MEETING AGENDA 6:00 pm, STA Board Regular Wednesday ...

The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov (Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month

except August (Board Summer Recess) and November (Annual Awards Ceremony.)

MEETING AGENDA

6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Suisun City Hall Council Chambers 701 Civic Center Drive Suisun City, CA 94585

Mission Statement: To improve the quality of life in Solano County by delivering transportation system projects to ensure mobility, travel safety, and economic vitality.

Public Comment: Pursuant to the Brown Act, the public has an opportunity to speak on any matter on the agenda or, for matters not on the agenda, issues within the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency. Comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes per speaker unless modified by the Board Chair, Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). By law, no action may be taken on any item raised during the public comment period although informational answers to questions may be given and matters may be referred to staff for placement on a future agenda of the agency. Speaker cards are required in order to provide public comment. Speaker cards are on the table at the entry in the meeting room and should be handed to the STA Clerk of the Board. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes or less.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This agenda is available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Govt. Code §54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation should contact Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board, at (707) 399-3203 during regular business hours at least 24 hours prior to the time of the meeting.

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

Staff Reports: Staff reports are available for inspection at the STA Offices, One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. You may also contact the Clerk of the Board via email at [email protected] Supplemental Reports: Any reports or other materials that are issued after the agenda has been distributed may be reviewed by contacting the STA Clerk of the Board and copies of any such supplemental materials will be available on the table at the entry to the meeting room.

Agenda Times: Times set forth on the agenda are estimates. Items may be heard before or after the times shown.

ITEM BOARD/STAFF PERSON

1. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE(6:00 p.m.)

Chair Price

2. CONFIRM QUORUM/ STATEMENT OF CONFLICT Chair PriceAn official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify indetail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing andvoting on the matter; (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made. Cal. Gov’t Code§ 87200.

STA BOARD MEMBERS Jim Spering Lori Wilson Elizabeth Patterson Thom Bogue

(Vice Chair) Harry Price

(Chair) Ronald Kott Ron Rowlett Bob Sampayan

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

STA BOARD ALTERNATES Erin Hannigan Mike Segala Lionel Largaespada Steve Bird Chuck Timm Donald Roos Dilenna Harris Robert McConnell

1

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

mailto:[email protected]

The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov(Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month


3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT(6:05 – 6:10 p.m.)

5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT – Pg.(6:10 – 6:15 p.m.)

Daryl Halls

6. REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION (MTC)(6:15 – 6:20 p.m.)

Jim Spering, MTC Commissioner

7. REPORT FROM CALTRANS(6:20 – 6:25 p.m.)

8. STA PRESENTATIONS(6:25 – 6:45 p.m.)A. FASTER Bay Area Presentation Stuart Cohen, FASTER Bay Area Committee,

and Gwen Litvak, Bay Area Council

B. Directors Reports:1. Planning2. Projects3. Programs

Robert Guerrero Anthony Adams

Ron Grassi/Lloyd Nadal

Johanna Masiclat

Johanna Masiclat

9. CONSENT CALENDARRecommendation:Approve the following consent items in one motion.(Note: Items under consent calendar may be removed for separate discussion.)(6:45 – 6:50 p.m.)

A. Meeting Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of July 10, 2019 Recommendation:Approve the Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of July 10, 2019.Pg. 17

B. Draft Minutes of the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting of August 28, 2019Recommendation:Receive and file.Pg. 25

C. Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP) Rate Application for CaltransRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. STA’s ICAP Rate Application for FY 2019-20 at 59.76%; and2. Authorize the Executive Director to submit the ICAP Rate

Application to Caltrans. Pg. 31

Susan Furtado

2

7




D. Updated Intercity Bus Replacement Capital PlanRecommendation:Approval of the following:

1. Updated Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan (September2019) as specified in Attachment B adding four SolanoExpressbuses for expansion of the Red Line;

2. Authorize the Executive Director to allocate $1,695,989 millionin Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 STAF for the purchase of twoSolanoExpress buses by Solano County Transit (SolTrans); and

3. Program $847,995 in FY 2020-21 STAF for the funding of oneSolanoExpress Bus by SolTrans.

Pg. 33

Brandon Thomson

E. 2019 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis StudyRecommendation:Authorize the Executive 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. 43

Brandon Thomson

F. STA Support of Full Implementation of SolTrans AutomatedVehicle Location and Automated Passenger Counting (AVL/APC)SystemRecommendation:Authorize the Executive 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. 47

Brandon Thomson

Erika McLitus G. Addendum to the 2019 Solano County Pothole Report Recommendation:Approve the Addendum to the 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report as shown in Attachment A.Pg. 49

H. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) AppointmentsRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. Reappoint Mike Segala to the BAC for a three-year term; and2. Appoint Steve Olry to the PAC for a three-year term.

Pg. 83

Triana Crighton

3




Brandon Thomson I. Authorize to Auction Former Solano Paratransit Buses Recommendation:Authorize the Executive Director to auction former Solano Paratransit Bus Numbers 2014 and 2015 and allocate the proceeds to the SolanoExpress Bus Replacement Program.Pg. 89

J. Amendment to Executive Director’s Employment Agreement Recommendation:Approve the Second Amendment to Executive Director Employment Agreement as shown in Attachment A.Pg. 91

Bernadette Curry

10. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution of Necessity to AcquireProperty by Eminent Domain, if necessary, for the I-80/I-680/SR 12Interchange Project –Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80Connector (Construction Package 2A)Recommendation:

1. Conduct a public hearing; and2. Adopt the attached Resolution of Necessity No. 2019-10

(Attachment B) to acquire by eminent domain, if necessary, theproperty needed for the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project –Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (ConstructionPackage 2A) as specified in the Resolution of Necessity(Attachment B).

(6:50 – 7:00 p.m.) Pg. 95

Janet Adams

B. Funding Proposal for Vallejo Station Phase BRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. Authorize the STA Board Chair to send a letter to SF Bay AreaWater Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) requesting$10M RM 3 funding from the Ferry Enhancement Program forVallejo Station Phase B;

2. Authorize the STA Board Chair to request $10M RM 3 fundingfrom the North Bay Transit Access Improvements contingent onWETA funding approval for Vallejo Station Phase B;

3. Authorize the STA Board Chair to send a letter to the VallejoMayor and City Council requesting a commitment of $5 M plus asthe local match funding for the Vallejo Station Phase B project; and

4. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreementwith the City of Vallejo for the completion of Vallejo Station PhaseB.

(7:00 – 7:10 p.m.) Pg. 97

Janet Adams

4




Vincent Ma

Robert Guerrero

Janet Adams

11. ACTION NON-FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Legislative UpdateRecommendation:Endorse the Final Draft of Caltrans’ California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Consensus Principles Document as shown in Attachment H.(7:10 – 7:15 p.m.)Pg. 101

B. Status of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Production Areas (PPAs) Designation and ImplementationRecommendation:Authorize the Executive Director to submit a letter responding to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Priority Development Area Action Plan.(7:15 – 7:20 p.m.)Pg. 157

12. INFORMATIONAL – DISCUSSION

A. 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Priorities and Schedule(7:20 – 7:25 p.m.)Pg. 171

B. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 4th Quarter Update Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19(7:25 – 7:30 p.m.)Pg. 229

Anthony Adams

NO DISCUSSION

Lloyd Nadal C. Solano Safe Routes to School Program 4th Quarter Report for FY 2018-19Pg. 233

D. Summary of Funding OpportunitiesPg. 241

Triana Crighton

5




E. 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting SchedulePg. 245

Johanna Masiclat

13. BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS

14. ADJOURNMENTThe next regularly scheduled meeting of the STA Board is at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 9,2019, at the Suisun Council Chambers.

STA Board Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 9, 2019

5:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 13, 2019 (STA’s 22nd Annual Awards – City of Fairfield) 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 11, 2019

6


Agenda Item 5 September 11, 2019

DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Daryl K. Halls RE: Executive Director’s Report – September 2019

The following is a brief status report on some of the major issues and projects currently being advanced by the Solano Transportation Authority (STA). An asterisk (*) notes items included in this month’s Board agenda.

Presentation on Freedom. Affordability. Speed. Transparency. Equity. Reliability. (FASTER) Bay Area Proposal * Representatives of a regional proposal to fund a series of regional transportation projects to address the growing transportation challenges in the Bay Area have requested to provide an informational presentation to the STA Board at the September 11th meeting. The proposal has been called “FASTER Bay Area” and is being led by a group of private sector Bay Area proponents that include the Bay Area Council, The Silicon Valley Manufacturer’s Group, and San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research (SPUR). The last several months, the Faster Bay Area group has been discussing the need for a regional measure in the Bay Area to address the current and future transportation needs of the region and the group is targeting the November 2020 election to potentially place a measure before Bay Area voters. Similar presentations are being made throughout the nine Bay Area counties.

Solano County Board of Supervisors Approve Extension of County Public Facility Fee (PFF) and Augmentation of Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) * Last month, the Solano County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an extension of the County Public Facility Fee (PFF), which includes an augmentation of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) that is administered by the STA on behalf of the County and the seven cities. This augmentation of the RTIF will result in an increase of the Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) from $1,500 to $2,500. This is estimated to increase the annual RTIF revenue available for eligible projects from $1.2 million per year to $2 million per year. Since the inception of the RTIF over five ½ years ago, an estimated $7 million has been generated for the RTIF program and these revenues have funded a variety of RTIF eligible transportation projects with a nexus to growth in the adjacent area. Next step in the RTIF process will be for STA staff to coordinate the annual meetings of all seven RTIF working groups so they can update project delivery schedules and funding plans for each group. STA staff will be preparing the RTIF Annual Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 once the fourth quarter RTIF funds are received.

Regional Deadline for Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Priority Production Areas (PPAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) is September 16th* Local agencies interested in making changes to existing or proposing new PCAs, PDAs or PPAs have until September 16th to submit a letter of interest to Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC) a letter of interest and must adopt a resolution making the requested designation by December. STA planning staff have been communicating with staff from each of the seven cities and County to answer questions and discuss potential future transportation projects that would help provide improved access to these areas. STA staff will provide an updated list of PDA, PPA and PCA submittals.

7

Executive Director’s Memo September 3, 2019

Page 2 of 3 Funding Plan for Vallejo Station Phase B * The STA successfully partnered with the City of Vallejo to fund the construction of Vallejo Station Phase A which provides parking for the successful SF Bay Area Ferry that provided over 1.05 million ferry rides between the City of Vallejo and San Francisco in 2018. The ridership on the SF Bay Ferry continues to grow and STA has been working with Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and the City of Vallejo to provide more frequent transit connections (now served by the Red and Yellow Lines), expanded transit facilities and improved active transportation access (walking and biking). Concurrently, the City of Vallejo’s waterfront plans includes expanding retail, employment, and housing opportunities in the downtown and waterfront areas with 3,500 housing units and 4,900 jobs planned with ½ mile of the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, Vallejo Station Phase A, and Vallejo Transit Center. The Vallejo Station Phase B will add 857 parking spaces to help meet the current and project future increase in ridership and parking demand. The recent passage of Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) in 2018 provides the opportunity to help fund the Vallejo Station Phase B project. Staff has developed a draft funding plan for the construction of the project that includes both regional and local funding commitments, and a funding commitment by the STA utilizing RM 3 expected to be available to the STA in future years. I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Package 2A – Acquiring Property * STA is partnering with Caltrans District 4 to complete the project development activities for Construction Package 2A of the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange. Caltrans is lead for the design phase utilizing a General Contractor/Construction Manager approach and Caltrans requested STA serve as the lead for the right of way phase to ensure the project stays on schedule per the requirements of state Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding which is funding the construction scheduled for 2020. 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Priorities* Every two years, the STA programs the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for Solano County. The nine county RTIPs are then submitted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to be combined with the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) to comprise the 2020 STIP. Due to a delay in Board of Equalization adjustments to the gas tax, the 2018 STIP was over projected resulting in the need to correct (meaning lower) in the 2020 STIP. STA staff has developed recommendations for projects with available 2020 STIP funds that includes funding for the remaining unfunded segment of the Jepson Parkway, match funding for the SR 12 Complete Highway Project adjacent to Rio Vista, and match funding for the SR 37/Fairgrounds Interchange projects adjacent to Six Flags in Vallejo. SolanoExpress Coordination Continues * Several items on the agenda pertain to STA’s coordination efforts with SolTrans and Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST). Items include purchasing additional buses for the Red Line, survey of Solano Express ridership to help evaluate the Blue, Green, Red and Yellow lines, and support for transition to SolTrans’ Automated Vehicle Location and Automated Passenger Counting (AVL/APC) System.

8

Executive Director’s Memo September 3, 2019

Page 3 of 3 STA Staff Update STA recently hired Neil Quintanilla to fill the vacant position of Marketing Assistant. Neil is a resident of Fairfield, most recently did marketing work for Travis Air Force Base, and he is supervised by Vincent Ma, STA’s Marketing and Legislative Program Manager. The recruitment processes for the vacant Assistant Planner/Planning Assistant, and Accountant/Grants Coordinator positions have been initiated and it is anticipated that both positions will be filled in September. STA’s Finance section consisting of Susan Furtado, Accounting/Administrative Services Manager, and Brenda McNichols, Accounting Technician, were recognized recently by the State Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) with a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for STA’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018. This is STA’s third consecutive year receiving this recognition. Congrats to Susan and Brenda for their quality accounting work. Provided under separate cover is a summary of countywide and regional meetings that I attended on behalf of STA during the months of July and August 2019. Attachments:

A. Summary of Countywide and Regional Meetings B. STA Acronyms List of Transportation Terms

9

This page is left intentionally blank.

10

ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL MEETINGS IN THE MONTH OF JULY & AUGUST 2019

July 1 - Staffed meeting of STA Board’s Executive Committee - Meeting with SPUR staff to discuss their FASTER Bay Area proposal

July 8 - Meeting with SolTrans GM Beth Kranda and staff to discuss Benicia Lyft

Pilot and Red Line

July 9 - Meeting with County CAO Birgitta Corsello to discuss City County Coordinating Council items and RTIF Workshop

- Attended MTC’s Express Lanes 10 Year Strategic Implementation Plan in San Francisco

July 10

- Attended County Public Facility Fee and RTIF Workshop at Suisun City Council Chambers with Board Members and City Managers/County CAO

- Staffed STA Board meeting in Suisun City

July 11 - Attended Solano EDC Board of Directors meeting at Jelly Bellies

July 18 - Meeting with Benicia public works staff to discuss Park Road design and construction funding

- Coordination meeting with SolTrans to discuss Red Line service and purchase of additional buses to expand service

July 19 - Attended Bay Area Partnership Board meeting in San Francisco

July 23 - Meeting with Suisun City city manager, planning and public works staff to discuss HCD’s SB 2 planning grant

- Meeting with Vacaville city manager, planning and public works staff to discuss HCD’s SB 2 planning grant

- Meeting with County CAO and planning and engineering staff to discuss HCD’s SB 2 planning grant

- Meeting with Fairfield city manager, planning and public works staff to discuss HCD’s SB 2 planning grant

- Meeting with Rio Vista and public works staff to discuss HCD’s SB 2 planning grant

July 24 - Attended Solano City Managers meeting in Fairfield

July 29 - Meeting with three SR 37 Policy Reps to discuss status of projects - Meeting with Suisun City city manager and staff to discuss maintenance of

Suisun Train Depot - Attended FASTER Bay Area conference call with four North Bay counties

staff

July 30 - Attended CALCOG Executive Directors meeting in Sacramento - Conference call with Strategic Growth Council grant program staff to

discuss SGC’s Affordable Housing Grant Program

11

August 1 - Attended SR 37 ESC meeting

August 2 - Participated in call with Vallejo planning and public works staff to discuss PDAs, PPAs and Solano HIP

- Meeting with Vallejo Council Member Pippin Dew to provide CALCOG briefing as new LOCC rep to CALCOG Board

August 13 - Presentation to Vacaville Sunrise Rotary

August 15 - Attended Solano EDC Economic Forum with Sonoma State’s Dr. Eyler as presenter

- Attended Solano Planning Directors Group meeting to discuss SolHIP, SB 2, PPAs and PDAs

August 19 - Meeting with SolTrans to discuss Solano Express coordination - Meeting with WETA Board member Intintoli and MTC Commissioner - Spering to discuss funding plan for Vallejo Station Phase B

August 20 - Participated in regional Goods Movement Executive Team conference call

- Attended Bay Area Express Lanes 10 Year Strategic Implementation meeting in San Francisco

- Attended MTC Express Lanes Steering Committee meeting in San Francisco

August 21 - Attended Coordination meeting with FAST staff on Solano Express service

August 22 - Meeting with County CAO Birgitta Corsello to discuss coordination issues

August 23 - Attended meeting hosted by State Senator Bill Dodd to discuss evaluation of rail service between Napa and City of Vallejo

August 26 - Participated in conference call with Fairfield city manager, planning and public works staff to discuss SB 2 submittals, PDAs and PPAs.

- Traveled to Benicia Bus Hub via the Blue Line to attend dedication event - Meeting with Fairfield city manager, planning and public work staff to

discuss funding plan options for Jepson Parkway segments

August 27 - Participated in conference call with Vallejo Assistant City Manager, planning and public works staff to discuss SB 2 submittal, Housing Trailer bill, and PDA, PPA and PCA submittals

- Attended Partnership Board working group meeting in San Francisco to discuss future role of Partnership Board

August 28 - Conference call with City of Vacaville planning and public works staff to

discuss PDAs, PPAs, and SB 2 planning funds - Conference call with NVTA Executive Director and Planning Director to

discuss FASTER Bay Area proposal and SMART rail study of Napa to Vallejo segment

- Moderated STA TAC meeting

12

- Meeting with Benicia planning and public works staff to discuss Attended meeting with Solano Transit Operators on electrification

- Attended SolanoExpress Transit Consortium meeting Attended meeting with FAST staff on SolanoExpress coordination issues and FAST SRTP

August 29 - Conference call with MTC management staff to discuss Suburban Housing

Investment Pilot Program for Solano County and other suburban cities - Attended CTSA Agenda coordination meeting - Staffed STA Board’s Executive Committee meeting - Meeting with Congressman John Garamendi at STA to discuss priority

transportation projects - Meeting with Dixon planning and public works staff to discuss PDAs, PPS,

and SB 2 planning funds

August 30 - Conference call with SMART Executive Director and NVTA Executive Director to discuss studying rail service between Vallejo and Napa

-

13


14

STA ACRONYMS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Last Updated by JM: October 2018

A AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission ADA American Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic APDE Advanced Project Development Element (STIP) AQMD Air Quality Management District ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ATP Active Transportation Program ATWG Active Transportation Working Group AVA Abandoned Vehicle Abatement B BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAC Bicycle Advisory Committee BACTA Bay Area Counties Transportation Agencies BAIFA Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development C CAF Clean Air Funds CalSTA California State Transportation Agency CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CCAG City-County Association of Governments (San Mateo) CCCC (4’Cs) City County Coordinating Council CCCTA (3CTA) Central Contra Costa Transit Authority CCJPA Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHP California Highway Patrol CIP Capital Improvement Program CMA Congestion Management Agency CMIA Corridor Mobility Improvement Account CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program CMGC Construction Manager/General Contractor CMP Congestion Management Plan CNG Compressed Natural Gas CPI Consumer Price Index CTA California Transit Agency CTC California Transportation Commission CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan CTSA Consolidated Transportation Services Agency D DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOT Department of Transportation E ECMAQ Eastern Solano Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EV Electric Vehicle F FAST Fairfield and Suisun Transit FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FASTER Freedom. Affordability. Speed. Transparency. Equity. Reliability. FASTLANE Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FHWA Federal Highway Administration FPI Freeway Performance Initiative FTA Federal Transit Administration G GARVEE Grant Anticipating Revenue Vehicle GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System H HIP Housing Incentive Program HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Plan I INFRA Infrastructure for Rebuilding America ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program ITS Intelligent Transportation System J JARC Jobs Access Reverse Commute Program JPA Joint Powers Agreement L LATIP Local Area Transportation Improvement Program LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) LEV Low Emission Vehicle LIFT Low Income Flexible Transportation Program LOS Level of Service LS&R Local Streets & Roads LTR Local Transportation Funds M MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MAZ Micro Analysis Zone MIS Major Investment Study MLIP Managed Lanes Implementation Plan MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTAC Model Technical Advisory Committee MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTS Metropolitan Transportation System N NCTPA Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHS National Highway System NOP Notice of Preparation NVTA Napa Valley Transportation Authority O OBAG One Bay Area Grant OPR Office of Planning and Research OTS Office of Traffic Safety P PAC Pedestrian Advisory Committee PCA Priority Conservation Area PCC Paratransit Coordinating Council PCI Pavement Condition Index PCRP Planning & Congestion Relief Program PDS Project Development Support PDA Priority Development Area PDT Project Delivery Team PDWG Project Delivery Working Group PMP Pavement Management Program 15

STA ACRONYMS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Last Updated by JM: October 2018

PMS Pavement Management System PNR Park & Ride POP Program of Projects PPA Priority Production Area PPM Planning, Programming & Monitoring PPP (P3) Public Private Partnership PS&E Plans, Specifications & Estimate PSR Project Study Report PTA Public Transportation Account PTAC Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (MTC) R RABA Revenue Alignment Budget Authority REPEG Regional Environmental Public Education Group RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Qualification RM 1/2/3 Regional Measure 1/2/3 (Bridge Toll) RMRP Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program RORS Routes of Regional Significance RPC Regional Pedestrian Committee RRP Regional Rideshare Program RTEP Regional Transit Expansion Policy RTIF Regional Transportation Impact Fee RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTMC Regional Transit Marketing Committee RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency S SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equality Act-a Legacy for Users SATP Solano Active Transportation Plan SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority SGC Strategic Growth Council SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments SHOPP State Highway Operations & Protection Program SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMART Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit SMART Safety, Mobility and Automated Real-time SMCCAG San Mateo City-County Association of Governments SNABM Solano-Napa Activity-Based Model SNCI Solano Napa Commuter Information SoHip Solano Highway Partnership SolTrans Solano County Transit SOV Single Occupant Vehicle SPOT Solano Projects Online Tracking SP&R State Planning & Research SPUR San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research SR State Route SR2S Safe Routes to School SR2T Safe Routes to Transit SRTP Short Range Transit Plan SSARP Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program SSPWD TAC Solano Seniors & People with Disabilities Transportation

Advisory Committee STAF State Transit Assistance Fund STA Solano Transportation Authority STBG Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program

STIA Solano Transportation Improvement Authority STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Federal Surface Transportation Program T TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAM Transportation Authority of Marin TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TCI Transportation Capital Improvement TCIF Trade Corridor Improvement Fund TCM Transportation Control Measure TCRP Transportation Congestion Relief Program TDA Transportation Development Act TDM Transportation Demand Management TE Transportation Enhancement TEA Transportation Enhancement Activity TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century TFCA Transportation Funds for Clean Air TIF Transportation Investment Fund TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TIP Transportation Improvement Program TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program TLC Transportation for Livable Communities TMA Transportation Management Association TMP Transportation Management Plan TMS Transportation Management System TMTAC Transportation Management Technical Advisory Committee TNC Transportation Network Company TOD Transportation Operations Systems TOD Transit Oriented Development TOS Traffic Operation System T-Plus Transportation Planning and Land Use Solutions TRAC Trails Advisory Committee TSMO Transportation System Management and Operations U, V, W UZA Urbanized Area USDOT United States Department of Transportation VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VTA Valley Transportation Authority (Santa Clara) W2W Welfare to Work WCCCTAC West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority Y, Z YCTD Yolo County Transit District YSAQMD Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management DistrictZ ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

16

Agenda Item 9.A September 11, 2019

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Draft Board Minutes for Meeting of

July 10, 2019

1. CALL TO ORDERChair Price called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was confirmed.

MEMBERSPRESENT: Harry Price, Chair City of Fairfield

Thom Bogue, Vice Chair

City of Dixon

Elizabeth Patterson City of Benicia Ron Kott City of Rio Vista Lori Wilson City of Suisun City Ron Rowlett City of Vacaville Bob Sampayan City of Vallejo Jim Spering County of Solano

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: (In alphabetical order by last name.)

Anthony Adams Project Manager Bernadette Curry Legal Counsel Triana Crighton Assistant Planner Susan Furtado Accounting and Administrative Services Manager Ron Grassi Director of Programs Robert Guerrero Director of Planning Daryl Halls Executive Director Vincent Ma Marketing & Legislative Program Manager Johanna Masiclat Office Manager/Clerk of the Board Erika McLitus Project Assistant Lloyd Nadal Program Svcs. Division Manager Brandon Thomson Transit Program Coordinator

ALSO PRESENT: (In alphabetical order by last name.) Jack Batchelor District Rep. for Congressman John Garamendi Robert Burris Solano Economic Development Corporation (Solano EDC) Greg Folsom City of Suisun City George Gwynn Suisun City Resident Beth Kranda Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Matt Medill City of Suisun City William Tarbox City of Benicia

17

2. CONFIRM QUORUM/STATEMENT OF CONFLICT A quorum was confirmed by the Clerk of the Board, Johanna Masiclat. There was no Statement of Conflict declared at this time.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA At this time, the STA Board requested to add Agenda Item 10.C to authorize the STA Board Chair to forward a letter of support for SMART’s submittal of a state grant funding request to conduct an environmental assessment of rail service paralleling the SR 37 Corridor with a connection from Napa Junction to the Suisun Amtrak Station. Daryl Halls noted this item was in follow up to SMART’s SR 37 Rail Feasibility Study provided at the June STA Board meeting. On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Rowlett, the STA Board approved the agenda as amended shown above in bold italics. (8 Ayes)

4. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT George Gwynn Jr. commented on various local and regional transportation issues.

5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Daryl Halls provided an update on the following items:

• Water Transit Feasibility Study • Solano EDC Presentation on Status of Moving Solano Forward Economic Study • Workshop on Extension of County Public Facility Fee (PFF) and Regional Transportation

Impact Fee (RTIF) Scheduled • Status of PCAs and PDAs and New PPAs • STA Hosts Two Public Works Shops and Face Book Live Event to Showcase Draft Equity

Guiding Principles • New SolanoExpress Red Line Starts Service • New Vehicle Share Program Vans Arrive • Solano Commuter Profile and Marketing Research Proposal • STA Staff Update

6. REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) None presented.

7. REPORT FROM CALTRANS None presented.

8. STA PRESENTATIONS A. Moving Solano Forward Update

Presented by Robert Burris, Solano EDC B. Directors Reports:

1. Planning 2. Projects 3. Programs

18

9. CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation: Approve the following consent items in one motion. On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Ron Rowlett, the STA Board approved Items A through L (8 Ayes)

A. Meeting Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of June 12, 2019 Recommendation: Approve the Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of June 12, 2019.

B. Draft Minutes of the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting of June 26, 2019 Recommendation: Receive and file.

C. 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: Approve the following:

1. 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; and

2. STA Resolution No. 2019-08 authorizing the STA’s filing of a claim with MTC for the allocation of TDA funds for FY 2019-20.

D. Submittal of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Grant for State

Route (SR) 37 Corridor Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Pilot Recommendation: Authorize the STA Executive Director to jointly apply for the BAAQMD Pilot Trip Reduction Program grant along with Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) to pilot a coordinated TDM approach focused on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and congestion on the SR 37 Corridor.

E. Contract Agreement for Transit and Mobility Programs Services Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to execute a one year agreement with Elizabeth Niedziela for Transit and Mobility Programs Services for an amount not-to-exceed $50,000.

F. Authorize to Auction Former Solano Paratransit Bus Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to Auction former Solano Paratransit Bus Number 707 and allocate the proceeds to the SolanoExpress Bus Replacement Plan.

G. Approval of State Route (SR) 37 Funding Agreement for Land Acquisition between the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), Solano County and the Solano Transportation Authority Recommendation: Authorize the STA Executive Director to enter into a Funding Agreement between BATA and Solano County for 50 acres of property acquisition along the SR 37 Corridor per Attachments A and B. 19

H. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) Member Appointment Recommendation: Appoint Aaron Trudeau to represent the City of Vacaville on the PAC for a three-year term to expire on August 31, 2022.

I. STA Plan Bay Area 2050 Projects Submittal Board Resolution Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. STA Resolution No. 2019-09 for adopting the proposed 2021 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Projects List for submittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as shown in Attachment A; and

2. The proposed 2021 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Projects List as shown in Attachment B.

J. Video Production Consulting Services

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $70,000 for video production consultant services for STA and STA managed programs for FY 2019-20.

K. Mobility Management Contract Amendment - Faith in Action Volunteer Drive Program for Seniors Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to exercise the renewal option and enter into a one-year contract with Faith in Action for an amount not-to-exceed $45,000 to provide Transportation Services for Seniors.

L. Contract Amendment for STA Legal Services Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to extend the agreement with Solano County Counsel for the provision of legal services for a two year period, with the option for a two year extension, for a not-to-exceed annual amount of $80,000.

11. ACTION – NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Water Transit Feasibility Study Ashleigh Kanat, EPS presented the Solano County Water Transit Feasibility Study. She identified the opportunities and constraints associated with expanding/introducing ferry service to/from Solano County. She noted that the Study includes a component that assessed the potential for water transit service paralleling the SR 37 Corridor, in addition to assessing the potential for water transit from multiple origins in Solano County to multiple destinations located outside of Solano County. She also commented that the largest potential for expanded water transit service would result from expanding the frequency of the current service between Vallejo and San Francisco.

20

Board/Public Comments: Board Member Patterson addressed the following:

• Sacramento and Yolo County employment patterns should be considered in future studies as it may reveal more potential ridership.

• Page 3 Weekday vs Weekend – She requested that future studies may take a different approach by starting with a “pilot” weekend service as opposed to a peak weekday service.

• Page 26 in regards to the Benicia Report. She cited a factual correction noting that the port is a public trust port leased to Amports, in which Valero is a subsidiary, which would mean that Benicia has quite a bit of negotiating power.

Recommendation:

Approve the 2019 Solano County Water Transit Feasibility Study and Conceptual Plan.

On a motion by Board Member Wilson, and a second by Vice Chair Bogue, the STA Board approved the recommendation to include the noted changes listed above requested by Board Member Patterson. (8 Ayes)

B. Legislative Update Vincent 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.” In addition, Mr. Ma introduced and reviewed the proposed rulemaking Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rules for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicle Rule). He cited that the SAFE Vehicle Rule would roll back national fuel-efficiency standards would limit the ability of STA to deliver transportation projects in Solano County.

Board/Public Comments: None.

Recommendation: Approve the following recommended positions:

• Monitor AB 101/SB102 – Housing development and financing • Monitor SB 87 – Transportation • Monitor SB 592 – Housing Accountability Act • Support H.R.3193 – Transportation Emergency Relief Funds Availability Act

On a motion by Board Member Wilson, and a second by Vice Chair Bogue, the STA Board

approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

C. ADDENDUM - Letter of Support for SMART Recommendation: Authorize the STA Board Chair to forward a letter of support for SMART’s submittal of a state grant funding request to conduct an environmental assessment of rail service paralleling the SR 37 Corridor with a connection from Napa Junction to the Suisun Amtrak Station.

By consensus, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

21

11. ACTION – NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Solano Commuter Profile and Marketing Research Request for Proposal (RFP) Lloyd Nadal and Vince Ma reviewed staff’s recommendation to bring back the commuter profile for Solano County. They explained that this effort will provide valuable commuter trends and data which will be beneficial to STA’s ride program and transportation planning efforts. They outlined the process of expanding the data collection by obtaining cell phone data that will provide more detailed information regarding the travel patterns of Solano County’s commuters. They also noted that the data will be helpful in assisting the analysis underway as part of several transit and corridor studies, and will aid STA’s Employer/Commuter Programs, SolanoExpress, First Last Mile, and other STA Marketing efforts.

Board/Public Comments: None presented.

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to:

1. Make a budget modification to increase the FY 2019-20 Programs Department Budget by $100,000 to fund the Solano Commuter Profile and Marketing Research; and

2. To enter into an agreement(s) with a consultant(s) to create an updated Commuter Profile for Solano County commuters and commute patterns and additional marketing research to encourage use of SolanoExpress and other alternative travel modes.

On a motion by Board Member Spering, and a second by Board Member Rowlett, the STA

Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

B. Solano-Napa Activity Based Model Update Robert Guerrero presented staff’s recommendation to the update the Solano-Napa Model. He noted that since the model needs a better performing model with up to date data necessary for the 2019 Congestion Management Program and Solano Express Lanes project, staff is proposing to amend the agreement with TJKM to include the new scope of work and budget. He also noted that staff recommends a continued partnership with NVTA for cost savings from common tasks and data acquisition.

Board/Public Comments: None presented.

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to amend the agreement with TJKM to include the new scope of work and budget of $175,000 to update the Solano Napa Activity Based Model as shown in Attachment A.

On a motion by Board Member Rowlett, and a second by Board Member Wilson, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

22

12. INFORMATIONAL – NO DISCUSSION

A. Status of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Production Areas (PPAs) Designation and Implementation

B. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 3rd Quarter Update FY 2018-19

C. Schedule for 2020 Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

D. Summary of Funding Opportunities

E. 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule

13. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next STA Board meeting is scheduled at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 11, 2019, Suisun Council Chambers.

Attested by: ___________________________ Johanna Masiclat Clerk of the Board

23


24

Agenda Item 9.B September 11, 2019

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT Minutes for the Meeting of

August 28, 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 Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville Terrance Davis City of Vallejo

TAC Members Absent: Robin Borre City of Rio Vista

Matt Tuggle County of Solano

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

Anthony Adams STA Janet Adams STA Ada Chan MTC/ABAG Triana Crighton STA Matt Gleason City of Vallejo Ron Grassi STA Robert Guerrero STA Daryl Halls STA Vincent Ma STA Johanna Masiclat STA John McKenzie STA Lloyd Nadal STA Craig Pyle County of Solano Neil Quintanilla STA Nouae Vue City of Benicia

25

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On a motion by Joe Leach, and a second by Shawn Cunningham, the STA TAC approved the agenda to include amendment to Agenda Item 5.B as shown below in strikethrough bold italics. (6 Ayes)

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

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

2. Authorize the Executive Director to allocate $1.4 1.695 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 $847,995 in FY 2020-21 for the funding of one SolanoExpress Bus by SolTrans.

3.

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT None presented.

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES The following announcements were made by STA staff:

1. Anthony Adams asked if the STA TAC had any interest in having a joint meeting in the future with the PDWG to discuss a potential countywide pilot program for E-Bike and E-Scooter. Since there will be no TAC meeting in October, the STA TAC agreed to schedule the joint meeting at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at the STA.

2. Neil Quintanilla announced the “Call for Nominations” for STA’s 22nd Annual Awards is due on Tuesday, September 3, 2019.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

On a motion Terrance Davis, and a second by Paul Kaushal, the STA TAC approved Items A through D as amended shown below in strikethrough bold italics. (6 Ayes)

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

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

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

5. Authorize the Executive Director to allocate $1.4 1.695 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 STAF for the purchase of two SolanoExpress buses by Solano County Transit (SolTrans); and

6. Program $700,000 $847,995 in FY 2020-21 for the funding of one SolanoExpress Bus by SolTrans.

26

C. 2019 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis Study 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.

D. STA Support of Full Implementation of SolTrans AVL/APC System 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.

6. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. None.

7. ACTION NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Legislative Update Vincent Ma reviewed the current status of bills in which STA is monitoring and seeking amendment, support, and opposition. He reviewed Caltrans’ 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.”

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.

On a motion by William Tarbox, and a second by Joe Leach, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes)

B. Addendum to the 2019 Solano County Pothole Report Anthony Adams noted that the Solano Project Delivery Working Group (PDWG) completed their final review of the individual jurisdictions at their July 25th meeting, and the final drafts incorporated all proposed revisions both from the PDWG and the STA TAC. He added that 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.

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

27

On a motion by Joe Leach, and a second by Matt Medill, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes)

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Status of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Production Areas (PPAs) Designation and Implementation Robert Guerrero provided an update and outlined the basic framework for the call for PDA, PCA, and PPA pilot designations. He explained that as part of this call, the seven cities and the County of Solano are requested to respond to ABAG/MTC by September 16, 2019 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.

B. Solano Safe Routes to School Program 4th Quarter Report for FY 2018-19 Lloyd Nadal provided a year-end report on the Solano SR2S Program. He noted that the SR2SP Program had another successful year 2018-19 with 359 events, reaching 21,731 students through programs and events which included several new pilot activities at schools in several districts. He concluded by stating that 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.

C. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 4th Quarter Update Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Anthony Adams reviewed the RTIF revenue, project commitments, and uncommitted funds summary provided in the packet. He commented that the last time every working group met to prioritize projects was in February 2018, prioritizing FY 2018-19 funds, and requested to reconvene their working group meetings in September and October 2019 to reaffirm their project commitments and priorities. He noted that four working groups (#2, #4, #5, and #7) in particular need to identify a new priority project for RTIF funding.

D. I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange - Construction Package 2 Update Janet Adams provided an update on the construction of package 2 of the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange. She noted that Caltrans has completed the 35% design with the 65% due in September 2019, and that STA has made offers to 8 property owners. She cited that of these 8, 6 owners own multiple parcels, and 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.

E. 2020 Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Programming Janet Adams reviewed the future STIP funding priorities and prior commitments, 2020 STP fund estimate and preliminary project considerations, MTC RTIP Policies and development schedule.

28

F. One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 3 Funding Guidelines and Schedule Janet Adams outlined the review and selection process for OBAG 3 for Solano County. She noted that 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. She commented that 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. She concluded by stating that 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.

NO DISCUSSION

G. Summary of Funding Opportunities

H. Draft Meeting Minutes of STA Board & Advisory Committees

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

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

September 2019 A. CTP Elements - Equity & Land Use Chapters B. Draft Legislative Platform for 2020 C. Bike Facilities Demo D. Solano-Napa Activity Based Model Validation E. 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, September 25, 2019.

29


30

Agenda Item 9.C September 11, 2019

DATE: August 23, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Susan Furtado, Accounting and Administrative Services Manager RE: Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP) Rate

Application for Caltrans

Background: In compliance with Caltrans Local Program Procedures (LPP) 04-10 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, the STA is required to submit an annual ICAP Rate Application to Caltrans to enable STA to continue to charge an indirect cost allocation for federal and state funded projects. The ICAP Rate Application submitted and approved is based on the annual budget as a fixed rate with a carry- forward provision plan. A fixed rate with carry-forward provision is a rate subject to adjustment when actual expenditures for the fiscal year are audited. The difference between the estimated cost and the actual audited cost is carried forward as an adjustment to the second fiscal year following the adjusted year.

The FY 2017-18 ICAP rate is adjusted to reflect the actual and audited indirect cost expenditures using the audited financial statement and reports. The FY 2017-18 indirect cost expenditures is increased by the amount of $169,232.32 based on actual audited administration expenditures for the fiscal year. This adjustment is reflective of the ICAP Rate exclusions under the statutory and administrative limitations in accordance with OMB Circular A-87 and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 2 Grants and Agreements Part 225 Appendix B. This adjustment is carried forward as an increase to the FY 2019-20 ICAP Rate application.

Discussion: The STA’s FY 2019-20 ICAP Rate application result is at 59.76% (Attachment A). With the approval of this ICAP Rate, STA will be able to charge Indirect Cost to federal funds and other project funds that requires the use of the ICAP Rate. The ICAP Rate for FY 2019-20 will allow STA to get a total indirect cost reimbursement in the amount of approximately $79,000 to be reimbursed under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and the Office of the Traffic Safety (OTS) grants for the Mobility Program and the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program.

Fiscal Impact: The proposed ICAP Rate for FY 2019-20 of 59.76% will allow approximately $79,000 of indirect cost to be reimbursed under the grants for the Mobility and the Safe Routes to School Program.

Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. STA’s ICAP Rate Application for FY 2019-20 at 59.76%; and2. Authorize the Executive Director to submit the ICAP Rate Application to Caltrans.

Attachment: A. Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 ICAP Rate Calculation

31

ATTACHMENT A

FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020

INDIRECT COST CARRY FORWARD

Carry Forward Carry Forward 169,232.32

Indirect Cost from Single Audit 1,280,590.63

Total Indirect Cost 1,280,590.63 1,467,100.32

Recovered Costs:

Direct Salaries & Fringe Benefits 2,228,063.98

Approved Indirect Rate 49.88%

Total Recovered Indirect Cost 1,111,358.31

Indirect Carry Forward 169,232.32

DIRECT SALARIES & FRINGE BENEFITS(Per Single Audit)

General Fund 1,932,213.38 Special Revenue Fund 295,850.60

Total Direct Salaries & Fringe Benefits 2,228,063.98

Estimated Indirect Cost (FY 2020 Budget) $1,297,868

$2,455,175.00

Estimated Direct Salaries & Fringe Benefits

(From FY 2020 Budget)

Total Estimated Indirect Cost

Approved Rate 49.88% 54.21% 59.76%

Fixed with Carry Forward Calculation

From attachment #2

From attachment #2

From Attachment #5

Prepared by:Susan FurtadoAccounting and Administrative Services Manager 32

Agenda Item 9.D September 11, 2019

DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board 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.

33

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, including $1,461,175 in June 2018. 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 $1,971.46 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

34

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 the City of Vacaville for their contributions to the SolanoExpress vehicle replacement plan. STA staff is next working with FAST and SolTrans to develop funding agreements to reflect the udpated 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. At their meetings on August 27th and 28th, the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium and the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) unanimously approved to forward the recommendation to the STA Board. 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 $1,695,989 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 STAF for the purchase of two SolanoExpress buses by Solano County Transit (SolTrans); and

3. Program $847,995 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 28, 2019 C. Agency Funding Status for Intercity Bus Replacement Funding Plan as of August 2019

35


36

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Costs and Funding Attachment BPrepared 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

37

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

38

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Costs and FundingPrepared by NWC Partners 28-Aug-19 Attachment B Page 1 of 2Approved by STA Board:

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 4 0 5 2 39

FAST: All Diesel 0 0 0 9 3 5 2 19SolTrans: All CNG 0 6 4 6 4 20

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$ 847,995$ 873,434$ 899,638$ 926,627$ Vehicle Cost ‐$ 4,756,647$ 3,182,569$ 10,357,613$ 1,830,000$ 3,391,979$ -$ 3,548,711$ 1,462,069$ 28,529,586$

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 Commitments33.1% Funding from STAe 681,000$ 1,333,719$ 2,295,528$ 1,896,110$ 1,481,871$ 7,688,228$

Fairfield Train Station Loan Repaymentf 1,048,115$ 211,508$ 1,259,623$ 10.2% Funding from MTC or Otherg ‐‐ Proposed 1,971,146$ 1,971,146$ 56.7% Funding by Locals

Dixon 1.5% 38,622$ 191,929$ 121,861$ 352,412$ FASTh 19.6% 1,478,957$ 933,226$ 1,807,774$ 229,064$ 4,449,021$ SolTransi 21.6% 2,473,531$ 4,080,815$ 2,760,075$ (1,048,115)$ 647,874$ (1,896,109)$ (1,048,115)$ (1,048,115)$ 4,921,841$ Vacaville 8.8% 746,071$ 237,068$ 946,011$ 84,000$ 2,013,150$ Unincorporated County 0.4% 65,511$ 34,628$ 100,139$

Total Bus Replacement Funding -$ 4,756,692$ 8,252,680$ 4,343,165$ 3,204,945$ 3,391,979$ 0$ 3,187,542$ 1,392,584$ 28,529,586$

Annual Balance -$ 45$ 5,070,111$ (6,014,448)$ 1,374,945$ 0$ 0$ (361,169)$ (69,485)$ 0$

Cumulative Balance -$ 45$ 5,070,156$ (944,292)$ 430,654$ 430,654$ 430,654$ 69,485$ 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.h. FAST has identified additional funding (FTA 5339 and local match) for earlier acquisitions.i. 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. FAST will place TPI funds in an upcoming FTA grant. Funding includes $1,461,175 STAF approved by STA Board in June 2018, which is planned to be swapped with future CMAQ funds for the VTC York Street 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

STA loaned Fairfield $1,259,623 in Prop 1B funds for the Train Station project, which Fairfield has repaid. Loan repayment proceeds used by STA to repay SolTrans' excess 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 FAST. FAST may subsequently swap out an estimated $700,000 of the TDA funds with 5307 funds.

39

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Costs and Funding Attachment B Page 2 of 2

Prepared by NWC Partners 28-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:

FASTa

for

Phase 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

40

Solano County Intercity Bus Fleet Replacement Funding Status Attachment CIdentified Funding as of August 2019

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 programmed through June 2018b 3,810,525$ 3,810,525$ STAF (Planned to be Programmed)c 2,543,984$ Transit Performance Initiatived 1,333,719$ 1,333,719$ FTA 5307e (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 5311f 352,412$ 100,139$ 452,551$ FTA 5339g (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$

-$ Total Identified Funding 352,412$ 100,139$ 3,121,815$ 9,348,915$ 2,013,150$ 8,947,851$ -$ 23,884,282$

Balance to be Funded (0)$ 0$ 1,327,206$ (4,427,074)$ -$ 0$ 1,971,146$ (1,128,722)$

Proposed Sources Dixon County FAST SolTransh Vacaville STA MTC or Otheri

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. Planned STAF Programming of $1,695,989 in FY19-20 for purchse of two SolTrans buses, and $847,995 in FY20-21 for repayment to SolTrans for one bus.d.

e.

f.

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

i.

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. FAST to place TPI funds in FTA grant.

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

Includes STAF programmed through June 2018. Funding includes $1,461,175 STAF approved by STA Board in June 2018, which is planned to be swapped with future CMAQ funds for the VTC York Street Project.

41

This page intentionally left blank.

42

Agenda Item 9.E September 11, 2019

DATE: August 28, 2019 TO: STA Board 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. 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.

At their meetings on August 27th and 28th, the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium and the STA TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) the committees voted unanimously approved this item to be forwarded to the STA Board.

43

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. Recommendation: 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

44

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 bus

line? 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?



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 your destination?

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?




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 could NOT 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

45

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

46

Agenda Item 9.F September 11, 2019

DATE: August 30, 2019 TO: STA Board 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:

47

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.

At their meetings on August 27th and 28th, the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium and the STA TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) the committees voted unanimously approved this item to be forwarded to the STA Board.

Financial Impact: The project will be funded with $75,000 of STAF budgeted and available for the SolanoExpress Implementation activities. Recommendation: 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.

48

Agenda Item 9.G September 11, 2019

DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board 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 Regional 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 and local streets and roads 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 local road 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 grant 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.

49

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 from 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 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. At their meeting on August 28, 2019, the STA TAC recommended that the STA Board approve this Addendum to the 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. The Solano Annual Pothole Report for 2019 was funded by a grant provided by MTC. Recommendation: Approve the addendum to the 2019 Solano Countywide Pothole Report as shown in Attachment A. Attachment:

A. Addendum to the 2019 Solano County Pothole Report – Individual Jurisdiction Summaries

50

City of BeniciaThe City of Benicia is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 198 lane miles of pavement, or 582 pavement sections. The table below summarizes the length of the road and 2018 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.

Functional Class Sections Centerline Miles Lane Miles 2017 PCI

Arterial 56 18 37 63

Collector 45 16 31 69

Residential/Local 451 62 122 45

Total 582 95 198 54 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2018 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the City is 54. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). Benicia’s PCI score of 54 is considered “Good”. However, Benicia’s PCI has fallen 4 points in 5 years (the aver age PCI was 59 in 2013). Currently, 33% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good”, 19% falls under “Good”, 26% falls under “Poor”, and 22% falls under “Very Poor”. The current network condition reveals that Benicia’s roadway network has experienced a slow but sustained decline in pavement condition over the past 5 years, a troubling trend that can be difficult to reverse without significant investment.

August 201951

In order to correct these deficiencies, a cost-effective funding, maintenance and rehabilitationstrategy must be implemented. The City has been utilizing crack seals and surface treatments, such as slurry seals, as a means of preventive maintenance when the pavements are in “fair” condition or above. When the pavement condition deteriorates to lower levels, overlays and reconstruction have been performed.

Benicia’s current PCI is 54, with an average budget for roadway maintenance of $1.8M with SB 1 and $1.3M per year without SB 1. If that current level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the City would drop from its current rating of 54 (Good) to 53, including SB 1 funding.

August 2019

Benicia, 2018

52

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in good condition (a PCI of 50 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require five to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Benicia’s average PCI of 54 and its rapid decline since 2013 should be viewed with caution, as it indicates that its local streets and roads are poised on the edge of a maintenance cliff.

SB 1 funding will provide an additional $2.5 M over the next 5 years and will create tangible, positive changes to Benicia’s local streets and roads network. In 2018 alone, the City of Benicia repaired, reconstructed, or filled potholes on 34 streets and roads. These maintenance projects have a positive impact on the local community and the ongoing maintenance of Benicia’s local streets and roads network will curb the need for more expensive repairs in the future.

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsTo maintain an average PCI rating of 55 in the City of Benicia, approximately $25.1M would need to be spent over the next 10 years. The current budget provides approximately $19.3M over 10 years with SB 1 funding, leaving a funding shortfall of approximately $5.8M. To reach the higher PCI goal of 75, as stated in the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan, at least $26.4M more than what is currently being budgeted would need to be invested in Benicia’s roads over the next 10 years.

August 2019

$4.1M

53

However, even with this additional funding through SB 1 Benicia is currently on track to invest approximately 3/4 of the required $25.1M necessary to maintain the city’s average PCI at 55 over the next 10 years. If the city were to raise its average PCI to 75, the goal stated in the Countywide Transportation Plan, then the city would need to invest an additional $26.4M more than the $19.3M they are currently on track to spend over the next 10 years. While SB 1 funding provides a much-needed foundation to support a more robust maintenance and repair program, the City may need to seek additional funding from other sources in the future in order to address the projected funding shortfall in its local streets and roads repair budget.

“Strategic investment in infrastructure produces a foundation for long-term growth.”-Roger McNamee

Without a healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure, the City of Benicia will continue its downward trend in pavement quality. This deterioration has the potential to hinder Benicia from attracting new jobs, housing, tourism, and business investment. More money spent now in long-term roadway maintenance can save Benicia millions in the future and strengthen its local economy.

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping the City of Benicia address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair.

54

City of DixonThe City of Dixon is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 139 lane miles of pavement, or 437 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 2018 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.

Functional Class Sections Centerline Miles

Lane Miles 2013 PCI

Arterial 22 6 14 69



Total 437 95 139 65 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2018 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the City is 65. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). Dixon’s network PCI score of 65 is considered “Good”, and Dixon’s PCI has stayed the same as it was the previous year (average PCI 65 in 2017). Currently, 53% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good”, 23% falls under “Good” and 24% falls under “Poor” or “Very Poor”. Compared to previous years this shows a general trend of sustaining good pavement condition categories, albeit at a slow decline.

Table 1

August 201955

While the City maintains an aggressive preventative maintenance program to address shortfalls in the residential and collector streets, particular focus on arterials will be needed due to the heavy traffic load on its arterial roadways. In 2018, Dixon repaired, reconstructed or filled potholes on 5 streets and roads and began preparing for a large repaving project on SR-113.

Dixon’s current PCI is 65, with a budget for roadway maintenance of $494,404 per year with SB 1 funding. If that current level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the City would drop from its current rating of 67 (Good) to 58.

August 2019

Dixon, 2018

56

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsTo maintain a minimum average PCI rating of 65 in the City of Dixon, approximately $15.3M would need to be spent over the next 10 years. The current budget provides $4.9M over 10 years with SB 1 funding, leaving a funding shortfall of approximately $10.3M. To reach the higher PCI goal of 75, as stated in the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan, $18.7M more than what is currently being budgeted would need to be invested in Dixon’s roads over the next 10 years.

August 2019

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require five to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Dixon’s average PCI of 65 should be viewed with an understanding that maintaining this “good” classification will be cheaper in the long-term than maintaining the roads at a lower PCI score.

57

In spite of this increased funding for local streets and roads repairs, Dixon is currently on track to invest less than 1/3 of the required $15.3M necessary to keep the city’s PCI at 65 over the next 10 years. If the city were to maintain its average PCI to 75, the goal stated in the Countywide Transportation Plan, then the city would need to invest an additional $18.8M more than the $4.9M they are currently on track to spend over the next 10 years. While SB 1 funding provided a foundation to support a more robust local streets and roads maintenance program, the City of Dixon may need to seek additional funding from alternative sources to address the projected shortfall.


Without a healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure, the City of Dixon will continue its downward trend in pavement quality. This deterioration has the potential to hinder Dixon from attracting new jobs, housing, tourism, and business investment. More money spent now in long-term roadway maintenance can save Dixon millions in the future and strengthen its local economy.

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping the City of Dixon address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair

58

City of FairfieldThe City of Fairfield is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 737 lane miles of pavement, or 7120 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 2019 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.


Lane Miles 2019 PCI

Arterial 18 6.44 13.85 72

Collector 199 37.63 72.29 68

Residential/Local 295 34 66.07 71

Total 1748 343 744 71 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2019 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the City is 71. The StreetSaversystem have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation), but the City of Fairfield employed a five-category system in it’s recent PMP Report. While this network PCI score is considered “Very Good”. Currently, 59% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good” or “Good” categories, 24% falls under the “Fair” category, 13% falls under “Poor” category, and 4% falls under the “Very Poor” or “Failed” category.

Table 1

201959

The City of Fairfield’s 2019 PCI, based on 3-year moving average, is 71. The average budget for roadway maintenance over 5-years is approximately $5.9M per year. Figure 3 below shows that if that current level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the City would drop from it current average rating of 71 (Very Good) to 63 (Good).

August 201960

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsTo maintain an average PCI rating of 71 in the City of Fairfield, approximately $113M would need to be spent over the next 10 years. The current budget provides approximately $59M over 10 years with new SB 1 funding, leaving a funding shortfall of approximately $54M. To reach the higher PCI goal of 75, as stated in the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan, $58M more than what is currently being budgeted would need to be invested in Fairfield’s roads over the next 10 years.

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require five to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Fairfield’s current PCI of 71 should be viewed with an understanding that maintaining this “good” classification will be cheaper in the long-term than maintaining the roads at a lower PCI score.

With SB 1 funding, the City of Fairfield is now able to address its long-standing maintenance backlog and pursue a robust repair schedule. In 2018 alone, through gas tax leverage with locally approved Measure P funding, Fairfield improved Business Center Drive, Suisun Valley Road, Central Way, Central Place, Pittman Road, and improved local streets within the Waterman Highland and Southbrook neighborhoods.


Despite the much-needed addition of SB 1 funding, Fairfield is still unable to maintain its current PCI or improve its local streets and roads network to reach the countywide goal of PCI 75 without additional funding. The City may need to seek up to $54M in funding form alternative sources in order to augment its current maintenance program and prevent a decline in pavement condition over the next 10 years.

August 201961

Without a healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure, the City of Fairfield will continue its downward trend in pavement quality. This deterioration has the potential to hinder Fairfield from attracting new jobs, housing, tourism, and business investment. More money spent now in long-term roadway maintenance can save Fairfield millions in the future and strengthen its local economy.

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping the City of Fairfield address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair

62

City of Rio VistaThe City of Rio Vista is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 46 lane miles of pavement, or 148 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 2018 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.


Lane Miles 2017 PCI

Arterial 7 1.15 2.30 73

Collector 27 8.98 17.97 69

Residential/Local 112 12.81 25.63 56

Total 148 22.94 45.89 62 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The 2018 3-year average PCI of the street network of the City is 62. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). Rio Vista’s PCI has decreased from the previous year’s average PCI score (PCI 65 in 2017), but it is still considered “Good.” Currently, 54% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good”, 10% falls under “Good”, and 36% falls under “Poor or Very Poor.” Again, compared with previous years, this shows a minor decline across pavement condition categories. Deficiencies in the overall network will need to be addressed to preserve the network’s good condition.

Table 1

August 201963

If these issues are not addressed, the quality of the road network will inevitably decline. In order to correct these deficiencies, a cost-effective funding, maintenance and rehabilitation strategy will need to be implemented.

In 2018 Rio Vista’s current PCI was 64, with a budget for roadway maintenance of $263,960 per year, including SB 1 funding. If that current level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the City would drop from it current average rating of 65 (Good) to 59.

August 201964

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsTo maintain an average PCI rating of 65 in the City of Rio Vista, approximately $3.5M would need to be spent over the next 10 years. The current budget provides approximately $2.6M over 10 years with SB 1 funding, leaving a funding shortfall of approximately $853K. To reach the higher PCI goal of 75, as stated in the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan, approximately $5.1M more than what is currently being budgeted would need to be invested in Rio Vista’s roads over the next 10 years.

Current PCI of 58

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in very good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require five to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Rio Vista’s current PCI of 62 should be viewed with caution, as it indicates that its local streets and roads are at risk of future deterioration and increasingly expensive repairs.

SB 1 funding increased transportation revenue and provided the City if Rio Vista with resources to invest in its local streets and roads network. In 2019, the city plans to improve the pedestrian access at the Downtown Waterfront Promenade and to rehabilitate Front Street. In the near future, SB 1 funding will also support much-needed improvements to SR 12 that will have a transformative effect on Downtown Rio Vista.

August 201965

Even with SB 1 funding, Rio Vista is currently on track to invest approximately 3/4 of the required $3.5M necessary to keep the city’s PCI at 65 over the next 10 years. If the city were to raise its average PCI to 75, the goal stated in the Countywide Transportation Plan, then the city would need to invest an additional $5.1M more than the $2.6M they are currently on track to spend over the next 10 years.


Without a healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure, the City of Rio Vista will continue its downward trend in pavement quality. This deterioration has the potential to hinder Rio Vista from attracting new jobs, housing, tourism, and business investment. More money spent now in long-term roadway maintenance can save Rio Vista millions in the future and strengthen its local economy.

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping the City of Rio Vista address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair

66

Solano CountyThe County of Solano is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 1148 lane miles of pavement, or 743 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 2018 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.


Arterial 25 12 28 80

Collector 274 209 419 82


Total 743 460 1148 81 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2018 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the County is 81. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). The County’s PCI score is considered “Very Good”. Solano County roads have remained stable and in excellent condition. Currently, 64% of the County’s pavement area falls under “Excellent” or “Very Good” and only 3% falls under “Poor” or “Very Poor”. Again, compared with previous years, this shows an overall stability across pavement condition categories.

Table 1

August 201967

County staff primarily attributes its annual average PCI increase to the County’s aggressive chip seal program. Every year nearly half of the paved roads are physically driven and approximately 40 miles are identified for chip seal in the Capital Improvement Plan. County crews spend about 3 months each spring preparing the selected road segments by digging out failed pavement sections, blade patching, and crack sealing. Crews have successfully addressed structural distresses in advance of the surface treatment and paid equal attention to maintaining smooth profiles to make the Solano County chip seal program a great success.

August 201968

In 2018, Solano County’s PCI was 81, with an average budget for roadway maintenance of $10.8M per year including SB 1 funding. If that current level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the County would drop from it current average rating of 80 (Very Good) to 77.

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsDespite the much needed addition of SB 1 funding, Solano County may still experience some future deterioration in the condition of its local streets and roads network if an alternative funding cannot be found to bridge the 12% shortfall in the road maintenance budget. However, the County has more than sufficient funds to maintain its road network at the countywide goal of PCI 75. The current budget and maintenance schedule allows for relative stability and ensures that Solano County Roads remain in good condition. Current PCI 78

August 2019

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require five to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Solano County’s current PCI of 81 should be viewed with an understanding that maintaining this “good” classification will be cheaper in the long-term than maintaining the roads at a lower PCI score.

69

Solano County is currently on track to invest more than the required $83.2M necessary to keep the County’s PCI at 75 over the next 10 years with the addition of SB 1 funding. This new revenue will support over 20 road repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects in the next 5 years.


Solano County’s healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure and its proactive maintenance schedule continue to keep its local streets and roads network in good condition, benefiting all residents and visitors. In the future, the County may need to seek alternative funding sources to address minor budget shortfalls before they grow larger. Continuing to invest in proactive maintenance will allow to County to maintain its local streets and roads network sustainably, avoiding more costly repairs.

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping Solano County address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair

70

City of Suisun CityThe City of Suisun City is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 153 lane miles of pavement, or 512 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 201 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.


Lane Miles 2018 PCI

Arterial 18 6 14 66



Total 512 77 153 60 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2018 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the City is 60. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). The current network PCI score is considered “Good”, but Suisun’s actual PCI has dropped gradually over the last 3 years (from PCI 64 in 2016). Currently, 37% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good”, 27% falls under “Good”, and 36% falls under “Poor or Very Poor”.

Table 1

August 201971

In 2018 Suisun City’s current PCI was 60, with an average budget for roadway maintenance of $500K per year, including SB 1 funding. With just one year of SB 1 funding to augment its road repair budget, Suisun City repaired, reconstructed or filled potholes on 32 streets and roads. The city now has additional funding to help address its growing deferred maintenance backlog and provide some preventative maintenance for its local streets and roads network. However, significant funding shortfalls still stymie the city’s maintenance efforts. If the City’s average level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the City would drop from it current average rating of 60 (Good) to below 44 (Poor). Without additional roadway maintenance funding, a continued or significant decline in Suisun City’s road network would undoubtedly have a negative impact on residents and local businesses.

August 201972

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsTo maintain a minimum average PCI rating of 60 in the City of Suisun City, approximately $48.1M would need to be spent over the next 10 years. The current budget provides approximately $5.6M over 10 years including SB 1 funding, leaving a funding shortfall of approximately $42.5M. To reach the higher PCI goal of 75, as stated in the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan, approximately $61.5M more than what is currently being budgeted would need to be invested in Suisun City’s roads over the next 10 years.

Current PCI 56

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in very good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require 5 to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Suisun City’s average PCI of 60 should be viewed with caution, as it indicates that its local streets and roads are poised on the edge of a maintenance cliff.

Suisun City is currently on track to invest less than approximately 1/8 of the required $48.1M necessary to maintain the city’s PCI at 60 over the next 10 years, including SB 1 funding. If the city were to raise its average PCI to 75, the goal stated in the Countywide Transportation Plan, then the city would need to invest an additional $66.9M more than the $5.6M they are currently on track to spend over the next 10 years.

August 201973


Without a healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure, the City of Suisun City will continue its downward trend in pavement quality. This deterioration has the potential to hinder Suisun City from attracting new jobs, housing, tourism, and business investment. More money spent now in long-term roadway maintenance can save Suisun City millions in the future and strengthen its local economy.

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping Suisun City address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair

74

City of VacavilleThe City of Vacaville is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 661 lane miles of pavement, or 3841 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 2018 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.


Lane Miles 2018 PCI

Arterial 500 41.6 153.5 71

Collector 870 73 153.4 67

Residential/Local 2111 175.4 354.2 72

Total 3481 290 661 70 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2017 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the City is 70. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). Currently, 73% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good”, 9% falls under “Good”, and 18% falls under “Poor or Very Poor”. As far as functional class, residential roads are in slightly better condition than arterials and significantly better condition than collectors.Given that collectors carry significant traffic, these roads are presently in the greatest need of investment and repair.

Table 1

August 201975

The City of Vacaville has an aggressive pavement management program, wherein all residential and moderate volume collector streets are slated for slurry seal every 7 years. Due to the economic downturn and reallocation of gas tax funding, slurry seals were suspended from 2008 to 2013. Since this important program restarted 5 years ago, approximately 22,700,000 square feet of local streets have been resurfaced and numerous residential cul de sacs and badly degraded streets sections were reconstructed. The city continues to uphold a proactive maintenance schedule, augmented and supported by SB 1 funding and the General Fund (Measure M).

In 2018, Vacaville’s current PCI score was 71, with an average budget of $4.5M per year, including SB 1 funding. Should the current level of funding remain, projections through the year 2023 (5 years) shows that PCI will remain relatively constant, representing a general state of good repair stabilized by regular maintenance.

August 201976

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsThe City of Vacaville’s current budget provides approximately $45M over 10 years including SB 1 and Measure M funding. Given the City’s proactive maintenance strategy, this level of funding should be sufficient to maintain the local streets and roads network and preserve its good condition. The City may choose to seek alternative funding sources in the future to combat reductions to gas tax revenues, higher construction costs, and an expanding streets network, or if Vacaville wishes to reach and maintain the higher countywide goal of PCI 75.

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereaspavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require 5 to 25 times the amount of funding. Vacaville’s current PCI of 71 indicates that future investment must be maintained to keep the City's roads in a state of good repair.

With SB 1 and Measure M funding, the City of Vacaville is able to maintain a state of good repair; however, its remaining maintenance backlog may continue to grow and funding is limited to pursue robust repair work to existing streets in poor condition. In 2018, supplemental “one-time” funds enabled the critical rehabilitation of E. Monte Vista Ave from County Airport Road to Vaca-Valley Parkway and of Gibson Canyon Road between Ulatis Creek and Fruitvale, bringing those roads from Poor condition to Very Good condition. City crews were also able to perform preparative work on deteriorated street sections in advance of construction contracts to perform slurry seals on every residential street in Northwest Vacaville in 2018 and 2019.

Vacaville is currently on track to invest sufficient funds to keep the city’s PCI in a state of good repair over the next 5 years, largely due to SB 1 and Measure M funding supplements. Any maintenance shortfall could become more problematic and lead to higher repair costs over time. So the city will continue to regularly evaluate the maintenance needs of its local streets and roads network in order to protect its investment and to continue serving Vacaville residents, businesses, and visitors. The city will continue its current proactive maintenance strategy to keep the local streets and roads network in good condition and may wish to explore alternative funding sources to meet future maintenance needs as necessary.


August 201977

The City of Vacaville should continue to invest in its roadway network in order to keep its local streets and roads in good condition. Additional investment is particularly needed to reduce backlogged repair of residential areas and on collector streets and to complement recent investment in the streets that serve Vacaville’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Business Parks. The City can ensure effective pavement management by continuing to deploy Strategic Pavement Management Plans with a focus on preventative maintenance followed by selective rehabilitation of failed streets as funding allows. Continuing to invest in long-term roadway maintenance now will likely save Vacaville millions of dollars in the future and strengthen its local economy

August 2019

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping the City of Vacaville address its maintenance backlog and keep its local streets and roads in a state of good repair.

78

City of VallejoThe City of Vallejo is responsible for the management, repair, and maintenance of 714 lane miles of pavement, or 2065 pavement sections. Table 1 summarizes the length of the road and 2018 pavement condition index (PCI) by functional class.


Arterial 170 49 157 66

Collector 240 50 117 57


Total 2081 319 714 52 (3 yr avg)

The PCI is a measurement of pavement grade or condition and ranges from 0 to 100. The average 2018 PCI (based on a 3-year moving average) of the street network of the City is 52. While MTC formerly used a five-category system, the StreetSaver system have moved to four-category system (excluding the “Fair” designation). Vallejo’s average PCI is considered “Good” but is on the cusp of being rated “Poor”. Currently, 33% of the City’s pavement area falls under “Very Good”, 16% falls under “Good”, and 51% falls under “Poor” or “Very Poor”. If these issues are not addressed, the quality of the road network will inevitably decline. In order to correct these deficiencies, a cost-effective funding, maintenance, and rehabilitation strategy must be implemented soon.

Table 1

August 201979

In 2018 Vallejo’s average PCI was 52 . Vallejo’s average budget for roadway maintenance is $5M per year, including SB 1 funding. If that current level of funding were to be applied through the year 2027 (10 years) the average PCI for the City would decline from it current average rating of 53 to 49. While the city’s roads are in need of maintenance, the city is on track to significantly improve it’s local streets and roads network by 2027.

August 201980

Future Pavement and Revenue NeedsTo maintain an average PCI rating of 60 in the City of Vallejo, approximately $86.7M would need to be spent over the next 10 years. The current budget provides approximately $53.3M over 10 years with SB 1 funding. This funding is not sufficient to allow the City of Vallejo to bring it’s road network to an average state of good repair. Current funding will allow the city to make some badly needed repairs and invest in some preventative maintenance that will lower the cost of repair over time, but the City of Vallejo will likely need to seek out additional funding sources to prevent further decline of its local streets and roads network.

With just one year of SB 1 funding, the City of Vallejo repaired, reconstructed or filled potholes on 11 streets and roads, and installed ADA compliant curb ramps at 13 intersections. This much-needed funding will continue to support the City of Vallejo’s proactive maintenance approach that is set to reverse a downward trend in PCI and improve the local streets and roads network over time.

However, even with SB 1 funding, budget shortfalls continue to represent a hurdle for the full restoration of the City of Vallejo’s road network. The city faces a $33.5M shortfall to reach the intermediate PCI goal of 60 by 2027. To reach the higher PCI goal of 75, as stated in the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan, $82.1M more than what is currently being budgeted would need to be invested in Vallejo’s roads over the next 10 years.

Senate Bill 1 funding is helping the City of Vallejo address its maintenance backlog and restore local streets and roads to a state of good repair

August 201981

Where Do We Go From Here?Timely investment in roadway preservation can save cities millions of tax dollars in long-term maintenance costs. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to keep a section of roadway in good condition would have to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation is necessary (MTC, 2011). Pavements that are still in good condition (a PCI of 70 or above) can be preventively maintained at a low cost, whereas pavements that need significant rehabilitation or reconstruction require five to 15 times the amount of funding. Thus, Vallejo’s current PCI of 53 indicates that future investment must be maintained to keep the City's roads in a state of good repair.

Vallejo is currently on track to invest the $53.3M, $18M less than the amount necessary to maintain the city’s current PCI over the next 10 years (including SB 1 funding). If the city were to raise its average PCI to 60, then the city would need to invest an additional $33.5M more than the $53.3Mthey are currently on track to spend over the next 10 years with SB 1 funding.


The City of Vallejo’s healthy investment in its roadway infrastructure will continue to improve the quality of its local streets and roads network over the next 10 years. More money spent now in long-term roadway maintenance can save Vallejo millions in the future and strengthen its local economy.

August 201982

Agenda Item 9.H September 11, 2019

DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Triana Crighton, Assistant Planner RE: Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

(PAC) Appointments

Background: The STA’s BAC is responsible for providing funding and policy recommendations to the STA Board on bicycle related issues for monitoring, implementing, and updating the Countywide Bicycle Transportation Plan. The BAC’s membership currently has a vacant position for the City of Dixon as well as three memberships expiring this year (City of Benicia, Member-At-Large, and Solano County – See Attachment A). The STA is working to check with members and their respective cities for renewals and replacements if needed – renewals for City of Benicia and Member-At-Large are in currently process.

The STA’s PAC is responsible for providing funding and policy recommendations to the STA Board on pedestrian-related issue for monitoring, implementing, and updating the Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The PAC’s membership currently has a vacant position for the Member-At-Large as well as three memberships expiring this year (City of Dixon, City of Fairfield, and City of Rio Vista – See Attachment B). The STA is working to check with members and their respective cities for renews and replacements if needed – the renewal for City of Dixon is currently in progress.

Membership for both Committees consists of representatives from the Cities, County and a Member-At-Large. The representatives are nominated either by their respective city council or mayor before being considered by the STA Board for a formal appointment. Member-at-large positions are appointed directly by the STA Board. Appointments are for a 3-year term and are voluntary. Non-elected citizens are encouraged to participate in these citizen advisory committees.

Discussion: For the BAC, the Solano County Representative, Mike Segala, is seeking to renew his membership, Mike Segala was originally appointed to the BAC in 1995 and has been an active member of the committee since – serving as the Committee Chair in 2014, 2015, 2018, and 2019; as well as Vice Chair in 2012, 2013, and 2017. Mr. Segala is a Suisun City resident and currently serves as the city’s Mayo r Per Tem. STA staff is recommending the reappointment of Mike Segala for an additional 3-year term on the BAC. His reappointment was recently approved at the August 27th Solano County Board of Supervisors Meeting (See Attachment C).

83

For the PAC, Steve OLry has been recommended and nominated by Suisun City Council to serve as the new Suisun City PAC representative (See Attachment D). Mr. Olry will be new to the PAC but is a currently resident of Suisun City and has been a long time resident of Solano County. Steve has been an active resident of Suisun City – attending multiple City Council meetings to voice his concerns regarding local issues. Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Reappoint Mike Segala to the BAC for a three-year term; and 2. Appoint Steve Olry to the PAC for a three-year term.

Attachments:

A. BAC Committee Membership B. PAC Committee Membership C. Mike Segala Appointment Letter (Pending) D. Steve Olry Appointment Letter

84

STA Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Membership Status (September 2019)

Member Jurisdiction Appointed Term Expires Chair/Vice-Chair Appointment

Nancy Lund Benicia Since: 12/2010 Re-Appointment in Progress

December 31, 2022 Chair 2016, 2017 Vice-Chair 2014, 2015

VACANT Dixon N/A N/A N/A

Quinten Voyce Fairfield Since: 1/2018 December 31, 2020 Vice-Chair 2019

Jim Wheeler Rio Vista Since: 5/2018 December 31, 2020

Lawrence Gee Suisun City Since: 1/2019 December 31, 2021

Neal Iverson Vacaville Since: 1/2018 December 31, 2020

David Belef Vallejo Since: 1/2018 December 31, 2020

Mike Segala Solano County Since:1/1995 Re-Appointment in Progress December 31, 2022 Chair 2014, ‘15, ’18, ‘19

Vice-Chair ’12, ’13, ’17

Barbara Wood Member-At-Large Since: 3/2006 Re-Appointment in Progress December 31, 20122 Chair 2008, 2009

Vice-Chair 2006, 2007

85

STA Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) Membership Status (September 2019)

Member Jurisdiction Appointed Term Expires Chair/Vice-Chair Appointment

Diane Dooley Benicia March 2018 December 31, 2020

Sandra Newell Dixon January 2016

Re-Appointment in Progress December 31, 2018

Tamer Totah Fairfield September 2013 December 31, 2019 2014, 2015, 2018

Kevin McNamara Rio Vista August 2013 December 31, 2019 2016, 2017

Steve Olry Suisun City September 2019

Appointment in Progress December 31, 2022

VACANT Vacaville

Teresa Booth Vallejo June 2014 December 31, 2020 2017, 2018

Joseph Joyce Solano County December 2015 December 31, 2020

VACANT Member-At-Large

Bob Berman Bay Area Ridge Trail January 2018 December 31, 2020

86

87

88

Agenda Item 9.I September 11, 2019

DATE: August 30, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: Authorize Auction of Former Solano Paratransit Buses

Background: The Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA) was approved in 1990 and set basic standards on how transit services would accommodate the disabled. In 1995, the STA took over management from the County of Solano of the Solano Paratransit service through a contract with Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) after a non-profit could no longer provide the service.

Solano Paratransit was the ADA-Plus (meaning it exceeds the service area required by ADA) paratransit service that provided this service in eastern Solano County. It operated Monday – Saturday providing seamless intercity paratransit service for the disabled between the cities of Dixon, Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville and the unincorporated areas of central and eastern Solano County.

In May 2009, the STA Board approved the dissolution of Solano Paratransit effective July 1, 2009 at the request of FAST. At that time, the STA no longer managed paratransit service and the vehicles were designated to be reassigned to FAST and SolTrans. STA staff worked with transit staff to identify how to best utilize the nine vehicles in Solano County. In June 2009, the STA Board authorized the Executive Director to develop a plan for the reassignment of the Solano Paratransit buses between Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and Solano County Transit (SolTrans).

Discussion: SolTrans recently informed STA that two former Solano Paratransit vehicles will no longer be placed into service, as they both have matured significantly beyond their useful life benchmark and are no longer being used as spare vehicles. Both buses were bought in 2007 and have a useful life benchmark of seven years. Given that the vehicles are five years past their useful life benchmark and will no longer be placed into service, staff recommends they both be auctioned off. Thus, SolTrans staff will deliver the vehicles to Capitol Auctions, located in Vallejo, to be sold in auction. It is recommended the proceeds be allocated to the SolanoExpress Bus Replacement Program.

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to auction former Solano Paratransit Bus Numbers 2014 and 2015 and allocate the proceeds to the SolanoExpress Bus Replacement Program.

89


90

Agenda Item 9.K September 11, 2019

DATE: September 4, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Bernadette Curry, STA Legal Counsel RE: Amendment to Executive Director’s Employment Agreement

Background/Discussion: Daryl Halls has been employed as the STA’s Executive Director since 1999. The Executive Director position currently has an employment contract with the STA that was last amended in July of 2017 extending his term through June 30, 2020. Following the conclusion of the Executive Director’s annual performance review by the STA Board in June, the Chair and his Executive Committee directed STA Legal Counsel to bring an amendment to the Executive Director’s Employment Agreement to extend the term for another five (5) years and to authorize an annum merit increase in amount not to exceed 3% per year, subject to the completion of his annual performance evaluation.

In addition, due to the demands of the position and the lack of taking time off, the Executive Director has reached the cap on his annual vacation accrual. It is recommended that rather than losing out on vacation accrual, the Employment Agreement be amended to allow for Mr. Halls to cash out up to 20 days of vacation per year.

Recommendation: Approve the Second Amendment to Executive Director Employment Agreement as shown in Attachment A.

Attachment: A. Second Amendment to Executive Director’s Employment Agreement

91


92

Second Amendment to Executive Director’s Employment Agreement- July 1, 2017 Page 1 of 2

SECOND AMENDMENT TO SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made on September 11, 2019, between the SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (STA), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of Solano and the seven cities in Solano County (Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville and Vallejo), hereinafter referred to as the “EMPLOYER,” and DARYL K. HALLS, an individual, hereinafter referred to as “EMPLOYEE” or “EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.”

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Employee has served as STA’s Executive Director since May 12, 1999; and

WHEREAS, the parties revised Employee’s Employment Agreement on September 9, 2015 and again on June 14, 2017; and

WHEREAS, Employer, acting by and through its Governing Board, desires to continue to employ the services of Employee as STA’s Executive Director and assure the continuous service of Employee for an additional three years.

The parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT 1. Term of Agreement

Section 5 TERM AND TERMINATION is deleted in its entirety and replaced with: 5. TERM AND TERMINATION

A. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2025, unless otherwise mutually extended by the parties in writing. The Executive Director serves at the pleasure of the STA Board and may be removed from office by a majority vote of the member agencies representing more than one-half of the population of the County as a whole. The STA Board will give such notice of removal at a regular meeting and removal may not occur earlier than one (1) month from the date of such notice.

B. Notwithstanding the subsection above, EMPLOYER may involuntarily dismiss

EMPLOYEE. If Employee is terminated or resigns for willful misconduct in office or dishonesty in office; dismissed following EMPLOYEE’S conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, STA shall have no obligation to continue the employment of Employee or to pay the severance set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement.

C. Involuntary termination does not include the EMPLOYEE’S death or permanent

incapacity due to injury or illness, whether physical or mental.

93

Second Amendment to Executive Director’s Employment Agreement- July 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2

2. Salary

Section 9 - SALARY is amended in part to add: 9. SALARY: Beginning on July 1, 2020 and each subsequent July 1st through the term of this Agreement, Employee is entitled to a merit increase to the salary schedule in an amount not to exceed 3% per year, subject to Employee’s acceptable annual performance evaluation by the STA Board.

3. Benefits

Section 10.F. – VACATION is amended in part to add: EMPLOYEE may cash out up to twenty (20) paid vacation days per year. Section 10. H – ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE is deleted in its entirety and replaced with: In recognition of the necessity for the EMPLOYEE to represent STA outside normal office hours, EMPLOYEE is granted 100 hours a year of Administrative Leave. EMPLOYEE may cash out any unused leave at the end of each fiscal year.

Except as set forth in this Second Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. EMPLOYER: EMPLOYEE: Solano Transportation Authority STA Executive Director By _______________________ By _____________________ Harry T. Price, STA Board Chair Daryl K. Halls ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By _______________________ By _____________________ Johanna Masiclat, Clerk to the STA Board Bernadette S. Curry, STA Legal Counsel

94


DATE: August 21, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects RE: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution of Necessity to Acquire

Property by Eminent Domain, if necessary, for the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project –Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A)

Background: STA has been actively working with State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to deliver the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A). Caltrans is the California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) lead for the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/EIS) for the Project. STA is the project sponsor and will be providing funding for right of way acquisition of the Project and as such, is a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the Project. Caltrans approved the environmental document, FEIR/EIS for the Project, in December 2012. The STA Board approved the Final EIR, which included the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A), with Resolution No. 2012-18, in December 2012.

Discussion: The I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A) will include a new two-lane highway alignment and bridge structure for eastbound SR 12 to eastbound I-80 connector ramp, an off-ramp from eastbound SR 12 to Green Valley Road and a braided ramp connection for eastbound I-80 to Green Valley Road and southbound I-680, among other improvements. See Project Map included as Attachment A. Through a combination of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds, State SB1 Trade Corridors Enhancement Program (TCEP) funds and bridge toll funds, this Project is fully funded and is expected to be ready to start construction in the summer of 2020.

In order to construct Construction Package 2A, five (5) Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs), three (3) permanent easements, and 9 fee acquisitions from 8 private property owners are necessary. Negotiations have been ongoing with the property owners. STA is continuing with negotiations with all of the affected property owners, but it has been determined one property owner (Harstad/Coates) is deceased and STA has been unable to locate any heirs. The Harstad/Coates acquisition is for a .017 acre parcel (approx. 740 s.f.). As such, staff is recommending the parcel be acquired by eminent domain. Once acquired, this parcel will be transferred to Caltrans.

95

It is recommended that the STA Board hold a public hearing regarding the proposed condemnation action. Although it has not identified any living owners of the Harstad / Coates property, STA sent notice by first class mail to the name and address appearing on the last equalized tax roll pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235 as a prerequisite for this Board’s adoption of a resolution of necessity authorizing the acquisition of the property by condemnation. This notice was sent on August 1, 2019. The notice included the content, time and place of the public hearing as required by law. The scope of the public hearings, in accordance with Section 1245.235(c) and of the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections, should be limited to the following findings:

(a) The public interest and necessity require the Project. (b) The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible

with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project. (d) That the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been

made to the owner or owners of record. The amount of compensation for the property is not an issue that should be considered. After closing each of the public hearings, it is recommended that the STA Board adopt the Resolution of Necessity to acquire the needed property by eminent domain, which makes the findings listed as (a) through (d) above. A 4/5ths vote is required (7 of 8 Board members). Fiscal Impact: All right-of-way acquisition costs for the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A) are funded with Bridge Toll funds already allocated to the Project. Recommendation:

1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution of Necessity No. 2019-10 (Attachment B) to

acquire by eminent domain, if necessary, the property needed for the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A) as specified in the Resolution of Necessity (Attachment B).

A 4/5 vote is required. Attachments:

A. Project Map B. STA Resolution of Necessity No. 2019-10 (Harstad/Coates)

96

680

80

80/680

80

RE

D

TO

P

RO

AD

SR12

I-80

GR

EE

N

VA

LL

EY

RO

AD

I-680

680/GVR

x

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

"C

L80" 154

+42.51

BE

G

"C

L80" 200

+42.92

EN

D

"C

L80" 156

+84.69

PI

"C

L80" 159

+96.00

BC

"C

L80" 165

+64.42

EC

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

"C

ON2" 126

+74.77

BE

G

"C

ON2" 178

+70.98

EN

D

"C

ON2" 135

+03.52

BC

"C

ON2" 143

+71.89

EC

"C

ON2" 162

+18.41

BC

"CO

N2"

169+25.9

4 PRC

"C

ON2" 173

+04.75

PC

C

"C

ON2" 175

+68.98

EC

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

165

170

175

"C

ON4" 163

+42.48

BE

G

"C

ON4" 179

+98.54

EN

D

"C

ON4" 166

+10.67

BC

"C

ON4" 172+23.14 P

RC

4

6

78

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

"D2" 161

+65.03

BE

G

"D2" 202+36.52

EN

D

"D2" 164

+34.46

EC

"D2" 167

+39.30

EC

"D2" 170

+15.88

BC

"D2" 175

+49.29

EC

"D2" 180

+21.65

BC

"D2" 187

+45.67

EC

"D2" 192

+99.09

BC

"D2"

195+72.3

0 EC

"D2"

195+99.4

9 BC

"D2" 197

+49.93

EC

"D2" 201

+05.60

BC

"D2" 202+36.52

EC

2

3

4

6 78

9

12

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

34

6

7

8

9

1

2

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

"DL1" 168+93.39

BE

G

"D

L1" 203

+77.55

EN

D

"D

L1" 172

+32.07

EC

"D

L1" 172

+97.78

BC

"D

L1" 178

+28.33

EC

"D

L1" 186

+15.58

BC

"D

L1" 189

+08.62

PR

C

"D

L1" 191

+18.56

EC

"D

L1" 196

+88.43

PI

"D

L1" 199

+69.70

PI

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1

2

3


RESOLUTION NO. 2019 - 10 RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR

CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE 2A OF THE INTERSTATE 80 / INTERSTATE 680 / STATE ROUTE 12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT [HARSTAD]

WHEREAS, Solano Transportation Authority (“STA”), in cooperation with the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) and the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), intends to implement Construction Package 2A of the Interstate-80 / Interstate-680 / State Route 12 Interchange Project (“Project”), a public use consisting of enhancements to the Interstate-80 / Interstate 680 / State Route 12 interchange in the vicinity of the city of Fairfield, Solano County, California and, in connection therewith, acquire certain interests in certain real property; and WHEREAS, STA has approved the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project with Resolution No. 2012-18 adopted in December 2012; RESOLVED, by the Board of the STA, by a vote of four-fifths of its members, that: 1. STA intends to acquire interests in certain real property necessary for the Project pursuant

to Government Code Sections 6500, et seq., 25350.5 and 37350.5, Streets and Highways Code sections 760 and 943, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1240.010, et seq., the authority for which was delegated in Section 5 of the Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement on the Organization and Functions of the Solano Transportation Authority.

2. The property to be acquired consists of the following property interests from the described

parcels:

Owner Assessor's Parcel No. [Parcel ID No.]

Take Type

Howard T. Harstad, Robert Coates, Marjorie Coates

0180-120-150 [63900-1]

0.017 of an acre, more or less

Fee

The said property is more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and incorporated in by this reference.

3. On August 1, 2019, notice of STA’s intention to adopt a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of the real property described in Exhibit A was sent to persons whose names appear on the last equalized County Assessment Roll as owners of said property. The notice specified September 11, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the STA Board Chambers at Suisun City Hall Council Chambers, 701 Civic Center Drive, Suisun City, California as the time and place for the hearing.

4. The hearing was held at that time and place, and all interested parties were given an

opportunity to be heard and based upon the evidence presented to it, this Board finds, determines and hereby declares the following:

Resolution of Necessity regarding Construction Package 2A of the Interstate-80 / Interstate-680 / State Route 12 Interchange Project (HARSTAD)

2

a. Public interest and necessity require the proposed Project.

b. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

c. The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project.

d. The offer of compensation required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the owner or owners of record.

6. The Counsel for STA or her designee is authorized and empowered:

a. To acquire in STA’s name, by condemnation, the titles, easements and rights of way described above in and to said real property or interest therein, in accordance with the provisions for eminent domain in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Constitution of California.

b. To prepare and prosecute in STA’s name such proceedings in the proper court as are

necessary for such acquisition. c. To deposit the probable amount of compensation, based on an appraisal, and to apply to

said court for an order permitting STA to take immediate possession and use said real property for said public uses and purposes.

______________________________ __________________________________ Harry Price, Chair Solano Transportation Authority Passed by the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board on this 11th day of September 2019, by the following vote: AYES: ___________________________________ NOS: ___________________________________ ABSENT: ___________________________________ ABSTAINED: ___________________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ Johanna Masiclat Clerk of the Board I, Daryl K. Halls, the STA Executive Director, certify that the above and foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted by said Authority at a regular meeting thereof held this 11th day of September 2019. __________________________________ Daryl K. Halls, Executive Director Solano Transportation Authority



DATE: August 29, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects RE: Funding Proposal for Vallejo Station Phase B

Background: The Vallejo Station Parking Structure Project is a major component of the Vallejo Waterfront Planned Development Master Plan and downtown Priority Development Area (PDA). The overall Project goal is to construct 1,600 space parking structures for ferry system riders in two phases. This plan will consolidate the existing surface parking lots located along Mare Island Way from Capitol Street to Maine Street and make way for the development of those waterfront parcels. The parking structures are designed as a joint use facility to accommodate transit-oriented use and commercial space constructed at the ground floor frontages along Georgia Street and Santa Clara Street.

The construction of the southerly half of Vallejo Station, Phase A is complete with approximately 750 parking spaces (completed in 2012). As part of the downtown revitalization, the City has made significant progress in the 10 square block Downtown Street Scape Improvement Project. To date, 4 blocks plus corner bulb outs have been re-constructed in the downtown area. The Vallejo Transit Center (completed in 2011) at the base of Santa Clara St., a 12 bay bus transfer center is thriving. This transit site, located adjacent to the Vallejo Station site, is now served by two SolanoExpress Routes, the Red Line and the Yellow Line and other local and regional transit services. An expansion of the Transit Center will begin construction in early 2020 to extend this facility along York St. to Marin St. Attachment A reflects these investments in the downtown area of Vallejo. The STA played a significant role to helping to fund all of these projects.

Discussion: Vallejo Station Phase B has been making progress during this time as well. The City successfully relocated and subsequently demolished the old post office at the corner of Georgia and Santa Clara St. The City has design plans nearly completed as well (80%). The City, if all the funding for the work is made available, can begin construction within 2 years. Phase B will include an estimated 850 parking spaces, which will add over 400 more spaces than originally planned. Phase B will be integrated with the existing Phase A. (Attachment B)

The hurdle for completing Phase B is the funding plan. The cost is estimated by Vallejo Public Works between $25 to 31M. This cost variance is based on private mixed use being incorporated into the development. The City is currently working with their developer on whether they will pursue a joint project or not.

97

With the passage of Regional Measure 3 (RM 3), an opportunity exists to fund this important project. The Project will spur needed development, including much needed new housing in the Bay Area. Additionally the Project will support existing and new ferry riders. RM 3 has provided the SF Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) with an opportunity to significantly increase ferry service to Vallejo. The increase in ferry service and this Project are opportunities to support transportation options for Solano County residents. RM 3 has two opportunities for funding this Project; first from the SF Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Ferry Enhancement Program funds and secondly, from the North Bay Transit Access Improvements funds. STA staff is proposing that the funding plan be as follows: 2 $10 M - WETA Ferry Enhancement Program $10 M - North Bay Transit Access Improvements Remaining $5 M - City of Vallejo The WETA Ferry Enhancement Program is a $300 M fund. The Ferry Enhancement Program is designated to provide funding to purchase new vessels, upgrade and rehabilitate existing vessels, build facilities and landside improvements, and upgrade existing facilities. The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Per discussions with WETA staff, the use of these funds is to be consistent with their 2016 Strategic Plan. This Plan outlines increased service throughout the Bay Area (including Vallejo), purchase of new boats to support the increased service and land improvements at Richmond, Treasure Island, Mission Bay, Berkeley, Redwood City, Seaplane Lagoon, the South Bay, and the Carquinez Strait. However, no landside improvements were identified for Vallejo. As such, this ability to access $10 M of these funds will require WETA Board Support. The North Bay Transit Access Improvements Program is a $100 M fund to provide funding for transit improvements, including, but not limited to, bus capital projects, including vehicles, transit facilities, and access to transit facilities, benefiting the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa. Priority shall be given to projects that are fully funded, ready for construction, and serving rail transit or transit service that operates primarily on existing or fully funded high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Eligible applicants are any transit operator providing service in the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, or Sonoma. As there are 5 eligible counties for this fund, Solano County is expected to receive a total of $20 M. As such, this proposal would absorb half of Solano County’s funding. Given the total Project cost is between $25 to $31 M and that the region and County are proposing to provide $20 M of the funding, the City is expected to provide the remaining necessary funds. STA staff is further recommending that the STA be the Project Sponsor and the City of Vallejo be the Project Implementing Agency. This approach is similar to the successful process used for RM 2 funded Vallejo Station Phase A and the Curtola Park and Ride projects. As such, the funding would be allocated through the STA to insure the Project is built within 2 years of the RM 3 funding be made available and that the Project include a minimum of 850 additional parking spaces. The City will be responsible for all remaining costs above the $20 M.

98

To achieve this funding Plan, the STA will need to request funding from WETA for the $10 M Ferry Enhancement Program and $10 M from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the North Bay Transit Access Improvements. Fiscal Impact: These actions will not impact the STA’s budget. Should the funds be approved, the STA may choose to allow the City of Vallejo to directly claim the RM 3 funds. Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Authorize the STA Board Chair to send a letter to SF Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) requesting $10M RM 3 funding from the Ferry Enhancement Program for Vallejo Station Phase B;

2. Authorize the STA Board Chair to request $10M RM 3 funding from the North Bay Transit Access Improvements contingent on WETA funding approval for Vallejo Station Phase B;

3. Authorize the STA Board Chair to send a letter to the Vallejo Mayor and City Council requesting a commitment of $5 M plus as the local match funding for the Vallejo Station Phase B project; and

4. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with the City of Vallejo for the completion of Vallejo Station Phase B.

Attachments:

A. City of Vallejo Downtown Investments B. Vallejo Station Phase B Fact Sheet

99


100

Vallejo Station Parking GaragePhase A

Completed in 2012

Vallejo Transit CenterCompleted in 2011

Downtown Streetscape ProjectPhases 1-4: Completed over 8 years

Existing Bay Trail/Vine TrailConnects to Future Improvements

Vallejo Downtown Transportation Investments

WETA Maintenance Facility

Completed 2017

Vallejo Station Parking GaragePhase B

Proposed

Transit Center ExpansionCON 2020


April 1, 2019

The Vallejo Station Parking Garage Phase B will provide a critical component for Vallejo’s dynamic transportation hub connecting ferry and bus service and housing.

The City of Vallejo ferry service to San Francisco has a history of success. The City of Vallejo has had a ferry service since the 1980s. In 2012, WETA took over the service, with the Vallejo route now providing over 1.05 million rides in FY 2018, about 40% of the overall WETA ferry ridership.

The Vallejo Station is an important a gateway for Vallejo, Solano, as well as Napa and Sacramento residents, providing a key transit connection between affordable housing and the job-rich San Francisco area.

The Vallejo Station is a compact, transit-oriented, mixed-use project in the City of Vallejo waterfront area that includes two major transit elements—a bus transfer facility, bringing together local and commuter bus services, and ferry service to San Francisco—a suite of transit services that provides a vital alternative to the already heavily congested I-80 Corridor. The Vallejo Station ferry facilities will also be relied upon in the event of a regional emergency.

The Vallejo Station is carrying more people than ever before, over 4,000 ferry riders per day (FY 2018). Peak hour routes are sold out. A new larger boat, the Pyxis, started service in March 2019, which allows for improved service through headway reduction and a more riders per trip.

The City of Vallejo also continues to develop infrastructure with $60 million of grants to support the Priority Development Area already invested in this transportation hub.

Vallejo Station Parking Garage Phase B

Ferry – Bus – Housing • 3,500 housing units • 5,000 jobs Will be within ¼ mile of these transit services

The Vallejo Station provides mobility and security for the residents of Vallejo, the Bay Area, and beyond.

April 1, 2019

Promises Made, Promises Kept Working with the wide range of partners that reflects the regional significance of the Vallejo Station, the City of Vallejo has worked with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and the Federal Transit Administration to complete the initial Phase A parking improvements. The Vallejo Station Garage was opened in 2012, providing 750 spaces or about half of the overall parking needed. RM2 funding allowed the City of Vallejo to complete Phase A and the interim lot (to open in June 2019).

The City of Vallejo and Soltrans have also constructed the Vallejo Transit Center, a 12 bay bus transfer center. This improves access between the ferry and bus service, with the Public Paseo, a 1,000 foot connection, integrated into the design of the Vallejo Station Garage. A new bus connection to the Amtrak station is scheduled to begin service in 2019.

Finishing the Vision The Phase B garage will include about 850 parking spaces, which will add over 400 more spaces than originally planned. The Phase B garage will be integrated with the existing Phase A garage (estimated cost: $31 million).

Next Steps The City of Vallejo is reaching out to partner funding agencies for support of the Vallejo Station Parking Garage Phase B which will provide the needed infrastructure for this critical regional transit hub. Phase A was funded with RM2. The recently approved RM3 Revenue Program provides an opportunity to fund Phase B. Other efforts underway to support the Vallejo Station include pursuit of funding for channel dredging. The Solano Transportation Authority supports this as a priority project. The City of Vallejo also continues to pursue funding to further improve the transit access and walkability of the surrounding street system with the latest grant secured to enlarge the bus transfer facility from 12 to 17 bays.

Public Paseo

PHASE A – 750 SPACES

PHASE B – 850 SPACES

PHASE A and PHASE B Combine for 1600 TOTAL SPACES


DATE: August 29, 2019 TO: STA Board 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 C). An updated Legislative Bill Matrix listing state bills of interest is available at: https://sta.ca.gov/operations/legislative-program/current/

Discussion: 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. Neither the trailer bill on transportation (Senate Bill 87) nor the trailer bill on housing, AB 101, contained the Governor’s request to link Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding to housing production.

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, AB1413 was amended to only include transportation authorities in Placer and San DiegoCounties. On August 16, STA modified its position from Support to Seek Amendments (SeeAttachment B). This bill is currently on the Senate Floor.

• Assembly Bill 1487 (AB 1487) San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Actwas amending on August 28. As amended, this bill would establish The Bay Area HousingFinance Authority (BAHFA) to be governed by the same board that governs theMetropolitan Transportation Commission. At least 80% of parcel tax and gross receipttaxes would be returned to source, while 50% of special business taxes would be returnedto source. The bill passed in the Senate Committee on Appropriations (by Senate Rule 28.8)and is currently on the Senate Floor

101

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 – Failed to pass Assembly Floor (44-20-15) • SB 137 (Dodd) Federal transportation funds: state exchange programs – Passed the

Assembly Committee on Appropriations (18-0). Currently on the Assembly Floor • 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 Appropriations (6-1). Currently on the Senate Floor • 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 – Pass

Assembly Committee on Appropriations (12-6). Currently on Assembly Floor • SB 50 The Housing Accountability Act – Held in Committee (2 year bill) • SB 592 – Housing Accountability Act – Passed the Assembly Committee on

Appropriations (16-0-2). Currently on the Assembly Floor State Legislative Update (Shaw/Yoder/Antwih, Inc.): The Legislature returned from its Summer Recess on August 12th. The Legislature spent the remainder of August hearing bills in the fiscal committees, with August 30th marking the deadline for those committees to complete their work. The last day of the first year of 2019-20 Legislative Session is September 13th. Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment A:

• Legislative Update • Amendments Taken to AB 1413 (Gloria) • 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. Attached are summaries prepared by the Committee (Attachment E) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Attachment F). 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.

102

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. 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.” 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 C:

• Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations • Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization • Fuel Economy Standards • Surface Transportation Security • Capital Investment Grants • Project Management Oversight • Environmental Review Policies • Additional Legislation

At their meetings on August 27th and August 28th, the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium and the STA TAC approved the recommendations as noted below. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Endorse the Final Draft of Caltrans’ California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Consensus Principles Document as shown in Attachment H. Attachments:

A. State Legislative Update B. STA Letter to Seek Amendments to AB 1413 C. Federal Legislative Update D. Summary of America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (ATIA) E. Draft MTC Staff Summary F. House Energy and Commerce Hearing on Fuel Economy Standards G. House Transportation Roundtable on Mobility on Demand H. Caltrans’ Final Draft California Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization

Consensus Principles Document

103


104

August 26, 2019

TO: Board of Directors, Solano Transportation Authority

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

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – September 2019

Legislative Update The Legislature returned from its Summer Recess on August 12. The Legislature will spend the remainder of August hearing bills in the fiscal committees, with August 30 marking the deadline for those committees to complete their work. The last day of the first year of 2019-20 Legislative Session is September 13. We are tracking several bills for STA, some of which are identified under Bills of Interest below.

Amendments Taken to AB 1413 (Gloria) On August 22, AB 1413 (Gloria) was amended to authorize the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, the San Diego Association of Governments, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, and the North County Transit District, 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. Previously, this bill authorized this narrow form of taxation statewide. Since the amendments taken, we have been working with the Author’s office and Senate Appropriations Committee staff to include Solano County in the bill.

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

ATTACHMENT A

105

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 Transportation 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 the ATP funds for distribution. This bill would give MTC additional resources to program for ATP projects. STA SUPPORTS this bill (April 10 Meeting). This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. 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.

106

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 784 (Mullin) California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project. This bill would exempt zero-emission transit buses from the state portion of the sales tax until January 1, 2024. 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 has a SEEK AMENDMENTS position on this bill (August 16). AB 1487 (Chiu) Regional Housing Funding* This bill, if amended, 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. 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). 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.

107


108

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 B

109

Page 2 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.

110

Page 3 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.

111


112

M E M O R A N D U M

August 26, 2019

To: Solano Transportation Authority

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: August Report

During the months of July and August, we monitored developments in Washington and brought them to the attention of STA staff.

Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations

On August 2, President Trump signed a two-year budget agreement that allows for $738 billion in defense spending and $632 billion in non-defense spending, which is an increase of $320 billion over existing budget caps. The agreement also suspends the debt ceiling through July 2021.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) said he will announce topline spending levels for each FY 2020 appropriations subcommittee in August so the Committee can “hit the ground running” when they return from recess in September. To date, the Senate has not introduced any appropriations bills. Chairman Shelby suggested the Committee will first consider a minibus containing the Defense; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; and Energy and Water bills. He said the first full Committee markup will take place on September 12. Shelby expressed doubt that Committee will mark up all of the other nine bills by the end of the fiscal year given that there are only 13 working days in September.

The House has passed ten appropriations bills, including a measure to fund the Department of Transportation, but its work on the Legislative Branch and Homeland Security bills has stalled since the end of June. Additionally, the new two-year budget deal provides different levels of spending than those used by the House Appropriations Committee at the time of writing. House appropriators now must account for approximately $5 billion more in military spending and $15 billion less in non-defense spending than they initially assumed.

Ultimately, the House and Senate must agree on overall budget numbers and will have to reconcile their spending bills. Given competing legislative priorities such as passing the National Defense Authorization Act, a shrinking legislative calendar for the month of September, and controversies surrounding immigration and gun control, 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

ATTACHMENT C

113

Solano Transportation Authority August 26, 2019 Page 2 Congress cannot pass its bills by the end of the current fiscal year, we expect it will pass a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown.

Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization

The Senate Environmental and Public Works (EPW) Committee unveiled and advanced legislation to reauthorize the federal highway program for the next five years. The current authorities under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act expire in September 2020. In the Senate, jurisdiction over surface transportation is divided between the EPW Committee (highways), Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee (public transportation) and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee (highway safety, rail, and freight/intermodal). The Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committees have not yet released drafts of their titles of the legislation. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has indicated it will hold a markup of its portion of the bill in September.

The bill, called the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act, would authorize $287 billion in spending for the federal-aid highway program, a 27% increase from the FAST Act. Of this amount, $259 billion would be distributed to states by formula. The bill preserved each state’s share of highway formula funding. The bill would authorize:

Program FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Federal aid highway program

$47.86 billion $48.83 billion

$49.85 billion


TIFIA

$300 million $300 million $300 million $300 million $300 million

INFRA



$1.15 billion

New competitive grant for bridges

$600 million from both the Highway Trust Fund and the general fund

$640 million from each fund




114

Solano Transportation Authority August 26, 2019 Page 3 National highway freight program

$1.625 billion

$1.66 billion


$1.775 billion

Railway-highway grade crossings

Not less than $245 million

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

New carbon reduction incentive program

$600 million in formula funds and an addition $100 million performance program

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

New congestion relief program

$40 million Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

New community resiliency improvement grant program

$786 million for formula grants to states and $200 million for competitive grants (of which $20 million is for planning grants)

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

Same as FY 2021

115

Solano Transportation Authority August 26, 2019 Page 4 The bill would encourage the use of innovative and resilient materials. A new eligibility of the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) would be to increase the resiliency of federal aid highways and bridges on and off the National Highway System to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, extreme weather events, flooding, or other natural disasters. The federal share of NHPP funds for resiliency projects is up to 100 percent.

The bill increases the state maximum designation of critical urban freight corridors from 75 miles to 150 miles for the Surface Transportation Block Grant program and increases the maximum percentage of a state’s annual National Highway Freight Program share that can be used on freight or intermodal rail projects from 10 percent to 30 percent.

The bill contains several provisions designed to streamline the permitting process. It would limit environmental reviews of infrastructure projects to two years and create a 90 day timeline for related project authorizations. All participating agencies would sign one single environmental document and record of decision. The Transportation Secretary would create an accountability and tracking system designed to monitor the environmental reviews process schedule. The bill would provide project sponsors with the flexibility to apply the core elements of the “One Federal Decision” policy to highway projects that require an environmental assessment.

While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said he is open to reserving time for the bill to be considered on the Senate floor in the fall, there does not appear to be any clear path forward to funding the legislation. Although the Senate Finance Committee is responsible for adding in funding provisions, Finance and EPW leadership did not begin collaborating on the bill until its release. Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) stated his opposition to increasing the gas tax increase to fund infrastructure programs. EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) said the committees are exploring several different options but similarly opposed increasing the gas tax. He also said that any funding solution should implement fees for users of electric cars. Finance Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) has supported using a user fee approach.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has said he is still working with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on discussing parameters of an infrastructure bill. He has signaled that he will not release a bill until later in the year at the earliest. He suggested using the reauthorization bill to change criteria for Transportation Department grant programs, arguing that the current system is too broad to be consistent and transparent. DeFazio said that the Transportation Secretary should have less discretion to award federal transportation grants. DeFazio also suggested reviving congressional earmarks in the reauthorization bill. House leadership considered reviving earmarks after they resumed control of the chamber but ultimately decided against doing so at the time.

116

Solano Transportation Authority August 26, 2019 Page 5 With the current law not expiring until September 30, 2020 and the questions around funding, it is highly unlikely that Congress will pass infrastructure legislation until next year.

Fuel Economy Standards

On August 2, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a final rule regarding fuel economy standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. In its Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, the Trump Administration proposes rolling back greenhouse gas emission (GHG) regulations implemented under the Obama Administration. NHTSA and EPA have proposed adjusting the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for model years (MYs) 2021 through 2026 light-duty vehicles. Once OMB completes its review of the joint rule, it will be officially published in the Federal Register. The specific details of the rule will not become available until its official publication.

Several California Representatives have expressed concern that the SAFE Vehicles rule would negatively impact the state’s access to federal transportation funds if California no longer has the ability to set its own vehicle emissions standards. Under the Clean Air Act, federally funded transportation projects must demonstrate that they meet air quality goals set forth in the state’s Clean Air Act implementation plan. Federal funds can be delayed or lost if projects adversely impact a state’s ability to meet air quality requirements. California Representatives as well as California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols have argued that the state’s transportation projects may no longer conform to federal standards if cars become less fuel-efficient.

Surface Transportation Security

On July 12, the House passed 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. The Senate’s version of the bill (S. 1790), which passed the chamber on June 27, included language that also applied to buses, which the Senate intends would include BYD. The House and Senate must reconcile the differences between the two bills before the legislation can be presented to the President. President Trump previously expressed support for the House bill’s provisions on rail rolling stock.

The House Homeland Security Committee advanced the Emerging Transportation Security Threats Act of 2019 (H.R. 3318) on July 17. The bill directs TSA to establish a task force to conduct an analysis of emerging and potential future threats to surface transportation security.

117

Solano Transportation Authority August 26, 2019 Page 6 On July 12, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) held its first meeting of its Surface Transportation Security Advisory Committee. During the meeting, TSA Administrator David Pekoske said that the agency will allocate more resources towards surface transportation cybersecurity. He said TSA plans to create its own cybersecurity team. Acting Deputy Administrator Patricia Cogswell said that the panel will address cyber risks that have emerged as a result of the Internet of Things as well as supply chain security issues.

Capital Investment Grants

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Highways and Transit Subcommittee held a hearing on July 16 entitled, “Oversight of the Federal Transit Administration’s Implementation of the Capital Investment Grant Program.” The panel heard from Acting FTA Administrator K. Jane Williams; Lane Construction Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Bob Alger on behalf of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; Kansas City Streetcar Authority Executive Director Tom Gerend; and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) President and CEO Paul Skoutelas.

Full Committee Chairman DeFazio said that FTA has acted unlawfully by refusing to approve Capital Investment Grant (CIG) projects that have been advancing through the FTA approval process. He said project approval timelines have doubled and project costs have increased under the Trump Administration. DeFazio said that the cost of projects have increased as a result of FTA’s actions.

APTA President and CEO Paul Skoutelas recommended that FTA creates a CIG dashboard where the agency can report on projects’ progress and status. He also recommended that Congress codify a federal fixed share and clarify that TIFIA loans count as a local match. Skoutelas also asked Congress to direct FTA to reverse recent changes that require project sponsors to submit more accurate risk assessments earlier in the process, arguing that this creates a financial burden for local sponsors.

Project Management Oversight

On August 26, FTA published a proposed rule that would amend its project management oversight rule to make it consistent with new laws and to modify its scope and applicability. FTA proposes modifying the definition of a “major capital project” from one based on the type of project or total project cost to one based on both the amount of federal financial assistance and the total project cost. Comments are due within 60 days.

118

Solano Transportation Authority August 26, 2019 Page 7

Environmental Review Policies

The Department of Transportation published a new interim policy regarding the environmental review processes on August 23. The interim policy limits draft and final environmental impact statements to 150 pages unless they are of an “unusual” scope or complexity. It also recommends capping environmental assessments at 75 pages. The interim policy also provides guidance on implementing President Trump’s “one federal decision” Executive Order.

Additional Legislation

In July, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as well as Representative Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) introduced the Climate Action Rebate Act of 2019. The bill would create a gradually rising carbon fee levied on fossil fuels and fluorinated gases as well as a fee on imports of fossil fuels and carbon-intensive goods. Some of the proceeds of these fees would be used to rebuild infrastructure and support clean energy investments. The bill stipulates that all revenue should be spent in accordance with the Buy America and Davis-Bacon Acts.

On August 2, Representative John Larson (D-CT) introduced the America Wins Act, which would invest $1.2 trillion over 10 years in infrastructure projects paid for by a tax on pollution. On July 25, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced the Bikeshare Transit Act, which would allow federal transit and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program funds to be used for bikeshare programs. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the Community Health and Clean Transit Act of 2019, which would allow the Department of Transportation to provide loans for the acquisition of electric buses and related infrastructure.

Representative Karen Bass (D-CA) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Build Local, Hire Local Act, which would encourage the employment of local residents to construct infrastructure projects. Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) introduced the Crossroads of America Act, which would create a pilot program within the INFRA program designed to increase state infrastructure investment by prioritizing projects that propose a greater non-federal share of a project’s cost relative to other applications in the pilot program.

119


120

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 D

121

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.

122

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

123


124

America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019

DRAFT MTC Staff Summary: August 22, 2019

1

On July 30, 2019, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed the America’s

Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 (ATIA), a five-year, $287 billion highway transportation

reauthorization proposal. Importantly, the bill retains the existing Fixing America’s Surface

Transportation (FAST) Act-authorized program structure, allocating nearly 90 percent of the funding

through the five core highway programs. As advocated by MTC, the bill includes a new focus on

climate change, explicitly making resiliency activities eligible within core highway programs and

creating several new small programs focused on improving resiliency, reducing congestion in major

metropolitan areas and upgrading infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors to support

clean vehicle technologies. It also creates additional new programs focused on bridges and safety for

vulnerable road users. The bill takes steps to support regional funding, planning and decision-making,

including through directing a modest amount of new funding to large metros, and incentivizing regional

safety and resiliency planning with increased funding flexibility. The bill retains the performance-based

planning approach authorized in 2012 and, for the first time, links performance to funding by rewarding

regions and states that make progress toward federal safety and climate goals with access to $200

million in performance-based grants.

Of note, the other Congressional committees responsible for crafting a surface transportation

reauthorization policy (including the transit title) are proceeding at a slower pace and none have begun

to identify a way to pay for a major infrastructure bill. So there is a long way to go before a FAST Act

reauthorization is enacted.

Below is a topline summary of ATIA.

Key Features of ATIA

• Funds highway programs at $287 billion over five years – a 27 percent overall increase over existing

funding levels, starting with a 17 percent increase over fiscal year (FY) 2020. Of this total amount,

90 percent is allocated via formula, with the vast majority directed to existing FAST Act programs.

The FAST Act rescission is repealed. Congress must identify $84 billion on top of anticipated

Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues to fund just this highway title increase. The total price tag for a

five-year, 27 percent growth bill is approximately $387 billion. (Note that funding numbers reflect

HTF contract authority; ATIA authorizes an additional $6.7 billion over five years, subject to annual

appropriations).

• FAST Act core highway programs increase 10 percent in ATIA’s first year ( FY 2021); the National

Highway Performance Program (NHPP) receives a 12 percent bump and the other core programs,

including Surface Transportation Block Grant (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ), grow by 8 percent. The bill authorizes nearly $3 billion annually in

discretionary programs related to goods movement (INFRA), bridge repair, and climate change

mitigation and adaptation.

• In FY 2021, California would receive nearly $4.7 billion, a $600 million increase from FY 2020

funding levels. The Bay Area’s share of flexible highway formula dollars would be $211 million in

FY 2021, a 16 percent increase over FY 2020. Most of these funds would be allocated to the existing

STP and CMAQ programs, but $13 million would be suballocated to MTC through new safety and

carbon reduction formula programs. See Attachment A for a funding chart.

• ATIA creates a number of new small programs, including a $1.2 billion bridge competitive program,

new safety programs for vulnerable road users (formula and discretionary components) and a climate

change subtitle funded at approximately $2 billion annually. Climate-focused programs include a $1

ATTACHMENT E

125



2

billion resiliency program (formula and discretionary), a $600 million carbon reduction formula

program (65 percent population-based suballocation) and a new flexible congestion relief

discretionary program for urbanized areas with populations over 1 million ($40 million annually;

$10 million minimum grant size). The bill also explicitly makes resiliency improvement eligible

under several core highway programs.

Highway Program Summaries

Metropolitan Planning

Metropolitan Planning funding would increase 8 percent in FY 2021 to $386 million and flexibility is

retained for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), such as MTC, to continue to experiment with

planning for uncertainties without adding any new, prescriptive planning requirements. Additionally:

• The MPO coordination rule is back in a muted form; the bill changes the requirement that MPOs

coordinate plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) when they share overlapping

“urbanized areas” (as opposed to metropolitan areas) and requires that MPOs with overlapping

urbanized areas “ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the consistency of any data used in

the planning process, including information used in forecasting travel demand.” There is no

requirement to jointly develop the long-range plan or the TIP, as had been proposed in a prior

rule initiated by the Obama Administration. The bill also provides that more than one MPO may

be designated within one urbanized area (instead of an “existing planning area”) only if the

Governor and existing MPO determine that multiple designations are appropriate.

• “Outer years” of a long-range plan are redefined as beyond the first four years (as opposed to

beyond the first 10 years).

• The bill would establish two new planning-related pilot programs:

1. Accessibility Data Pilot Program: Requires US Department of Transportation (USDOT)

to provide data sets to states and MPOs to measure “accessibility,” including access to

jobs, heath care, or other destinations. The pilot would be funded through Office of the

Secretary’s administrative expenses.

2. Prioritization Process Pilot Program: $10 million annually to pilot project-specific

performance evaluation.

• States and MPOs would be newly required to use 2.5 percent of planning funds for Complete

Streets-related activities. Activities that would meet this criterion include the development of

plans and policies that improve active transportation, increase transit ridership, address travel

demand through alternatives to new highway capacity, and/or support transit-oriented

development.

• States and MPOs with low population densities may opt out of federal performance management

requirements related to one or more of the following categories: 1) performance of the Interstate;

2) performance of the National Highway System; 3) traffic congestion; and 4) national freight

movement.

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP)

Though topline STP funding increases by 8 percent in year one, consistent with the other non-NHPP

core formula programs, more than one-third of the STP increase is allocated to the Transportation

Alternatives Program set-aside (TAP), which constitutes 7 percent of the current program. As a result,

the base STP program only grows by $671 million in FY 2021, 6 percent above FY 2020 funding levels,

while TAP grows by $350 million or 41 percent. Suballocation of STP funds to regions based on their

relative share of the state’s population (increasing the share of which has been a longstanding MTC

126



3

priority) would remain constant at 55 percent, except for TAP which would be suballocated at 57.5

percent. The bill also increases flexibility to explicitly allow STP funds to be used for resiliency

improvements, privately-owned ferries, wildlife crossings, low water crossings and rural water

infrastructure projects.

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

As noted above, the TAP set-aside grows substantially, jumping 41 percent to $1.2 billion in year one of

the bill and the regional share of suballocated TAP funds would increase from 50 percent to 57.5

percent. States also would have the option to pass through 100 percent of the suballocated TAP funds

directly to counties. The proposal also explicitly authorizes up to 100 percent federal share for TAP

projects, subject to certain conditions. ATIA newly allows highway safety improvement (HSIP) funds to

count towards local match for bike/ped projects and recodifies the allowance for the federal share for an

individual TAP project to be 100 percent so long as statewide, the federal share for all TAP projects is

not more than 80 percent. Additionally, the scope of the Safe Routes to School Program is expanded to

include high schools.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)

CMAQ funding grows to $2.7 billion in FY 2021, an 8 percent increase from FY 2020 levels. As is the

case under the FAST Act, California would continue to receive approximately 20 percent of the nation’s

CMAQ funding. The bill expands program eligibility to include certain water freight projects and

removes the operating assistance time limitation for transit systems in urbanized areas with a population

of 200,000 or fewer.

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)

NHPP grows 12 percent in year one to $27 billion. Up to 15 percent of NHPP funds may be used on

resiliency improvements (i.e. “protective features”) to mitigate the risk of recurring damage or the cost

of future repair from extreme weather events, flooding or other natural disasters. Examples range from

raising bridges, upgrading culverts and relocating roadways to deepening channels, maintaining tide

gates and the use of natural infrastructure to mitigate the risk of recurring damage or the cost of future

repair from extreme weather events, flooding or other natural disasters. Protective features are eligible

for 100 percent federal share.

Bridge Investment Program

ATIA funds a new discretionary bridge program to address the backlog of bridges in poor condition.

Eligible projects include protecting, rehabilitating, preserving or replacing one or more bridges on the

National Bridge Inventory (includes bridges on and off Federal-aid highways). The program is funded at

$1.2 billion in FY 2021 and grows to $1.4 billion by FY 2025, though half of this funding is subject to

annual appropriations. Not less than 50 percent of the program is reserved to fund bridge improvements

with a total project cost greater than $100 million.

Safety (Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and New Safety Programs)

The bill increases HSIP funding to $2.6 billion in FY 2021, 8 percent above FY 2020, and restores

flexibility to spend up to 25 percent of HSIP on non-infrastructure safety projects, such as educational

campaigns. ATIA provides $500 million annually to a new safety formula program targeted at

improving safety for vulnerable road users and a $100 million discretionary fatality reduction program.

• Formula: Each state receives shares of the $500 million safety incentive funds in proportion to

that state’s share of national highway formula funds (base apportionments). In California’s case,

the state would receive approximately 9 percent of the national program. Of that, 65 percent

would be suballocated to the Bay Area and other regions based on population. We estimate the

Bay Area would receive approximately $6 million from this program in FY 2021.

127



4

Program funding is flexible. In general, states and MPOs may use funding for any highway

safety improvement project or program. However, states and regions with high rates of

nonmotorized user injuries and fatalities are required to target 50 percent of program funds

toward bike/ped safety improvements. On the flip side, states and regions that integrate a detailed

vulnerable road user safety assessment into a long-range plan would be rewarded with additional

flexibility to spend the safety program money on any STP-eligible project.

• Discretionary: A new merit-based safety performance program provides flexible grants to states

and local governments that are either meeting their federal safety performance targets or are

demonstrating that safety is improving (per capita serious injuries and fatalities are declining).

Grant awards range from $5 million to $30 million and may be used for any Title 23-eligible

project or for highway maintenance at 100 percent federal share.

Additionally, ATIA maintains current funding levels at $245 million per year for the formula Railway-

Highway Crossings Program (Section 130), a set-aside within HSIP. The bill removes the requirement

for a state to spend at least 50 percent of program funding on protective devices, broadens eligibility to

include any project that reduces pedestrian fatalities and injuries from trespassing at grade crossings, and

increases the federal share from 90 percent to 100 percent.

Freight (National Highway Freight Program and INFRA)

National highway freight program funding increases 8 percent in FY 2021 to $1.6 billion and the

INFRA discretionary program grows to $1.05 billion, a $50 million increase from FY 2020. The bill

increases support for multimodal/intermodal projects by expanding program eligibility to include certain

water freight projects and increasing the cap on non-highway projects that could be funded from both

the freight formula program and INFRA to 30 percent. The bill creates within INFRA a $150 million

“incentive” pilot that would prioritize projects with high local matches and adds grant administration

transparency requirements. The bill adds to INFRA a consideration for freight resiliency and requires a

new sustainability/resiliency focus in state freight plans.

Climate Change and Resiliency

In addition to the programmatic changes detailed above, ATIA provides approximately $2 billion

annually in new formula and discretionary funding for climate change and resiliency improvements

allocated through several new programs, as described below:

• PROTECT Grant Program: Nearly $1 billion annually for resilience investments; $786

million formula and $200 million in discretionary planning and implementation grants.

Formula: States receive formula funding in proportion to the state’s share of the national

highway program base apportionments. Project eligibility is broad and includes any

surface transportation project (highway, bridge, transit, intercity rail and ports) that

hardens infrastructure or improves disaster response; additional project elements

functionally connected to a transportation improvement (e.g.: improving marsh health or

installing tide gates) would be eligible.

o Discretionary: MPOs, locals, transit agencies and states may apply for the $200 million

discretionary PROTECT Grant program. $20 million is reserved for planning grants to

prepare vulnerability assessments, build technical capacity, prepare evacuation plans, and

support MPOs and states in developing “resilience improvement plans,” which are

detailed in the bill. Development and incorporation of such plans into long-range plans

results in up to a 10 percent reduction in local match requirements.

128



5

Implementation grants may fund one or more construction activities to harden surface

transportation infrastructure and will be awarded in three buckets: 1) resilience

improvement grants; 2) community resilience and evacuation route grants (including

installation of communications and ITS infrastructure); and 3) at-risk coastal

infrastructure (highway and non-rail infrastructure). Priority will be given to cost-

efficient resiliency projects addressing high-risk asset vulnerabilities that are included in

a resilience improvement plan.

• Carbon reduction programs: $700 million; $600 million formula and $100 million

discretionary.

o Formula: Each state receives shares of the $600 million carbon reduction incentive funds

in proportion to that state’s share of national highway formula base apportionments. Of

this, 65 percent would be suballocated based on population. We estimate the Bay Area

would receive approximately $7 million from this program in FY 2021.

Program eligibility is broad, including projects or programs that improve traffic

management, traffic flow, shift travel demand to nonpeak hours or increase vehicle

occupancy rates, diesel retrofits, clean vehicle charging infrastructure, transit and

bike/ped projects, advanced transportation and congestion management technologies. The

program includes a planning incentive similar to the incentive in the new safety formula

program: States and regions that adopt a detailed carbon reduction strategy would be

rewarded with additional flexibility to spend the program money on any STP-eligible

project. The region’s strategy would need to be incorporated into the long-range

transportation plan.

o Discretionary: Similar to the merit-based safety performance program, this new program

makes available grants for high-performing states and locals. In this case, merit-based

grants are reserved for states and local governments in states and regions that

demonstrate progress toward reductions in transportation emissions (per capita

allowance). Unlike the merit-based safety program, there is no direct link to federal

performance targets, since the climate-related performance measure mandated by the

Obama Administration was repealed in 2018. Grant awards would range from $5 million

to $30 million and could be used for any Title 23-eligbile project at 100 percent federal

share.

• Congestion relief program: $40 million discretionary program for urbanized areas with

populations larger than 1 million to fund integrated congestion management, pricing strategies

(including high-occupancy toll lanes and congestion pricing in up to 10 urbanized areas),

operation of mobility services (commuter buses, on-demand microtransit, etc.), incentive

programs to carpool or shift travel to non-peak periods and other congestion relief projects. The

minimum grant award would be $10 million. Nationwide, there are 45 urbanized areas larger

than 1 million in population that would be eligible to compete for this limited funding congestion

relief program, including two in the Bay Area: San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose.

• Charging and fueling infrastructure grants: Discretionary grant program to fund deployment

of alternative fuel charging infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors. Funding

would begin at $100 million in FY 2021 and increase to $300 million in FY 2025, and could be

used for charging station installation (including signage) and operations (five-year limit). The

federal cost share for grant-funded charging or fueling infrastructure projects is 80 percent and,

129



6

somewhat unusually, the bill requires that private entities contracting with a grantee be required

to fund the local match.

• Clean ports: Discretionary grant program to fund projects that reduce emissions at port

facilities, including port electrification projects. Funding would begin at $60 million in FY 2021

and increase to $90 million in FY 2025.

ATIA also augments the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Emergency Relief (ER)

program’s definition of a natural disaster to include wildfire and sea level rise, and allows the use of

ER program funds on “protective features” to improve resiliency (see NHPP summary).

Streamlining

ATIA codifies core elements of President Trump’s One Federal Decision permit streamlining Executive

Order, including consolidating all permitting decisions for major infrastructure projects into one single

environmental document with a schedule set by the federal “lead” agency, setting a two-year goal for

completion of environmental reviews, and establishing a 90-day timeline for related project

authorizations. 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.

ATIA provides flexibility to USDOT during the environmental review process, allowing the agency to

set a schedule for projects, and limiting extension requests by other cooperating federal agencies to only

one year. In addition, the proposal requires the Secretary to provide to regulatory agencies a list of

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

proposed rulemaking to adopt relevant categorical exclusions within one year. Lastly, the bill requires

USDOT to develop a simplified template for federal-state stewardship agreements and to remove

approval requirements that aren’t mandated by federal law from such agreements.

Other Items

• Tolling: The bill requires that new interstate tolling projects include discounts for high-

occupancy vehicles, transit, and paratransit; ATIA also authorizes a new toll credit exchange

pilot to evaluate the demand for a toll credit marketplace.

• Cybersecurity: The bill requires FHWA to 1) develop a tool to assist transportation authorities in

identifying, detecting, protecting against, responding to, and recovering from cyber incidents;

and 2) designate an office as a “cyber coordinator” for monitoring, alerting, and advising

transportation authorities of cyber incidents.

• Ferries: ATIA Authorizes $440 million over five years for the FHWA ferry boat program, an

increase of $60 million over FAST Act levels. The bill clarifies that the construction of ferry

boats and terminals also includes the construction of maintenance facilities, and permits the use

of program funds to procure non-ferry transit vehicles if the vehicles are used exclusively as part

of an intermodal ferry trip.

• TIFIA: The bill retains TIFIA at FAST Act levels ($300 million annually) and updates the

program, streamlining the application process and expanding program eligibility to include

airport projects and additional transit-oriented development projects (economic and residential

developments physically or functionally related to rail transit stations).

130

Attachment A

Updated August 22, 2019

1

America’s Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act (ATIA) vs. FAST Act Funding

$ in Millions

(authorization of Highway Trust Fund revenues, unless otherwise specified.)

FAST Act

(FY 2020)

ATIA

(FY 2021)

ATIA Total

(5 years) California/Bay Area FY 2021 Impact

Federal Highway Formula Programs

National Highway

Performance Program 24,236

27,157 141,529

California would receive $2.3 billion. New

flexibility to spend funding on resiliency

improvements.

Surface Transportation Block

Grant Program (STP) 11,287

11,958 62,319

California would receive $1 billion; the Bay

Area's suballocated share would increase to

$111 million from $105 million in FY 2020.

Transportation Alternatives

Program (STP set-aside) 850

1,200 6,244

California's funding increases to $104

million; the share reserved for Bay Area

projects would increase to $12 million from

$7 million in FY 2020.

Highway Safety Improvement

Program 2,407

2,608 13,376 California would receive $229 million.

Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Improvement

Program (CMAQ) 2,499

2,688 13,676

California retains 20 percent of the federal

program share, or $537 million in FY 2021.

Of this, the Bay Area would receive $75

million.

National Freight Program 1,487

1,611 8,428

California's funding increases to $150

million.

Metropolitan Planning 359

386 2,011

California's funding increases to $58 million

from $54 million in FY 2020.

Railway-Highway Grade

Crossings 245

245 1,225

New emphasis on reducing pedestrian

fatalities and increases federal share to 100

percent.

FHWA Ferry Program 80

86 440

California received $3.2 billion in FY 2018

when the program was funded at $80 million.

WETA and GGBHTD received nearly half of

the statewide allocation.

New Formula Programs

Formula Safety Incentive

Program -

500 2,500

California's program share would be $47

million in FY 2021; Of this, the Bay Area

would receive an estimated $6 million in

suballocated funds.

Carbon Reduction Incentive

Program -

600 3,000

California's program share would be $56

million in FY 2021; Of this, the Bay Area

would receive an estimated $7 million in

suballocated funds.

PROTECT (formula) -

786 3,930

California would receive $74 million in FY

2021.

131

Attachment A

Updated August 22, 2019

2

America's Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act vs. FAST Act Funding, cont.

$ in Millions

(authorization of Highway Trust Fund revenues, unless otherwise specified)

FAST Act

(FY 2020)

ATIA

(FY 2021)

ATIA Total

(5 years)

Freight, Bridge and Climate Change Discretionary Programs

INFRA 1,000 1,050 5,500

Bridge Investment Program (50 percent HTF-funded) - 1,200 6,530

Safety Performance Program - 100 500

Congestion Relief Program - 100 500

Carbon Reduction Performance Program - 40 200

Charging and fueling infrastructure grants - 100 500

PROTECT (competitive) - 200 1,000

Clean Ports - 60 370

Other Programs

TIFIA 300 300 1,500

Technology and Innovation Deployment 68 135 675

Intelligent Transportation Systems 100 110 550

Community Connectivity Planning and

Implementation - 34 120

Planning Prioritization Pilot - 10 50

Disaster Relief Mobilization Pilot - 1 5

Data Integration Pilot Program (GF) - 3 13

Emerging Technologies Research Pilot Program (GF) - 5 25

FAST Act Rescission 7,569 - -

Repeal of FAST Act 2020 Rescission (7,569) - -

Other 2,287 3,213 17,284

TOTAL FHWA Contract Authority 47,104 55,128 287,267

TOTAL FHWA General Fund Authorizations 100 1,358 6,733

TOTAL AUTHORIZATIONS 47,204 56,485 293,999

Source: MTC staff analysis of July 29, 2019, Eno Center for Transportation ATIA funding

authorization estimates

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

132

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

133

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

134

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.

135

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.

136

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.

137


138

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

139

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

140

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

141

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.

142

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.

143


144

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 H

145


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.

146


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.

147


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!

148


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

149


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.

150


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;

151


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

152


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

153


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.

154


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

155


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 BuildAmerica Bonds to provide a powerful new finance tool for transportationagencies to use when financing major capital projects, and restoring taxexemption 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 planningfunds.

● California administers a tribal set-aside for projects using HSIP funding, andCalifornia supports an overall increase in HSIP funding that can be used toimprove tribal transportation safety.

● The California Native American Advisory Committee has expressed concernswith the new centralized formatting of the Tribal Transportation TechnicalAssistance Program (TTAP), including reduced quality of training, a lack of one-on-one interaction with trainers, a lack of relevant training subject matter forCalifornia tribal transportation programs, and inconvenient course locations.California urges Congress to review recent changes to the TTAP to ensure that itmeets the needs of tribal customers, including possibly authorizing a GovernmentAccountability Review of TTAP. Additionally, the TTAP curriculum should includequality instruction on grant application writing and grant administration.

● California supports tribal transit pass programs or other mobility support for tribalmembers in areas with existing public transit services.

156


DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board 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 for PCAs 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 PDAs, 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. 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 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.

157

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. MTC clarified that in order for those cities to remain qualified, they need to have transit connections with 30 minute headways during morning peak period of 6-10 a.m. and need to have transit access no further than ½ a mile from their transit facility.

STA staff recommends the STA Board authorize the Executive Director to respond to MTC to clarify these cities designation status as it relates to the following:

1. Benicia Downtown PDA: Benicia Downtown PDA is serviced by SolanoExpress Yellow Line with 30 min headways during a.m. peak commute hours from 5:48 a.m. to 8:13 a.m. and therefore should continue to be designated as a PDA despite it not meeting MTC’s criteria of service between 6 and 10 a.m. SolanoExpress passenger demand for service past 8:30 a.m. dramatically decreases given the commuter market travelling earlier to work from Solano County to their destinations. Operational hours of service will be further studied as part of the upcoming Short Range Transit Plan update anticipated to start this Fall. Industrial Park PDA: This PDA also has a similar situation with morning peak period service times, however, Benicia city staff has indicated their intent to change the designation to a PPA. This new designation does not have the same criteria and the proposed PDA appears to meet the PPA criteria.

2. Fairfield Fairfield/Vacaville Train Station PDA: This PDA covers a large area with the Capitol Corridor Train Station as its primary transit service. MTC indicated that the PDA will need to have transit connections to the station for areas outside of the ½ mile access to the station. The city of Fairfield transit staff have indicated that a study for transit service in the area is being planned this Fall as part of their Short Range Transit Plan which will look at service within the PDA and to Travis Air Force Base and further along the Jepson Parkway.

3. Dixon Dixon Downtown PDA: The issue for this PDA is that it does not currently have fixed route transit service. The demand for this type of service will also be studied as part of the upcoming Short Range Transit Plan update for Dixon. The City is also currently working to finalize their Downtown PDA Plan and will consider transit options as part of their plan. The City is also planning to submit a letter of interest for a PPA designation in their North East area of the city where agriculture/manufacturing employment areas are planned.

STA staff advised the cities to submit letters of confirmation of their intent to maintain their PDA designation based on these circumstances. In addition, STA staff advised the City of Rio Vista to submit a letter for their PDA designation as well in order to be eligible for future funding opportunities related to housing production. Although not widely known, the City previously had a PDA subdesignation by ABAG of a Growth Opportunity Area given its smaller rural population size. The City also completed a PDA plan for their downtown area as well.

158

One other related note, STA staff 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: Authorize the Executive Director to submit a letter responding to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Priority Development Area Action Plan. Attachments:

A. MTC PDA Action Plan B. MTC/ABAG RHNA schedule

159


160

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

1161


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

2162








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

3163








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

4164








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

5165








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

6166








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

7167








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

8168








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

9169

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.

170

Agenda Item 12.A Setpember 11, 2019

DATE: August 29, 2019 TO: STA Board 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 larger local match will need to be made available to be competitive in the future.

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.

171

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

• $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

This item was presented to the STA TAC at their meeting of August 28, 2019.

172

Fiscal Impact None. Recommendation Informational. Attachment:

A. MTC RTIP Policies

173


174

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

175

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 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.

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.docx DRAFT

176

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

177

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

178

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

179

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

180

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

181

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

182

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

183

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

184

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

185



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

186



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

187

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

188

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

189



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

190



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

191

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

192





• 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

193

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

194

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

195



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

196



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

197



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

198



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

199



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

200

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

201

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

202



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

203



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 further separated 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 be

programmed 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 a population 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 2020-21

through 2024-25. If a project will not be ready for allocation in a certain year, project sponsors should delay funds to a later year of the five-year STIP period.

DRAFT

204



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

205

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

206



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

207



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 support 2. Project Study Report (PSR), or equivalent 3. 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 programming discretion 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

208

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

209



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

210

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

211

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

212



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

213


214

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

215

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

216

Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Attachment C STIP Amendments / Extensions Rules and Procedures MTC Resolution No. 4398 September 25, 2019 Page 3 of 13


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

217



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

218



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

219

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

220





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

221

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

222


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

223



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

224









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

225



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

226

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




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

227


228


DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board 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 within 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.

229

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. Upon meeting with TAC members, it was suggested that these meetings take place during the month of October. 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

230

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

231


232

Agenda Item 12.C September 11, 2019

DATE: August 28, 2019 TO: STA Board 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.

233

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

234

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


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 SR2S

team. This “Safe Passage Coalition” is comprised of district staff, Police Department staff, city officials, staff and parents from the school. SR2S staff provided input and support to develop this team and identify the school’s needs to increase walking and biking for students in an effort to relieve traffic congestion around the school.

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

Attachment A

235

• 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:




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

236


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.

237

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

238

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.

239

• 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.

240

Agenda Item 12.D September 11, 2019

DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board 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.

Recommendation: Informational.

Attachment: A. Detailed Funding Opportunities Summary

241


242

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 Grants Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Jeffrey Mann, NSFLTP Program Manager (202) 366-9494 [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) 399-3230 [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 Grants Carl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for Sacramento Metropolitan Area)

Gary A. Bailey Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (916) 874-4893 [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) 323-2781 [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)


243
















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


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

244










Agenda Item 12.E September 11, 2019

DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board RE: 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule

Discussion: Attached is the 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule that may be of interest to the STA Board.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Recommendation: Informational.

Attachment: A. STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019

245

STA BOARD AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE CALENDAR YEAR 2019

DATE TIME DESCRIPTION LOCATION STATUS

(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.

246

MEETING AGENDA 6:00 pm, STA Board Regular Wednesday ...

Documents