HomeMy WebLinkAbout0261.092-
.Ma~· 14 r 1992 10
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
RECOMMENPED PROJECTS F'QR 1993 SURFACE TRA..~.s~_RTATION PROGRAM
~CONGEST!ON MITIGATION AIR OUALIT¥ PROGRAM FEDfP~L ~JNDING
Memcers of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Metropolitan Transportation Commiszion (MTC) is workin; ~ith
the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) 2nd other
Bay Area County CMA's to -1.evelop a list of projects for
consideration for programming in the 1993 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). As part of that proces5 t it is now
necessary that the Council establish a priority list of projects,
tor consideration in this process.
The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that Council
establish the folloW'ing priority list of projects for consideration
for programming in the 1993 TIP:
PRIORITK
1-
2.
3 •
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
PROJECT DESCRIP'l'nJ:Drl
Page Mill/Foothill Intersection Improvement
page Mill/Hanover Intersection I;:nproveJr.ent
oregon/Middlefield Intersection Improvement
Stanford Research Park side~alks
Stanford Research Park shuttle
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge & Path Extension
Foothill/Miranda New Intersection Construction
Foothi11/Arastradero Intersection Improvement
Foothill/Hillview Intersection Improvement
Page Mili/El Camino Intersection Improvement
The CMA has set up categories that these projects ~ill be placed
into. By the cate90ries currently being considered~ the above
priorities would be organized as follows:
CHR:261:92
........ ->
~"""
, . ~, ,,' ,"'" " " I
,
t
I
I
I
I
I
L
. :r····
----.-, ..... ~,-.,.,-... -''''''
CATEGORY/
P.MQlllTI .ER.="'---1:!E SCR I IT 10"
TRANSIT
1. Stanford Research Park Shuttle
CONGESTION ~~AGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ROADWAY
1. Page Mill/Foothill l~ters~ction Improvement
2. Page Mill/Hanover Intersection Improvement
3 ~ or-egon/Hiddlefield Intersection IMprovement
4. Foothill/Miranda New Intersection construction
5. Foothil1/Arastradero Intersection Improvement
6. Foothill/Hillview Intersection Improvement
7. page MilliEl Ca!nino Intersection Improvement
LOCAL
1.
2.
St~nford Research Park Sidewalks
Embarcadero Ped€,stria •• /Bike Bridge and path
Extension
BACKGROUND
Lat6 in Ma~ch 1992, MTC announced plans to p~ogram the ne~ Inter
modal Surface Tz'ansportation Efficiency Act {ISTEA) into the 1933
Transportation Improvement progrclln. The new funds to be programmed
are Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and Cong~stio:il
Mitigation and Air Quality (CHAQ) funds, for 1992/93 and 1993/94:
plus some carry-over funds from 1 9 91/92 that were not programmed
through the one ye~r Federa:l Aid Urban/Federa:l Aid Secondary
exten~ion4
Indications are that Santa Clara County can reasonably expect to
receive about $47.1 million, but is being asked to submit a bid
packaqe for consideration tot~lling 50 percent more, Or about $70.6
million.
Screening and ra~king crite~ia are still being developed by MTC.
However, the emphasis appears to be on lO;"'er-cost projects that
'Will sustain and en.'1.ance eXisting systems and improve air quality.
The CMAQ funds are restricted to air quality control measures that
emphasize transit, High Occupany Vehicle lanes, signalizat~on, and
pedestrian/bicycle projects, while the S'EP funds are totally
.flexible regarding use. While local match is not yet required, the
federal funding level is 80 percent, and no one has yet said where
the remaining 20 percent is to come from. Realistically, project
sponsoring agencies are likely to be expected to provide the 20
percent match.
At this time, staff believes it is prudent to assume that the
City's gas tax funds will not qualify as part of any 20 percent
match the City may need to provide for these projects. Therefore,
in order to earmark sufficient matching fu~ds for projects that may
CMR:261:92 5/14/92
Page 2
..
,.
i
I .,
l
I -
,-
.-._-"_.
be approved, staff recommends t.hat current and future traffic
impact fees be set aside. The lS92-97 Capital Improvement program
Budget originally pl:"o!='Osed to use curr-..ent traffic impact fee
revenue on the Major Inters.ectior. Il'!:Iprovements project for the
Alma/Charleston construction. A revision is now proposed in
CMR:249:92, dated May 7~ 1992, to replace traffic impact fees with
gas tax revenue as the only funding scurce for the Alma/Charleston
project~ This will free up traffic impact f~es for matching
fedeL"al fu.nding, if require-d. The Street Maintenance project, also
funded 'Within the fixed gas t,,-x allocation, is correspondir.gly
reduced to offset this revision.
The schedule for submittal, review and approval by MTC 1 as part of
the 1993 TIP is quite short~ The Santa Clara CMA 1'.as taken a
leadership role in working with MTC and local jurisdictions to
develop a priority list of projects for Santa Clara County, for
submittal to MTC by the end of May. The Governing Board of the CKA
is pres2ntly scheduled to review, discuss and establish a
recommended priority list of projects for Santa Clara county at its
meeting on May 20, 1992. Each jurisdiction 'Within Santa Clara.
county is being asked to establish a list of project priorities, as
input to the CMA recommendation to MTC. As a current member o! the
CMA Governing Board, Council Member Jean McCown will participate
directly in the CMA Governing Board discussions and actions.
~LIGIBLE PROJECTS
The direction and procedures from M'TC tor estab1 ishing ,,'hich
projects are to be included in this current ~ound of tundin9 is
best charact.erized as uncertain and continuing to evolve~ In the
absence of specific direction ~nd/or criteria, the CMA is utilizing
its existing capital Improvement program (CIP) S.ub-com1!littee, from
the Technical Advisory Committee, to try to develop and work
through a rational approach to identifying, evaluating, selecting
and prioritizing a set of projects for Santa Clara County, that is
r-easonahly consistent with the intent of the federal funding
programs as .... e11 as the anticipated funding level and has the
s\.,;.pport of 10c;;..1 ele.cted officials. The efforts of the CIP Sub
committee are reported to the CMA Technical Advisor}' Committee
(TAC), Which in turn reports to the CMA Governing Board. Palo Alto
has staff representatives serving on both the eIP Sub-committee and
the TAC, and council Member Jean McCown presently serves on the CMA
Governing Board.
The ClP SUb-committee has had several 2engthy discussions
concerning what projects should be included for consideration as
part of this current round of funding. In addition to the basic
eight page application form provided by MTC, the elP Sub-committee
has developed a Screening and Scoring Guide (Attachment 1) for each
juriscHction to use to self-evaluate its respective projects. The
screenin9 portion is intended to establish how well a particular
project meets several basic criteria (readiness, local match,
CMR: 261: 92
L
5/14/92
Page 3
..
L
environmental clearanc:e ~ .and consistency 'With local land use plans)
and federal IS~~ factors. The scoring portion is intended to
establish a numerical score based upon a number of factors
reflectinq the type of project, multi-modal character, and benefits
that are 11k.ely to result.
In additl:::m to the completion of a Screening and scorirJq Fane for
each individual project (except transit proj~cts), each
jurisdiction is beir:.g ask~d to prioritize its p::.-oje.cts at t'Wo
levels. The first level is an OVerall Priority of all p:."ojects,
irrespective of the type of project. The second level is category
Priority, where each project is aSEigned to and prioritized with1n
one of thre-e categories e.ctablished ~l" the CIP Sub-co:mmittee~ The
three categories are (a) Transit projects, (D) CMP Roadway Syste~
projects, and (c) Local projects (pedestrian and bicycle projects,
as well as other roadway projects not on the CMP Roadway syste~) •
CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECTS
Upon receiving notice of this new so~rce of funding for projects
that appeared to fit the type and scale in which Palo Alto has som~
interest, staff put together a list of potEiiltial proj er:ts for
further consideration. The projects, as summarized in Exhibit ~,
include seven roadway intersection improvement project$, one
transit related project, and t~Q bicycle/pedestrian projects.
The sev~n roadway intersection improvement proj€cts are all basic
operational-type improvements that 'Will reduce existinq recurrent
congestion and delay, and improye air quality and safety. All
seven projects are on Santa Clara CO"'J;nty expressways 0.:' state
highways, which are also designated facilities on the regional MTS
and. CKP Roadway System. All of these road~May projects were
considered and. approved by the Palo .Aolto City Council, as part of
the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, and all of them are
inclUded in th~ Santa Cla~a county Transportation Plan (T-20]O).
The transit related project is a proposal tor a bus shuttle serving
the Stanford Research Park, 'Which -.. ,auld be linked to the Cal j fornia
Avenue CalTrain Station, express bus service readily c:.vailable
along El Camino Real, and the commercial retail facilities
availa.ble in t..;'e. California Avenue eusiness District. 1\ feasi
bility study, Which included participation by both the public and
private secto-rs~ was funded by Varian (as or.e of a series of
mitigation measures) and has already been completed (CMR 259:91,
May 9, 1991). Service would be provided through a private sector
provider on a contract basis.
;,. ,e of the b~cycle/pedestrian projects is to compl~te "missing;
sidewalk segments throughout the Stanford Research Parx f .hich
would facilitate pedestrian activity 'Within the pal:k and provide
linkage to available transit services. The other proj ect will
extend a cross-town bicycle route from Churchill Avenue to
CMR,261,92 5/14/92
Page 4
-
o .
o
o o ·
·
i · :
~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
r
Exhibit 1
l
\. .\.' , '\ " " ~,'J,}f~~~i~( ./,;£,~' , ,,~1/~ ,~f.-' " ·:~)'i""If •
I
CMP Road'(l'Y
a. Or~gon/Middlefield
h. Page Mill/Hanover
c. ~age Mill/Foothill
d. Foothill/Miranda
e. Foothill/Arastradero
f. Foothill/Hillview
g. Paqe Mill/El Caruino
Transit
a. stanford Research
Park Shuttle
Local Pedestrian/Bite
a, Stanford Research
Park Sidewalks
b. Pedestrian/Bicycle
Bridge and Path
5/H/92
~~;~
--.--•• ---.-.------. --.• -.--•• _ ••• -~~ •• -.... ----'-".~,~ ... , ' t , g ,x ,
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND SCORING FORM
SCREEN (A)
~J.nes. lQt Match Enyironmental consistl!lJl<l(
YES YES YEs YES
YES YEs YES YES
YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES
YEs NO YES YES
YES NO YES YES
YES 110 YEs YES
N/A N/A N/A tVA
YEs 'iES YES YES
YES YES YEs YES
, .
SCREEN (8)
IsnA Pactors
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
N/A
60
66
SC':>RE (e)
~actQts
80
80
eo
eo
80
80
80
NIA
80
6C
()
~
~ ..
)
'<,
I;
~
1 , ,
r
""'.
( ,
University Avenue, including construction of a bicycle/pedestrian
bridge oyer Embarcadero Road (r,ext to the calTrain bridge), and
could also serve a high volume of student pedestrians bet·ween Palo
Alto High School and Town and Country Shopping Center.
Exhibi t 2 presents sum.marj' results from the Screening and scoring
Form for each of the ten projects.
!1!NO!NG LEVEL
The total a~ount of feder-a] STP/CMAQ funding re-.;'.lested for these
ten projects is $6~5 million. While it is very ur.clear what Palo
Alto's share of a $70.6 ~illicn bid package tor Santa Clara county
would be, it is evident that it will not reach $6.5 million, for
this round ot fundin9.
As a point of reference, if the bid package for Santa Clara County
is set at $70.6 million, Palo ~lto's share for eligible projects
could be $4.2 million (5.95\ x $70.6), based upon the current
formula used to fund the CMA, or it could be $2. a million
(3.92% x $70.6), based upon Palo Alta's population share of Santa
Clara Co~ty~ If, as the CIP Sub-committee discussion currently
incHcates, the total bid package is equally divided into three
cateqories (Transit, CMP Roadway System, and Local), Palo Alto's
share for eligible proj eets could be $1.4 :::::illion for anyone
category (5.95% x 1/) x $70.6), based upon the CMA funding foraula,
or it could be $920,000 for anyone category (3.92% x 1/3 x $70.6),
based upon the population formula.
The table below presents a sunu~ary of potential funding levels for
various sets of conditions.
FUND TARq~ BJD TARGET
Total STP/CMAQ Funds $47.075 ll'I_illion $70.613 million
at 5.95% 2.801 4.201
at 3.9H 1..845 2.766
1/3rd of STP/CMAQ Funds $15.692 million $23.538 million
at 5.95% 0.334 1.401
at 3.92% 0.615 0.923
a~ Bid Target equals 150% of Fund Target
b~ 5.95% is Palo Alto's share of CMA funding based on
50t jobs and 50% subventions (related to populatio~)
c. 3.92\ is Palo Alto's share of Santa Clara population
In addition, any part of the available funds assigned to Cal trans,
the sec Traffic Authority. or the sec Transit District 'Will
diminish the funds available to local jurisdictions in at least two
of the three categories (Transit and CHF Roadway system).
CMR:261:92 5/14/92
page 5
> .•
-
o
CUrrently, elP Sub-committee discussions regarding funding appear
~o be headed toward the felloving conclusions: ... Total bid package is to :be divided into three equal
~rts--Transitr CMP Roadway, and Local.
b. Eligible projects in the CHP Road .... ·ay category and Transit
Category are to co:mp-ete on their O\n'l. merits 'Without
regard to jurisdictional or agency share considerations.
c. Eligible projects in tha Local Category are not to exceed
the amount of each City's share, based upon population.
d. Projects not funded as part of the CMP Roadvay category
or 'rransit Category could be included in the Loceal
category.
PROJECT PRIQRITIES
Based upon available infonnation and discussion to date,
established the follo~ing priorities for the ten
previously identified:
staff has
projects
PRIORITY
1-
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10.
~OJECT PESCl\ u:I...I.Q!!
Page Hill/Foothill Intersection Improvement
Page Mill/Hanover Intersection Improvement
oregon/Middlefield Inte~section Improvement
Stanford Research Park Sidewalks
Stanford Research Park Shuttle
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge , Path Extension
Foothill/Miranda New Intersection Construction
Foothill/Arastradero Intersection Improvement
r'oothill/!i111view Inter-section Improvement
Page Mill/El Camino Intersection Improvement
The above priorities -",auld be categorized as £0110\115:
CATEGORY!
PRIORITY ~~GT DESCRIPTION
TRANSIT
1. Stanford Research Park Shuttle
CMP ROADWAY
1-
2.
3.
(.
5.
6.
7.
CMR:261:92
Page Mill/Foothill Intersection Improvement
Page Mill/Hanover Inte~section Improvement
Oregon/Middlefield Intersection Improvement
Foothill/Miranda New Intersection Construction
Foothill/Arastradero Intersection Improvement
Foothill/Hillview Int6r~ection rmprovement
Page MilllEl Camino Intersection Improvement
5/14/92
Page 6
· -.-
",~~ ., ~"~.: "
.-'~:~i~f ...... .
CATEGORY!
PR!OBI'IY
IJJCAL
1-
2.
stan.ford Research Park Side""3.lks
Embercadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path
Extension
The al>ove priorities are based upon a qualitative consideration of
a number of factors including need, benefit, proj~ct readiness, ease
of i:rr.plementation, competitiveness, and level of e:K':isting review and
approval as well as considerable judg~rnent.
Although Palo Alto cannot reasonably expect to receive funding for
all t~n projects, staff believes that it is advantageou6 to submit
as many of these projects a5 possible [or several reasons: (a) the
amount of money that Palo Alto might receive is a ~oving target at
the present time; (b) the compotitiveness ot these projects should
be quite high, and (c) unfunded projects may benefit from future
rounds of funding and/or other funding sources.
FU'!'URE STE os
The CIP suh-committee is scheduled to meet on May l~th, to review the
results of the screening and Scoring process prepared by each
jurisdiction, as 'Well as th~ preli-minarj Overall Priorities and
Category Prior-ities submitted by each jurisdiction (albeit not
affirmaa by Council). Their comments and recommendations will be
passed onto the TAC which is schedUled to meet on Kay 20th. All of
this infor.mation, along ~ith the Palo Alto city council's comments
and recommendations established at the council meeting on May 18th,
will be passed onto the CMA Governing Board for their-meeting
scheduled for the evening of May 20th~ The recommenda~ion of the CKA
Governing Board w~ll than be forwarded to MTC~ In the absence of
specific ~riteria from MTC, the CMA Governing Board's reco~endaticn
will be subject to c:n.1nge, pending-further direction from MTC.
Staff recommends that Council establish the following priority iist
of proje~ts for consideration tor programming in the 1993 TIP:
PRIORITY PROJECT .P...ESnCR!PIION
1. Page Mill/Foothill Intersection Improyement
2~ Page Mill/Hancver Intersection Improvement
3. oregon/Middlefield Intersect.ion ll!lprovement
4. Stanford Research Park Sidewalks
5. Stanford Resea.rch Park Shuttle
6. Embarcadero pede~trian/Bike Bridge' Path Extension
7. Foothill/Miranda New Intersection Construction
8~ FcothillJArastradero Inter&ection Impro'lement
9. Foothill/Hillview Intersection Improvement
~O. Page MilllEl Camino Intersection Improvement
CHR: 261: 92 5/14/92
Page 7
L
t
i
!
L
f
I
8y the categories currently being considered, the abo .... e priorities
would be as follows:
CATEGORY/
E&LQRIIX PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TRAIISI'£
1. Stanford Research Park Shuttle
ClIP ROADWAY
1. Page Mill/Foothill Intersection Improvement
2. Page Mill/Hanover Intersection Improvement
3. Oregon/Middlefield Intersection rmprovement
4. Foothill/Miranda New Intersection construction
5. Foothill/Arast~adero Intersection Improvement
6. Foothill/Hillview Intersection Improvement
7. Paqe Mill/El Camino Intersection Improvement
LO"..AL
1-
2 •
Stanford Research Park Sidewalks
EmbarcaQero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path
Extension
Respectfully submitted,
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Traneportation Official
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
Manager
Attachments: 1. May 6, 1992 Memo Regarding the Screening
and Scorinq Process
2~ March 18, 1992 Memo Describing STF/CMAQ
Project f\mding
3. April 15, 1992 Memo Respondinq to Qu~stions
Regarding STP/CHAQ Project Fundi~g
4. April 8, 1992 Memo to CMA Governing Board
5. May 1/ 1992 Memo to CIP Sub-co~~ittee
cc: Stanford University (Julia Fremon, Andy Doty, Zera Murphy)
CMR: 261:92 5/14/92
Page 9
-. ~-,,-:: .. t-'i::""i.,r:IJI' ... ~ ........... --~.,---'~
t;\~;;:
-
L
)ltEMORA.c"'l>UM
To: Technkal Advisory Corr'-fluttee-~femtx:rs
elF Subct>mmillee Members
From: Micr...ael P. Evatl.hoe, Executive D~~ctor
Subject· eMA. Level Screerung Utd Scoring Proce~s
An.~hm.nll
The CIP Suocommittee (his morning agreed on a p('elinl.ln.~I)' scre€ni..J1g and scoring
procedure for the 1993 Fedt>nl Fund Selection Process. I trunk we are rnUi~.g progress in
this acce:erated process and appreciate your continued p-artiClPltiOn.
According to MTC, right of~'~y jssu~s are tied d!rectly 'to projec[ readiness. That is,
projects that have no problem ~ith light of way acquisition will compete bellef than
projects that still have right of way procedures .ah~d of them. It is !.rrC's Jiwdgement :u
this titr~ that procedures for right of way certi1i~tion v.';ll be subject w state, not federal.
standards .
rwITC has also stated that there are currentiy no pW\lisions for e>remptlne;: signaliz..ation
projects from local match requirements. However. MIC will be ex:urJning Ibe match
ratio isS'Je very soon and ,,'ill Worm us accordingly.
With reg1,rd to 1\"EPA documentation, MfC believes thE.t sponsorLi1g agEr..des use stEte
CD.ltr3ru) NEPA requirements 35 a guide.
Each jurisdiction will pezform the screening and scoring procedures described. below and
rubmit the results to the CMA by 5,00 pm. on Fridoy, Maj' 8. 1992 CMA suf{,,'W then
produce. county'''''ide prioritized list of projeClS b.sed on that process for the neK! CIP
Subcommittee.meeting on May 14. The Subcomrr.ir!ee ~'Ul revil::'i2r.' !.;1e re5U!~ of L.1e
process :i1Jld make ~ recoITl."nenci.ation to take to the TAGs spec:a! meeting en M41Y 20,
STEP 1, SCREENING (screening gukk attached)
A. Answer questions 1--4. It is strongly recomtnended th;u only projects which
receive a ·yes" to all loof questions pass to sere en B .
•
B. Score projects according to the ISTEA factors, Tn;. score is only meatll to
i:'nsure that the ISTEA factors have been considered in. evalU:Hlng projects at this ie-.... el, All
projeCts will then pass to s<:onng
STEP~, SCORll'G (scorl1ig guide arl4ched)
For each CMP Roadway 5)'stem and LoatVPed-Bike proje<t, complete a "oring
form by answering the Questions and a,v."arding points accordir,gly. Tro1.n.sit projects w1U be
5/6/92
-
."",,, ,
cons(dered. sepa.""a~e1y.
STEP 3; PlUOlU11lE PROJ~CTS (pHorlt(;:a/wnjorm attached)
Prioritize projec+..s bot..~ wi&J."'j th~ three categories (,rnnslt, eMP Ro~dw3Y System.
localIPed-nike). ~d over.o.t. fl"",,, note L!o,e both L"~ Screen B ",d Overall SCores next [0
each project name.
STEP 4, TR. ..... "'SMIT RESlJl. TS TO CMA
Please submit the results of this process to the CMA by dooe of busL'1~S 0<1 Fri&y.
MayB,l992. You ,,"owd submit 1 copy dyow prioritized list (ooth .,.·jthin and zcr055
Cltegories) ond a SCte~8 o.nd scoreng form for e.ch CMP Roadw:lr Sy;tem and
Local/Ped-Bike project on that lisl
Important Date<
Friday, May 8
Thutsday, Y..ay 14
Wednesday, May 20
Submit sat;:en & score results to CMA
CIP Suboomtllict"" Meeting (9 00 am)
'rAe Meeting (2·00 :>m)
As aMYS, if you have questions, C1Jl Andy Nash or Walt S'Ieete( at (408) 45Y10:;G.
-
.'-
Coogeotion Management Agency
Santa Cl= ('"",oty
1993 TIP -Request for SlP/C.~L"'QP funds
Scro::nlng and Scoring Guide
Project Sponso" __ _ -------STl'/CMAQ Request t _____ _
Project, _____ _
Location, _ Contact:
Answ,er yes or no to thr fortQy.j~a Screen A que5tiQr~
A. 1. Project Readiness,
Will me project be under way by Septerrbcr 3G, 1994?
2. 20% Local Makh.
Is there a nlinlrnwn of 20% match of local or other fund,>?
3· Ecvlronmental Cie=ee:
Will project have enviror ... -n€:nta! df'ararlCe by Sept. .30, l~?
Ye'S/No
4. Fatal Flaw,
Is project consistent with local land use plans'
Yes/Ko
B~ IS1'EA Factors~ Score. project according to the foIlowlng ISTEA factors:
(number 11'1 Parerubeses nife't's J.Q MTC .lS'nA fat/e." .. :ml~ (/J) ",0: usc jar-S{.ore)
Rtglorz..t.t..'1M rind laJrb1g factO'rS tl~ mx tnduded bert:' as tlH!y do nOl pertain JO l-ndwJdual
projects $pec(jlcaIlJi.
lliGHIKey variables [to points eaehJ
Maintenance and increased effidency of existing M" (1)
CongesUot! relief and prevention (3)
Expansion and enhancement of transit ser.'ice, (14)
Iropiementltion of alr quality TCMs (! 7)
lmpleme.'lU~on of ADA (18)
HIGH/Not key variables (5 poInts each]
Access to ports, airports, lnteunoGal fa.cilities,
freight distribution centers, military installation!; (7)
Efficient freight movement (11)
MEDIUM [6 points each]
Interregional connections (8)
Preser\'.~on of future transporta~on corridors (0)
Safety (16)
LOW [4 points] _
EnetID' conserv.~on 0)
Coor;nm: to Smdn~ ~
L
TOTAl
_\:~:~,:::~ :-'-~o .~ -..... '''-'
':..:-:.~~'<
:~~~~-
,'f ."
-
SCORING Gt"mE
pte--..se ap..$Wtr the: rotl~'41g questions llnd proceed wi~h project scoring:
Does this Pro}ec1 affect other jurisdktlons' E.."'Cplain: _. ___ _
Date Project 'i'rl1ti have en\,·!.ronmental clearance:
Estimated dote of tigh.-<i-,,-.y clearance (if applicable)-
Yhc f.~ ~ will be used to 5< .... CMP Iloadw:ly and 1ocaI!P<d-Bik< pro!",,. tha,
h2ve p..-Saun> A and 8.
1. If the Project is in the CMP Roadway
or LocaL'Ped Bike Clltegory. will It
enhanc~ L~it?
How?
2_ If !he Project is in the CMP Roadway
category, will it enhance pedestrian or
bicycle movements?
How?
3 If the Project is on the CMP Roadway
Sy,;tem, will k Improve a facility that is
currently operating at LOS E or F?
How? __
4. If Project I. not on the eMF Roadv,-.y System,
will It reUeve a eMF Roadway System facilit)'
that is rurrently operating at LOS E or F?
F.xplain,
5_ Is the Project ",eluded in the T-2Q1 0
Master PIan?
y"" 10
~o, 0
Yes, 10
No, 0
Yes: 10
No, 0
Yes: 10
No, 0
5/7/92
I
I
j
TOTAL PROJECT SCORE,
Please at:1:.:ich both Lile screening guide and scorlfl...g guide for e,ach projeLi to )'our
prioritized list
,
;$~~i:.~~r
,,;
; ."
-
I
If' "·-'j$f'
; . ',);.'t' ~,~ ~;'~i'~_ '-~ . ·,<;-~~,t;~;
"
r
l
i
I
i
f
i
,
Project Prioritization by Local JutisdiL"tiOn
Please prioritize the proJeru which have .lready passed Screens" arld II. wdude Loe Sa.en B score wi.h Ille i>roje<.~ 1Wtle.
The form below is just a g\lide; you ""'Y uoe your own lette.head for thl... IL5t.
1. Project Catesory (please prlnriltze projer;1 III appropridJe cat"i/ury)
TransIt AODHcation C~ Roodwav J:.ocal Aovlicatiorl
1. 1. 'I.
2, 2. 2.
3 3. 3.
4. 4. 4.
5. 5. 5,
6. 6. 6,
7. 7. 7.
8. 8, 8,
9. 9. 9,
10. 10. 10,
Please complete OvcraI1 prioritization. on th(" reverse of this p3ge.
,"
.,'-,,~. <'~ ,,'
o
)
~
~
'~~-----------------------------~~~~~
•
... --.------"'~ .... ----
2. OVttill Pcloclty (please Prioritize all prOjects)
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
r..
7.
8.
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
..._---
,'.
-
SmtWur
... -c;,.,..-:c-,.
I1J.An C. BEI'TT
h'MG~
""" "'" '-' """ """"'" .lAAO.U 1. r..o.u, Jr.
...... 'J-
-'-
Pn'I<-~
u . ....,c-_ ... --,.........
A,'OCHc>l-SoIU(:<4ol
5<.-........... T,--..._ .............. """
Pa:rlooo W. ~CU'r
MIL
"'M"'itiQpo 11 T ... N
T I.AN 5 POI T A"-r ION
COMMISSION
..---,
16 March 1992
.To: C<lngestion Management Agen<fes..-
. \J r.v-r-
FROM: Hank DiHmar, Managef,Lleg islalion and Finance
Attachment 2
ABOUT: Request for projects to be considered for inciusion in the 93 TIP
Attached pfease find a memo 10 the Regiona! Technical Adlisory COr:1mittee
(RTAC) calling for the sub miMI of project applications by April 30,1992
for consTdera1)on for programming in the 1993 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). There is approximalely $177.6M, reg;on-wide, in Surface
Transportation Progra~ (STP; and COrlgestron Mitigalion Air Quality
Program (CMAOP) funds.
We are asking :he Congestion Mar.ageme(i! Agencies 10 pray a coordinc:ting
role in til is process. If possible. the comp~a1ion of proJed applica!1ons into a
priority·ordered list is deslrabie. We recognize that the time frame is rather
short. and for that reason, we are not requiring policy board approval of such
lists. We are afso more flex!ble about when priori!y crde( 1s received,
although in order to influence the draft T1P 10 be released in June, prvmpt
action is required.
The attached memo Includes a schedule for 1993 TIP adoplion, bid targels
by oounly for both the STP and CMAOP, and a blank app~cation form. Note
that each county is being guaranleed programming in STP of 110% of
previous FAUtFAS levels. If you have any fur1herques!,ons, do not hesitate
!o cali me at S1 0-464·781 0 or Kristina Younger at 510/464-78JO .
" ..... -.
I ,
I
I
I
I
L
MTC
MEMORANDUM
To: Regional Technical Advisory Commillee (RTAC) .. . <:""'-Fr: Krislina Youoger and DaVid Murray\)
Re: 1993·97 Transportaticn Improvemenl Program (TIP)
A.genda !tem 6
JOS.f"H ~. BORi MnaOCi;I'<TEPI:
101 EJOt'!"H 5,!".H1
O."l(lAND. CA 9<1bC1
4; j/~""..j. "100' ,,o,,l ~ I ~.!..j6"· ,~,,,g
Date: 3118192
W.!.: 903·40·01-
Now tha~ the State Transportation Improvement Program (STiPj has been adopted it}.s
~me to start the process of updating the federal TIP. The 1993 TIP, which will be adopted
by MTC in September of 1992, will:
Update and correct lisUngs from the 1992 TIP for currer.t funding l-evers, status of
project review, a~d project descriptions;
Update the trans~ operators financial capa~y analyses, private sector analyses, and
budget analyses;
Include n"ew locally funded transportation improvements that require fede:--a l actfons;
Include new state and federally funded projects programmed in the 1992 STIP, the
92/93 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Program, Transil Capita;
Improvement (Tel) program, and the 1992 Highway S>-slems Operation and Protect ton
Program (HSOPP);
include new projects programmed with the f~rst two years of Surface Transportatron
(STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (Ct.'IAQP) funds made
avallable by t~e IntermodaJ Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), as
discussed in hem #5;
Be modened for air quality conformily.
Process aod Schedule
In April, highway project sponsors will be mailed a copy of Ihe preliminar/ dral! TIP, which
will ',)elude everything except the new STPICMAQ projects. Sponsors will be given about
a month to c",rect all listings and add new locally funded projects.
Simultaneously, with the Ad Hoc Committee, the criteria for selecting new projects for the
STPICMAO funds will t>e drafted. Project sponsors will be asked to submit proposals for
projects to be considared in ApriVMay. Tt,e expected funding level for these new projects
is approximately $177.6M for the entire region. The screening criteria for these projects
will include ,he ability to obligate funds within the two year time frame ~.e. by September
of t 994), and meeting the e~gibni!y requirements defined in ISTEA.
In June, a Draft TIP will be released for a 60-day pub~c comment period. This will include
the MTC staff proposal for STP/CMAO :unds for 9213 and 9314 and whatever funds lram
91/92 that were net ob~gated through the one·year FAUiCRP e1<ler.sion. The public
hearing on 1he program wiil be held in August, and adoption wiB OCCUf in September. A
more detailed schedule is attached for your infonnaUor'l"
L
-
··ri ....... . J."
." -.
"(' ,
---:~.-,----....~,~.---
Memo to RlAC
3/18/92
1993 T!P
Page ~ of 2
R?Qll~5t for majee,s to be roDsiriP-fed for STPICMAO funds
Attached piease find an applica.tion form to be used to initia!e project cof1sidera1ion for
STP/Cr..-\AQ funds. Each Congestion Management AQenc'f' may submij projec! r~Ques!s
1Qr this fi{~l round ana is stronQry encquraged to do SQ. Project appricaticns are due f"
to MTC (attn: Kristina Younger) by April 30, 1992, Caltrac.s and local p'oje~1 f
sponsors are requested to work with ihe Congestion Managemenl Ager.cies in preparing "
proje ... i proposals. rt a1 an poss:bie, a county-wide list ~n priority ordered should be
submitted, Policy board approval Of such a li51 is r,ot required by MTC, and the est may
follow the project submittals, However, in order to irfJuence tne draft TIP to be released in
June, a priority order submitted by May is advised. Priority shoutd be based on the
mandates of ISTE ... to:
1) Maintain the exfs:lng infrat!rudure
2) Enhance the existing system
3) Bu~d new capacity
For t.'1e Congeslfon Mftigation and Air Qua1:ty Program, priorities should be to
1) Implement the existing State Implementation Plan (SIP)
2) Implement add,Uonal Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
3) Other non·Single Occupant Vehicle projects
8id Targets are shown in Attachment 1: and are based on projected apportionments and
1990 popuiCiuon figures. Grven the relatively sman amoun.t of funds available and the
short obligation period of two years, small projects are strongly encou,aged. Former FAU
projects or "on-funded TSM projects would appear to be good candidates. local roads
proJects that are Transportation Control Measures. such as signal timing and operational
improvements CQufd also be expected to compete Well. proposars to accelerate already
programmed STtP projacts will also be entertained, but the focus is on cost-effectl .... e
projects. Bicy'CIe and pedestrian projects, such as underfunded TDA A.1icle 3 porojects,
are also eligible and and encouraged. Transit operators have air€ady submittPd project
apptications through the Capital Priorities process for this programming exercise, and
these will be considered in add~ion to the CMA-generated prOjects. tt is desirable thai the
eM. .. priority fists include the relative ranking of the submitted transit projects, if possible,
A fl51 01 the submitted trans~ projects appears as Attachment 3.
*See revised attachment '7.
,
':. ~. -..".-
-
A"achment 1
1993·97 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRA.M (TIPj
SCHEDULE
_f}a e
March 1992
April 1992
June 1992
July 1992
August
1992
September
1992
kay· 3112192
.jif~.:'1: .'
; -
~ :'
------lWlU\---~ k __ "___ ::tI.hQ_______-I
092 STiP Aooolicn i CTC --1-
°preliminar,. Draft Highway TIP 10 project.penso". I MIC Slafr---I
for review I
1
0Request far high ..... ayAocal road projects to be I To project
considered fer STPICMAO pl£fIramming ,s onsors I -Project Sponsors revisions to Drat. Highway TIP Project sponsors
due
MIC staff oMTC slaff evaluation at proposed projects, using
draft multi modal sco_~criteria
o Rei ease Draft 93 TIP for '::p"U"biCr.c:-:-co=-m=~m"e:-Cn:~t,~iccn"c!·uC:di;-:'""g+W=P"'C'--------!
MIC staN proposal for STPICMAO programming
oSegin 10 model Draft 93 TIP lor air quality purposes MTC Modeling
GrouP
'Model resulls availaHe-----"---__ -""""-_--lh_~".t_"':Q."~"':f-~;:o~d~e~1'_O"',_g:-_-_---1-1
'Public HearTng on 93 TIP I WPC
;Adoplioii"ois3-TIP _______ 1 WPC. then MTC
".
r >
-
--,
~ •.. : Agenda Item #5
25 March 1992
TO: Ad Hoc Commitlee on Multirnodal Priority Set11ng
l:a.. ~ FROM: Kristina Younger aI1d Dave Murray
ABOUT: Draft Point Dislnbu'Jon for Scoring
Basad on the discussion at the March 15 meeting about the inco'P"catior, o~ the 15
factors maodaled by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (lSTEAl as
shown in Attachment 1, we have devised a pretimfnary poInt dTstributior. f01" your
review and diSCUSSion.
We wouid like to reach agreement on the pOint dislributicn as a preiude to the
discussion about how each of these factors w;)u!d be measured. This wi!1 set tre
stage for how important each factor is, and thus t;,e extent a.'10 type at data that would
be required in order tc evaluate each project on rs merits.
-
Attachment 1
ISTEA 15 iaelcrs -How 10 incorpor21e ( .. Indicates key varlabres)
-1) Main!fl'nal'1@ ;J[:d ~[}fj'ra5ed efficiency of me eX;S!fM MTS
$CORING CRrrERI.A~ tI~n weight
21 Enercy c-ODO::fj'rvafi90
POLICY CRrr~RIA, low weiQht
.""";3) >&MeS1:pn reDer aM prev"l"qiQQ
SCORING AND PROGAANiMlNG CRITERIA, tt1gfl 'I'I'e~hl
$ Cqnsistenc .... wHb land u~
SCREEN'NG CRITER!A -lack or consistency would be 8 -fata1 fla1"l
5't Enl1ancemeo! adivitj"'s
PROGRAMMING CRrTE~IA. need to end ~p wllh 1~/., allhe end
..6l The efreds of aU Irar,<"PQrtaf:QI)"pmioC1S tq M undertaken Whirl 1M rrte![Qooll1.allare::l _[fqard1R~" Qf
!unding Sot1{ce
POLICY CRiTERIA -Unk 10 MTS. galeway {;Cncept, medium weigh!
7l Access rn oods almorts iolernorla! faciiities {reigb! Qjstrb.t1iQo ce~!ers and mif!ary jnsfaT'a1fpDs
SCORING CRJTERIA. high wefght when in comblnatiofl "",tl'1 #1 t to incJude 'EC'JilOrrlC ber'lt::fi~s
R1 lolerrtlQionat ronnec1ions
POlICY AND PFlCX3RAMM!NG CRrTER1A, medh.Jrn weight
$'l Needs ideo1ffied by ISTf! ma nag e coem c:yslems
SCORING AND PFlOGRAMM!NG CRiTERIA, low we~ht this rourd, h~her neXl cycle. except may want 10 reinforce
COi..Jnty CMPs
1m Preseryatjqn 01 Mvrt transP9r1ati2n __ ~
PROGRAMMiNG AND pOLICY CRITE R1A, l"T'le!:ium weighl
"11\ Efficient Irel~~
SCOf1ING CRITERIA, high weight when in CC~l'lali.on with 1/7 to inc.~dc eCOr"lNrjc be!1ef:ts
12"' {I",,,, ot itfe cycle CQSI= in CflslQn~.e['Qinf!e.-'nG pf b,;dt?es t"nne!s Qr ps:.e~
SCORING CRITERIA, 1e~d5 into cost er.eo,i .... eness ralirIQs
-1~1 Oy"",aQ "'ocia;! eCQoQrrjc enemy ar"l1 en'Jjronmem2J e~ed5 pi traO,s.nodatipo ded"'jQos
POLICY A..'\lO PROORAMMING CRiTERiA, ~ roore $0 prt)9ra.71 as G whole than rtx1ividua! projects
-141 Expansion aM goMncerno<)nt Dr transit seryjces
SCORlNG AND PROGRAMMING CRrrERIA. high weigh!
't~ 1i"CI82sed transit seq,w"ly
SCORING CRITERIA, Ow weight
1m Salety
SCORING AND PROGRAMMlNG CRITERIA, rnedum weig."1!
"171 ImglflmeQ18tiQn Of TCMs
SCREENlNG (FOR CMAQ), SCORING. AND PRoc;RAJvtMlNG CRITERJA, high weighl
~·16\ ImpTemenlatiQO Of ADA particq!ar'1YSY5'''''m retmfFtprpjedS
SCORING AND PROGRAMI~G CR!TERIA, medium weigh!
key " 3125.192
L
; j
UrI.lIl
20
15
10
1()
10
10
10
10
5
100
10
'1 " oFtl:t="f FOR DISCUSSION OtL_
MUL TIMODAl PRiORITY SElTING
SCORING CRllERIA
POINT DISTRIBUTION
Main~enance and increased sfficiency of MTS
Congestion relief and pre'len6on t .
Access to ports, airports, intermooal facil,~ies, freight distnbution
facilities, efficient freight movement, economic benefits
Transi1 expansion or erahancement
Direct passenger benems
Transit Security
TCM Implementation
ADA Impiementation
Cos: effectiveness
Includes lite cycle conside;-ations
Aeglor:a! lmpact
Includes Corridor preservation, MrS link, gateways
Safely
TOTAL POINTS
BONUS for MULTIJURISDICnONAL (e.g. Partnership projects)
Mast of these criteria would be defrned as a range (high, medium, low) as opposed to
all or nothing, depending on the project impact in the a"rea For example, a road
project that incorporated TCM features, could receive partial points in that category,
but only a project that was entirely a TCM would get the 1u!i 10 points.
~. 3/31/92
-------:--. ~+,-,""C-.. -----~-.
'"' ~'},.:\
.. ~(i~,tr·
,-"~-~:::'-
-
. -.
•
-
"~_-l .
-&~--~ ~-:-r'
/VI I 'L-JO~,E!''i P eO~T M["il'OCE-...:TE'
10: E!CrlTH S'-<H'l
a...,r,L,.., .... O, C .. S..:/;O~·~~,y:;
S' 1j,'464_~700· r DO,rf1'1 S I Oi~6.,j· ,76'~
FA~ ~la"~b4·;:-o~B
METiop--O-TT-,.-;-;;
lIAN$'Oi!"l;or~
~J..SSIO,,"_ MEMORANDUM
TO: c..cr~9L~l!aln,. M~~agement Agencies DATE: 3i~1/92
FROM: Hantwfffttm';"""Manager. Legislation and Frnance W. I.: 903.40.01
RE; Addltic:-nal Instructions for 1993 TIl' Programming Of STPICMAQ funds
Since my memo to you on March 18, 1992 reque~ti~g the submiHaf of project appncatior;s. for
consideration it1 programming fha 1993 Transportation Improvement Program {TIP), a van ely
of questions have arisen. This memo. ar:-d its attachments, answer~ those quest:ons.
Adopted TranspL1rtaliQo CQotrnl Mea$Wf;S ITCMs) and EligihW1\: for CQn~estiQn Mitigation Air
Quality (CMAQ) funds
Attachment 1 shows the 28 federal TCMs that maKe up the adopted State
~lT'plementation P1lan {SiP} for the MTC region. Accord\i'lg to the lntsr~cda\ Surtace
Transportation and En;ciency Ad (ISTEA) and addilio,'ai guidacce made available by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (Attachment ~) eligibility lor the CMAQ funds is
restricted :0:
projects in the adopted SIP;
spec;fJc TCMs listed ill the Clean Air Act;
management systems demonstrably contributlng to attainment;
capital and operating cost 01 traffic monf!onng. management, and control facimies
and programs demonstrably contributing to attainment:
and the ccnstruction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Attachment 3 shows MT9's ranking of the federal TCMs included in the adopted SIP
for the purposes of CMAQ pmgramming priorities. Our analy--sis prepared as a basis for
adopting the federal TCMs included an assessment of expected air quality improvement.s.
We propose fa use CMAQ funds to achieve the largest possib!e improvement in air quality,
and focus our investment in the ~ost effective stra!egies. r: sufficier.t TeN! projects are not
proposed by t~e counties 10 program the available CMAO funds, MTC would program these
funds directly because we are legally responsible ~or imp-\ementir,g \r.e SIP. Project
proponents should be prepared to document that CMAQ project proposals lead to cost
effective and timely implementation 01 TCMs and measurabfe quant:tatfve reductions in
emissions_ We wilr rely on evaluations of TeM effectiveness in ranking TCMs for CMAQ
programming purposes.
The (juestion has also arisen about the use of CMAQ for transit operating assistance.
MTC will request a FHWAIEPA ruling on lhis matler, as guidance issued to date does not
c;peak: to the issue. Informar guidance from FHWA/EPA 5taft t-12S indicated an unwill:nsness
to allow CMAQ funds to be used for transit operating assistance.
An issue has arisen about programming of erMQ funds in northern Solano County,
which is in the Sacramento Area Alr Basin. No guidance from either the federal government
or the state has been received as to how to deal with this issue. MTC prOPOS2S to amend
eligibility for northern Soiano County to include Sacramento·s adopted TCMs for fund:ng
under MTC's CMAQ program. We will put this item on the agenda far the next Ad Hoc
Committee meeting and request thal the Air Resources Board representat~yes on the
Committee take a lead in proposing an approach to this problem that wili meet state-wide
needs.
L
r ,
i ,
i
i
!
I
I
__ -l
"
-
r
Memo to CMAs
Addi!ionaf lnstr..JC1ions for 1993 TIP Programming on STP/CMAQ f .. mds
April I, 1992
Page 2 of 3
ObliQatign pead!ines
Projects that are be!f'1g submitted for consideration for programm!ng the 1993 TIP fer
STP and CMAQ funds should be able II) be Implemented by September 30, 1994. !to
This is different from the original wording of ·obligated by" 9130/94. Federal law allows up to r
four ye3.rs to obngate funds in a given p'ogram year. MTC, however, is looking to err-Ourage I
projects that will show resurts on the street quickly with this first incremen~ of STP/CMAQ '
junds.
UOOaje 00 Tr'fioslt Projects Submined Tbmut;jh Ibe Capital Priqrities Process
AttBchment 4 shows an updat~ chart of the transit pl"Ojects from the Capitai
Priorities process that wi!! be considered for STP funding. Not a!l projects in the original tiSI
iorNarded io you have ended up being proposed lor STP iunas in the Capital. Priorities
process, and MUNI has subsequently defined their projects. "fl entire listing of the Capnal
Priorities programming is avanable upon request from Dave Murray at 5101464-7766. eMAs
are requested to integrate the applicable transit projects into their pn'oi1ty iis!s. CMA5 are QQ1
Ifmited to only considering those transit prolects that have been submit:ted through the Capital
Priortties process.
Attachments 5 and S*are forms that can be used for bicycieipede5trian projects and
a(xi'itionai trans~ projects (respectively) to be considered for STFiCMAQ funds. TMe forms
distributed with the original memo are appropriate for Mighway or road projects only.
Planning projects, which are an engible expenditurE:, should be submitted on tne appropri2te
looms for the type 01 caprtal project ~.". highway, transit",r bicycle/pedeslrian) that t~e
planning prcJect is linked 10. There should be a clear nnk between proposed planning
proj9Cls and future capital projects that meet the mandates of ISTEA.
A request was mace at ths Regional Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC) lor a ·short
form'" to be used for those projects that would be funded with the ""0% FAUIFAS Guarantee"
portion of the STP fu"do. This would be similar 10 the appeoaeh used by the Nr District with
the 434 ($4 Vehicle Registration Fee) funds. We recommend that tha Ad Hoc Comminee
discuss this request, an( 'agreement is reached tha~ this is deSirable, such a form will be
produced and distnbut€ y Apnl 3.
Clarification of the 11Q% Guarar'llee
Each county is guaranteed 110% of;ts 1991 Apportionment of FAUIFAS funds, as
shewn in Attachment 7, which is the same chart included b my March 18 memo_ Wrthin
tllis guarantee. MTC will only screen projects. Tl1e exact screening requirements are still
being developed. This accounts lor aIbout 50% of the lotal STP funds that will be
programmed in the region lor this lhree year cycle (through 93/94). Thus MlC wi11 lanow
county priorities within this guarantee amount We do, however. expect the 90arantee funds
10 meet the mullimodal emphasis of the IS TEA. and the other requirements of law.
*lncluded as a seperate hand-out.
HDAteyidmllm
,
· '""
Memo to C MAs
Additionallnstructlons for 1933 TIP Programming en STP/CI\1AQ fur-ds
April 1, 1992
Page 3 of 3
Maichfng fll'1Qs
STP and CMAQ projects wiil be funded BO% wit~ federal /unds and 20% with ·other'.
It ts not yet resolved a! the state level in CaHfomla whether or net the state wi!1 provide
matching funds. For the purpose of this prtlgramming exercise, projec1s are not required to
halle 20% [n toeal funds at this time. However, projects that do have such match available
should be duly noled Match issues wHI need to be resolved be/ore the program is adopted.
STP and CMAQ can be combined wilh federal demonstration projects funded i~
lSTEA, but the 1ederal share can not exceed 80% of total project -:-ost. The sta~e has made no
commitment to providing 20% match for demonstration projects, and is unlikefy to do so.
Definition ofthg MetroPQiitan IranSPQrt8tjQQ System (MIS)
Because of the emphasis on maintenance al'1d increased effic'en..:y of the ~ATS ~n
ISTEA. we have received numerous questioris about what is included in the MTS. The MTS
was defined in the 1991 Regional Transpurtation Plan (RTP), which was distribu1ed to a
large distribution of public agencies and is ava:iab!e in various libraries thrO'Jghc~t the
reglon. Adcfitlonal copies of the RTP are available from the MIC library for $7.58 {printing
and tax) or $1 0.75 if postage is required. The MTS maps themselves (without any of the
analysis included in the RTP) have also been attached to this memo for your particular county
to help answer this question.
MTC will reevaluate the MTS as part of the 1993 RTF>, in particular because of its
relationship 10 the Nationai Highway System (NHS} definition, bl:t we dc not envision
wholesa!e cha.nges to the system. MTS in the scoring/programming procedure is relevant in
that projects should benefl! the MTS, i.e. funding waul" not be restricted to projects on the
MTS, but a link \0 the system would need 10 be made. This is .ery sim"ar to Ihe procedure
used in evaluating proJects for the 1992 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
{RTIP).
11 is the responsibility of the Congestion Mana~ement Agencies 10 distribu1e these additional
programming instructions to the projects sponsors in their jurisdictions.
Attachments
L
I
L
-
i
':'<.}.;
'\VJtl ,~
i
i rf
f ;
I
L
Attachment 7
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) • '993 TRANSPORTA'rlON IMPROVEM.NT PROGRAM (TIP)
BID TARGETS BY COUNTY fOR FY 92193 AND 93/94 SURFACE TR4NSPORTATION AND CONGESTION MITIGATION FUNDS
AJlligUf(J$ shown In thousands.
FAUIFAS
FUNDS AVAILABLE (4)
STP
91192 $JO,858.S
92m $42,886.9
93194 $42,886.9
TOTAL $124,632.4
1990 CENSUS
POPULATION
FAUJr-AS
CMAO EXTENSION(S)
$22,330.7 $22,859,6
$26,750.2 $0.0
$26,750.2 $0.0
$75,831.0 $22,859.6
% OF MTC I eYn lI:un I I'Uan. Din i ..... 1"\ ..... 1 k .. h1
AVAILABLE
TO PROGRAM
$38,329,7
$69,637.1
$69,637.1
$177,603.0
F~'~'""",,,,~ __
i
I
\1
)
NOTES; )
(1) MTC will guarantee a minimum 01 prog(amming in SIP and CMAQ combined In each counlyoll10% of the FAUIFAS appol1ionm6111. providing that
',-
f.urtlcian! projects thai pass tho screening criteria ara submillect for considera1ion,
(2) STP bid larget is the )Xlpulalion perc6r'llag9 tTluilipted by 150% 01 the STP funds available 10 Ihe region,
(3) CMAQ bid largel is tho population percent ago rnutiipled by 150% ollha CMAO IU:1(ill availilble 10 the region.
CMAO projecl8 must be Ildo!1ted Transportation Conltol Measures (TeMs).
(4) THESE ARE PREliMINARY FIGURES AND SUBJECT TO C~ANGE, MTC liAS ASSUMED A DISTRIBUTION OF CMAQ FUNDS AND OONOR
STATE AND MINIMUM ALLOCATION BONUSES TO THE STP PROGRAM THAT MAY NOT OCCUR.
(5) One year extension per C.J.ltransJregional agmomanl. Subtracted Irom STP Ivoris available lor futuro proorarnming.
All projects shOuld be able to he Implemented hy September 30, 1994.
key • 3/31192
"
.--~.~-
j
" I
,
:--1
" :-.J
.-.....
.. .
.,,-,
'. "
'. :_.:_,~~;~~,)., <z ... ,~: ~;' :"c~~-:.~-:~ '.':~
" .'
<~':;.. ./
,:":'
, ".:..: : .. . ,,' '. ;
-0 ~
L ". ,:~."..
-,
l
•
-
Attachment I
1993-97 TRANSPORTATION JMPfiOVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
REVISED SCHEDULE
Uncha"iled parts of Ihe scheduie a~e in plain type face.
Tha re~inO: sChedule 01 tasks appear in bOid.
------.~ __ . __ ·_':::J:~!.'."""'o ___ ___l
'92 SliP ~\ion .-
I CTC March 1992
Aprii 1992 'Request for highwayllocaJ road projac!s to be I To C MAs/prcjeci
considered lor STP/CMAO 2ro2ramming, , s2 0nso rs ..... ~
Mav1992 .92 SliP listlrlllS availabl. on RAMIS I Cail,ans HQ . ..J
June 1992 I ·MTC ~taH evaluation 01 proposed projects. 1 MTC Staff
I '"" ,~, "'" '''ft m,"'m,,"' """ " •• ,. J -Pre!lminory Dran Highway TIP to profect 'MTC Staff
S~Qnsors for review
• ;~Olect Sponsors revisions 10 Draft ~~""proiect
Hi h~ TIP due .__ s onsot$
·Releasa Draft 93 TIP lor public comment, Work Program [
including ~TC sta'f proposal for STPJCMAQ Committee fNPC) I prollrammlng •
·Begin to mcc!el Draft 93 TIP fer air quality
I DurD~ses MTC MOOeiin;
Grouo
Augus! -Public Hearing o~ 93 TIP--' WPC
1992 -Medel resulls available MTC Modeling
I GroU2 ~ September 'Acloplion of 93 TIP I W~C~~i.1TC 1992 ,
'" ThiS public hearing may Med Ie be moved to the second Ff.dey in
September at the regu!a~ WPC meeting depending on the status of (he ai,
quality modeling. K this is the case, Ihe WPC wC'Jld hold 5 special meeting on
S9ptember 23, ius! prior to toe fuii MTC m~eting to dei1bera!. 01 staff .
recommendations lor adoption,
..... ~ ...... ' .......... ;; .. .
... ·"""f~.
'. ~.
\ .
i
p-,tte!cnment 2
PROGRAMMING OF NEW SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
(STP) AND CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ)
FUNDS IN THE 1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(TIP) IN THE MTC REGION
QUESTIONS ANO ANSWERS
How much mpney wjll he programmed region·wide?
AI !2asl $177.6 million will be programmed ir.I~.a MTC ra~ion. Oll~at Iota'. about $75 m'l:ion
is dedicated for t~e implementation 0 1 Transporlalion CorVol Meesu'es (TeMs) t~rough the
CMAQ progmm, and jusl ever $100 m'lIion is new ~e"ble funds made available through the
STP. This donal fi~ule wiil likely increase. as these inllial Estimates only ircluded the funds
attributable to the Say Area because of our urbanized areas greater to.an 200.000. Additional
STP funds, available 10 MTC 10 program because of the presence of severa! urbanized areas
less than 200,000, would also be added to these bid targets, Revised bid targets will be
transmitted to the Congestion Management Agencies as soc,. as tMy are available.
These two l"1ew funo sources are part of a larger budget available fer tl'c:lr'1spor!at ion
projects. The new plannin~ provisions o' ISTEA impose budgetary limitations en the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) -Ihe 20 year 1r2nsportation plar, for l~e reg'cn. As part of
developing the 1993 RTP, the financial assumptions fer the myriad of funding Scurces that
are available to h.rrid transportation lAin be brought into focus. This INri I gil,'€l a more comp!~:e
picture of our o .... eran budget and 5&t Lie stage for mora effect]-.ra pfaf'tr.tr\g artd pr'Sl£1ra~r!",lrtg
decisions.
How many years of g"or;Jrammrog-wjll he sal by :hfs precess?
The STP ~nd CMAQ programs 1hrough federal ~scai year 93194 wiil be established by Ihis
programming process. This represents three ygars Qf lending (91192 through 93i94) for these
progmms. A ponion of the lMe STP funds Mas already beer allocated to local agencies as a
one·year extension of the Combined Road Program, and th,,: Is not available for additional
prOjects.
Tht$ flmited progra:"l"lmlrg period was choseri becaJse we a:-1 opereting wi~hout
s[~nifica:""t federat gufda:'1ce, without iSiEA mar'lda:ed mar"\ageme~t !.yst~r'1iS in .crace, and
with a very clr.erent set of ass~mptlons 1han any prev-io1..'s prograrr'j[";11i'ig exerci's'S'.
What are eligible projects far the Surface Transpqrtatign Program (STP)?
The STP is a vary broad progmm, and many types of prolects .re eligible for this fund source,
including: -
• Highway
-Construction
-Reconstrvt'lion
-Resurfacing
-RestoratiOn
-Operationallmprovemerts
-Safety improvements and programs
-Research and development and technology transfers
• Bridges
-Constnuction
• Rectlt1strl,./ctiol"l, including seismic retrofit
Page I of 7
)
I
I
I
i
1
,
,~,
::" "~, .
.~
,
I
I
!
-!
I
r
.. Resurfacing
• Restoration
• Transit
_ A,ythin9 eligible for F6der~ Transil Adm,i,nrs:ration (FTA)funOin,g, indudi"? fxed
guideways, vehicles, mamtAnanC'3 fac/!/tle3 (See question OG/ow re~ard,ng
Iransit operatin9 costs)
-Safely Improvements and programs
-R.search and development and technology lransfers
• Local Streets and Roads, nmctiMally ciassified as urban collEctOrs or "boye, or, in
rural areas. maIor ccllectors or aboYEI
-Sjgn~liz .. t;ons and signal timing
-Rest ripl ng
-Resuriacing
-8us lurnouts
-etc",.
• Carpool projects
-Par!< and Ride lots
• Bicycle and pedestrian projects
• Traffic moMorin~, managemenl and control facilities and programs
-CapltaJ
-Operating
• Planning programs
• Enhaocarnent activrties (as defined by law)
• Transportation Contro' measures
• Development and establishment of management syslems
• Wellands mitigation
1\ is clear from this exhaustive fist thaI many more type of projects are eligible lor :urding than
funding is available te pay for, The STP program i$ much more than a replacement
for previous federal-aid categories!
What are eligible proiects for lbe Congestign Mitiga,ipn Ajr Quality PrQQ~a~n. 'CMAQ}1
According 10 Ihe In!ermodar surlace Transportalion and Efficiency Act (lSTEA) and aOO'itlonal
guidance made avanable by Ihe Federal Hig~way Administration (fHWA) ei!g:b:lily ler ~he
CMAQ funes is restricted to: '
• projects In the adopt eo SIP; ,
specific TCMs listed In the Clean Nt Act;
management systems demonstrdbly contno",ing 10 attainmenl;
capita! and operating cost of traffic meni!oring, management, and control facilities
and programs demonslrably contributing to ana:nment;
and lI1e construction of bicycle and pedsstrian facilities.
Projects to <a-time traffic signals andlor upgrade signal equipment are eligible. Prejects Iha!
include Intersection channeiization are also engibie, cut may require a project CO a~alysis
per MTC Resolution No. 2270, Which could delay project implementation. Therefore, ii
channelization is necessary, it should be listed as a separale line item in the budgel en the
application form.
How do prgject sponsQrs fjllbmjt prgiects for COoa{djiratigo7
Applicatien forms are available from MIC and from the nine Bay Area county Congestion
Managemenl Agencies (CMAs). Any prQjecl sponsor (public agency) with an eligible project
KEY· 41' 4192 Page 2 0 I ?
r
I
j
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
L
~ ... '
may submit an application. They are due \0 MTC by Ape: 30,1992. Application scbm;~a!s
will be ~oordin"ted by the Ct.'.As, .... ,
In a.ddition, transit operators ha.d the opportunity to subm,t proJec;ts 'or conSICB(atO,1
through the Capital Priorities process conducted at MTG earl)' in 1992. ThiS does not
preclU<ie transil opiiralors from submittinQ additional projects through the CMAs. CMAs aod
transit oper.!ors are encouraged to cooro',nale their submittals. -
During the month 01 May, theCon~estio.n Management Agencieswill go t~rOU~h a
prioritization process to para the projects In Ihelr county dowr, to a set "bId target ,\\I~lch IS
based on a population share 01 1M Bvailable funds, CMAs have been asked \0 Weaye the
additional trans~ projects from the Capital Priorities process inlo tMsa priority lists, In May
and June, MTC will evaluate the project proposals, taKing into account CMA priorities. A Clraft
program will be cirCI.JlateCi fer public comment in July.
How wlll prpijoC1s be eyaftJafed once s!!bmitted?
The criteria for evaluating projects is stil! under deye!opme"L The lnteemadal Surface
Transportation EffICiency Act (lSTEAl significantiy changes tne setting in which this
prognamming .>ercise is laKing plar-e, Fifteen specilic factors ara mandated to be
considered in this process. Forthis raason, MTC is not simply revi$ing its old way of
evaluating projects' it has conveneCi a Whole new process to leol< at the ISTEA 15 lactors.
An Ad Hoc Committee, conSisting of represeiltati~es from a w:de variety of1ranspo,"tation 8r"ld
air quality intsreS!Sf has been formed to help 'Nith this process. It l'1as establislled two
subcommittees thai are nOIN working on the the tlriteria that wilt be used. OUr current look a~
the ISTEA facto~ :;nd how they will be considerad is attached,
Why is MTC a~kjng fQr~$ubmltta!s wile", the ,rHoda have rot beW' sBj?
MTC must adopl the j 993 TIP by September 01 1992 ie order for tner. to be no
disruption in the program. This-is particularly important for our Iran sit operators who receive
operating assistance from FTA based on the adopted TiP annual element. Th~ alternative
to requestlnil prOject submittals concurrently with establishing the "riteriS Is t~
leave money on Ihs table. To mitigate the d,fficulti~s, MTC is only programming lh,aug"
93194, and thus limiling the amount of fundi,ng \0 be considered in Ihis process. We will
revisit the process and criteria neXl cycle, This year 'We are operating without
significant federal gufc!anee, without tSTEA mandated management systems in
place, and w1!h I very different set of assumption~ than any previous
programming exercise.
When wlll tile crrtena_~lL
It o'epends upon how long it takes 10 come to an agreement that everyone can live with lor
this first cycle 01 programming. The larget date for circulation 01 a Draft TIP is July, with
adop1iM scheduled lor Seplember of 1992.
How wi!! funding splits for mUlti-county oiQjects be calc~
In other programming exercises, such as the 1990 RTIPISTiP, MTC split multi-county projects
o~ the b~.;o of population, We would propose a similar spl~ during this procass, but are
Willing to diSCllSS and se&k agreements belween the affected parties on an equitable cost
split among jurisdictions.
L
i
I
I
I ,
I
I
.-, ..•...... r
L
"-,-,-,-, "',
'f/berg will the requIred 20C"g malcb come frpm?
STP and CMAO p",jac1. wlU be funded EO% wllh federal funds and 2.0% wit~. ·other" .. I' is not
yel resolved at the state level in Cali!o~';a whether or not the 51,,!e will provlce match,ng
fundi. A coan~Q,~ of t~,e Stale, Metropclitan Planning Organizatior.s (MPOs), and local
government have proposed that the leg'sleture allow the 51ate TSM program .10 provide thrs
match. A broadening of the d9finition 01 TSM to include adopted Transportation Co~trol
Measures and HO" lanes would need to occur fur this 10 be maanicgM.
For the purpose of this programming exercise. proJeC1s are no: required 10 have 20%
in locallunds altha ~mo; the applications are submitted. However, projects that do hava
5uch malch aVailable should be duly noted. r-.latch issues wiil need 10 be resolved before t;,e
Frog ra m Is adopt ed.
STP and CMAQ can be combined with federal demonstration projects lunded in
ISTEA, but 1M federal share cannot exceed 80% of tolal project cost The 51ate ho.s made no
commitment 10 providing 20% match for demons:ra1ion projects.
Can STP,CMAQ funds be ~penl on traf1~f1 opers'lng cp~!s?
There has not been formal guidance from Ihe federal government on this matier.
W~'t1en materials iOOicated that adopted Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are
eligible, which in this region include Iransit operating projects. MTC has requested a
FHWA/EPA runng on this matter, as guidance issued 10 date does not speak to the issue.
In~ormal guidanctt from F."'f.NA'EPA staN has ind1ca!ed an U(1wi]J!l'1gr!€SS to a~!ow CMA.Q fU!'Ids
10 be used for tiansii operaiing ass;stance.
Do priority lists from CoogeS1;on Managemen1 A:;!3DCies have to be in 1 23 or-tier?
No. A grouping into relative priority is also acceptable, allhou~~ more specif:c direction is
desirable.
Wbat does 9 pro1eC1 b~iDC ·ur.deooay" Qr "jmplemer'ltecf' by September of 1994 mean?
MTC is kicking for projects that will show con~est;on rer,ef and air quality imprO~remeilt as
soen a.~ PQsslble. While 1ed~rallaw ailDws up !o 4. years to obliga:e funds in a give., prcaram
year, Ca~rans,'FHWA, FTA, arid r.ITC de not wish to see tnese funds sit aro~nd unspeo! !Ol
l,',at long.
Whatls the iriaihjlity of plaanjng Qrc1gcts fur !he~e funds?
Planning projec1s are an eligible expenditure. MTC aod the Con~estion Management
Agencies 01 the Bay AIea will be discussing what is an appropriate set eside for plann;ng in
lhe STP pr:>grarr.. ISTEA creales new responsibilities arrd funding ;s nseded to keep the
proC6SS moving, as well as 10 fund special planning sludies to meet our lo.~ger term
objec:tives.
Dg prnj€Ots havft to be Qn lhe Metropglitan TransR9r!atjoo Syslem 'MIS) defined by MTC 10
the 1991 BtgiQnel Transportation Plan in orderl0 qualify for these fundsZ
MTS in the scoring/programming proced.re is relevanl ir.lhal projects should be/'lefit the
MTS, I,e. fIInding would not be restricted to projects located on the MTS, but a I;nk to the
system would need 10 be made. This is vel)' simnar to the procedure used In evaluatio9
project. for the 1992 Regional Transportalion Improvement Program ,RTIP). ISTEA does
KEY· "14/92 Page 4 017
I
I
~ll . ;1' ,
'. ,
i
I
l
··.r··· .--.
limillhe eligibility of local sueets and roads for SlP funds to those facilirles f,,"eliDnaily
classified 9S I.H'ba,-,. coliectors or above, or. In rural areas, major collectors O( above.
Secause of the emphesis on maintenance and increased elficiency of the MTS in
ISIE.A.. we have received "Jrnerous questions about toe MrS. The MTS was defined in Ihe
1991 Regional Transportation I'lan (RTP) as a multi modal system weich includes freeways,
major arterials, bus service areas, and rail corri<:!ors. The RTP was distHbt,1ed to a la'Ge -
number of public agencis.<; and is available in va~ous libranes Woughoul the regio r •.
Additional copies of tha RTP are available from the MTC lib~ry 101 $7.58 (printing and '".x) or
$10.75 jf postage is required. The MTS maps themselves (without any of Ihe analysiS '
:r.cluded in the RTP) have bear. made available to CMAs for distribution to t!1eir constitlJec!
jurisdictions.
MTC will reevaluate the MTS as part of the 1995 RTP, iO, particuiar because of its
re(ationship 10 lne Nationai Highway System (NHS) definition, but we do not envision
wholesale changes to the system,
Is rjQht.of-way preservat1pn eiiQib1e for STP?
Yes. However, MTC's emphasis for programming these funds thts cic1e is on p!'"ojects t;1at
can be impiemented qUickly and demonstrably improve congestion a'd clean the aJr.
What 9scalatijoQ rates shQuJd be used when caicddtinQ (:Hojects cos~s1
A flat escafatiol"l rate of 5% per year is recommended.
VJhat lypa~ '01 groject$ dQec: MIC really want 19 see?
Cos! effeOlive projects wfth a demonstrable effect on improving congestion and c:eaoing the
air. V'lhile $1n.6 million is not an insignificant amount of money, it would quickly be g01"le if
the program consisted "f only large projects. We seek to demonstrate thal we have the abili:y
in this region to use the flexibility given 10 us by ISTEA Ie pullogether an innovative program,
Transportation Control Measures of ali types. especially signal timing prOjects, intermoc!al
coordination, and ir'lc1dent rnanager;1ent proj6cts, should to compete we~i, In additior..
ISiEA's emphasiS o~ ~he maintenance and improved eff!ciency of t~9 MrS wlU Hke!y lead to
the elevation of projects that can demonst,lrte exh efficiencies.
Can lora1 streets and mads rebabHttatipo projects be grouped ;nto e stDglS a .... p!icatjgf1?
MTC will regulr. a specific list of routes thaI would be rehabilitated because we need to
assure that ihe ISTEA eligibility restrictions to roads functionany classified as collectors or
above, (or old FAUIFAS routes) is being met, A sinQie application form for the group can be
used as appropriate, but project specific information as iO routes, limits, and project costs will
be required.
Wjll Federal Highway $tandems be applied 10 these prelgcts?
ISTEA snows delegation of standards 10 the state level. In Caillornia, this dolegatio'n will
occur, Therefore. Slate standards will be applicable,
pggs the Natipnal Enyjronmenla! Fm!ectiRO Act (NEPAl apply to ProtBC15 PTO(;aammed With
~dCMAQ?
Yes,
KEV·4114192 Page 5 of 7
L
.,
.--'
i
I
-
"" ..
Wharf! dOeS the bridge !:>rogram r:l.i!l12..th~s f)"Qcess?
Bridges ae; eligible lor the STP program. ISTEA also continued and in~re ... ed the funding
level of the Srid~e program which, in C"lifomia, will continue to be admln!stered by C~~rans.
For more Infor,,.,ation., ,,:ease contact the Caltra~s District Office of Local Streets and Roads a~
415.92::-4444 (for Alameda. Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San FranciscO, San Mateo, Sama
Clera, and Soncma Counties), or 2091946·7543 (for Solano Counly).
HOW wm the suf21y groleds be pr0!2!]Jmmed?
In California, there has been a set aside for local safety projects for qwite some ~me. This
focal safely program will be continued a!'ld w'll be.adminiSlered by Caltrans. For more
information, please conlaci the CaltrMs District Office of Local Streels ane Roads at 415 .
923-4444 (for Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco. San Mateo. Santa C!a'a,
and Sonoma Counties). or 2091946·7543 (for Solano County).
00 Combfopd Road Program (CAP) proj¢ds that were par; g~ lhs Qne~yea[ e:xt€nsiQ~ Q~the
eBP prggram have to QO throqgh this r;rCQsj8§$?
No. These projects should be implemented as q\!ickly as poSSible, however. Thus far.
California has only obngaled 3$% of the the ISTEA funds allocated, and loiS performance
record must be improved.
HQw dqss tbe Americans wIth Disabilities Act (ADAl jmptementati90 fit into lbls
~tammjQg? \Yhat will be gqnsidered In ratiog proigcts as to 'heir effectiveness in
i!tJpfementjOg ADA ASQePially on nOO~lraDstt prgiects?
Implementation of ACA is a high federal priority. However. the Qiggest funding shortfall lor
ADA is tor transtt operating funds. Both the &Jt1ace Transportation Program (STP) and
Congestion Mitigatitln and Air Qualily (CMAO) programs are capilal programs. The
corrtrib"~iOn Of proposed projects to implementing ADA would Qe considered along sid. the
ISTEA '5 factors. We will be looking for Input fnom MTC's Eideriy and Disabled Advisory
~mmittBe as to what 15 effactive in lm~ementing ADA [;'1 capijal prajads. inciuding 1r:OS~
that a.e not trans!l
Will lIse of these funo's jQPpaWlfl fit I:lrojects @ligfbjjj:y fnr the Statert,Qcai Ear1nershi~
(SA3 QQ ) fllOgs?
According 10 the Caltral'lS Headquarters Office of Local Programming. as long as a project is
100% "-'ndad with !ederal and local sources, eligibilHy for the Statefcocal Partnershi~
pnogram Is not jeopardized. However, the issue of match has not yet been resolved. The
current proposal being lorwanded to the legislature by a coalition of stale, reQiona1. and loc~!
agencies does call lor the $late 10 provide Ihe required 200;. match for many 01 these projecls
If this is the case, e"~ibilijy lor the Stalol1..ocal Partnership WO"ld be eliminated.
Can CMAO funds be ,pem in anainmiot e/eas 0 e northern SOTioma County)?
Currenl law does not al:ow CMAQ 10 be spent in attainment areas. However. MTC would
advocate thaI CMAO funds should be able to be spenlto maintain attainment, as well as
reach~. There is B significant nalional constituency that agrees with this point of view. This
issue will nol be resolved until ledoral regulaUons are issued, and no timetabie lor these
Page S of 7
L
'.
--.. _-'
reiluratior.$ has been issued, These regulations wiH have an extsl''1sive: public commert
process.
71 Ar~d fiow hlgbwa)' widening p~ellc;ib~e for the Surface Transportation Program
; i !STP)?
j
I
I
I
-
Section 1024 (1) of ISTEA states:
• ... For tJanspotta~on manaliementlJrea classmea 8$ I'onaffainment for c.!one or carbon
monoxide pursuant to the CI~an Air Act, Federal funds may not be programmed in such
area for any highway projecl that will result in a s{Qnificant increase in carrying capacity
for SIngle occupant vehicles unless the project is par! of an approved congestion
management system .•
The regulations regarding the development Of congeS:ion management systems r.ave nol yet
been developed. MTC wiil include such a system in the ~ 993 Regional Trar,sponalion Plac
(RTP).
po prnject §POrso[§ICMAs need 1Q specify the p~QQrem (SIP Qr CMAQI w!"1en biddlnQ?
No.
Who Is an errgible oroject spcr-sor?
Pubflc agencies are eligible project sponsors.
\lVhen does a local agenCy need 1Q hpye an edQPled oQI;cyJlQ.~.!.d.R.ct;Qn com!"'11t1!ng to the
1Qp?1 share of project costs?
Such a Tasolulion is required prior to the adopuon of the TiP (September 23,1992, "ccording
to the curren! schedule), If the project is recommended for programming. Acceptable policy
l>oard actions include the 1he inclusion of the project in the strategic plan for Sales Tax
A:.IIhorities cr a local Cap'!al Improvement Program. Examples of previous city·leve!
resolution are avrulable upcn request by cailing Kris!ina Younger at 510.'454· 7830.
Page 7 of 7
,
,I
I
i
i
I
i I -
r
-
To:
From:
Subject'
Date'
CMA Governing Board
]l.fic..f)ael P. Evanhoe
Executive DiIector
TIP / JS1E-\ ~ New Project Funding
April 8, 1992
ACTION REQUESTED
Attachment 4
Review and discuss program for developing Santa Cia:a Counw TIP / rSTEA
project priorities
BACKGROVl'>'D
The new federal S',Jrface ~nspor-...ation reauUJ.0r17...atiOr. bill, u'i.e Intt>.Jmodal Surf.<:ce
Tr.4nsport.ation F..fliciency Act ([Srr..,.), cha...'1ged tra....i.SPOrt3tion. funding programs
~nd provided additional funds for new projec.s The ~ITC ptans ~o program sorr:e
of the !1CV{ rSTEA funds in .the 199.3-Trans.portation lrr!proveme:;r Program (11F).
The MTe's 1993 TIP schedule i:;: vcry tight. The we is currentl:: de"'eloping
scr~ning and ranking criteria for projects. In the meantime, the MTC is 3ski..'1g
that o.ndidare projects be submitted by April 30, 1$92. The Cfl..1A. would have unt.:!
mid-May to 3Ubmit projec( priority lists and additional proj'2ct data to LI-J.e MTC
PROPOSED CMA PROJECT SL'1lMIITAL il.ND PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Tbe foDowing process 1.5 proposed for submitting and prioritizing projects
eligible for fundmg using the new ISTEA fiJnds. (Note that, due to the t..ight time
schedule for t.~e 1993 TIP, some of these steps h.wc already been l4ken.)
The CMA's Technical Advisory Committee (TAe) and its Capital Improvement
Program subcommittee received briefings on t.'f-).c TIP schedu.le on April 2.
Member Agendes have been provided wim project ~ppl.ication forms for their
use in submitting projects, In order to ensure that aU p:ojects from Santa Clara
County arc considered by MTC. Member Agencies are being asked to make tv.·o
copies of all project applications. One is to be sJbmitted to t1:;e Ct;1A and one
directly to the MTC
The TACs Capital Irnpwvement Program (CIP) subcommittee has scheduled a
meeting on April 13 to prQ .... ide Member AgenCies with more informatio,'1 on
project applications. The subcomrrJnee also plans to discuss criteria that could be
-
used to prioritize projeL"tS tn. S?.."1ta Clara Ccuncy. (Details of ti'.is !11cc(L"'1g wiil Co..;::
provided to the CMA at the Board me~ting.)
The T .... C's C!P subcommittee has !"equcsted that Member Agencies p~o"iride as
much inforlT'.aticn as po.ss[b!e on. their proposed projects to tbe C"fA by April
20. The sl.fbco~rtee pLans to meet a.nd d.i.sa.;.ss Merr.ber Agency projects ;n late
April and Vw'ill prepare recommended prioriry lists for the TAC 2nd eM.""
Governing Board's M;"y meetings,
The CMA Governing Board would ado;>t t.r..e county·"'s projecr privrity list at the
May CMA meeting"
The Cfl..L""-Govemi'1.g Board could revise (or develop a different) project subJP.Jru.l
and prioritivttion process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The 1993 TIP devetopmen\ makes available a sig:1ificant amc'J.!1t of .P.1c:1er for
transportation projec(5 L"1 Santa Clara COl.lnty. The countywide proportional share
of new revenue is approximately 543)57,723. \\I"Te have an opportunity to bid for
up to S64,857 I OOO. Ir is CIiti-::.a1 Lr,at the county develop projects L.~at best fLt the
program (titeria for me various funding programs with money a\'aihbie The
CMA staff is working with Member Agendes and the TAC to ensure that Santa
Clara CGunty projects compe~e well for L.'1e available fundo;
TAC RECOMMEl'.'DATION
'the TAe and its elF subcomminee are helpl.ng to develop projec.:.s and criteria
for use in setting priorities. The TAC will make recQ.omendations to the cr.u ..
Gr.Jverning Boord in both these :areas :at t.~e M<l.Y mee:lng.
TIP -lSITA 2 ~/92
1 ! ....
·;.
"'-I . ,
--
Frorn:
Subjec~
Date,
Technical Ad'vi50ry Committee Members
elP SlJ.ocommi.aee Members
MichJel P. E" .. ":l.nhoe, Executi ..... e Dircn,'X
199~ Fedel"'ll Fund Se!ectJon Proce,,>s
May 11 ]992
---------
Atlachment 5
The foUowing items were discussed/agreed upon/requested at yes:erdar's CIP
Subcommittee meeting:
1. Member agcnde..s will transmit to the C!\-L\ .a Ory Counci1-or SolId of
Supervisors-(as approprlare) 2pproved ,no prio.riDzed list of projects prior to the
scheduled CMA Covcmlng Board rneeling of May 10, 1992.
2. Projects submitted for STPICMAQP consjder~tion should be prioritized boL~
ac.r053 and wiL.i.lr. ti~c three categories adopted ~t resterday's meeting: CMP Roadway
System, Transit, and LocallPed-BLke. Santa Cara County's bid target VoW be divided e\'cdy
among the thr"" ""egories (see Table 1). Please revlew your project llst and "erify
our category assumptions.
3. The LocallPed-Bike category fund" ~·ill be tafgeted to men1ber agendes based
on a population pe1centage formula (sec Table 2).
4. Traffic signalization pr:ojecLS are eligi:ble fei 10Cftt, funding under the provisions
of 1STEA (no kJcal m.;tc.1. rcqtJired). Tab!e:3 presents th~ signaHz:ition proje'...l: r-..."qu<2SCS
that we have received wlth and ~'ithou.t a local rr..J.~h,
5. ihe subcommittee Carne up with :i preLrnin.ary !ist of cri~e:ia for evaiuatitlg
projects (sec Table 4). Please revtew thls list prior to the next elP Sulx:ommltte e
meeting.
6. The foilov.ing is a schedule of upcomi.08 meetings,
Wednesday May 6
n,utsday May 7
Wednesday May 20
9,00 am
1,30 pm
6,00 pm
erp Suoconuninee
TAC
C~L'" Governing Board
7. Pwjects should be sc:re!;:ned using the preliminary screen checkils!. Trus pre"
scrcenin,g will heip the OP Subcommittee wher.. Lt begins its own screening process next
week. It you h""e not reI performed the preliminary screen, pk3se do so by
close of business Monday, May 4. and submlt the results to the eM.\..
If you hzve any questions al:>out the process to date, please call Andy ~-a.sh Or Walt Suee~er
at (408) 453-4030.
-
ClI02rstiQn Management Agenn
Santa Clara County
TABU 1
e:.~~, ~ Bidlr.J.r.d Targets per C;'(£.S''')'Y
A1.l Do1l.:lr .. 1mo-..m.ts" !n T!1Ot1SarJds
T~ruk S2;,538
eMP Rood",'.y S"",,", 123,538
1.o<>lJP<d-Bih $23,538
TarAL $70,613
$15,692
$15,692
$15,692
$4',O'~
!.tTC o1cul.al.ed. <M fund Target br Santi. C1a.r.I County kooed on. POP:"l.b,.t.l.On., ili~ Bid Tlcgct i.. .. 1m:. of chL~ rrS'-l~e
7)t'1"I f$ :ao guat"lIrtlH IbatjuPJ4s u'U1 H progrtmrnNd Q/ tbe.s~ lnJets
TABLE ~
ropuhtEol".-b-a.sed bre1kd.cnr.rr. d !.oca.!lPed-Bike C:ltt.gory fund T11se~
All Dollar' Am.owJtY fIot 'I'b¢<.4sQ~
hn.:at~ W<aVPtG-Blkc
ern' 1990 Pop (1) CDlJJ\t)' pgp. futtd TUFt
c.mpbe!l ~4,SSO 2.38% SJi1
CU;x.""!illO 4<),600 277% 5435
(iiltoy 31>,OO:J 20% Sl'Z
Lo:!; AltCS 27,6:):) 189% $2%
los Al105 Hll!s 8,175 O.56'ril lila
Los Galc.:;; U,200 1.93% IjJ2
MUpita..~ 4a,lCXl 329)', S51~
Monte Seru.o 3,460 0,24% $37
Mo.ganffilJ 25.200 !.i2% $270
kount.o.in View-65.(0) H4% 1697
P~Q AltO S',«C 3.92'1'b $6l5
s.n}05e 7'9,300 51.:23% 18,039
S;nc: Clua 92,200 6lO!t $989
SU;J.to,ga 31>.'00 2,1~,," $329
SunnYVOll~ 117,300 BOm 11,258
COUfit'j'fTJnillCOrp 105,00(] 7.17% li,l26
l'O'r.u. 1,'63.'581 1.00.0~ $11,092
.. P-• .md Ta.rset.a< 2/3 or M"fC"5 bid Urge: fOf ~f'lta Chn County
.... FAU/FA, .. C; extension ( .. ')r omo: year only pel allrranslregi,-,noti agreement
(1) &sed on 1990 Stlle Popuhtl.cn Esunults, \)ep1!t.mem cf FL'"lance
110"4 of
fASIFAi,;
SH9
,S,jij
$12.8
$1::8
$5S
H20
1205
$15
"Oil
!Z77
"215
$3,201
139{
Illl
55()1
1+<8
$6,248
\
I
I
I
cOQ~stkm Mailaw:msnt A2en...s;y
S3nta Clan County
TABU~
Si~lizuioo Projects
A.n. Do1L::.,. Amou1U..~ fP111Jou.san.ar
Got'l"'T ]1UWldJort
CMPSyru:m c..pemr.o
tooVl'ed-Bike Cu pe.rt4'"lO
t=>.tlPed-Bike GflfOy
LoulIPed-BLk!:. Los Altos Hill!
r=i!Ped-Bike J><Jlpltao
CMPSys(t"m .lwioun.tain Vj~
to<aVPed-Eike Mounbl."1 View
LocllPed-llike Mount~Vi~
t.:Jc.1lIPed-Bike ~n}ose
CM!' System s",taC[=
CMl' 5)"te.'" ~hn~le
CMPS~em County
O{P SYMem County
eMP System Cwnl'f
CMJ> Sy$tem Councy
CMP System Couoty
CMP Sy&em County
-
PNlj,a~
Signa.t t. ..... ~e:rccnn~
Slgnzllr.cercoMea
S~u.1I!'_'lQlla[ian
Sign>1 Upgnd.
Sign:;; lln."'bn.. tk'(1
SigrUI ModifiCJ tl'Yl
Sign.al Llteroonr.eC!
Signal1l"lt~.con.lJect
Sj~ r Projects
SignJ.l Interconn~cr
Sig.'Ullmp1cverneot
Signal EqI.:ipmcru: RebUJ1d
Sign;o.r Eq.u.iptn~t RebuGd
Signal Equlpme.rH Reb\J..;M
SIgna) Equipmon< Febuild
Signal ModificatJ',n
$igm! SyndlrorJ7.1iion
S'tl" ('eCl\HSt
STPrequesc withwt
I.octtlon w/2O<'4 nu.tch 20% match
~ Anz:a. Blvd 167 $&j
Homc:ste.:d Ro~d 133 $4i
Tenth Stree[ liir Prince'.';1!le SlGo $200
El MQIl~ k/e -Stooebruo'k Dr $16 .$2.0
M.itpiU9 Blvd. :It l\,llG\.lO~ St $118 $147
.El wm:no Re;J $2·1 13<)
Re1~orff AI'e 112B Ill<>
1_0f'£ Shoreline Bh'd $120 $15<1
V .. ri005 Loc:a.tlons Ii&) 1600
De u enol-z Blvd 1240 !3OO
Berm.!do/'£1 Domino 52t)) '5250
FOr.)thill f,:xprt:".;,sTo.OlY $l.9.2'J $2,ic(J
San 7a"l"ljS b:Pfe-~f $t ,&:Xl .!-2,25O
P22e M:Q Ex?fC:~W"jI' $720 SS<lO
Otl!SOrl Exp{~'~y $560 S?OO
Central' F...xp~~y HOO S50J
Lo......-ren<:e E:J;?W)" ~'.GOO S2,m
T01:.'J.. $E,9s6 $11,232
I
-
<--"--------
ConawlQQ Mjjloa-rm.mt Aaros::y
Santa Cl.ara Cowl,},
TABU: •
elP Suocol'nmittee
PrdL.'1linary Screening CrHen"a for STP/CMAQP Fund Selection Proce.ss
This list was agreed upon by the CM.",'s eIP s...xom ... 'T'Jtree on Apru 30, 1992, These
criteria wilJ be used to screen project applk:ations prior to Sarna Clard. County's
subrrussion of projects to !:he Mecropolibn Transportation COIT' ... 'TIi5Sion.
Geogra phlc Equity
Target LOS Deficiencies
lndu,ion in M3.$ter Plan (T-2010/loc.l)
Previous ~TIP Ranking
MTC F3ctO,"
tocaI M.tch
S,fety
Gap ClosurelSystc,n Completion
Measure • A· Pian
Project Readiness
Number of JurIsdictions effected
TCM Ranking
Status as Partnership Project
This list L" not exhaustive_ Please come preplred to darify or 2dd Clit::rla,
"'p memo 5/1