HomeMy WebLinkAbout0229.093-
-'
~ ..
---. , , . .,
<-..•.. -..
April B, 1993
HONORABLE C:ITY COtJNCIL
Palo Alto, California
21
CONGESTION loVlNhGEMENT J>.GENCY REOU~§_T FOR CO!1M"ENTS _A...t.{D_
RECOMMENDt.tIONS REGARDING NEW MEASt..'RE l-. PRIOF.!I''i,,'.-ALlT RELA'rES TO
~ CURRENT CYCLE .OF ISTEp.. (CHAQ &. ST~L FTJtlOING ALLOCATIONS
Members of the council:
REPORT IN BRIEP
A major policy qu.estion has arisen for Santa Cl a::::-a county regCi.rding
transportation funding priorities~ Federal and state funding for
transportation projects through the Intermodal surface
Transportation and Efficiency Act (IST~~) and other transportation
related propositions# bond measures, and legislation provide large
sums of money for transportation investmer.t, along wi ttl greater
QP~ortunity for loca~ areas to select and prioritize proje~ts for
which such funds are or lo7ill be available~ Not surprisingly,
however, the level of funding required for Pt'oposedlneeded
transportation projects in Santa Clara County surpasses the level
of federa.l, state, and local func.ing availability~ Furthermore,
paGs.age of the ne'W Measur-e A in 1992 by Santa Clara voters carried
an implied assumption concerning the utilization of available
federal and state funds that compet~s 'With, and/or may pre-empt,
other local area proje~ts~ Therefore. choices must be made, and
local ar~as have an 1mpcrtant role in the decision process.
In Santa Clara county, the Congestion Management Agency (CMA} has
the overall responsibilit:l' for establishing funding priori ties for
many of the transportation projects in the county, as they relate
to the allocation of available federal and state funds. The CMJa.,
through sharing infor!:lation .. encouraging discussion, and soliciting
input, is pursuing the development .:Jf a consensus e.mong -the fifteen
cities, Santa Clara County, toe state, and transportation interest
agencies within Santa Clara County. The .... orkshop on February 24 ..
199~, in Mountain Vie~ ~as an important effort to~ard i~creasing
awareness and focusing attention upon the important policy
questions rega.rding tran'Sp.ortation funding .. that must be resolved
during the coming months.
CMR:229:93
-L
-
The CMA, in a letter dated March 10 1 1993 (Attachment .AI is
soliciting formal comments from each city and the county. as input
into its public hearing, deliberation, arid decision making process
dur ing the Ine;r.ths of Apri 1, May and June. The purpose of this
staff report is to provide :-elevant b~ckgrcund info:r-mation for
CQuncil discussion and formulatio:l of comments to the CM}../
reflecting the Council's position on the use of available
transportation funds.
Palo Alto is i:1 a unique positi.on in that Mayor Jean MCCO'or.71
currently serves 35 Chair of the Congestion Mar.agernent Agenc}~ and
council Member Gary Fazzino serves as ti.1e Chair of the Local
'I'ransportation Authorit.y. In addition, Vice .Ma}~or Liz Kniss serves
as Palo Alto's representative on the Tr.J.n~portatiol". Co:uunission, and
Council Member Joseph Huber 5e~ves on the Policy Advisory Board of
the Traffic Authority, as vell as the Paratransit Coordinating
Council~ All of the~e agencies have a direct interest in
transportation funding priority issues.
BACJ:GRODllD
Approval of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) reauthori2ed the federal-aid highway and transit
programs for a six-year period (FY 1992-97). ISTEA provides $151
billion for transportation investment over the six-Y2ar psr iod
(compared to $90 bilJ ion during the preceding five years). The
various programs includ~d in ISTEA are described in Attachment B,
and are summarized as follows:
ISTtA Proaram 6-year fun.ding tBillions)
Surface Transpcrtation progL"am (STP)
National Highway Syste~
Interstate Maintenance
Interstate Construction
Congestion Management/Air Quality (CMAQ)
Bridge Program
Special Projects
other
Sub-Total Highway
Sub-Total Transit
TOTAL HIGHWAY , T~~SIT
$23.9
$21. 0
$17.0
$ 7.2
S 6.0
$16.1
$ 6.1
$J-hl
$119.5
31.5
$151.0
rSTEA also instituted ~everal significant changes in the manner of
doir.g business, including: (a) designation of a single National
Highway System to replace previous interstate, primary, secondary
and urban system designationsj (b) a de-emphasis of the federal
CMR:229:93 4/8/93
Page 2
< ,
-
----
--.. ~
role and increased emphasis of state and local roles in transpor
tation funding decisions; (0) increa,sed fundi.ng for tr3nsportation
in u["ban areas and a stronger role in deciding how slJ.,::h funds are
spent; and {d) in addit.ion to nearly doubling funding for public
transportation, many of the funds previously reserved for highways
are nOli eligible for either highw·ay or tr?nsi t proje·::ts at the
discretion of state and local agencies.
Clearly f local jurisdictions (cities, counties I MTC) have more
control (albeit not absolute) over 'w'hici1. projects are funded "With
available transportation funds. ~'ith that oppor-tunity comes the.
responsibility to make sometimes difficult chOlces and trade-otfs
among specific projects.
NEW MEASQBE A
While ISTEA has si9nif.icantl}~ altered the :rnanne~ in .... hich federal
funds are allocated to transportation proj ect.s throughout the Bay
Area~ as ~ell as the nation~ the new Santa Clara county Measure A~
approved by voters in November 1992, represents another important
factor that significantly influences decisions regarding funding of
transportation projects in Santa Clara county.
The. new Measure A institutes a half-cent sales tax: that will
commence April 1, 1995 ar.d expire March 31~ 2015. The new half
cent sales tax is projected to generate $1.9 billion over the
twenty-year period of the tax. These local funds are to be used to
partially fund and leverage various federal and state funds, in
order to implement a list:. of speCifiC transportation projects
included in the Expenditure Plan (Attachment C) approved as part of
the new Measure A. The Santa clara county Local Tr-ansportation
A.uthority (LTA) "Was form.ed to adr!l.in ister the ne"'W Measu:-e A program.
By comparison, the current Measure .~, approved ;-,y Santa Clara
County voters in November 1984, and ad1t'.inistered by the Traffic
Authority, pro .... ides a half-cent sales tax for a period of ten years
(eX"f)iration in 1995) t·:; fund specified highway imprcverr,ents to
Routes 85, 101 and 237. While SOI!',e federal and state funds were
eventually dra_~ into these projects, the program ~a5 set up to
fully fund the specified improvements ~ith the half-ce~t sales tax.
FIRST CYCLB ISTEA FUNDING: PY 19'2-94
Last summer and early fall, Palo Al"t.o participated in the first
round of ISTEA (STP & CHAQ programs) funding applications and
prioritization, organized and administered in Santa Clara county by
the CHA. In that process I three categories of funding were
established -CY~Q, STP Discretionary, and STP Guarantee. Projects
were submitted by the various cities, the County and transportation
CMR;229!93
L
4/8/93
Page 3
J
!
! ,
',',1',' • .J ....
-
ager.cies, scored -::..nd priar-itized first by the ~MA and subsequently
by the Metr,~politan Transportation ccrnmission (MTC). !n this first
cycle, the new Measure A program was not a signif icant
consideration. However, the CMA Board did establ ish a local
funding criteria that 50 percer:t of the funds he allocated to
transit proje~ts.
When MTC cC),!''cpleted their scoring ar.d integrat.ion of projects fr-o:r:
all counties in the Bay AreO'Ji~ santa Clara County ended up ...... ith mere
than its full share (113%) of funds; based on the relationshp of
avai lable funds to tr~e Bay Area I s population. Specif ic funding
included:
+ STP +
Discr-etionary
142% 85%
$27 million $12 million
S'I'P
Guarantee
10n
$14 million
'l'O'I'AL
113\
$53 :million
Of the ten projects .... hich Pale Alto had submitted fer funding
consideration, one project (Embarcadero Pedestrjan/Bike Bridge and
path) w&s funded 'With $320,000 in the Cfoi"..AQ category. A second
project (Page Mill/foothill Intersection Improvement) scored well,
but ended up just missing the funding cutoff -for the STP
Discretionary category, ~hich as noted above, wa~ funded only at
the 85 percent level. staff report CMR::261:9:2 (September 10, 1992)
provides further information on the first cycle precess.
Attachment D provides a summary of the funds received by each city,
the County, and transportation agencies from the first cycle of
ISTEA (CMAQ & STP) funding ~llocation.
Very recently I San Francisco announced that it was not going to
implement a $13 million project. It appears that MTC "Will
reallocate the $13 ~illion using the previous project rankings and
thus funding the Page Mill/Foothill Ex~r~sE .... ay Intersect,ion
Improvement Projsct.
SECOND CYCLE XSTEA FUNDING: FY 1'9~-97
The CMA is now proceeding through the second cycle of ISTEA (CMAQ
, STP programs) funding allocations, 'Which covers the retrLaining
four years of the six year legislation. While the ground rules set
by MTC are similar to the last cycle, albeit some adjustments have
been made to scoring criteria. nel,o{ Measure A has surfaced as a
significant additional consideration for Santa Clara county.
CMR:229:93 4/8/93
Page 4
" ' io:_'
" i
j ,
~J
'I , ,
-
-....
Also i~cluded in this current cycle of funding allocation is an
additi~nal source of project funding--Flexible congestion Relief
(FCR) f·IJnds~ FeR funds are state~ not f~dera.l, funds resulting
from th~ passage of Proposition 111. ~hey are administered by the
state of California through the California Transportation
Commission. Progral'Mlin,g of projects for the FeR funds i£; to be
included in. tt.,e Regional Tran~portation Plan (RTIF). Therefor-e, on
some information from the CMA, RTIP may appear as a surrogate fc:;
FeR. FCR funds are typically used for large scale (cost and time)
projects and root the sn;.aller scale projects that typify c-ity
submittals.
As pointed out at the February 24th .... orkshop, and rei terated. in the
!'larch 10th letter from the CHA, the new Measure A projects, if
pursued dS planned, require approximately t~o-thirds of state and
federal funding over the next twenty years (Attachment E) ~
Furthermore, ne',t/' Measure A projects 'Will require nearly all of the
federal and stat~ funds likel:,.' to come to Santa clara County in tile
early years and substantially less in the later years. With resp~ct
to the current cycle of ISTEA funding, new Measu.re A projects alone
require 105 percent of STP/CMAQ program funds and 161 percent of
the FeR (RTIP) funds.
At the same time, cities, the County. and transportation age~cies
have submitted a list of projects for funding consideration
(Attachment F) that totals $196 lr.illion for CMAQ/STP funds
(compared to a potential County funding on the order of $60
million) I and $238 million for FCR (RTIP} funds (compared to
approximately $6) million that will be available). While some of
these projects are new Measure A projects or portions of such
projects, many are not.
Palo Alto, for example. has submitted three projects for $3.4
mill~on in CMAQ/STP funds as follows:
Page Mill/Foothill Intersection Improvements
Foot:t-:ill/ Arastr2.dero/Hill view' IMi randa Intersect ion
Imp:--ovements
Oregon/Middlefield Intersecti,:m rmprovements
The primary iss'.les before the CMA, and .for 'Which they have
requested comments and involvement by the cities, ir.clude:
a. Is Measure A the clear first priority for state and federal
federa 1 funds in Santa Clara Counti'?
b. What a~e the priorities ~ithin the Measure A program
itself?
c~ How do they reconcile the non-Measure A needs of the Member
Agencies?
CMR:229:93 4/8/93
Page 5
•
. ! 11.
'--'---"'~
-I
-
CONSIDEIUt.'tIONS
FolloYinq are a number of points tor consideration ~hich staff has
identified:
1. New Measure A was endorsed by all citieS in santa Clara County
and was approved bi~ the voters. Therefore l by definition, it
repre3E!l'1.ts the ..,ill of the people; and reasonable efforts mllst
be pursued to support and follow through -with i t3 .i.ntent.
2. New Measure A is consistent with the Cou~ty's Transportation
Plan (T-20101, which also received the support of local
jurisdictions in Sa~ta Clara county.
3. Some of the projects included in the new Measure A are very
well defined and advanced in their development, revie' __ and
approval. others are quite conceptuaL and not \ie!1
understood as to their feasibility and practicality.
4. Whi le the new MeaS'lre A makes a commitment for 20 years .... iorth
of project funding and implementation l the probability of
substantial change, in terms of transportation needs and
solutions to address such needs ~ithin a 20-year period and
beyond, is real, albeit not certain as to time and form.
'rherefore, the new Me_asure A includes a prOVision fer makinq
revisions to its Expenditure Plan.
5. Several cities and transportat.ion agencies have their-specific
projects included in the new Measurl! A or hays specific
projects located in their particular jurisdjction. san Jose,
for example, has the Highway 67 project included. .:r...lso
included are interchd.nge improvements located in Milpitas,
Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara; and transit
projects that ...... ould directly benefit many corr.munities.
6. Palo Alto 'Would benefit in several ways f:rom the ne ... · M~asure
A program. Direct benefits incl~de: (a) improved Caltrdin
service (increase from 60 to 100 trains per day), (b} Super
Expres~ commuter bus service to the Stanford Research ParK,
and (c) increased transit service for disabled seniors and
transit dependent. Indirectly, Palo Alto residents and
employers/emplcyees ~ill benefit from the improved
transportation services and reduced levels of congestion
thl."'oughout the urbanized portion of the County.
7. A very high percentage of furlding requirements for the new
Measure A program ara for transit projects. On a dollar C05"t
basis, about 88% is for transit and 12\ is for highways.
4/8/93
Page 6
-·---....,.j~L-
-
-
B.
9.
While Measure A projects are ilt'>portant h:.th in terms of their
maj or transportation service impacts as .... ell as publ ic support
for the program I the=e are, and .",~ 11 continue to be, other
transportatiOf'! problerns/need~ that need tc be addressed~ If I
over the next 10 to 20 ye~r3, there is no federal or state
money allocated to help fund sue;' projects, it is all but
certain that fe'W, if anJi, \fiill be :~,-1I1ple!nented.
Wb.ile the primary issue before the CK.:a. concerns CMAQ/STP
funds, there are other funding sources th~t can also be u~ed
for new Measure A p~ojects. In addition to FeR fundS, future
federal reauthorization of the federal-aid legislation , new
start monies, special demonstration funds, and future state
measures represent opportuni ties, aibei t not certainties,
'Which neW" Measure A i'rojects can and should diligently pursue.
10. The co~mitDent to allocate 50 to 65 percent of ISTEA funds to
new Measu.re A projects, coupled "iith the half-cent Measure A
sales tax, represents a major comrnitment ior cities, 'Which
will reduce their ability to mitigate local congestion. The
City of campball has indicated that this commitment must be
ref elected and taken into account when the CMA reviews local
deficiency plans, and should be incorporated as a local city
credit in the sub-regional deficiency plan, to be developed by
the CMA. Palo Alto staff support~ this position.
rS80£S
1. l..§....1!.easure A the clear fiJ:'st priority for st~_~D'::l federal
funds in Santa Cl~+a county?
Staff believes that ne~ Measure A is a very high priority and
should receive special considpration in. the allocation of
state and federal funds. As to what such consideration
equates in terms of the percentage or c~~Q & STP funds being
prograrr.1I1ed in t;"is current cycle, options include the
following:
100% apparent need during early years
65% apparent need over 20 year period
50% arbitrary one-half
Given that: (a) other fu.nds, now and in the future, offer
funding possibilities for new Measure A projects; (b) all new
Measure A projects '·.ri l1lneed root neceSSdr ily be implemented
precisely as envisioned in the Expenditure Plani and {c) other
transportation needs in the county need to be addressed; staff
believes that a percentage in the range of 50 to 65 percent is
an appropriate level for new Measure A projects in this
current cycle of ISTEA. fUT.ding alloC',ation.
CMR: 229: 93 41'8/93
Page 7
, -.. ;
._-
i ~ I " I
f-,
-
~nat are the priorities ~ithin the Mea3ure A program itself?
Star! does not have the technical basis cr any ott.er bnsis for
esta.blishing priorities within the ne .... Me.asure A program
itself, other than to SUggEst that for a given level of
funding availability, the LTA is the appropriate forum and
body for de~ermininq ~hat the priorities are among the
projects included in the .F.xpenditure Plan of the new Measure
A. One suggestio:o wvuld be to initially focus on those
projects that are mo~·t advanced I most easily implemented. and
req'~ired by law, and not try and proceed ~ith all of them at
the sal'lle time.
3 a How does the CMA recone i 1 IF; the non-I1_~<!...s; __ 1,l __ re A needs of the
Me~ber Agencies?
Based upon the comments included in item 1 above, 35 to 50
perce~t of the CMAQ & STP funds in this current cycle oL ISTEA
funding allocation would be av2I. ilab] e for non-Measure A
projects~ Staff believes that this portion (or whatever
portion is not allocated to Measure A proj ects} shOUld be
allocated according to th.;, guide] j nes and scoring cri terioa
established b:r MTC as per the manner in .... hich cities and
transportation agencies have already submitted their project
funding applications~
4. One further question concerns the policy est~blished by the
CMA for the previ<2us cycle of fundinR.n ____ Should the SQlJQr.
transit requi~ement be ann] fed to_ the residual portion ___ nnot
assian.ad to new Measure },, __ N.9jects?
In terms of the comments above, this \"ould 'mear. that 50% or
one-half of t.he 35 to 50 percent WQuld be split equally
between higt.way and transit projects. Based upon the fact
that the new Measure A projects are 88% transit l staff
believes that the 50% transit requirement is excessive, is not
necessary, and should not be continued for this second cycle.
The table below provides information regarding the effect of
applying the 50% transit requirement to the non-Measure A
portion of funding allocation.
CMR: 229: 93
~ ..... -~---". L
4/8/93
Page 8
¥ q
.,
I
-
-,----, ...... __ ...... -...
I!~ M~srJ.Ef; AiPON-MEASUR;E }. OPT;ONS
65L~2 50/50
New Measure A
Transit (B8\) 57% 44\ Highway (12%) 8\ 5%
Non Measure A
Transit {Sot) 17.5t 25% Highway (50%) 17.5\ 25%
Total Transit 74.5\-69% Totel Highway 25.5% 31%
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the information available, staff believes that:
1.
2.
Nelli Measure A projects
consideration, in the form
C1Jrrent cycle of CMAQ , STP
should receive special
of 50 to 65 percent of the
funding allocation,
Project priorities wi th the neW' Measure A progrdm arE: the
prerogative and responsibility of the LTA,
3. The 35 to 50 pe.rcent of the clJrrent cycle of CMAQ & STP
funding allocation for non-Measur~ A projects should be
administered according to the guidelines and scoring
criteria established by MTC,
4. The 50t transit requirement established by the Santa
Clara County CMA for the previous first cycle should not
be continued in the current c};cle, dt;e tOo the major
emphasis for transit included in t:he new Meas-...:.re A
progra_m, and.
5, Finally,. the cities' commitment to complete ne .... ' Mea5ure
A proje.cts should be considered ioIhen the C¥.A reviews
local deficiency plans, and should be incorporated as a
local city credit i~ the sub-reqio~al deficiency plan.
RECOXMENDATtON
Staff recommends that the Council direct the city Manager to
forward a letter to the CHA, communicating the Council's position
on the points included above and/or other areas of interest and concern.
CMR:229:93 4/S/93
Page 9
,
f
i
-
~~_~ ___ ~ ________ il!iliPiiililiiiil __ -------~~""
-.
Respectfully suhmitted,
~::(
~~vrN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
~:~
Cit)' Manager
~::l0?/ //~~y
KENNETH R. SCHREraER
Directo~ of Planning
and Ccm~unity Environment
Attachments; A. 3/10/9) letter from CMA soliciting comruents
.B. programs inchl.o€:d i r:. I$'IEA
C. Traffic Congestion Relief ITransit. Improvement Plan
D. Funds received in First cycle of STPICMAQ funding
E. Measure A Funding Needs
F. Projects submitted for funding consideration
cc; congestion Management Agency (Mike Evanhoe)
Local Transportation Authority (Will Kempton)
Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group (Carl Guardino)
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (susan Fr~nk)
CMR:229:93 4/8/93
Page 10
".
--~---.
Congestion Managoement Agrog
5.1n:a Oaza County ATTACHMENT A
NOTE: !his letter was sent to
All City Mayors
All City Managers
The Beard of Supervisors
of Santa Clara County
Narch 10.. 1993
On February 24,. 1993, the fO'.lr transportation ege::l.cies in
Santa Clara COu-nty (Transit Dist.rict Ec'ard c;f S·,;,,~€:=·,;i5urs ,
Traffic Authority, Local '?rans,Portation Autr,ority, Congestion
Hanage!r.ent JI.gency) jointly spcr.s:ct'ed a workshop on
transportation funding priorities ..
'The main point of the evening was that we are faced ... "ith SC'Gle
very difficult decisions. Implemer:lting the new ¥.easure A will
require approximately two thirds of our limited state and
federal funding over the :1ext twenty years .. Sin,:e most of
Measure A's capital expenses will be incurred ea=ly in the
li.fe of the measure, we can expect that MeaS\,lre A projects
will require nearly all of th~ federal and state funds corning
to Santa Clara County in t"t>_o::e -ecrly years and substantially
less in the later years.
For example, in the current fu~ding cycle, Measure A projects
[including some ~old Measure A" projects) require
approximately -S E 8 mill ic:'1 in STP/OL~·:::P funds and $lO{) rnillic,n
in RTIP funds. Comparing these c.::pital nee-,j,s ... ·ith Santa Clara
County's expected share (based on population) of these fund
sources, Measure A projects in this cycle alone require 105%
of S'rP/CMAQF .t;"unds and 161% of RTIP funds. JI.ltho.1gh ...... e can
bid for up to 150% of our population based share, it is not
likely that Santa Clat"a. CO'.mty \I,""ill receive significantly
more than its population based share of the funds.
All of this does not' take into account the additional state
and federal funding needs of local cities t a~d the
nan-Measure A needs of the C01..:nty Transportatia:-. ~.gency, the
Traffic Authcrity, and Caltrans. It is clear that we must
reach conse:1SUS on ",-hat t}"1e fU:"'.dip.g priorities ....,ithin Sa:>ta
Clara County will be if we are to cDmpete effectively Cr'.. the
regional and statewide levels for these critical funds.
·;·~~~~,t-~,L
?~,~,~~~~-
""'.'
-
-
~arch to, 19S3
page 1' ...... 0
The CMA Governing Board · ... ill be cor,ducting p",blic hearings on
this i'55lle at i ts .~pr il r H<3Y, and June rleetings to help us in
fcrmulating priorities for the current state a::d federal
funding cycle and pelicies for future cycles. On behalf of
Jean McCowr... Chairperson of the CMA Governing BO..'lrd, we are
asking for your city's direct involvement in the decisio~
making process.
The key issues that mus~ be ~esolved are: Is Measur~ A the
clear first priority for state and federal funds in Santa
Clara county'? What are the priorities 'within the Measure A
program itself? How do we reconcile the non-Measure A needs
of our Me~~e~ Agencies ~ith tte fact that funds are limited?
Please c.o!TI .. municate your city' s recommendations on these key
issue'S to the C.M..,\ GO',rerning Board by April 121 1993.
On behalf of the CMA Governing Board, ! ...... ould like to expres s
my appreciation for your pa~ticipatior. in the county~ide
workshop and for your COrn!llents and suggestions. The key to
Santa Clara County's success in th is funding cycle ""ill be
our open, participatory process and spirit of cooperation
The eMA staff is no .. ' assembling and reproducing the mater als
t.hat ,",'ere presented at the wori-':s!1op and will be distribut r.g
them shortly. Please do not hesitate to call m~ OL Walt
Streeter of .my staff if ycu have any ql.1estior.s.
Sincerely_ I /;f;Ul {!;0-:/:,F _____
! Michael P. Evanhoe
Exec\.!ti ... e Director
cc; CMA Governing Beard Mewbers
Tr~,ns it District Board of Supervisors
Traffic Authority Board Members
Local Trcnsportation Autho~ity Board ~e~~ers
CMA Technical Advisory COIT~ittee Me~ber5
, ,:,';<',;"\iiJ;> ;:",/,~, , '::"i4i;~P,.":H~:'
,:,',,:,ii\: ,'" ':j,'~.::r
I
i
-----------"~~--.:...-.'-.::.,-~-:~_~i~...:r~~.~~_' _
MTC ";-j , iii,i:llii h~
i .... "",rjl!l:!II.IION
~~i.I_~ .. ,!\\~~~~
,'",rl! r ""., ", 11"( ,,,,,I
"" 111.'"''''0''' ,,,., """ , \ ~".". ~ -'"' .,"" .~. --'''I
1991 INTERMODAL SIJRFACE l'RANSPOnTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
IIIG II WAYS
1m FEATI)IIE i'AST FEilER,.... LAW NEW REAll'I'H()RIZI\Tf()~~Il~)VISIONS J
I Progr.llu Scopc lIillhwOl),. SIIfe-fy. lind Trallsil progriJlII"i. Five YC1Ir i lIi~hway:'l. Tnlllsil, and Safely. Si~ year pro"rillll •
)criod ry PHI7-91. I:Y 19n -r-y 1<.197
Funding Total of li7J.IH for h1t:hw.lYs !.Iud highway gafc,y (19H7. $1,\1 hilliunMalj'm,gr;ull ~$III).5D lI,gh.w~ys, S.\I,5H
(1) and S 16.5 U hlr transit Trahsit)
II iChWilY TnI~1 Fund oritlill;llIy financed hy 9 cenl:. gns Increased pmy,rilm funding levels hu'\cd on ('.HC1)sipn ,
liU (11 (:ems-hip.hway'i, J (cllt·mln~jl). Gils IIlIl raised lu or all fuel c,u.:isc !axell depnsilcd in n,l' lIirhway Till'" I
14 ('CIiIS wilh ! 1.5 cents !;oinlt hI Ihe lIighway Ttu'it Fund. including the 2.5 (cnlS or ga); tall CIIiII.:leJ ill \I),}O,
"liIn.! (10 cCllts·highways. L\ n.:nts·tran.~ir) hy 1991 through Scptember 30. 11)99. Hili al!,\! ,'ipcn~h th,wJJ
OORA Ihrough 1095. trust flUid ba/;uu::c.
--kC5Ir"~:lured J ) I,i I c rs laic. SU ,r,lce Tran!ll)\IrllJt ion Pfilgrillll ~~],')II
II if(hwllY 2) Inlerstate 4R N,lIionai lIi~hway .sy!aem S21.01\ i
I'rllgram ) ) f'rimuy Intcrstale MailtlcnanLc $17.0B
4 ) Srcondary I Ilh:: rslale Cnn~(ructjoll $7_2B
5) \jrban Cong~'stilln MitIgation/Air QlliJlil)' $(dln
6) Bridge Ihidge I'mgrlllll $16.1 "
7> Minimum AlluCl1ti{lIl Spcdal f'wjccls $(1.111
H) Il,Hard Eliminalion Olh~r prngr3111~ ,I'ld fundin,: atlju.~lmcnl~
0) Rail.lli(:hw;)y Cruliliing (c.g, flI'm. alloe., dnnnr .~Iiltl· L){Hlu:,:) lZLIr.1
------Tn!al }It !hw"... Pm 'ram lU.I)2!L __ -
DRAFT
Mclropolilan "frsnsporlatlOn Com.ni~sion 1"/11/91
l>
-i
~ o
J: s: m :z
-i
~
;';i'W~~{{ 'i', ' i'!cl f.t¥,i~":,:f~;:;J., ';' t .,;-
'):1%>"''''';'' 'f' : ;:J,:,,:,;,'/,'0,.':) '!'{
I
I ,'"
!
~ , •
t
. ' ·"r··'···l
,
u
~'. ,
•
-"~, .. t:_.P"''''>-~li'r-
1991 INTERMODAl. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EH'ICIENCY ACT
JIIGHWAYS
I'EATIJR.: I'AST n:I).:RAL l.A W
!lu~lacl'
TI'IIIlSP" r illtil1n
I'n~gfillll
Nonc; secoudllry and urhall ptognns arc climin.lcd,
Nadonili
Ilighwi.lY
Sysn.:m (NWi)
.scpor;uc Inlcnilate 1UH1 primary systcm~,
L _____ ,
MClrupui ilall 1'r.l,/Isp0I"I ;UIOII Comrnl'i'iion 2
NEW REAUTHORIZATIO'f\j PROVISIONs!
"'Iexibiliiy: Fle .. 'iblc program allowlI.g funds 10 be
used for highwoty!t, bridges, Ifapsil capiLlill, bicycle
program$, car pOol pmjcJ,;ls and OlhCi'" uses.
Apopurllohmrnt; Dislribuled 10 stale on Ihe FY I'J87.
Q I hislori(; shale adjwHcd 10 a 90% minimllm, Highway
program adjustments ipponiQued to STP wilh
provisiolls fipccifying ihnt half of ihest funds shall go
back to UZAs. 10.8% orr the lOp for Siler-iy project ... :
10.4% off Ihe lop for trllnsportal.ion r-nIUm(;elllcnt
pruJt'cl~, MmmmDl IUlncallun. dl>nor &talCs bOIlOS, hold
harrniC!i!!i, reimbursement lind 90% of (layments
programs are apportioned through S,T,A,
DlslribuiJon within State: Re~ulfe<j th.u 62,S'''' of
STP funds be spend in IJrbani1:':d jl/c:.l'i ov(",r ':WO,OOO au,1
other areas based on relative !.hare of poplJllltiou.
remai1ling 37,5% available (or uS'C anywhere: within
the state.
AUlhorizes dcsigllltllOIl of /I 155,000 mile:-(+/-15%) NBS
cOIl!£isling of IntcrSUlte highw_ys and major prill"'/),
road~, US DOT would have liNo years 10 establish a final
NBS iQ conSlIltllliun with the slau:s, States, in
coopcratiOl1 with local and regional officiHls. s.hull
pJOpose luterlahl1ughways for desigllation. In
urhaniled arca~. local tlfficials shall ict through MPO's.
ll rior 10 final NBS dcsiglliUion. prill\'_ipal liflCri"ls. sholl
be trealcd !IS NilS for f'Y 92-95,
1o'lexibHHy: Siaies may Iran:;fcr up \(' _~O'Jb \If N1IS
funds In other road I'lotran,!i, or Iramll. worn of NBS
fund:; may be. Irausfcm:t.! iI~ slales wilh Clean Air ACL
lIona1tainlllcnt urca3 if aJllHo~cd by Ihe SC(;rclary I,f
'fransportalion. Appurlionllurll: DiSlributed lI~iJll:
fiY 1'11:1'1-111 hi~h.HH': shure ror Ihe highway pr(IgralH
adiu~tcd fill 90 r(~n'{,BI rnlnll~H1I1l ,Illocalinn..:.
12111191
~~,---. }:fJ~i~,};;j:;i"";:,, .::;';,;/1, ,'-
.> "r'i{'" 'l" . ": "., .. ,,,", ,. \; . 'j;Y~(,!,\ \r!,;NV
I ' .' .
.• ",
, ,
f
I
~ ,
f
I
" , ,;-, _~~~~~'r_--~"''l~
r'
1991 INTERMOI)AL SliRFACE TRANSl'ORTATfON EFFICIENCY ACT
IIIGHWAYS
[ FEA'rU R I': PAST mm:RAL LAW NEW REAUTHORIZATION "ROVISIONS
Inlcr:'lt:.tr Interstllte ba!lcd on (;('1'" 10 (;Ofnpic:lt', fUlllhng through Interstate Comdruet'on; Funlls Dpooflioncd to SIi'I.:'q
Con,"trllttion FY P)9}, Ul % minimullI. h.tscc.J on prop0rllonill share of t:o~1 tu comp/ttt' sy~ICIll,
and 110 minimum gIJIlHlnlc:c. Inlcr!natc Mailll{,IIi1I1CC:
Maintenance $100 million !'let B!'Iide for Interstate Discrclion",y APporlionCd. u!ling ftfcviOIJ!t formul" which in.::ludes I
lune mileage, pOIH.IIali\m lind IlToJccl complclion nlsls,
Intrr!\lnle 4Ft ptogram for rcsurfllciug, teslorill~. New cllpacilY custs ineligible.
rehabilitation Bnd recon!llrucjicJl'l.
Air Qualityl CAA IImendment:. of 1990. UOT will COopcrate with lWA Estahlishes ncw progrllm with funds apponi\'lIcd III
ConJ;c!lliorl to issue guidelincli insuring confllnnity of fed!'ral ,o;lalc'i based (lll lIonaUainmcni area l>upula!ioll. luJjll.~h·d
Miligali,)n highway and trall.'!i, plnn, Ilrogram Ilnd projC(;Il' with b,Y JlnlluliOl~ scv("rilY rl}CH)I', Also provide!!. 1,12%
the Clean Air Act. mmimum allocation to illl !ltales, "rojl'!cl!I ,H(: eligible
ror fundin~ only jf the Secretary or Tran.'lporlatinn, if I
I consultaliu~ with. EPA. d(,:ICrJllinc.'l. t~llIt Ihey wdl
Improvc air !.juallly, No new capacHy prIIJtl'.ls ror
1-,: . ...,..,... ____ +""",.,._-;:_':'"": _____ .-....,,-,...,-..,-,,.-_____ ..,-_...,:-I2in1;11: OCCl!POfll vchidcn 11r(~ eljglhlc for fun~ __
nridgl~ fhidr,c Replacement anll Ruhilbil1l8tion proy,r,Wl lor all Continue,," formcr nridr,e RCIJlacclllcnt 'Illd
bridge!), Rehabilil~tjon I'rogram for all bridJ!:C"!). Cunlitluc!/.
Bridge_ discretionary for on-sy~tl'm bridges. rormer Brid~c Oiscrctionary Prog(i1I11 for un-sy"lcn\
bridges.. New pTllvi~i')ltli permil structural paintifl/-:
__ __ and sd'lmie !.Clrllfit a", eligi\"llc ("~pc_n~'~c~'~ ____ . __ _
J Melmpolila"
__ ~'~ ___ ~ __ '_T ,n
Transporl3tion C(Jmmi~!llon 1 J7III{'I1
~ ,
,i,
,
" t rl
I ,
; r .';
" "
~~:
~; ,
FEAT lJ IU';
Toll ProJecls!
Cong~sliol1
J'ridnr.
M.III~h f{ alios
fJy'l/,
OverOlJl
Hc.\ibiJiiy
A ppllrl ill I) Ih (' III S
1991 INTERMODAL SUR.'ACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
HIGHWAYS
I'A~'I' .'EDERAL~ N.:W IU;AUTHOIIIZATION I·ROVISI().~
Toll bridges !lnd IUllnclli may be buill wit" Federal E~lablishe8 new loll lacililit'.:S program under which l fund"" if no Federal funds u~cd prcviou,ly, Tolls for federal tunds may be lI.'icd for cOfl'itrUt:tion or
I debt Icl,'eDir-nl and 0pUltling and InllillteQall(~e cl.panSiOh of 1011 highwa,Y5. bridges llt lunneh:. Fund,
expenses. 'fulls Dlay nol be ,bar~(,'d .flcr debt retired. generated by lolls m.y b. used for other 1"lIspOnalil}ft
impro vcmt:nt8 aflcr debt I5crvice and reasonable return
Pilot pr{ljccl~ '" Dille Siales, 35% federal funds. on invcl\lnu::nl. Aulhori7.cS up 10 50% rcderal Mlarr;"
A/:10 includrs IOU road reimbursemellt program (14U) 10
cllmpenllale slates lor COsts of loll rOold", which WI"IC
built by Ihe slales and then ilh;orporitcd ,nlo Ihe
Inler¥I"lc s),lItem, Eac-h stale guarantced 1/2% Ijr lolal
fundin&,
Congestion Fridllg: AUlhorizes Sc(:rdary to ('Oler mli.,
agreelnenu with as Hlllny ttS fiYe Sla'~ or local
government or public alJlhoritie!l for cOligeSliofl
pricing proJects, FUllded al kO% rederal .sba~e alld 1J~1 10
115M 10 clIJ:r)' 01,11 cllch_prQlect
911% luler/Hale Cumpletion H<J% rcder .. lj2U% slale or local eu:cpt Intcntatt,
9U'4 Interstate l{chabilitJticH} Cotlslruclion funded " 90%110%,
75% non-Inter::.ldtc prog (alliS
~O% for Bridge progfum
]5% for 1011 pilot proJects
1l5% fur _pl:UlllinJ,: and rc~('~rdl
Nonc Nl'w $660M sIA-yca( prugrOim 10 tlcmunslrale I'IIIS
Il"dlllolugics. 75 percent of fund!> dedicaled 10 specified
IVIIS f!llnidl)rs.
LiJuilcti intl'rmodal th~llJdi'y (mhun program onl) ) Illlcnnodal eligibility for s'r .. , NUS, Con,ll;(;stion
Miiigllliull,
C'crtaiu uansfl\rs bCIWCt'1I 11HlI:ruIHs :tllowcd, e.g" I·ok
Ii) Pfimilry.
MoS( .~ystclII furmulas hal'!: 1.&IId nrCiJ, Jlllpulillillll, PO""ll form"l" vary by prog ... n .nJ .n<lud. hi"".i, '''"c,
mUle nult'age facto,,,, H5'7:, lJIinilllUDI allocaiion, Impullu(lit fllclors 90% mUlllllt.lln WI'" <IlhJed new
_. ------_. ---------_._----, __ adJu<;Ullt!!ts ind"-~!Ir:!£.._ d~nn!---.li!ah! _ b(,!I_l!5~. ____
MctmpolllaB T(tlll,~rlJrtali(JII Cllfllmi .. <;i(\fl <I 12/11/91
f ~~~ .... agllllllllllllillallllllllll;allllil , =..
, '
~
,~ ,
'\
~ :f •
t,
'!,'
t.
,
l
I
..-'=.:-...... ~"--<:"j !C 2U i) J; $ ,
1991 INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFf'ICIENCY ACT
IIAY AREA HIGHWAY "RO,mC'rs
AREA PROJEC' r-AMOU~
~ ____________ ~ ______________________________________ . __ ~~~IML.m~_~
CQOi:!:SIi!.lD Re!jc(---
Crojq;u
Dixon Improve ) grad(" crossing!l ,-"
Fairfield Con~ttuct 2 park, & fide fncjlitic~, an infomlillioll center and transfer hut} ror 7.7
1·80 t"xpress and local hils service
Richntond 1-80 Richmond rark way I nlcrch lIuRe I.R
Sunnyvol(': HOV IjI;n~ improvements no Lawrence E~plcll.swa'j 10.1
Jlrb..a~ess & Url.!iUI
M'tbjlily ,JrujccU;
San Jose ImpfOvcmcnl of In,(,<cCI-IIlII&e 1\\ H)g'lwuy 1:\~ Rnd i-1",ghWBY 17 35.0
Gilroy Safely improvements on Highway 112 5.9
IIlIIQYilliy," Prokw
(IH II oj ij lu,:ilEinan, i OJ:
San nCIIIW Routt 156 Hollister ltypns~ .'1
Monterey Routt 101 Prunedale 4.2
Union City 1·8801 Alvarado-Nill's ~d, In1crchnnge Q.5
-~------.~--.
1"01(':: PfOjt't1~ funded lit HO% federal share: \h\t~ tu budgi"l up~. an pmjcctJ would be eligihle fM 8% or funti ... in FY 92 and IR,4% nf
funds in FY 9::1-97.
"
J Me'mpolilan Tr.n,port •• ion
_, ____ ~_·_·~_·"_n~ ____ ._~ ___ ._ _ ______ ~ ... ______ .. ,
Commis~ioll s 121J1I9(
I
I f3!"~f .. :·
,
'-',
I'·
.{
.~
"
1991 INTERMOOAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EJ'FICIENCY ACT
RAY AIlEA HIGHWAY PROJECTS
ARt;A ----l PROJECI' AMOUI'IT J
L-_______ "--____ ,~___ Og millions)
i'Jillc"uM
~'W:ml!l!Slri,lliQrL-lW~
Larkspur \0 Korb(:l~l-lig"way project for Iran!OpOrlajlon corridor .Iong righl~ UllobHg. balance
Northern Call1'orniu or-way pjuOlllcl (0 Rou(~ 101 of IYH7 fundJ
Ihl.!b C~I'~~ Uluh'\:li
San Franclllt'o J>rcliminary work. assm:i.~\Cd will\ s.~i$mj\: upgrading of ille GoMen Gale 5,9
tJri.Jgc
-~1.1.L-.J.l1.Lu!p~
~
Nunh~rn Califoll\l;~ Pun:h",!'.~ righl-n\-wll'j and develop • Iranspunation corridor on eJ:jslillg rail 15.l
(-U-W ffullt LarhjUlr to Korbe!, and Novato 10 Lumb~lild
San h)sc lJpl::r::Idc RI1UIr. H7 from 4 10 6 lallcs illdudin~ 2 HOV lanes, III new freeway I'" lnlcrchlUtj;C alld JOl-al ClKU!A\'0I1 syS\CIIl fo' SM J(I~ lnl') Airpon -HC.li!.'"u\,11
Sail JO!!c In"litlilc CUI
UnivCf~ilY
Naliooat Surrace TrOl"~Jlori.l\tiQI\ Poln:y ~\udics OIl San Jose Siale I S250.000 pcr year
Note: I'rIJJ~TIS [ulI(h:(/ ;u KO% rl~l.kral shar~; due 10 btldg,l:l ~·ap!'.. "II II(OjCI::I5 would be digibh: fur 8'X, of fum)!> h, FY'J2 ,,,,1.1 J~.4% of
'-ulids in .'Y 9]-1)7.
MClrupolllan Tran~;porlalil)ll Cumlllj_~"'lou {. 12/11/91
.i
i
, ,
"f
I ,., {~~.:;"",-:: .. :,.,:. ::~/~L-~'" :} 'it'{"~l',' . 'ri
l
~
n:ATliRE [---1
rTilln
Seclion 3
Program
, . ~-'
-----~---.--~.---'-'----~-'"~-~---'-
1991 INTERMODAL SURFAC~: TRAN~I'ORTAT'ON EFFIC'.:NCY ACT
TRANSIT
I'AST FEllERAL LAW
Urb!U1 M.Il55 TraA.'lponali(ln Adl1linistralion (UMTA_>
llrban Mass Trad~[l0l1alion Act of 19M
Categories:
New Rail Slar1~
Rail Modcrni1..lIion
BUll/Bus Fatilitic1I
Discretionary
40%
40%
10%
10%
With Slrong rcsltic(ion.'l, blllul Interest cm,lf, cligihlc
under Advance Consfrucliofl AUlhorily
25% match requirement
Overmatch priority
NEW REAUTflORIZATION I'ROVISIONS ]
t:cderal Transit AJllIini!'ilra;~~A) . Sl"c. --,
F(',dcrai Transit Act ~ Sec. 1
Categorlcs:
New Rail Slan~/F::xh;:nsioDl" 40%
Rail Modcrni1.alion (furllluTa) 40%
Buslllus Pacilitie.'l & Equiplllent I{)%
Sec. 3 (l)
Interesl t'O!ii.l~ df carryin~ debl is !ii.pr.cHiclllly ch~~il)le
expense. (Certified by IIpplieanl n_~ best rale IIvlI-fl"hle,)
Sec.} (1) (7) (6)
70% melch requiremenl -~ec. 4(8) (approvrd prOJecls
ai 25% or higher ~tlt)' al ilgrccd ammllll.)
Ir overmatch priority. dirrerences in financial
cnpacity of local and slille governmellts IIlW\I he
cOllsidered -SC(~. 4 (a)
Rail \lJm:reliQnary prugram UM" A jJuliey 10 U~ Sec. 9
MOdl"rni1lHlon fUClors!iS a gui,tc
New 4 lin fmm"l" aprmuch . ~(·.c. _~(h)
Metropolitan Tnth~purlalion Comminion
Fir~1 $455 m/yr:
SFO: 7.2% -$32.806111/yr
Nexl $4;2.7Iu/yr:
SF/O; 2.'73% -$1.IX4 rn/yr
Neill .$70 n)/yr:
a) 5{)% 10 H rail mod Cilie!! (inr. 51"/0 hy Set.;, 'i
h) 50'i~ to any ..:ily WIth filii ,"yslellls mOil! th;;n 7
yCars old by Sec 9 rar:lor ptl'portlOIlS I
fiI..-:lnr IHurOrlll'Jls
. ___________ ...L°=-_-'-'-Additinn<tl $ til IIny ~·ligible~~('m ----.-J
7 12/11/l./t
;;-.-~ ... -.".-",--.--~~~---... --~.--~.--,~ '~ .. " ... -----'''-~~'--~'.--~'-.--.-~-''''-'~~~'''~', --........... ---.....
<-<\1'"' ."
t
t
t
l
... ;
j
,-
I
\
f~:,'<'.· :~
"".' '
__ . . .• _~ ____ ~~~-t~~:~":
~"~. T' " " "-n~""·i 2, . $ '1
, , >~ ~ \,,; t, :" ~ ~ ) '", • 1991 INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
TRANSIT
ruA'11TR~: ~---PAS'r FEDEFAL LAW ---r
New l(.1il Slarts Discrclion.Qry Di8:nctionltfY but largely ..:armarked 1
Slrinl.!CIII Ihte.dlOld rC(j\Jiremt"nj~ RCQuirCllltlllll less (See .separatt summar",)
Bus and Bus Discretionar), DisCf(;lionuy I
facllilic~ AOA specifically eligible
5.5% to rural 0peralor projects
$14.5 m (6..l'fS) for bus testing
FuJI r~ulLdill~ NOllc New rc.ll.lures ~ S-:.c. 3(11)(4)(8):
Grant PTA may .ulhorizt early 5yslcml work.
AgrCCIlIl'lllS Inlcrcs. COS[s are eligible. and
1-:: ___ -;:'. ___ h..-_..,.. _____________________ -1~I~'T~,~~-!m~ .• ".l.J-.~.~.;~'~r"'""~"~o'_'F:.!·FGAs bryond (lhli,gillil!!, alllhuril,)'
Secllon 'J Formula apportlOllment formula apPorliOnmenl • Slinle wilh prOYISlOlI jf
I' rog ra III energy or operAling efficiencies I(Btl Lo (kcrease In
Re\llluc Vehicle Milc!f, dlcsc will not be deducted in
fonnul •. -Sec 9(_)(3), Sec.9 (b)(4)
New aspeUs:
I %/yr ('_'juired (0 I)e !!ipenl on security projects by
each chumalll St~t:.9(c)(:l}
Coordinali\lR tC4uircd wilh other rCl.:ipienls or S;.'cY
fund, -Sec. 9({)
If 110 tralltiil needs, inCluding AnA cllsls, hUlds lan be
~ )~I!I on hi 'hw!IY~ -Scc\) "'(j)( J)
Mullh ({dliu\ ~u/2U KO/20 match SCC,4(B)
Mel roPlJJ Itall TJIUI:; vorl <llioll CUllimi lision
,VI
\·,i
•
'",:,i"
90/10 match rillio fOf ADA, C1elln Air Act projects.
S.c'12l!;.}
11-/1 1/lJ I
\S;",
• "~'n't" \\' ""\ ".,\ ' '" J' (,lc\. ~_,~ "" t', ,1' )1 ~,( " t l1 \.i; ); • , ," t-" Y··r~f'l.fll I' t~' ",./, >, r ,
t
~ ,
,
I
~
I
1 ,
t ,
t
I f;
1991 INTERMODAL SURFAO; TRANSPORTATION F.F'FICI£NCY ACT
TRANSIT
n;ATUl!E PAST FI,;f)~:ID\~~AW-T -NfwR~;AUnIORJZATION PI«)VISIONS
Special I NonC';
Procurement
l'urnl;cy
Program
Muillyear
Rolling Siock
I'r(l(;ur('nH~nl
Stelion 1 (,:
Elderly i1nd I Funding limil(:d to purchA~ing capital t"quipmcnt rIU
Di'lubkd Transit pri\llHC hun-profit agcnclCli.
No specific authority to usc furllh for vchide lea~in~.
No authority fo 1I!!!!ist or ulili/,~ fun~s for providing
_ delivery of meal!'!,
Scc.12(1)(i)
('"('rmils funding or tUfilhy projects and aulJlOril.C'"
Senetary tn approve 1101 Ics,1 than 7. d{'milll~tralioll
project,"
Conditional aw~nJs alluw('.d hefore rederal
rCljllircmcflls IIl'e met for huild·opcratc··lransfcr
Permits cslRbli~hnJcnt of consortium for prOl.:-urin~
rollmg s{()dt
~:cICClion or InwCM cosl bidder nol rCQlIirCll
AliowlI public bodies 10 become g.ranl recipit'n1s "'nder
ccrtlli., I.;in;umslanc:c'!: if 81>prnvcd hy (he 'iOlilIc 10
c()ordinUlc .!'Ocrvircs or where no rrivJltt" non.prnflt'iO
/Irc readily available tu provide services.
Eligible tapital CltPCMC!i Orc defined to include the
llcqui~ith)n of IranSporlaliullo scrvi(,cs undcr OJ contr:JU
M Icasc.
Allo~s transportation [HOYltlers; usillr, Ihc,,~· fumls 10
~uordinntc and assist m providin!\ mcal dclrv('ry
service. if meaT delivcry 'iOcrVU;:CIi tin Jlol cunflict with ______ 1 c _____ --...L~rflV~iliT~~)r tran~it .. ("rv.('e~". ___________ --,
MI':IrOpolilln Tr$n!lp'OrilUion Commission 9 12/1 I/'!)
"
; ,
l
I
• I ,
!
~:
'~"""'''''''''I. , . __ ~l~ _____ ,, ___ . • __ PI;Iit:
"," : t-;;"'1' " 1 ',' ." ,,'.-'
1991 INTERMOOAL SUR~'ACE TRANSPORTATION U'FICIENCY ACT
TRANSIT. NEW RAIL STARTS
~:A'rliRE-J I'AST .... ,I)ERAL LAW NEW REAliTHORIZATION PROVISIONS
Local Minch Projcns rC(juirc 2~ percell! 'O~il.1 millet. Projects require 20 pen:ern local mlttch. PriQr loc:ali,Y
funded purcttascli of roilIng stock thai will be usc::d 10
operaje 011 the e~lension cau be C()Uflled toward local
march.
I III (' res I C(-"I'l'lcll. lallguiig~ Ihlll c~ .. cnllaHy , illliis FC(ICtlll Alluws l'cdetal panicipalioll if applicant !i(".("_ks Lhl.". mQst
EIlI){,!lS~_' partlcipalion ill interest f!iW CllpcIIsCS to the ralc of ravoruble inlcreM rllC's available II ,he lime or
inn.tlllll for [;<lI)llul PHIJCUS., borrowillg, The appHulll must ccni~y Ihat " h.Q5
I
-_. ---.~--.. !'>hOWn due dili 'cnce jll seeling rav<!.~:tbk ler!.!!!;.... __ ~
MClhllHllililil Tr.JII'ipOrl'lIl1l1l Ctllllmi~SI()n 10 12111/91
,
~ ;'
i
l'
I
!
I
i
!
. '
~', "\.'\;'-:?~:~~:\'., .
.' ,.?\ ".' " ,{., if:,,:
> "{J~'-;:'I/J:' •. ·I~·i.;" . :.,. ,~, 'f,
".,
I
I
I
I
,
---'---'-,. f' "'-""",-... • -~----,.:.. .'_d' ~ • L_n __ ' • ".., ~ ~ 'I' _'j
1991 INTERMOIJAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATIO:-I EFHCIENCY ACT
TRANSIT. NEW RAIL STARTS
FEATUR" PAST F'EIlF.IlAL LAW NEW REAUTHORIZAHON'I'ROVISIOND
New Rail StartJII: I Required alternative analysts, Emphasit.ed that
Critcrl;i Secretary must fihtl Ihllt the project iii c(l(;t,errc(;li\lc
and !IuppOrled by an 8c(;cplablc degrec of local
(''la.ndal cOinmiinlcnl. DocS "now the Secrelary in
l;:on.'l.idr.r "other faCl<Jf5" twt Ihl.'!>c are not lilw.dli.t:d.
Continues 10 ~q",irl'. fll\URi\\i\!e an;al),sis ~lld i\ filldiug
of lotol fjllsncilll fomrnilmcnt. Olher <.:rilcria have
hcen added II) co.s.t-cffcctivcrlc!l~:
Comrrchcnllive rcyi,.w (,f nlllttilily imprlwl;:mc-nls
En'Yironmcnial bc.nen\!\;
Operating cfficicncic"
The Sccn:lilry is dirt'!ctl.'_d 10 l"On5iLicr olher factor"
whi(;h arc "pcclfi('d~
'fhe direct 1.lIHJ indirect costs of rcl~v;tnl
.altcfllIIlivcs.
Co~t'> of conf:(~Slioll'l, imrl'ovcd mobinty, 1m
phlll.i\\()", fmi~e I)ollu,hm, l:nc.rgy (;OnSUlllplif.n,
lUlu "all associaled 811dllary an'" milipltiun '(I_~Is.
rmjcct justification erilcrill arc In Ix-alljlJ~h;d 10
reflect (.1iffcrcnce~ ih locill land cm!!',
COH!llru(.:l_il'Il c_ost" an.j upcrallng Costs,
The definition of local financial -.:ommilmt"111 1'1.
darified to emphll!'iiLC thai fundinE 1II1l.'.;! he availat.1e It)
bui.1J I\nci O-pe1"\l' \I\l'_ :'i)'SIl'1H, inchldml1: all fnilel and
im~iliary SCfVI('C,<; IIcces!>ary 10 adlicvc tl)(: JHlljCl'll'd
rldcr!'ihip.
Three cuqnion~ to 1}ll' nhuvc ui!crill IIrc provillcll fOr:
I, The proj(,(:l is localr:-d in a: Sl:Yl'rC 01' n.lrcnlc non
allainmcnl nn~a and i~ It TCM. Of;
1. Pcdcml B!'Isisl:llICe is ks~ Ihan 125 lIlillion nr 10.'""
Ihnn 33 pcn.:cnt of nn "nprrilJHi:llt~ pTllJln1n1 or
_
J' I pwjccis as determined by Ih~ Si.~cH·lary,". or;
1 The prnj~~(:1 i~ fin;Jlln'd entirciy wilh Federal-Aid
Ihgllway Act funds ur 1991,
These CJa:cphons Rho .1Uuw for rnulliplc ullcru3tivc
L ~ analy~t'~ within Ih<:: ~~hl~-"II~Z~,A~,~ __________ ...J
Menopolilllfl Transpona.tion Commission to. _ e_.
11 12/11/'11
;.,
I
1
---~!
,
,',
!
;:
.:i'
I
\
-~
... _.,:r:---'(.,"~~...'I'''''''''' a !i p JI.
1991 lNTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
TRANSIT -NEW RAIL STARTS
r FMTURI~ I'AST n:IJERAI" LAW
Ellrly Systems
Work/Ft'GA
Tirn':l\lhle ell{
I~rojcd K('vicw
Lattgllage aHolA's Ih~ SC(;rClary In issue ... l.ena ()(
Intenl for .. pl'(ljecl Ihal obligates an anlount of future
budgu aUlhoril), sutTu;icnl IU clllDpl~te an operable
scgn1cnt.
Nunc
MClropnlllan Tntll~pOn,,(illil Cummi,;)i!Hl 12
NEW REAUTHORlzA'f"ION I'ROVISIO~
The fleclion on Letters of tnlcnt i! arnCllded 10 provide
lddilional ilu,"oci.ly to .:,0 Senetary to:
ERlcr into an I!ari), Systems Wurk Agreement
(E5WA) if a record of dedlioh has bet" i~5ued. II
f'FGA is likely. and an f.sWA will allow ... project to
be completed mor,;: rapidly 1.1 kss cosl.
The early system!,; work agrcemchl i.~ 10 provide fur
rcimbursemchl for ROW, procuremcill or systems
e'ements. and other appropriate activities, h may
extend beyond the currelll liulhori:t.alion period. All
outslllQdirlg FFGAs, LOJ Itnd EllrJ)' Systems Work
Agreements cannO( CIlc('cd 50 percent of the
I.Il1l·ommilll'd ca~h balance ill the Ma .. ~ Transil Accmml
The Bill ~p('c.ifics iI timetable (i.e. how many d.ty!> to
t,;omplelc net'! :ilugc) Ihal the Secrciliry mu~t meet lIS a
project advances Ihrough the AA,PE and I:inal I)(';sign
Mage_ ... Speciric language is incllided (0 dirct:l the
Secretary to cnief inlo IIFGA (or each of the seyer,
"Interrdalcrl PWjetlS-" (o;ee below), -----..J
12/11"'1
-~-'-... -... '\
, ,-"
'j
j
; ,
I
i t
~ .~
--=.".~-~~----
1991 INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSI'ORTATION EFHCIENCY ACT
TRANSIT -NEW RAIL STARTS
FEATURI'; PAST F'EJ)ERAL LAW NEW REAUTHORIZATION PROVISIONS .J
E.rlllark:<i LA Melro f,roje,' had nlvlti·ytM runding la~guage. The Ad highlight'! seven rJloJCCI~ ... s "Program~ ()/ l
Intcrrelald l"rojecu:
I. New Jersey Urban Corr. Projl'{~1 ($634 In,)
7.. SF nay An~_a Rtllil Exl('nsinn PfI)l!.ram 3~ dC'Ilgllalcd
in RC'1.olullon No, 1916 (S'6R 5 ,",)
3. Los Angclc~ Melro Scr,mClll 3 ($69~ m.)
4, Da:llimorc-W8sh. 'frAfl!<iportalion Im()tI)VCmCnl
Program (5220 m.)
~, 'tri-Counly M(~troPQ'itall Tran!l:pl)tlalion lJi'l~. ~lr
Otegon ($51:,,\ tn.)
(l, QUCf':TJ!. LocallExprcl't'l Conncclor ($306.1 m,)
7. l>allA.!'I. Area Rapid Trallsil Aulhnrity Ii!~hl rail
(SI(}O m,)
Interrelated projects appetlf to '\a"~ mme sl;mljil1~
since the Act spcciricaily requires thai Ih~ Secretary
cnler into il FFGA witl, th\':-tach nf 1t\CSc projecI
!'iron~ots, Suh:;;('.Quent hnguage in (iIe Act iJ'Jdudc~'
sjlccili.c earmalk language for eactl ur Ihese prOjN-!S,
For the Bay Afta t tbe \angullgc j1rovide~ ~5"H,5 mdliOI1
fur Ihe BART 10 sr'-o and TIIsllmn lil!ht fail (ULljn'Ie;.
Oi,,'sum of funding i!l 10 he COnl';i!';h~1I1 wilh MTC
Re!lnJUlioh No. I H7(1. Also IIlIow,~ .SCCTD and MTC 10
Ilnl\crtakc rm AA for the HART cx(cnsiun 1(, {he dey (If
!-ianlll Claro..
I Melropnl;.a. Tran,po",';on COnlm;,,;o. 13 12/11/91
'~--"~'--'.-~,-,--~.--~,-----..-",~-,-. ,---~--.-".~,-"
i
I
j
, , ,
,
I.
,
~ •.
,
~.
,I
!
"i~!r-.·'·'.· .. "'· I -"-" .. '
,~
,;.'
fI~'
l~
J i I \
I I,'EATUHE
Earmarks
(Continued)
" ."," "'''''''''''''"':;:0 -'_,~ .. ,, __ , ____ ~"'-o-.~___ ~ .. 1 T ~ -. ." 7 • psgr;a
1991 INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
TRANSIT . NEW RAIL STARTS
'. "
I :"t",,<~,-.:,~;.!!,I';i ),,:,
\ ''''''''':'~-'J1>1_;~J.;ij;,~::&,\lL\!.o:\1 1
I • I
j---=,PAS'P'EijERAL LAW' _ NEW RMllTIIORIZATioN PROVISIONS J
.,
LA Mclro prOJecl had mulLi ye"r funding lallgulIgc. ,. addiHon '0 .he i., ... d'Jed I''''jc,"" "'.''''~
langu8f,c i~ included fur II number of Oilier (raliSIt
projeCIS. For the 8ay Area:
"
Gilroy\Uollistc( Commuter Rail Proj~cj:
SIJ milli{ln 10' impmvemtn~a, $' lUi Ilion for
uactagr. rigbls (New Rail S'.nn fumhng),
Califurnia Pacific Medinl Center; S2,S(X),OOO 10
cOllslrutl • parking (&;clliIY on {Um.;pccificd
so,uce) San Prancjsco.
BART Par",p,:: ,ill ERst Dublin; $12.6 million (ur
palk1ng fjCihty (hndin@: out uf tlu .... Mod.)
Vull~'ju Ferry Servi,,: $17 JIllliion flJr cDpllal
illlprnVCfIlCIlI!( (New Rail Starts Funding),
MI.'Iru!1lllilotll TfiUt~llOrWlioll CtHIIIIII."SIt)1I '4 12/11/91
III
THE SANTA CLARA COUh"TY
TRiiFI~GtsfION RELIEF
»."D TP..A..."l'SIT IMP:ROV:E.MEN'l' PLAN
"PROPOSED A1ID O!:V1:LoPED liY TIlE
CITIZENS COALrTION FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF
ATTACHMENT C
~be expenditure p~an consists of three transportatian
el~ent5: rai~ transit, express r.llS transit, &nd highways.
Toe spe~itic projects have been selected tor their ability to
alleviate traffic congestion, impro?e air qualitYf ana
at~rac~ regional I state &nd feder~l funds to ~~ize the
buying power of loe~l 4011ars.
Each project in the plan is bene£icial on its OVD ~erits, ~ut
is further enhanced as a portion ot tbe ove~all systeu of
transit and transportation improvements to keep Santa Clara
count7 residents, and workforce, moving.
The spe~ific projects are as foll~ws:
1. TASMAN LIGET RAIL EXTENSION
Description: Will ExteLd the current light rail sys~e~ ~2
miles from Milpitas to Mountain Viev, parallel to High~a1
237.
cost: $306 million ror capital, eperati~n and maintenance.
2. FREMONT -SOUTH !lAY CORRIDOR
Description: will buil~ a nev rail exte~sion in Santa
clara county to connect ~itb EART in Alameoa county.
cost: $99 mil1ion for capital, optraticn and mainte.na.n~e.
3. CALTRAIN COMHU'l'ER RAIL (DOli1NTOWN 6AN JOSE NORTH)
Description: Increase calTraic rail service ~y E5 percent,
from '0 to loe trains per day, trom dovntcwn San J~se to
San Fxan¢isca. This ineludes station improvements and
electri~ication o~ the liDe~ .
cost: $~46 mi11ion for capital, eperatioo and ~ainten~nce.
,
?
-
4~ CALTiiJi..!N COMXUTER RAIL (DOWN'I'OWN SAN JOSE SOO'TKJ
Description; Increase pl~nne~ fre~~ehey of service l from e
to 16 trains per day, on th~ CalTr~in r.il line from
dovnto~~ San Jose to M~rgan Rill and Gilroy.
Cost: $37 million for capital I operation an~ maintenan=e.
5. nsO!Q L!"GR"l' RAIL EXTENSION
Description: ExteD~ th~ eurrent light r~il liDe 6 miles,
from. 4eW1:ltoWlli san Jose, through campbell, to L...;-s GClotcS.
Cost: $liS millicn tor ea~ital, operation an~ mai~tenanoe.
IE. CAPITOL -DO'WNTOWN ~GRi:E'N ]tAIL EXTENSION
Description: This would eOnDect to the Tasman Ligbt Rail
extension at Xostet,ter :Read III F.ilpita$\~crth San .Jose,
and extell~ rail 14 =iles tb:oug~ East San J~se and
Evergre~n, an~ then on to do~~to.~ San Jose.
Cost: $238 million for eapital J operatio~ and maintenance~
7. STEVENS CREEK RAIL EXTENSION
Desc:z'iption: This 9 mile rail line vou14 rut! frotl. d.o.'1ltovn
San Jose, through santa Clar~, to cupertino, on or near
Steven~ Creek Boulevar~.
Cost: $260 million for capital, operation and ~ainte~anee.
B. SONh~E -CUPERTINO RAIL EXTENSION
Description: Tbis , mile line would connect with t~e
Tasman light rail line near Sigbvay 237 a~~ Lockhee~,
proce~~ through Downtown sunnyvale an~ ell to Cupertinc.
Cost: $~40 million for capital, operation 8n~ maintenance~
•• AUlADEN UPGRADE -DOUBLE TRACK
Descriptio~: This will doubletraek the 1 mile A~aden
branch of the ~isting Guadalupe li;ht rail line.
Cost: $1 million for capital construction.
-\
l-
I
t
I
-
· .
~ Bt's TR..AlrriSIT ELEMENT
1.. "SUPER EXPRESS" COMHU'l'ER EOS SERVICE
Description: This vill a~d 30 new buses an~ several ne~
routes to the "Super EXpress" l:::us system. These buses go
~irectly trom naighb¢rhoods thr~ughout the county to major
employment centers duzing commut~ bours, and are tim~
competitive ~ith the automobile. Hew routes to be ser\e~
shall include the follovin; major emplo~ent areas:
~. stanford Park (Pal? Alto): Whieh inelu~es syntex,
Alza, Hewlett Packard, IBH, Varian~ Watkins Johnson,
Xerox, an4 others.
2. Ho~~ett (sunnyvale): ~ich inclu~es ESL, Martin
Marietta, ~oekheed, and others.
3. Great America (Santa Clara): Which inclUdes Inte~,
Synopties, Advanced Micro Devices, siemens, Norther~
Telecom and others.
4~ Vallco\Oe Anza (cupertino): which includes Hewlett
Packaro, Apple, Tendem, Measure~ an~ otbers.
5~ Shorelin~ tMt. View): Which includes silicon GraphIcs,
Alza l sun ~icrosystems, Hewlett Packard anc others.
Cost: $54 million ~or capital, operation and ~aintenanee.
2. ~SIT SERVICE rOR DISABLED SENIORS Ah"D 'TR..ANSIT DEPn."DE~"T
Description: Thi5 service will provide transit fer
~isabled and handicappea citizens, as called for in thp.
"A:laericans lIith Disabilities Aet.tI
Cost: $217 million
HIGE1iAY ELE¥...Eli"T
Description: Enhancements t.o the 'l.M.easure Afl syst~ls
strategic plan,.
1. Improve the interchange at Highway 237\880 in ~ilpitas.
Cost: $76.' millicc for capital construction~
2. rmprove thE interchange at Highway 85\101 in ¥.t.
Cost: $23.5 million for capital construction.
3. Build interChanges on Rigbway 237 at ¥~ude and
Hidal~field Roads in sunnyvale and Mt. Viev~
cost: $14~9 million for capital construction.
Viev ..
I
I
I
I
I r r·
I
!
I ,
I
t
l
--------------~"
4. Improve the interchange at Highway 85\91 iL S¢. S.J.
cost~ ~13 million fer ca,Pit.l..l cDllstruetion.
s. X~prove tbe interchange at Highway as\10~ in 60. S.J.
cost: $13 million for capital construction.
6. Widen Highway 85 between Hiqbway 237 an~ 101 in
Ht. view.
ccst: $3.3 million for capital constru~tion.
" Bui14 ~ partia1 intercba~ge at xiqhway 237 and
L&~&yette street in Santa Clara.
cost: $2.5 million ~cr capital construction.
8. Engineering Costs and Ri;ht-of-Vay reLcb~semellt to
local jurisdictions.
cost: $~l.S million.
2. SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION
Descrip~ion: Synchronization aD~ eontinu¢us monitoring
of the traffic signals on all ei;bt of the County's major
ezpressvaY3, using video surveillance ~rom a traffi~
operations control center: Foothil1~ Central, Lawrence,
San Tomas, Honta~~e, Capitol, ~lmaaen, anQ oregon. This
allows signal timing to ~e adjustee to ~inicile congestion
4uring peak tratfic hoursa
cost~ $~3 million for capital, operation and =aintenance4
S. HIGHWAY B7 CGUADALUPE PARKWAY)
Description: Upgra4inq Route 87, tbe Guadalupe Parkway,
:trom a. .:surface street to a tree~ ... ay, between downto.~ San
Jose en~ Highway 10l, by re~oving c stoplights end
bui14ing a new aeeess roa~ to tbe Ean Jose International
Airport.
Cost: $26 million for capital con~truction4
•• laGllWAY '''' (SERNAL ROAD TO COCdRANE ROAD)
Description: currently, Eigbway 101 has • lanes of
traffic, each way, fxom the Sac Mateo County line ~til
south San Jose at Bernal Road, near IBM4 Eight miles
south, at Cochrane Road in Horgan Bill, Highway lO~
becomes 3 lanes eacb way. In ~etween Bernal Rca4 an~
cochrane, howevex, Ri9bway ~01 is two lanes each way.
This will add cne lane or traffic, eacb way, over the 8
mile stretch ..
,:
,;! .. ~~~ -
-
cost: $15 &illion tor capital constructio~.
Please note: costs cite~ for all projects are hased O~ 1992
dollars. Amounts listed Are t~e lQ~~l share ~ecessary to
leverage reqion~l, state and fe~eral tunds~ Cost estimates,
A~ju5ted for inflation for acto~l constructio~ year dollars
over the 1ire ot th~ progra:, have bee~ reviewed to e~sure
that prQ)e~t capital, operation and maintenance costs are
acc~rate. Special ampha~is bas bp.~n plaeed 00 devsloping a
project list which would :be cOClpletely ]juilt ~uring the life
o£ the program witb projeoted local, regional, state an~
federal reve~ue.
Several steps bave been taken to ensure project Qelivery~
These steps include:
~. A conservative estimate of sales tax revenue. Measure A
estLmate~ ~n annual increase in sales taK revenue of 8
percent. ~his program is built oc a conservative esticate
of ~~7 percent, which is in-lice with current end
projected revenue growth.
2. To ensure project delivery, the collar rigu=es for
capital construction are based cc a conservati'"e e5timat,e
of projec~ costs.
3. The program's intent is to build. on ~ "Pay As YoU Go"
basis. Debt service on bonds ~an decrease purchasing
pover by as much as 2S percent. Therefore, it is the
state~ intent o~ this p~ograe to only bond for projects 25
nee4e4 to maximize state ~n~ fe~eral dollars l as they
~ecoee ~vailable.
4. Eaeh project has be~n sele~ted, in part, on its ability to
success tully compete for state and federal matching funds
to max~ize the buying power of local Qcllars. The
anticipate~ amount of state and fe~eral ~tching funds
built into tbe Expenditure Plan bas been kept at a
conservative level, to ensure tbe project list vill be
deliVered during the li£e of the program.
file:explan,myc
~~{ •.
,'~"" i)'
~ ? 3?Z ",/bi!
Z;Z; .... //,{'1
21/3/J/"//j"",
T; f i?',t/':'l//;''';
'/ ,r
~ /.yJ//JM
I
I
I
I
j
-
FY 1992-94
(Firs! Cycle)
ATTACHMENT D
Received by Caltrans, cities, County and the Traffic Authority
Agency
Campbell
• Cupertino
• Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• San Jose
• Santa Clara
Saratoga
• Sunnyvale
Tatarior Citfes
• County -Transit
• County -Roads
• Ca!transfTraffic Authon
Grand Total
Pf 1992-94
$902,000
$74,300
$16,000
$400,000
$544,000
$320,000
$12,410,000
$240,000
$340,000
$767,300
$f6,013;SOO
$15,515,400
$2,660,500
$17,900,000
$52,089,500
• Projects that were matched by State TSM monies ~ $3,895,100
, ,
,
"
. . •
~---. -... -..
. ,
" ". --.-~ -----.--,---'-----.~ ,.
ATTACHMENT E
MEASURE A FUNDING NEEDS
TIME PERIOD
(Fiscal Year)
1995 -1999
2000 -2009
2010 -2015
TOTAL
% OF AVAILABLE FUNDS REaUiRED FOR MEASURE A
STP/CMAQ FUNDS
(Est $ Available 10 Co.)
62.5%
82.6%
16.5%
55.7%
'" 65%
FTA NEW STARTS
FeR FU~WS (Est. TOIliI
(Est Co. Minimumj Bay Area Funds)
NiA 21.2%
108.3% 34.0%
28.8% 24.7%
73.1% 24.6%
/
i r
!
I
r
i
I ---
l
n . .
1
~H
~ ~"I" • : \i
I ..
i
I~
~ ~ r~
";;;;f
------------------~.
•
•
~
o ,
U!H
~ §§ ~ !I~
I • ,
~
> <
i
~ __________ IloI' •• _""' __
ATTACHMENT F
~ ;:: ~f,::; -........ 1 ... -.
I"
~ H~igl~
'.s~p.l; ~::·:-";I..;
-J"
I ,
•
,
I
,
<
-"
•
§i~~E~~E!~~~~~ ~ :'::--....... _ .. ~= ~~'IS
I
HU
pn~
•
nHls ; ~ ~ ~I;
~--T;
I
i
" t t •
'~"
(
• \
i
Conge~liotl :M;magcml"nt Agency (Ie Santa C1ara Courtly
19" STP/CMAQ and 1994 RTIP Pffl_I('('t .4.ppUCflltiORIJ
My .nllclp .... nil m~Io(''' I, Indudftt I" L<IonIIIMI.lch ~1I .. n" Ihl' .... In •.
(t.lJikofl'd, C.CMI' Ilo..dw." O.O,Iw: ".. ... "" r.r(unll\t, T •• """".rr ..... , "'I .....
2!.SA 1 ~!!"!!_~.~~~~_~~~~~~~~~ r .... -.Jt
A6tiJJM_",. ... "->-<Io,tr ... "."H~.~! ... JUI
PtvJect I'to)o!cr Pm/or..,; Proln:t Ta."~ n'l'f 0."'. ~ M .... *'
!lpOf1t(lr Ttl)., _______ ~t,.lKailon , lJu\.TI~"" c... CMA.Q In'IJI ta~_AlM~"' ___ A __
~unnyval"
'lJnn)"'rll~
Sunnl'"ll
T",Ilk: 51l1""1 In .. II.llon
T ... IfI<C""tml'n ..... flIl>f')'
b'H.I !-I ... rd I'JIITl'InaU.,..
Cu. Koo.dwy t.(Of![II8;Uf C<>n1dor Imp"'""
Co. 1100.1 .. .,. MOflt.8u~ Coni<l,,' 1"",lOvH
(l', "'ood...,. ,-,,,n,,,uI ComdOf lo'h(II'-,""
,0. ft"nlwy ~III 'T"'fNJ h:""l'WJd~nln.
fltnUlrdQIHOIIIIl",nd
CI!fwJJ~
c..ftu"." Dr 5. "Ihe. Ib
1l1llY ~ 10 lilWm
H~lI~kI~I'(
AI I0Il11,,1, .. &Ivd
"'" ".too C-t t .. H"'f 11
~o II""I~ "'1II1''''c~ 1!J:1''"''l' LOS Imp.""" AI S'H"wea
e" RlJlld .. .,. AI"",d~n i!:lp",," IP~ Impl":'Ha At CnlftTllln
1.<), 100dwy .~." T,.""" bl"")' LOS Imp",,,,,, At (''''1'('~1I All
(h \l<~""1 u. ... f'mC" bl""'" {.U5. '1TIpI''''''' 1\' I'-~
.;;0. R .. d.,. Sin Tnmlll!II""'I I.t)~ Im~~u" ... /11 H.mllton
en. R .. d..-y C.pll<>1 UFo"'Y Peo:I nv,... ."ftR -"" .. /I AV
0::". 1 ..... lvy rl[ .. ~ II $,."aI9yo,h K(',.t VldlMl .'" 91 A ~jon.
C-<>. ~<'IId'l')' L,lII''',,,,,, hpwy Vld",) )ij", s. .. tt ... '0 H", 2~1
Cn. ft" .. h .. y t::.plltll t.1'''~ r .. d Path. .....nou~
(.0 M""""'Y M<}[l'.I1~ F.xP"'Y Pm h,h. VUI<'U.
(" ~"",dwv • .:.-,,1 .. 1 '--1'...,-liOV ,........ "'lII""'C~ (0 JlwJ 101
C" 1I, .. "",'y (;/lOn""II"[I"" 1;T1p,.,v .. mo.m. t .. "".II'.t ",.",,111
C-'> Rnad",,\, eho"n~ll;&o!tk>n Imp~mrnll u.av~.'y II HoIld.w
Co 1,>1.1 .. '1' ("11.",,~II .. ,1oQ ' .... """"' ... "'nll Wlllou"vtll ... , ~I'nmn ...
en. 11" .. <1 .. 1' ~.m. T ....... 81vd pI) ~ !r"r I!lShlo"d '0 u.I,f"tq;.
en T"",~\ ~'-Itt;I~
0> 'r"'1oll All<"mllllv.-. ~1.nnlnIl5llodv
C-'> Tnn.lt p,-.,Uml,.ry ~lUdy
'0. Tnn." EI~ ,'" Ph .... II ~"'Irl
V...,,[l. r.<:>lTlr1o,lI'l!·Ff.I~
'-'~p(I'" -~ v~'8,~,,"·Dr_nto"'l)
\I ...... n. ('x.';'lum lo<~/~\II~-<up
CIITnlln-G~!L)y
Addn~"'I,..IlkII~.1 11(111 J1J'i .,. lIM 0
f~lL!tI! ~ .. d I\(Cpin8 1'T1fR>W" ..... n~ n50 um ISO IIJM, 0
,tJd 8"aNhiil In ;OCOU<)M In Iri""'~t IlIlly. Pm \,~ 'l:!f! ___ ~. ____ ,_~ :lIM ..,
flUf«0111.1. U~,lflO $'CI,ti0;!9 '1(1 I~~~ il,~~)
wt.J ..... 'lfId"" lor JW'd' a bl .... , .... 1 .. u!Wer L'w)', pI'd IIBRAI
Prov!d~ dbllT 1n.,nd up,","~ '(1,,"1 ~"U'I""""I
1'IOV!d~ d(>wl~ IT tnl on fll tfll,''''""hu
Adti~' all'", nll,IR'lII • .tIh 0' otNell,,,. ('" pt'dlJt I~UI
lll.,n vnlro ... <wjll.II<. <fiIu1p""'ILt 10 munfm. HoV II"
I'l'm'hJC ptd l.dNI~ •• 1o.JnI up..,.
r,,:>\'IfI~ fN'd 'ltl~tM' II/otlfl C_j:\"'Y
':h~,",,~II-Ull<.'" l"IP"",."",nll
c".nn.Nutkm 1.111' ......... " .. ""
Chl"n .. n,,,,kln 1""4''''''~IT .. nl'
;,r'I"I", 10'" .. "'Ij""~" '~!I""'"' III '''''t[h ~n,t.
H.,oo
,~"'"
,1,1i1'11J ,-
11,"100 ,,.. .,,"
"'" '"'" "00
I~,OOO
kUIXI ... " "00
"""
II,B40
H,1lQIJ
,\,lII]
l<;flll
$1,ilJJ ... " .. '"
'l4o , .. , .. ., ,.,W)
tt,600
"'" ""
'l~O 1100
... ~ Urn
'1'50 'lOO
$j,~ Il,2t:IU,
~"BT{rr;,L $z:"i$lO JI6,6.([
"111001,1 ... ;1", Pftl, Inkllt. MoW pijf\ h .. "
Nul plnlll~!."" 1!I~/p"'um c~
PreUnun...,.-'1IJ,lyltr><>doo. A alllln""",nll
"n~L'i 'ill r ..... '" II SoUlh n."nlJ' 5"["'1l~
116,tlOO ....
.."
~'"
".~
h~o
.''''' 10'"
,t,(J;J:\
.. """
J4litl ~r.:
$')1)(1 1U'Mr. C-
HIO b:M':
$l4u jI)Mo B
Sn 1(M C
I6tI lIJWo C
U(lL) 1QIIIo C
kIO lIM C
'100 h*' (.
~ 11M"
$1,00') lut;, <.. MSAl
$~ '~'L !-ASlll
~ J~ It
S81.1 11M"
$1,00iJ ICM C
I~ .!fN 0
'100 1"'" <)
SIoO 1~ (,
. ____ ~ __ Bln JI)'" u
.f,1J)I) tl,o.x:t H,,6+:)
M,1J)"l ~ T MSAI
J4'W \<~ T '-iSA l
1)OIl <,(JIIo 'T ~SA 1
Uo'" 'It", T M~A I
Co. TlWlllt 1'.".1 !"),,'I~fl/JI(). V.KllllI C-""rI.I...-IlIn.1 D~.19Il·Mj)W PIMt d~~"" enll' t"'ltll'~ ItOW pu .. h .... '~~J)O(I
11\!IOO
$,,001)
'Ui,~
H,W!
tl,'IO)
$16,'-"'" '\0\.", 1 "IS .... 2
1.n, '-.. n.1l l"-IJ'f.I·'
~o Y"''''(I .v.lDf.I~
C<> Tnn.l, U!I f"..onllru.::tllX\
(n Tn' ... ' lOW (Pf\'I-.tC'I kq po. ...... "')
c:<> Inti"." Ttl-n." ~)rn'f',/P .. k \J>( , .... p
(;0 Tn"'k Commun",,,n,, "~.~rn rho I
Co T ...... lf C<wnpI'''urW'd ~ Mlmt Syo
(:(0. Tnmll Tn',,(' ('..,nll. [1 ...... I.'\(Jo-ly
LCD. Tnn.I, Plan Upd •• ~
t.:'pllul·f,v·'8IHn-1lo1ll"",.'n
1'11Iffi<>",·S.nJ'-
VIIOH (':onldo,fC<"lfV''''~",
C.pllOl·f:VltfltMn· D<nnU" .....
,"",unlllin v .... C.lllWl" ~I •.
liJ'ltelTl'llld.
PtJfrkt IIQ/Sl',lf"n"'I"e
5yo1ft ..........
Cu"nlY"'ld"
lOW .rql[IIUhlll (prnt"'-l"""
IuVI'HI5
V .. hlrl8 ..,,,ulllqlln '~d c'JlLllru<=Ij"" to <'mlLp!A'f "",1"<1
~,)\lO' '~<Jllllltlon (p..,..nf\lOlJ
ru..-h_ I'ropy A d""~l moIlU ["""oll"","11 Uf A O;~~ lot
""p(lC~ bu. ",(lit> ~on"""'" d .. IRn ph1M' IIttl<ltd In 9J TIP
n~"f"i~p .nd in"'luh.·d ,""'" '~'" ..... t<:> ~flhllV." .. 'j'kl~ncl'
OJnCl!'pru" r" ... 'envtrnn ........ ".nl ,,,, .... 'u'" ""'n'~ ••
,\~ro"'-I bl~nnl~1 updt,. uf nflln Plan
.. rnrrmu
tl'Ut,QOO
IID,ooo
$"'~
$~,600
U,~
''''' ,...,
SZ66,~
nMll
" ...
tl,OOO ,..,
.-E~
1~4,:i](j
"19,noo
0,000
H),Wl
SJ,l(l(I 'lot,.. T MSA I
11.'\00 y .... T MiA ~
1111,00) 'WM T MS .... l
,~,OOO 5IM T MSA 1
1m AM T Io,1S111
t'flO 1'I_~ T
1'100 ;z<}t~ T
1100 ~ 'r
~_~~~ ~T
~ tl~,9W
1 ,.",'"."'''.''T,,-> .... ,." .,,~, 'U"M
" ~'. __ "'~_'_--r~_---' \,.,:r',.,~--'~"'~~~ ,."~"",:":_w .... """,,,,,,._~~ __
...
~,
\".~
. -;.,.-~
··fJ· -
I~
!. '€ ;,1_ ,or
~
§HI~ --
un
"0 _I" --
i
~
d
t
1 • ;
! , • t
:;
~
~
~ • ~
! .. ~
!
t
£
u
" •
,!
~
!
~
f , , • ~
i
!
~
!
~
~
=
,
!
~
~
• I •
f
I
,
'.,
j
~
i
C(JIIIKcslion Man.menr AKC'IIC}' of Sang Clat"l;O Coul1ty
1995 STJt/CMAQ and 1994 R11P 1'1'0,«1 AppliartlolVl
Any ... dd, ..... ,..,.. .... ,tch I. Ind...t.d in lnrod "llI(h «oh.", .. at thl. polnl. ....... ....... "' ..... .......
". ,..,','v.! "'",\~~' ,tf''''~~:''' 'f( r-'" ,j.. ,
8.III1tJPod; ('~CMI' .......... ,.I)..()lh.n-a-hol)'l P.P ..... "", T.T ..... ,(r .............
t.l£Al. Nc-... _.", "'Me. ~_,.~ " ...
AlltU1M_ ..... .t..-..",-'-" .. .,..",.....,.,.....,.
T .... ,,,of 0I .......... 1IIKb. ~
;!LOII._r TIlle-~lfQn IlHnfptJnn r_ t:W"Q ImP ~_ A.-P'mt .\
IUHIIA_rrw D}ll'6,rn IIY I'.OJ.a~Io_
ClmpbtD $I,~~ '1,21'0 .. so '''' (,;IIPCl1111O ,," $MIJI 'I,M so " ....
Glln".-U,906 11,7)4 '" '" 11.171
Jolr" ProINI fI,)7ti '''' .. 11111 '''' \.<>tGot'll '" ... .. '" on
Mllpll" .. , .... U.6'~ 14,~ 'lIen6 US,lI1I
toto.pn HI. "''''' ... '" '" '"'' M'.VI ..... u,,* '1,'ol"" '" '''' 1111 .
,.10 A"'" ,4.lOJ .,.~l '" '" ....
~.nJOM Ill,lill ,~.'hI2 "1,400 '" 114.S1S
~anI. ct.". )7,7Y1 ".m .. .. u.~~
s."'''l'. tUM 11~1 so till '117
5I1nI\1' ... d~ IIJ,IIJCI SlD.1!99 .. 14'1 11,\4'
Co.lolI<I""Y US,l'lOO ,16/iol(l "."'" 11,011' 1~.I60
Co TNnll. 'lM,~5(I '~".~70 "J,IIJO " 'I~,WO
-rn!Th __ "IIII'! $H,]'jll' 19,87R .. '1,.100 '11,1119
CII'nol" n~7,J5<I '40.1.644 115""", '" 'l6,~'H
C.IT""n )1'11 144,881 11~.t<I~ '" '" 1,,491r
~jT(: U,4~ '~.~1 '" .", so
61UNnroTAl. P6(',~,~ SI~,5'H nl!t,~1111 '1~,fIlIl UJ~,tI!i~
lIi1t T"'V ... IUDt'A .... ,., ~.,,6~, '91-"6
,!c\<lp\li ... II'RI'.UST .xu; '"Ie' ~n .1619) 11,''''i00i ,
l