action no later than April. Step 1: Project Sponsor Requests STIP Amendment or Extension

For currently programmed Caltrans projects: Caltrans and the appropriate CTA identify and discuss the issue(s) that may require an

amendment or extension and notify MTC Programming and Allocations (P&A) Section staff that a change to the current STIP may be necessary and is being considered.

Caltrans and CTA agree on proposed change(s). Where necessary, CTA staff requests policy board approval of proposed change. Once approved by the CTA, CTA notifies Caltrans in writing of the county’s

concurrence, with a copy sent to MTC P&A. Caltrans requests MTC concurrence for the STIP Amendment/Extension by transmitting

the following to MTC P&A: Letter requesting the STIP Amendment or Extension with explanation and

justification of the need for the action with the following attachments: For a STIP Amendment:

Copy of CTA’s letter of concurrence Revised Project Programming Request (PPR) Form – http://mtc.ca.gov/stip Submittal of TIP Revision Request through FMS – http://fms.mtc.ca.gov A construction ‘STIP History’ for each amendment that would delay the year

of construction. The ‘STIP History’ outlines the project’s construction history as programmed in the STIP with particular attention to any previous delays and reason for the previous and current delay. It must note the original inclusion of the project construction component in the STIP and each prior

DRAFT

154

http://mtc.ca.gov/stip

http://fms.mtc.ca.gov/



project construction STIP amendment delay including for each, the amendment date, the dollar amount programmed for construction, and the scheduled year of construction delay. It must also include a statement on the financial impact of the construction delay on the project, and an estimated funding source for the additional funds necessary to complete the project under the delayed schedule. (A STIP History is only required for amendments to delay the year of construction.)

For an Extension: Copy of CTA’s letter of concurrence A construction ‘STIP History’ for each extension that would delay

construction as described above for a STIP Amendment.

For currently programmed local projects: Sponsor and the appropriate CTA identify and discuss the issue(s) that may require an

amendment or extension and notify Caltrans and MTC Programming and Allocations Section staff that a change to the current STIP may be necessary and is being considered.

Sponsor and CTA agree on proposed change(s). Sponsor requests CTA concurrence for the STIP Amendment/Extension by submitting

the following to the CTA by January 31: Letter requesting the STIP Amendment or Extension with explanation and

justification of the need for the action with the following attachments:

For a STIP Amendment: Revised Project Programming Request (PPR) Form - http://mtc.ca.gov/stip Submittal of TIP Revision Request through FMS – http://fms.mtc.ca.gov A construction ‘STIP History’ for each amendment that would delay the year

of construction. The ‘STIP History’ outlines the project’s construction history as programmed in the STIP with particular attention to any previous delays and reason for previous and current delay. It must note the original inclusion of the project construction component in the STIP and each prior project construction STIP amendment delay including for each, the amendment date, the dollar amount programmed for construction, and the scheduled year of construction delay. It must also include a statement on the financial impact of the construction delay on the project, and an estimated funding source for the additional funds necessary to complete the project under the delayed schedule. (A STIP History is only required for amendments to delay the year of construction.)

Any other documentation required by the CTA or Caltrans

DRAFT

155





For an Extension: Copy of completed Request for Time Extension form (Exhibit 23-B, located

on the internet at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/forms/local-assistance-program-guidelines-forms).

A construction ‘STIP History’ for each extension that would delay construction, as described above for a STIP Amendment.

A listing showing the status of all SB 45 and regional project delivery policy (MTC Resolution 3606) deadlines for all of the project sponsors’ allocated STIP projects, and all active projects funded through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), including but not limited to Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), and Active Transportation Program (ATP) projects. This is to ensure project sponsors are aware of the other deadlines facing other projects, and so that sponsors will work to meet those deadlines. A template is available online at: http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Template_FHWA_Funded_Projects_Status.xlsx.

Any other documentation required by the CTA or Caltrans Where necessary, CTA staff requests policy board approval of proposed request. Sponsor submits Caltrans’ “Request for Time Extension” form and any other required

documentation to Caltrans. CTA requests MTC concurrence for the STIP Amendment/Extension by transmitting a

letter to MTC P&A requesting the STIP Amendment or Extension with explanation and justification of the need for the action along with the documentation submitted by the project sponsor. A copy of the request is also sent to Caltrans.

Sponsor must be present at the CTC meeting where action is being taken on the extension request to justify the reasons for the extension. Failure to be present may result in the CTC denying the extension request, and risk losing the programmed funds permanently due to missed deadlines. In limited instances, a project sponsor may request that their CTA be available in place of the project sponsor. The CTA and MTC must concur with this request via email.

Important Tip: For STIP Extensions, the CTC will only grant an extension if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. Furthermore, the extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributable to the extraordinary circumstance, up to a maximum of 20 months (although the Commission generally does not grant any extension longer than 12 months). It is therefore absolutely necessary that the letter and supporting documentation clearly explains and justifies the extension request. Failure to provide adequate justification and not being present at the CTC meeting will most likely result in an extension not being approved.

DRAFT

156

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/forms/local-assistance-program-guidelines-forms


http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Template_FHWA_Funded_Projects_Status.xlsx

http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Template_FHWA_Funded_Projects_Status.xlsx



For all new projects: Sponsor and the appropriate CTA identify and discuss the issue(s) that may require a new

project to be added to the STIP and notify Caltrans and MTC Programming and Allocations (P&A) Section staff an amendment to the current STIP may be necessary and is being considered.

Sponsor and CTA agree on proposed addition. Sponsor requests CTA concurrence for the STIP Amendment by submitting the following

to the CTA: Letter requesting the STIP Amendment with explanation and justification of the need

for the project to be added to the STIP. Submittal of TIP Revision Request through FMS – http://fms.mtc.ca.gov RTIP Application form including: - http://www.mtc.ca.gov/stip Resolution of local support Project Programming Request (PPR) forms (with maps) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amendment Project Study Report (PSR), or equivalent. Complete Streets Checklist and Performance Measures form, as applicable Copy of State-Only Funding Request Exception Form (Only if requesting state-

only funding and project is not on pre-approved state-only eligible funding list. Original request is to be submitted directly to Caltrans HQ Budgets for processing and approval prior to MTC submittal of the request to Caltrans/CTC).

CTA staff obtains policy board approval of proposed addition. CTA requests MTC concurrence for the new project by transmitting a letter to MTC P&A

requesting the STIP Amendment with an explanation and justification of the need for the project along with a copy of the CTA Resolution approving the project, and the documentation listed above provided by the project sponsor.

Step 2: MTC Review and Concurrence Once a complete request has been received, MTC P&A staff will place the request on the

MTC Programming and Allocations Committee (PAC) meeting agenda for concurrence of major changes, or prepare a letter of concurrence for the Executive Director’s signature for minor changes.

Following approval by PAC and/or the Executive Director, MTC will send a Letter of Concurrence to Caltrans District 4 with a copy to the appropriate CTA. (District 4 will ensure that the request is copied to the appropriate contacts at Caltrans Headquarters and CTC.) MTC may concur with minor extensions administratively at the staff level, and with minor changes on Caltrans-sponsored projects administratively via email.

DRAFT

157


http://www.mtc.ca.gov/stip



Major versus minor changes All major changes, including any requests to program a new project, will be presented

to MTC’s Programming and Allocations Committee (PAC) to determine MTC’s concurrence. Major changes include: request to program a new project (or delete a project) schedule delay that affects air quality conformity analysis project advance with reimbursement or replacement project per AB 3090 request to use Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) financing

For minor changes, MTC staff may write a letter of concurrence for the Executive Director’s signature. Minor changes include: Extension requests for allocation, award, expenditure and reimbursement/project

completion deadlines (minor extensions may be concurred administratively by MTC staff)

schedule changes, except where change implies major cost or delivery ramifications

changes in implementing agency or project sponsor changes to project budget that are less than 20% of the total project cost or less

than $1 million. redirection of funds from one project component to another (e.g. from project

engineering into environmental) changes considered routine and not impacting project delivery

* Amendments or extensions based on new federal or state requirements may need to go to MTC’s PAC

Additional/Supplemental Funds On occasion it may be necessary to provide additional ‘Supplemental’ funding to a project as a result of cost increases or revised cost estimates. There are several different processes to follow depending on where the project is within its delivery schedule. The various methods to add STIP funding to a project are as follow:

Biennial STIP Cycle: If additional funding is identified years before the actual allocation, the project sponsor may request the funding through the biennial STIP adoption process. This process is outlined in MTC’s RTIP Policies and Application Procedures, and is the preferred method of requesting additional/supplemental funds.

STIP Amendment: If additional funding is identified prior to the allocation of funds, but is required prior to the next biennial STIP adoption, a STIP amendment adding the funds to the project may be requested as outlined in the STIP Amendment procedures above. However, in most cases the additional funds could be added at the time of allocation, thus foregoing the STIP amendment process.

DRAFT

158



Additional Funds at Time of Allocation: Often the simplest way to add supplemental funds is at the time of allocation. The process is the same as the procedures outlined above for a time extension, except that instead of a “Request for Time Extension” form, a “Request for STIP Funding Allocation” form is used (Exhibit 23-O, located on the internet at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/forms/local-assistance-program-guidelines-forms). In all supplemental funding requests, the additional funding must be approved by the CTC.

Additional Funds After Allocation: It may be necessary to seek additional funds after an allocation, either to award the project or due to unforeseen cost increases while the project is under construction. In either case, an analysis should be performed to determine whether re-engineering (sometimes called “value engineering”) could achieve cost reductions to accommodate the increase. If additional funds are still necessary, a funding source outside the STIP should be pursued prior to seeking additional STIP funding. If it is determined that additional STIP funds are needed, then the project sponsor should proceed as with the procedures outlined for “Additional Funds at Time of Allocation”. It should be noted that once the funds are allocated, the project sponsor does not have the option to add the funds through a STIP amendment since the CTC does not allow amendments to change the programming for a given component after the funds have been allocated.

Allocation of Funds Project sponsors request an allocation of funds directly to Caltrans, with Caltrans placing the request on the CTC Agenda for approval. The completed request package is due to Caltrans 60 days prior to the CTC meeting where the funds are anticipated to be allocated. MTC requires sponsors to obtain MTC concurrence on allocation requests in addition to the circumstances noted below:

Local Road Rehabilitation Projects: Allocation of funds for local road rehabilitation projects requires certification from MTC. Project sponsors should submit the “Pavement Management System Certification” form with the “Local Road Rehabilitation Project Certification” form attached (Exhibits 23-L and 23-K, both found on the internet at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/forms/local-assistance-program-guidelines-forms) directly to MTC for signature. MTC will then transmit the signed form to Caltrans District 4 – Local Assistance. All other allocation request documentation should be sent directly to Caltrans District 4 – Local Assistance. Allocation of State-Only Funds: MTC concurs with all State-Only funds allocations that are listed in the STIP as State-Only. Projects without State-Only funding pre-approved by CTC must request a State-Only Funding Exception form (Exhibit 23-F, found on the internet at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/forms/local-assistance-program-guidelines-forms). MTC must concur with the exception request, and the form is submitted to Caltrans. Funds Allocated Differently than Programmed: In some instances it may be necessary to allocate funds differently from what is programmed in the STIP. These situations

DRAFT

159









generally still require MTC concurrence. Fortunately a STIP amendment may not be required, and the funding may be revised at the time of the allocation, thus avoiding the long STIP amendment process. However, A TIP amendment is still required, especially if federal funds are involved. Changes that are allowed at the time of allocation are noted below; however, project sponsors should consult with Caltrans District 4 Local Assistance, the CTA and/or MTC to determine whether a change at the time of allocation is permissible before preparing the allocation request. Change in implementing agency Cost savings (allocation less than program amount) Redirection of funds among project components or phases within the project as

long as total STIP funding has not increased or previously been allocated. Advancement of funding from future years (transit projects with funds to be

transferred to FTA require a TIP amendment to advance funds) Change in funding type (a change to state-only funding requires approval from

Caltrans with their “State-Only Funding Request Exception” form if the project type is not on the pre-approved state-only eligible funding list – see “Allocation of State-Only Funds” above).

STP/CMAQ Match Reserve: Project sponsors must work with the applicable CTA to obtain programming approval for STP/CMAQ match made available in the STIP. The CTA develops a countywide list for the use of the reserved funds and submits the list to MTC, who in turns provides Caltrans with the region-wide Match Program. Any deviation from this program, whether in the funding amount, project sponsor, or funding year, requires the CTA to resubmit an updated plan for the county to MTC. Caltrans cannot allocate the matching funds if they are inconsistent with the approved STIP - STP/CMAQ Match Program.

Funds allocated as programmed in the STIP: The allocation of funds as they are programmed in the STIP and TIP should receive MTC concurrence. Project sponsors work with Caltrans District 4 local assistance and MTC programming staff in obtaining the allocation. STIP projects using federal funds will not receive federal authorizations to proceed without the project being properly listed in the TIP. Federal authorization to proceed (E-76) requests must be submitted to Caltrans concurrently with the STIP allocation package to avoid delays to authorization.

Important Tip: Although some minor changes in the allocation of funds may not require a full STIP amendment, most changes still require MTC concurrence, and possibly a TIP amendment and a vote of the CTC. Project sponsors are encouraged to consult with the CTA, and Caltrans District 4 prior to preparing any allocation request, to ensure sufficient time is allowed for processing the allocation request, particularly toward the end of the year when the Timely Use of Funds provisions of SB 45 are of critical concern.

DRAFT

160



Timeline for STIP Amendment/Extension Approval Completed documentation requesting MTC concurrence must be received by MTC staff no later than the first day of the month prior to the month in which the request will be heard by the Programming and Allocations Committee (PAC). (For example, requests received by January 1 will be reviewed at the February PAC meeting). Subsequently, requests with completed documentation and MTC concurrence must be submitted to the Caltrans District Office 60 to 90 days prior to the CTC meeting where the item will be considered. Therefore, requests for concurrence need to be submitted to MTC generally 150 days prior to CTC action for STIP Amendments and 120 days prior to CTC action for extensions. For example, a STIP amendment request to add a new STIP project (considered a major amendment) is due to MTC by January 1, so it may be approved at the February PAC Meeting, and then submitted to Caltrans in time for the 60-day due date of March 2, so it may be noticed at the May 2 CTC meeting for action at the June 6 CTC meeting.

Important Tip: The CTC will not amend the STIP to delete or change the funding for any project component after the beginning of the fiscal year in which the funding is programmed. Therefore, all amendments to delay a project component must be approved by the CTC by the June meeting in the year prior to the programmed year of funding. To meet this deadline, amendments to delay delivery must be submitted to MTC no later than January 1 of the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year of the funding subject to delay. Timely Delivery of Programmed Funds Projects programmed in the STIP must adhere to the delivery polices established in MTC Resolution 3606. Unless coordination with other funding sources and programs require a later date, requests for STIP extensions, amendments to delay existing STIP projects and STIP allocations are due to Caltrans Local Assistance no later than January 31 of the fiscal year the funds are programmed in the STIP. This is to ensure STIP projects do not miss the June 30 end-of year delivery deadlines imposed by the CTC. A due date schedule is prepared each year for the submittal of STIP requests. This schedule is posted on the internet at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-ctc-liaison-octcl In addition, MTC Resolution 3606 imposes regional deadlines in advance of state and federal timely use of funds deadlines, to ensure funds are not lost to the region. STIP Amendment Form/TIP Amendment Form The forms necessary to initiate the STIP Amendment process may be downloaded from the MTC website at: http://mtc.ca.gov/stip. TIP Amendments should be processed through the Fund Management System, also available at the website mentioned above.

DRAFT

161

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-ctc-liaison-octcl

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-programming/office-of-ctc-liaison-octcl

https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Res_3606.pdf


Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment C STIP Amendments / Extensions Rules and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398



Contacts for STIP Amendments/Extensions:

Name Area Phone Email

Karl Anderson STIP/TIP Amendments

415.778.6645 [email protected]

Kenneth Kao STIP 415.778.6768 [email protected]

Ross McKeown STIP 415.778.5242 [email protected]

Adam Crenshaw TIP Amendments 415.778.6794 [email protected]

DRAFT

162

Agenda Item 8.F August 28, 2019

DATE: August 15, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Erika McLitus, Project Assistant RE: One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 3 Funding Guidelines and Schedule

Background: STA receives federal transportation funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for local projects. These are federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. Every four years MTC develops policies about how the region will use this funding for projects and programs.

In May 2012, MTC approved its final policies and guidelines (Resolution 4035), consolidating these funds as well as the Local Streets and Roads (LS&R), bicycle, pedestrian, and Planning funds into a single program known as the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program. MTC then tasked the Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (BACTAs), such as STA, with determining how OBAG funds will be allocated within their respective counties. The OBAG 1 and OBAG 2 Programs established program commitments and policies for investing federal funds through FY 2021-22, with OBAG 2 expanded the previous program iteration by incorporating additional revenues and housing-related program elements.

MTC created OBAG as a new funding approach that also better integrates the region's federal transportation program with California's climate law (SB 375, Steinberg, 2008) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This is accomplished by the following principles:

• Using transportation dollars to reward jurisdictions that accepted the RegionalHousing Need Allocation (RHNA) process to produce housing. This wasaccomplished by using a county fund distribution formula that considered population,past housing production, future housing commitments from Regional Housing NeedsAllocation (RHNA), and added weight to acknowledge very low and low incomehousing. Within Solano County, LS&R funds are allocated based on a roadway formula.

• Supporting the SCS by promoting transportation investments in PriorityDevelopment Areas (PDAs). In previous cycles, this was accomplished by requiring thatat least 50% of all OBAG funds be spent within designated Priority DevelopmentAreas (PDAs) for Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma counties only. Since the PDAprogram was adopted by Association of Bay Area Governments in November 2007, over100 PDAs have been approved within the Bay Area, with twelve of them within SolanoCounty.

• Providing a higher proportion of funding to local agencies and additionalinvestment flexibility. The OBAG block grant program allowed each county theflexibility to invest in one or more of the following transportation categories to best meetthe county's needs: Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrianimprovements, local streets and roads preservation, Safe Routes to School, and requiredCMA planning activities.

163

Project and Program Funding Selection Process During past OBAG cycles, STA screened projects and programs for eligibility based on the following criteria:

• Projects or programs must be identified in an adopted or draft STA document. • The project must be delivered by a public agency. • Projects may only be programmed in jurisdictions with a Housing Element approved by

the California Department of Housing and Community Development. • Projects may only be programmed in jurisdictions that demonstrate compliance with

MTC’s Complete Streets policy. For OBAG Cycle 1 and 2, STA created a Project and Program Screening and Ranking Criteria for eligible projects and programs in order to ensure compliance with MTC’s Guidelines and to prioritize projects and programs for funding. Similar criteria are planned for use with OBAG 3, contingent upon MTC’s adopted OBAG 3 Guidelines. Past metrics have included:

• How many of goals of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) are advanced by the project?

• Does the project support transportation and land use connections, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs)?

• Does the project address safety improvements? • Is the project located in a community of concern as defined by MTC, and included in any

of the STA’s Community Based Transportation Plans? • Will the project be delivered in the first two years of the OBAG cycle (FY 2022-23 or FY

2023-24), or the second two years (FY 2024-25 or FY 2025-26)? • Does the project or program support maintaining and expanding the employment base in

Solano County? • Does the project or program benefit a large number of residents and businesses, including

multiple jurisdictions? • Does the project encourage or facilitate the use of public transit or other use of alternative

modes? • Have adequate local match funds been identified for the project?

Discussion: STA staff plans to recommend an OBAG 3 process for Solano County that is very similar to the previous OBAG cycles’ project review and selection process. This includes assessing priority projects identified by the seven cities and the county against the criteria that MTC establishes, as well as STA selected criteria such as project deliverability or support for regional housing goals. For OBAG 3, STA anticipated that MTC will require a larger percentage share of selected projects to be located in a PDA or Priority Production Area (PPA) from the selection. Therefore, it is crucial that all jurisdictions examine their projects and existing PDA/PPAs, proposing changes to their PDA boundaries or creating new PDA/PPAs when necessary. If any jurisdictions wishes to designate a new PDA, PCA, or PPA, Letters of Interest must be submitted to MTC/ABAG no later than September 16, 2019. In previous OBAG cycles, STA staff identified potential alternative funding sources for some projects that were not good candidates for the Federal OBAG funds. This included TDA Article 3 and Air District (BAAQMD or YSAQMD) funds. STA will provide similar input for projects selected and not selected for OBAG 3.

164

STA staff will return to request feedback on this process and will meet with all eight member agencies, SolTrans, and each Advisory Committee to discuss OBAG 3 priorities in the future. Staff anticipates that MTC will adopt the OBAG 3 Guidelines in Spring 2020 and STA will submit a list of Solano OBAG projects for consideration in Fall 2020. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Informational.

165


166

Agenda Item 8.H August 28, 2019

DATE: August 19, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Triana Crighton, Assistant Planner RE: Summary of Funding Opportunities

Discussion: Below is a list of funding opportunities that will be available to STA member agencies during the next few months, broken up by Federal, State, and Local. Attachment A provides further details for each program.

FUND SOURCE AMOUNT AVAILABLE

APPLICATION DEADLINE

Federal

1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Up to $300 million; projects of at least $25 million

First deadline is December 18, 2018, applications accepted on a Quarterly Rolling Basis.

2. Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) – Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG) Up to $410 million Applications due Early

Winter 2019-2020 Regional

1. Carl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for Sacramento Metropolitan Area)

Approximately $10 million

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

2. Air Resources Board (ARB) Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)

Up to $7,000 rebate per light-duty vehicle

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis (Waitlist)

3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Vouchers (HVIP) (for fleets)

Approximately $5,000 to $45,000 per qualified request


4. PG&E Charge Program Pays to install 7,500 chargers in PG&E area


State

Fiscal Impact: None.


Attachment: A. Detailed Funding Opportunities Summary

167


168

ATTACHMENT A

The following funding opportunities will be available to the STA member agencies during the next few months. Please distribute this information to the appropriate departments in your jurisdiction. Yellow highlighted grants have deadlines approaching soon!

Fund Source Application Contact**

Project Types/Eligibility

Amount Available

Program Description Call For Projects

STA Staff Contact

Potential Projects

Federal GrantsNationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Jeffrey Mann, NSFLTP Program Manager (202) [email protected]

Tribal and/or Federally Significant Land (on, adjacent to, or providing access to)

$300 million; construction cost of at least $25 million, projects with $50+ million will be prioritized.

Federal funding to projects of national significance for construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of transportation facilities within, adjacent to, or providing access to Federal or Tribal lands.

Ongoing. Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

Triana Crighton (707) [email protected]

Projects involving Travis AFB

Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) Program

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program

[email protected]

Parks • Utility improvements • Streets • Sidewalks & bike lanes • Traffic signals • Site preparation • Streetscape improvements • Storm drains

Up to $410 million

IIG provides grants to cover gap funding needs for infrastructure improvements necessary for specific residential or mixed-use infill development projects. The program funds two types of applications: Qualifying Infill Areas (QIAs) which meet infrastructure needs for multiple future housing developments within a larger area and Qualifying Infill Projects (QIPs) which meet infrastructure needs associated with a single housing development project.

Not yet open, will open in Early Winter 2019-2020.


Regional GrantsCarl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for Sacramento Metropolitan Area)

Gary A. Bailey Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (916) [email protected]

Replace high-polluting off-road equipment

Approx. $10 million, maximum per project is $4.5 million

The Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (ERP), an extension of the Carl Moyer Program, provides grant funds to replace Tier 0, high-polluting off-road equipment with the cleanest available emission level equipment.

Ongoing. Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis


Air Resources Board (ARB) Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)*

Graciela Garcia ARB (916) [email protected]

Low/No Carbon Vehicles

Up to $7,000 rebate per light-duty vehicle

The Zero-Emission and Plug-In Hybrid Light-Duty Vehicle (Clean Vehicle) Rebate Project is intended to encourage and accelerate zero-emission vehicle deployment and technology innovation. Rebates for clean vehicles are now available through the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) funded by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and implemented statewide by the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE).

Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis (Currently applicants are put on waitlist)


169

mailto:[email protected]















Fund Source Application Contact**

Project Types/Eligibility

Amount Available

Program Description Call For Projects

STA Staff Contact

Potential Projects

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Vouchers (HVIP)*

To learn more about how to request a voucher, contact: 888-457-HVIP [email protected]

Low/No Carbon Engines

Approx. $5,000 to $45,000 per qualified request

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) created the HVIP to speed the market introduction of low-emitting hybrid trucks and buses. It does this by reducing the cost of these vehicles for truck and bus fleets that purchase and operate the vehicles in the State of California. The HVIP voucher is intended to reduce about half the incremental costs of purchasing hybrid heavy-duty trucks and buses.

Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

Brandon Thomson (707) 399-3234 [email protected]

- FAST Renewable Diesel Bus Purchase

PG&E EV Charge Network

1-877-704-8723 [email protected]

EV Infrastructure Funds infrastructure to support 7,500 chargers in PG&E service area

PG&E plans to install 7,500 charging stations across their service area. Most of these will be at employers or multi-unit dwellings. This could be a potential avenue for funding and coordination to bring more EV infrastructure to Solano County.

January 2018 – 2020, or funds exhausted

Triana Crighton (707) 399-3230 [email protected]

EV Charging Infrastructure

Statewide Grants

**STA staff, Triana Crighton, can be contacted directly at (707) 399-3230 or [email protected] for assistance with finding more information about any of the funding opportunities listed in this report

170










Agenda Item 8.H August 28, 2019

DATE: August 21, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board RE: Draft Meeting Minutes for STA Advisory Committees

Attachment: A. Draft Meeting Minutes of Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Meeting of

July 11, 2019

171


172

Agenda Item 4.A September 5, 2019

BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BAC) Minutes for the Meeting of

July 11, 2019

1. CALL TO ORDER/SELF INTRODUCTIONS/ CONFIRM QUORUMThe meeting of the STA’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) was called to order by ChairMike Segala at approximately 6:00 p.m. at the STA in Conference Room 1.

BAC Members Present:Nancy Lund City of Benicia Quinten Voyce City of Fairfield Barbara Wood Member at Large Neal Iverson City of Vacaville David Belef City of Vallejo Mike Segala, Chair County of Solano

Others Present: Corey Beavers City of Fairfield Sam Kumar City of Vallejo

STA Staff Present: Anthony Adams STA Triana Crighton STA Robert Guerrero STA Esther Wan STA

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDAOn a motion from Nancy Lund, and a second from Quinten Voyce, the BAC unanimouslyapproved the agenda. (6 Ayes)

3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC & STAFF COMMENTSTriana Crighton, Nancy Lund, and Barbara Wood attended the North Bay Bike Workshop inNovato. Barbara Wood stated that there were discussions about people envision bikingwould be like in 20 years from now. Ms. Wood added that it is more important to think aboutthe current biking conditions versus thinking about the future. She also mentioned that theworkshop discussed about bike security. Nancy Lund stated that there were also discussionsabout electric and cargo bikes and how many communities would like to have a dedicatedschool bike paths. Ms. Lund noted there were also discussions about having bike facilitiesavailable to disadvantage/disabled communities. BAC members request that the agendafrom the North Bay Bike Workshop be emailed to all the members.

4. CONSENT CALENDARA. Recommendation:

Approve STA BAC and PAC Joint Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2019.

173

On a motion by Quinten Voyce, and a second by Neal Iverson, the BAC approved the minutes of May 2, 2019. (6 Ayes)

5. PRESENTATIONSA. Solano Active Transportation Plan: Priority Projects List

Anthony Adams provided a presentation on the Solano Active Transportation Plan(ATP): Priority Projects List. Mr. Adams presented the interactive ATP map to theBAC members displaying all the data that has been collected and encouraged BACmembers to add future projects of unsafe locations for pedestrians and bicyclists ontothe map. He discussed how STA is trying to collaborate with all the seven cities andthe county to come up with a priority project list for the Solano County ATP. AnthonyAdams provided each of the members with a city specific priority project list to review.BAC members requested that the Solano County Active Transportation Plan mapweb link and the PowerPoint to be sent to all the members.

6. ACTION FINANCIALA. None.

7. ACTION NON-FINANCIALA. May is Bike Month Debrief and Future Planning

Triana Crighton provided an overview of the May is Bike Month Debrief and FuturePlanning. Ms. Crighton stated to make Bike Month successful, planning must be donein advance. Mike Segala commented that Sunday mornings and afternoons would be agreat time to have a community bike ride because there are less vehicles on the road.Mr. Segala proposed that the Suisun City energizer station to be placed at the SuisunTrain Station.

David Belef asked if the number of riders that stopped at each specific energizerstation can be provided to the BAC members. Mr. Belef also mentioned the VallejoCommunity Bike Ride was a relatively successful event other than clarifying on theflyer which corner of the street the bike ride was going to meet at. He added that therewas some miscommunication that there was going to be two energizer stations inVallejo, some of the bike riders thought there was going to be an energizer station atthe Vallejo Transit Center when there was only one energizer station at the ferrybuilding this year. David Belef addressed that it would be a great idea to have differentbike ride classifications for different riding levels and more incentives to encouragepeople to ride their bikes. Mr. Belef also added an idea for connecting food with bikingand provided the example, “Picnic by a Bike.”

Neal Iverson’s idea is very similar to David Belef where he highlighted that it would bea great idea to have a Bike Block Party which would include a huge BBQ, anddecorating a bicycle contest. Mr. Iverson also added the idea of a destination ride,similar to Vacaville’s Community Ride this year to Jungle Yogurt. David Belefcommented that food related events tend to draw a lot of people and a possible ideawould include food trucks and bike safety.

Nancy Lund indicated that Bike Workshops are very successful and there is an increasein attendance from the local community. Bike Workshops included bike safety andbike repair courses. Ms. Lund proposed the idea of having bike rides with the localpolice and fire departments to increase participation.Neal Iverson highlighted the idea of having permanent energizer stations at locationssuch as bike shops which had a dedicated hours of operation during Bike to Work week

174

because certain bike commuters only ride on specific days of the week which may not be able to attend Bike to Work Day. Nancy Lund also added the idea of having an evening energizer station where commuters are not in a rush so that people staffing the energizer stations have more time to talk to the bike commuters about upcoming bike events and activities. Triana Crighton requested the BAC members to continue to think of new and innovative ideas for next year’s Bike Month and Bike to Work Day and to contact her of any additional ideas that were not noted at this BAC meeting. Neal Iverson notified the BAC members that there are 7 bike lockers that Travis Unified School District is currently trying to get rid of. BAC members request more information about these lockers and the contact person’s information to be sent to all the members. Recommendation: Develop a work plan and goals list for May is Bike Month 2020. On a motion from Barbara Wood, and a second from David Belef, the BAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes)

8. INFORMATION – DISCUSSION A. General Updates

• BAC Field Trip • Active Transportation Funding Update

Triana Crighton provided an overview of the General Updates, focusing on selecting a BAC Field Trip date. After further discussion with the BAC members, they will try to pinpoint a date between mid-October to the end of October of this year.

9. COMMITTEE COMMENTS & FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS A. Mike Segala wanted to added “Committee Comments” to Future Agenda Topics for

future BAC meetings. David Belef provided some project and zoning updates for the City of Vallejo. Mike Segala noted on his recent trip to Hawaii, there is a new law that prevents pedestrians from crossing when the pedestrian counter begins to count down.

10. ADJOURNMENT The STA BAC meeting adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m.

175


176

Agenda Item 8.I August 28, 2019

DATE: August 21, 2019 TO: STA TAC FROM: Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board RE: STA Board and Advisory Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019

Discussion: Attached is the STA Board and Advisory meeting schedule for STA Board and Advisory meeting schedule for the remainder of calendar year 2019 that may be of interest to the STA TAC.

Fiscal Impact: None.


Attachment: A. STA Board and Advisory Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019

177

STA BOARD AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE CALENDAR YEAR 2019

DATE TIME DESCRIPTION LOCATION STATUS

Thurs., January 3 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., January 9 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., January 17 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency-AC (CTSA-AC) Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., January 17 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Solano Community College Confirmed Tues., January 29 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., January 30 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., February 7 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., February 13 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Wed., February 20 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Tues., February 26 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., February 27 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., March 7 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., March 13 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., March 21 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Ulatis Community Center Confirmed Tues., March 26 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., March 27 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., April 4 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., April 10 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., April 18 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative Tues., April 23 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., April 24 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., May 2 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., May 8 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Wed., May 15 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., May 16 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Joseph Nelson Comm. Cntr. Confirmed Tues., May 28 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., May 29 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., June 6 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Tentative Wed., June 12 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., June 25 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., June 26 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

(to be rescheduled) 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., July 10 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., July 18 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative Thurs., July 18 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Benicia City Hall Confirmed July 24 (No Meeting) SUMMER

RECESS Intercity Transit Consortium N/A N/A

July 25 (No Meeting) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) N/A N/A

Thurs., August 1 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed August 8 (No Meeting) SUMMER

RECESS STA Board Meeting N/A N/A

Wed., August 21 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Tues., August 27 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., August 28 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., September 5 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., September 11 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., September 19 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Rio Vista Veterans Hall Confirmed Tues., September 24 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed

Wed., September 25 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., October 3 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., October 9 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., October 17 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative No meeting due to STA’s Annual Awards in November (No STA Board Meeting)

Intercity Transit Consortium N/A N/A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) N/A N/A

Thurs., November 7 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., November 13 6:00 p.m. STA’s 21th Annual Awards TBD Confirmed Wed., November 20 11:30 a.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., November 21 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) SolTrans Operations Facility Confirmed Tues., November 26 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., November 27 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., December 5 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., December 11 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., December 17 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., December 18 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

STA Board: Meets 2nd Wednesday of Every Month Consortium : Meets Last Tuesday of Every Month TAC: Meets Last Wednesday of Every Month BAC: Meets 1st Thursday of every Odd Month PAC: Meets 1st Thursday of every Even Month PCC: Meets 3rd Thursday of every Odd Month SR2S-AC Meets Quarterly (Begins Feb.) on the 3rd Wed.

178

sta.ca.gov · 2019-08-22 · the complete sta tac packet is available on sta’s website: solano...

Documents