Back to 06/21/01 Agenda

RECOMMENDATION

After considering presentations by RTPA staff and local agencies it is recommended that the Agency provide further procedural direction, if any, and suggested refinements to presentation documents.

SUMMARY

In the near future the RTPA will be asked to adopt an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that will guide transportation planning for the next 20 years in Shasta County. This workshop is intended to familiarize the Agency with the projects and the issues to better prepare them for deliberations leading up to eventual adoption.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

The Regional Transportation Plan is the key planning document prepared by metropolitan planning organizations such as the Shasta County RTPA. Generally, projects must be listed in the RTP to be considered eligible for state and federal funding sources. This is reasonable considering state and federal agencies concerns that their funds are being spent in the most efficient manner possible. The fact that projects have been developed and included in planning documents enhances the granting agencies' level of comfort that state and federal resources are being spent in the most efficient manner possible. In fact, guidelines provide that programming decisions must be consistent with planning decisions. Therefore, projects expected to be funded with STIP funding should be included in either "Fundable" category more fully described below.

Historically, the Shasta County RTP has been very general in nature and incorporated specific projects and programs from local agency planning documents. This approach served our needs well. It allowed local agencies to access state and federal funding sources and created as few hurdles as possible for local agencies to overcome.

In 1999, we were advised that Shasta County would be designated nonattainment for ozone. What this means is that the air quality in this county has fallen below federal standards. As a result additional project level documentation is required in the RTP to access state and federal sources. The old way of preparing the RTP would no longer meet our needs in this new world of "nonattainment". Specifically, the Agency must demonstrate that those transportation improvements that could be built over the next 20 years will lead to cleaner air quality than if we do not build these facilities. As a result it was necessary to include in our planning documents specific projects.

So, for the first time we asked all local agencies including Caltrans for their transportation needs for the next 25 years. This study emphasized street and road improvements and agencies were asked to submit projects based upon perceived needs with no fiscal constraints. The intent of this project was to identify needed transportation projects that could be built in the next 20 years. The local agencies and Caltrans responded by submitting 83 project nominations requesting approximately $450 million in STIP funding.

The task of the RTPA was to evaluate these projects and recommend those to be funded against an original funding target of $230 million. All projects have been evaluated and classified as either short-term (within ten years) or long-term (later than ten years) and they have been evaluated as to whether they are fundable or not fundable. The evaluation process included evaluating all projects with the Caltrans' benefit cost model and other factors as developed by the stakeholders and approved by the RTPA in October, 2000. A copy of these "rules of the game" is attached as Exhibit A.

The inputs to the benefit cost model were obtained from the Shasta County traffic demand model, which is a state of the art gravity demand model in use throughout the transportation planning industry. Although we believe that this evaluation process is a state of the art evaluation, there are inherent limitations in the benefit cost model as well as in the traffic demand model. For example, neither the benefit cost model nor the traffic model seemed to calculate many benefits associated with grade separations. Further, many of the evaluations incorporate traffic and land use projections twenty years into the future. This document and this exercise is not intended to be a static process. This listing of projects and needs will be re-evaluated at three year intervals to account for actual changes and developments. Nonetheless, all projects were evaluated consistently with the same models and techniques.

PROCESS

At the beginning of this RTP update process, a working group was formed. This group met a number of times through 2000. Starting on February 27, there has been a focused effort involving all stakeholders. Since that date seven meetings have been held with all the local agencies and Caltrans in attendance. All meetings were noticed and were open to the public. Despite our best attempts we did not successfully engage the public. Nonetheless, we believe that we have developed a schedule of very good projects that will provide many benefits to the traveling public for many years to come.

The projects were all evaluated by RTPA staff and then discussed with the group. In many cases projects were reevaluated due to changes in scope up to several times until eventual consensus of the group was reached.

RESULTS OF PROCESS

All of the projects have been grouped into one of three categories. The most desirable and highest ranking projects are presented in Exhibit B as Short-range Fundable. This listing represents 18 projects costing $204M. This funding target was derived by assuming fifteen years of entitlements would flow in the first ten years of the plan. Projects typically take several years to design and construct with the largest expenditures during the construction phase in the later years of project implementation. Also, given the fact that several very expensive projects include 50% match from state coffers and because these matching funds may not be secured, it was felt by the Working Group that expanding this list was appropriate. Absent a state match these projects may not have scored as well. This strategy increases the funding target for this category by $60M, allows for more projects in this category and increases the population of projects available to be nominated for programming.

The next category is long-range fundable. This listing as Exhibit C represents the highest ranking projects to be delivered more than ten years out. This listing represents 31 projects totaling $102M. This funding target represents ten years of anticipated entitlements. This target is a little higher than the funding target due to the clustering of projects in the 44-45 point range. Given the focus of this exercise on planning, it was felt that adding these projects to the fundable listing would not create any issues. This action increases the funding target by about $10M.

The final listing as Exhibit D represents those projects needed but not fundable due to lack of resources projected. This listing consists of 17 Projects totaling $122M.

In July 2000, the Agency directed Staff to recommend $50M in projects to be programmed as a product of this planning process. It is the expectation of Staff that the projects to be nominated by local agencies for programming will originate from the projects included in the the Short-range Fundable listing. It is expected that this selection process will start in August 2001, with a recommendation to the Agency in December 2001. The first product of this process will be developing a Project Selection Methodology. This will be presented to the Agency for adoption at the October meeting.

FORMAT OF TODAY'S WORKSHOP

The recommended format for today's workshop is as follows:

1. A brief presentation by the Executive Officer on the purpose of and the process employed to develop the listing of projects.

2. Presentations by local agencies and Caltrans ("local agencies") on all projects included in short-range and long-range "fundable" categories. A fact sheet and map have been provided each Agency member. Presentations and fact sheets are sorted by responsible agency. Time for questions from the Agency and the public will be provided at the end of each specific project presentation. Generally, questions about process and evaluation should be directed to RTPA staff. Specific project questions should be directed to local agency staff.

Daniel J. Kovacich, Executive Officer

/jmg

Attachments:  :Available at RTPA Office

1) Exhibit A - STIP Project Prioritization adopted October 24, 2000.

2) Exhibit B - Short-Range Fundable Projects

3) Exhibit C - Long-Range Fundable Projects

4) Exhibit D - Unfundable Projects