Public-Private Partnership Consulting...

Public-Private Partnership

Consulting Services

Project Screening Technical Memorandum

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Prepared by

INFRACONSULT LLC Prime Contractor

Subconsultants:

Sharon Greene + Associates

KPMG LLP Halcrow, Inc. Nossaman LLP

Englander & Associates

October 9, 2009

Revision History: Revision Date Description Submitted by

0 8/17/09 Original Draft submitted to Metro InfraConsult Team

1 9/30/09 Revised Draft submitted to Metro InfraConsult Team

2 10/09/09 Revised Draft submitted to Metro InfraConsult Team

Services as described in this technical memorandum are pursuant to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Contract No. PS4370-2316 with InfraConsult LLC, as Prime

Contractor, dated May 4, 2009. Subcontractors’ services are pursuant to individual Subcontract Agreements with InfraConsult LLC, dated May 25, 2009.

Public Private Partnership i Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Public-Private Partnerships Defined .................................................................................... 21.2.1. Design-Build and Variations ................................................................................... 21.2.2. Design-Build (or DBOM, DBO, DBM) with Private Financial

Participation (PFP) ................................................................................................... 31.2.3. Project Development Agreements (PDA) .......................................................... 4

1.3. Summary of Approach and Recommendations ............................................................. 5

2.0 List of Projects and Data Requests ............................................................................................... 7

2.1. Project Identification: Measure R and Draft Long Range Transportation Plan .......... 7

2.2. Project Data Sheets ............................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Screening Process ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. Initial Screening: Project Readiness .................................................................................. 10

3.2. Secondary Screening: Preliminary Risk Assessment ....................................................... 123.2.1. Risk Categories ....................................................................................................... 123.2.2. Risk Assessment Methodology ............................................................................ 133.2.3. Summary of Risk Assessments .............................................................................. 15

3.3. Project Delivery Mechanism Categorization .................................................................. 17

4.0 Screening Results ......................................................................................................................... 18

4.1. Tier A: Early Action Program ............................................................................................... 18

4.2. Tier B Projects: Intermediate Action Program ................................................................. 19

4.3. Other Tier A and Tier B Projects .......................................................................................... 21

4.4. Tier C Projects: Future Program .......................................................................................... 21

4.5. Other Potential for Private Sector Participation ............................................................. 224.5.1. Transit Projects ........................................................................................................ 224.5.2. Highway Projects ................................................................................................... 22

4.6. Project Delivery Domain Matrix ......................................................................................... 23

5.0 Summary and Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 26

Public Private Partnership ii Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

List of Figures Figure 1: Two Step Screening Process ........................................................................................................... 9

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Project Categorization ............................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Summary of Projects in Measure R and Draft LRTP ...................................................................... 7

Table 3: Candidate Projects by Project Readiness and Mode .............................................................. 10

Table 4: Tier A Projects .................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 5: Tier B Projects .................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 6: Summary of Potential PPP Projects Preliminary Qualitative Risk Assessment ........................ 13

Table 7: Preliminary Qualitative Risk Assessment of Tier A Transit and Highway Projects .................. 15

Table 8: Preliminary Risk Assessment of Tier B Transit and Highway Projects ........................................ 16

Table 9: Tier A Projects with Potential for Private Financial Participation (PFP) ................................... 18

Table 10: Tier A Projects for Potential Design-Build (DB) ........................................................................... 19

Table 11: Tier B Projects for Potential for Private Financial Participation (PFP) .................................... 19

Table 12: Tier B Projects with Potential for Design-Build (DB) ................................................................... 20

Table 13: Other Tier A and Tier B Projects .................................................................................................. 21

Table 14: Complete or Under Construction Highway Projects that have the Potential to be Future Highway PPP Projects .......................................................................................................... 23

Table 15: Preliminary Transit Project Delivery Domain Matrix .................................................................. 24

Table 16: Highway Project Delivery Domain Matrix .................................................................................. 25

Table 17: Potential PFP Projects Identified in Screening Analysis ........................................................... 26

Table 18: Initial Projects Recommended for Design-Build Delivery ....................................................... 27 Appendices Appendix A – List of Draft 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan and Measure R Projects

Appendix B – Project Data Request Sheet Example

Appendix C – Initial Screening Results

Appendix D – Tiers A and B Project Descriptions

Appendix E – Tier C Project List

Appendix F – Tier D Project List

Appendix G – Risk Assessment Matrix

Public Private Partnership 1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

In N ovember 2 007, t he L os Angeles C ounty M etropolitan T ransportation Authority (Metro) initiated development of a F ramework and Work Plan for c onsideration o f P ublic Private Partnerships (PPP) as a potential alternative project delivery model for accelerating transit and highway projects identified in future plans. The Board adopted the PPP Framework (June 2008) and Work Plan (September 2008) and requested Metro staff to further explore and evaluate the potential u se of P PP. An o bjective o f t he W ork P lan w as t o id entify pr ojects f or B oard consideration a nd po tential im plementation, a s w ell a s d evelop M etro’s P PP o rganizational structure and business plan. To assist in moving forward with technical and financial analyses of future potential PPP projects, Metro initiated the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) Consulting Services contract with the InfraConsult Team to assist in the development of a PPP program and to accelerate delivery of high priority transit and highway transportation projects in Los Angeles County.

The o bjectives of M etro’s P PP pr ogram a re d erived f rom t he a gency’s mission t o address the mobility needs of 12 million Los Angeles County residents and to leverage the large investment in transportation infrastructure to generate jobs, especially in light of the current economic climate. Successful o utcomes o f the P PP pr ogram m ust be d efined a nd m easured by h ow w ell s uch partnerships can assist Metro in the delivery of essential projects and programs, including new transit services to enhance mobility and reduce congestion; and to facilitate goods movement by truck and rail to reduce congestion, improve air quality and environmental conditions, and expand the regional economy. Of particular interest is the expedited delivery of the program of projects called for in Measure R, approved by over two-thirds of LA County voters in November 2008. Because t hese p rojects have an identified revenue s tream, consideration o f M easure R projects was given first priority.

The key to initiating a PPP program such as that contemplated by Metro is to efficiently evaluate and screen a large number of projects, and to quickly identify those that have the best opportunity t o s uccessfully a ttract p rivate s ector i nterest a nd m eet M etro’s objectives. This technical memorandum describes the methodology and results of the two-step screening process used to identify a subset of projects from those included in the Measure R Expenditure Plan and Metro’s draft Long Range Transportation Plan (Draft LRTP) that have the potential to be candidate p rojects f or P PP. Th is s ubset o f projects wi ll b e c arried f orward f or m ore in-depth evaluation, in cluding d etailed r isk a ssessment, value f or m oney a nalysis, a nd business c ase development. F rom t he m ore detailed a nalysis, t he pr ojects(s) c onsidered t o h ave t he be st potential for private sector participation will be recommended to be advanced for development as PPP projects.

The following goals have been established to guide the process for identifying the best projects to move forward as potential PPPs:

• To pr ovide a t ransparent, r ational, and unbiased pr ocess f or public private pa rtnership project recommendations;

• To provide guidance regarding the best methods for leveraging public capital resources through private sector participation in project delivery and operation; and


• To pr ovide a ssistance t o M etro in e xpediting im plementation o f pr ojects in Measure R and the Draft LRTP necessary for improving mobility in Los Angeles County.

1.2. Public-Private Partnerships Defined

Public-Private P artnerships (PPPs) a re c ontractual a rrangements be tween a g overnmental agency o r a uthority a nd a pr ivate e ntity f or t he pr imary pu rpose o f d eveloping, operating and/or maintaining public infrastructure normally in the domain of the governmental sector.

A variety of PPP models have been utilized throughout the world, having the common objective of facilitating private sector participation in the provision of public works and thereby transferring to or sharing with the private partners some or all of the traditional public responsibility and risks for f inancing, d esigning, c onstructing, m aintaining a nd/or o perating v arious in frastructure projects.

For purposes of this analysis, the spectrum of PPP models is defined below:

• Design-Build (DB) and variations including Design-Build-Maintain (DBM), Design-Build-Operate (DBO) and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM);

• Design-Build (and variations) with

• Pre-Development Agreements (PDA)

Private Financial Participation (PFP); and

Non-PPP arrangements are commonly referred to as the ‘traditional’ method of project delivery. Design-Bid-Build (DBB) is a common traditional project delivery, where one contract is bid for the design ph ase a nd then a s econd c ontract is bid f or t he c onstruction ph ase o f t he pr oject. Typically D BB pr oject d elivery in volves a d esign phase m anaged e ntirely by t he public sector prior to soliciting bids for construction by private contractors.

1.2.1. Design-Build and Variations

The DB project delivery arrangement is one in w hich a s ingle pr ivate entity (a c ontractor w ith subconsultants, or team of contractors and engineers, often with subconsultants) is entrusted by a pu blic infrastructure o wner with bo th d esign and c onstruction o f a p roject. DB is a pu blic-private pa rtnership in w hich t he r isks a llocated by t he public a gency owner t o t he pr ivate contractor typically involve only those commonly associated with facility design and construction, in cluding t he r esponsibility o f “ interface m anagement” b etween f acility d esign and c onstruction. The d esign-build a pproach o ften s aves t ime – and mo ney – in d eveloping infrastructure, o wing t o parallel and ce ntrally co ordinated undertaking o f v arious e lements of design and construction.

For purposes of this program, other forms of DB involving private sector participation in operation and/or maintenance (DBOM/DBO/DBM) are considered as variants of design-build that may be applicable t o pa rticular t ypes o f M etro pr ojects a ffording opportunities for p roject op erations and/or maintenance to be conducted by the private sector.

The D BOM m odel f or project d elivery is id entical t o DB, w ith t he added d imension o f transference o f f acility o peration a nd m aintenance r esponsibility ( and in herent r isk) f rom the


public infrastructure owner to the private entity responsible for designing and building the facility. Assignment of responsibility for operations and/or maintenance (DBOM, DBO, or DBM) to the pr ivate entity can potentially reduce the life-cycle cost of the project. This is because the private entity is responsible for operations and maintenance, with long-term incentives to reduce O&M costs considered in the initial project design and construction.

1.2.2. Design-Build (or DBOM, DBO, DBM) with Private Financial Participation (PFP)

Under the PFP approach, private sector financing is used to develop the project. This generally includes an at-risk equity investment by the private sector partner that requires a suitable return on in vestment. In a ddition t o t he e quity c omponent, a ny b orrowing a lso r equires structured debt repayment that includes borrowing costs. Furthermore, by providing project financing, the private e ntity g enerally a ssumes responsibility f or design a nd c onstruction (or design, construction, operations, and/or maintenance). By using PFP delivery models to deliver projects, the pu blic s ector g ains access t o pr ivate s ector f inance t hat c an s upplement u p-front pu blic funds o r pr ovide m ore f lexible f unding m ethods t o d eliver pr ojects. For m ost long-term P FP projects, t he pr ivate e ntity m ay be r epaid f rom pr oject-generated r evenues (such a s t olls o r fares) and/or public funding sources that are pledged for such repayment. It is also possible for private sector financial participation to enable a public agency to deliver additional projects, by allowing previously dedicated funds to be used on another project. The private sector may also present the public sector with upfront payments and/or ongoing lease payments that may be used to deliver additional highway or transit infrastructure projects for the region. Below are some common PPP delivery models that incorporate Private Financial Participation.

Design-Build-Finance (DBF)

For pu rposes o f t his m emorandum, D esign B uild pr ojects t hat c ould b enefit f rom short-term construction financing provided by the private sector (often referred to as DBF) are also considered as a possible PFP candidate project. DBF is a delivery method in which the private entity is generally repaid from public funding or financing, with the private entity typically paid based on milestone events or deferred payment schedules. Typically, to consider a project for DBF p roject delivery, t he benefits from accelerated p roject delivery w ill need t o outweigh the costs of private sector financing.

Availability Payments

An Availability Payment model is a form of PFP that incorporates design, construction, operations and maintenance responsibilities for a given project. Generally, availability payments are made when t he project is “ available” f or u se by t he pu blic a nd are paid ba sed o n pe rformance specifications. W ith a vailability pa yments, t he payments m ade by a public a gency s ponsor (such as Metro or Caltrans, for example) can be based on particular defined project milestones or pr oject pe rformance standards. P roject m ilestones c an be t ied t o t he c ompletion o f t he facility by a certain deadline, while performance standards can be measured on various operational metrics.


Availability pa yments a re u sed extensively in C anada, E urope, a nd Australia, and are n ow gaining s trong in terest i n t he U .S. Availability payments c ould be u sed in c onjunction with private f inancial pa rticipation in a r ange o f M etro’s P PP pr ojects, in cluding t oll o r H OT la ne projects w ith u ser f ee-generated r evenue s treams, as w ell a s f or n on-tolled h ighway o r H OV projects or rail and bus rapid transit projects. For consideration of tolling as a repayment source for a vailability pa yments, it should be n oted t hat im plementation o f t oll lanes o r e xpansion o f Metro’s e xisting H OT la ne d emonstration pr ogram w ould r equire po licy a ction by the M etro Board and approval at the State level.

A shadow toll delivery model is a variation of the availability payment model that utilizes design, construction, operations a nd m aintenance r esponsibilities f or a g iven pr oject, but u ses a payment mechanism that is based on user t ransactions that are monitored and counted. The documentation and parameters of the payment mechanism will have both price (e.g. separate car and truck prices) and volume (the number of vehicles using the road) elements. The private entity is paid as if it had levied tolls on the vehicles in the specified and agreed manner. It should be noted that such a method of paying the private entity can be adopted even if tolls are not actually being collected in practice, thus transferring traffic or demand risk to the private sector. A variant of this model occurs where toll revenues are collected by the public agency sponsor, but passed directly on to the private entity, known as pass-through tolling.

Toll Concession

Under the toll concession framework, a private entity is given the maximum possible transfer of risks and responsibilities including the exclusive r ights to collect revenue (e.g. tolls or u ser fees) and w ill o perate a nd m aintain the a sset o ver a lo ng pe riod o f t ime in a ccordance w ith t he specified pe rformance r equirements. As w ith the o ther pr imary PFP pr ocurement m odels, t he design, construction, operations, and maintenance all have to meet the standards established by t he pu blic a gency o wner a nd s pecified in a “concession a greement.” Concession agreements are typically u tilized for p rojects t hat g enerate a significant revenue s tream as compared to the costs of capital amortization, operations, and maintenance. For consideration of tolling under a concession framework, it should be noted that implementation of toll lanes or expansion of Metro’s existing HOT lane demonstration program would require policy action by the Metro Board and approval at the State level.

1.2.3. Project Development Agreements (PDA)

A PDA is a PPP project delivery method that typically involves selecting a private sector partner to pa rticipate in aspects o f the pr oject f easibility ph ase. T his p hase can include pr e-development, project planning and environmental study activities. After a project is determined feasible, the pre-selected private entity has the right to first negotiation with the public sector to develop and implement the project. During the implementation phase, PDAs can take the form of other PPP delivery models (e.g. DB, DBF, Availability Payments or Toll Concessions). Typically, a PDA may be considered suitable for a project in its early planning stages. The public sector may also consider a PDA in order to achieve private sector innovation in defining and planning the project, with possible acceleration of project delivery. For consideration of tolling under a PDA


framework, it should be noted that implementation of toll lanes or expansion of Metro’s existing HOT lane demonstration program would require policy action by the Metro Board and approval at the State level.

1.3. Summary of Approach and Recommendations

This technical memorandum describes the screening process used to identify a subset of candidate projects from the Measure R Expenditure Plan and Draft LRTP that are best prepared for e arly c onsideration as pu blic pr ivate pa rtnerships - in t he f orm of either design-build or design-build with private financial participation - and that warrant detailed technical and financial analysis in subsequent work.

Following this introduction, Section 2.0 provides additional details about the projects screened. In total, 81 projects (32 transit and 49 highway projects) were evaluated based on knowledge of the projects, publicly available reports, and in formation provided by Metro, including detailed data sheets prepared by the InfraConsult team and completed by Metro project managers.

Section 3 .0 describes the t wo-step s creening m ethodology. The i nitial s creening s tep categorized projects into four tiers based on their readiness for implementation. Specifically, this initial s tep a nalyzed t he a nticipated s chedule f or e ach pr oject’s pre-design w ork, in cluding feasibility s tudies, c onceptual d esign, in itial c ost e stimates a nd e nvironmental c learance. Projects were categorized into one of four readiness tiers:

• Tier A - Early Action: Expected approval of environmental studies by 2011 (11 projects);

• Tier B - Intermediate Action: Expected approval of environmental studies after 2011, but before 2014 (18 projects);

• Tier C - Longer Term Action: Expected approval of environmental studies after 2014 or no current planning work underway (34 projects); and

• Tier D - Other Action: Projects that are ready to let for construction within a year, will be under construction before this study is complete, or are already complete (18 projects).

As d escribed in S ection 3 .2, pr ojects in T iers A a nd B w ere c arried f orward f or t he s econdary screening. Two actions were taken during this step.

First, a preliminary qualitative risk assessment was conducted to identify the relative overall r isk (low, medium, o r h igh) associated w ith e ach o f t he pr ojects. T his qualitative assessment was based o n t he best data a vailable a t t his t ime a nd this in formation is s ubject t o a dditional refinement. The preliminary risk assessment considered factors that could affect project delivery, including project characteristics related to:

• Design and Construction

• Operations and Maintenance

• Acceptability

• System Interface


• Legal

• Project Schedule

Second, each project was categorized as a potential candidate for one of two approaches to project delivery:

• Design-build project delivery with potential for private sector financial participation (PFP); or

• Design-build project delivery with full public funding (DB).

While there are several projects in the early stages of project development that could potentially be advanced through private participation in Project Development Agreements, this approach was not the focus of this analysis. Such projects could be considered by Metro at such time in the f uture w here timing, g uaranteed f unding, a nd/or r evenue g eneration po tential f rom u ser fees warranted further evaluation.

The project d elivery categorization w as b ased on available d ata r egarding multiple f actors including: project scale, scope, characteristics and development. The balance of projects was considered more appropriate for conventional design-bid-build implementation.

The s creening analysis r esulted in id entification of 14 projects w ith po tential f or PFP i n project delivery as follows:

• Tier A – Early Action Candidates for PFP: 7 projects

• Tier B – Intermediate Action Candidates for PFP: 7 projects

Section 4.0 introduces the final screening results, project categorization rationale and the concept of a “delivery domain matrix” for the candidate projects. In this regard, all projects in Tiers A and B were identified as having one of three possible project delivery schemes:

• Projects that have potential for Private Financial Participation (PFP) project delivery;

• Projects that have potential for Design-Build (DB) project delivery; and

• Projects that ar e not c onsidered c ompatible w ith a PPP d elivery model and ar e considered compatible with Design-Bid-Build (DBB) project delivery methods.

Table 1 below summarizes the projects that were categorized as Tier A and Tier B, by mode, and by DB or PFP delivery method. The projects categorized as DBB or “other” delivery methods are not included in this table.


Table 1: Summary of Project Categorization

Projects in Tiers C and D were not included in the above project categorization process for the following reasons:

• Tier C projects either have insufficient definition or are expected to obtain environmental clearance beyond the year 2014; and

• Tier D projects are ready for construction, under construction, or complete, but may be able to bring additional toll or user fee revenue streams in the future (e.g., conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes).

Tiers C and D projects could be evaluated by Metro as future potential PPP projects as individual project circumstances warrant.

Section 5 .0 summarizes t he recommendations a nd next s teps in the advanced screening and project d elivery process. T ier A a nd T ier B potential PFP p rojects a re r ecommended t o b e carried forward for further analysis during the Task 3 Strategic Assessment to determine the most suitable form of specific project delivery and procurement method for each.

2.0 LIST OF PROJECTS AND DATA REQUESTS

2.1. Project Identification: Measure R and Draft Long Range Transportation Plan

This section summarizes the process used to identify projects to be evaluated as potential PPP candidate p rojects. Projects w ere initially identified b ased o n a r eview o f t he M easure R Expenditure Plan and the Draft LRTP. After a detailed review of project information with Metro staff, 81 projects were identified from one or both of the documents:

Table 2: Summary of Projects in Measure R and Draft LRTP

Mode Measure R

Only Draft LRTP

Only Both Measure R and Draft LRTP

Total

Transit Projects 3 14 15 32

Highway Projects 4 31 14 49

Total Projects 7 45 29 81


The detailed listings of transit and highway projects evaluated are provided in Appendix A.

2.2. Project Data Sheets

To provide a consistent level of information about the projects in the Measure R Expenditure Plan and D raft LRTP, the p roject t eam, with a ssistance o f Metro s taff, developed a p roject d ata request sheet to supplement published materials. The purpose of the data request sheet was to obtain the m ost c rucial i nformation n eeded t o c omplete t he two-step screening pr ocess. The data requests sheets were distributed to Metro’s designated project manager for each project in order to facilitate the receipt of the best information currently available.

As s hown in a n e xample o f t he d ata r equest s heet in Appendix B, t he c ritical in formation requested included:

• Current project description

• Project development schedule

• Cost details

• Funding

• Potential engineering and construction issues

• Operations and maintenance assumptions

• Environmental, State and Federal approval process status

• System interface

There are some projects in the early stages of project definition for which information is not yet developed. The s tatus o f pr oject in formation w as t aken in to a ccount in o ur r eadiness assessments.

3.0 SCREENING PROCESS

Using t he lis t o f pr ojects id entified f rom the Measure R Expenditure P lan and Draft LRTP, information provided in the project data sheets, publicly available information, and the project team’s local knowledge, the two-step screening process was conducted to identify the subset of projects that were determined to be the best candidates for PPP implementation and more detailed evaluation in Task 3 . The two-step process is summarized in F igure 1 and described in greater detail below.


Figure 1: Two Step Screening Process


3.1. Initial Screening: Project Readiness

The purpose of the in itial screening process was to eliminate from consideration those projects that did not meet the project readiness criteria. This criterion provides an indication as t o whether or not a project’s environmental study and/or Record of Decision (ROD) is expected to be c ompleted within t he n ext f ive y ears. Using t he project r eadiness criteria, p rojects w ere categorized into one of four categories:

• Tier A - Early Action: Expected approval of environmental studies by 2011;

• Tier B - Intermediate Action: Expected approval of environmental studies after 2011, but before 2014;

• Tier C - Longer Term Action: Expected approval of environmental studies after 2014; and

• Tier D - Other Action: Projects that are ready to let for construction within a year, will be under construction before this study is complete, or are already complete.

As summarized b elow a nd provided in detail in Appendix C, the p roject r eadiness c riteria resulted in the projects falling into the following tiers:

Table 3: Candidate Projects by Project Readiness and Mode

Tier Transit Projects Highway Projects Number of

Projects

Tier A: Early Action 8 3 11

Tier B: Intermediate Action 3 15 18

Tier C: Longer Term Action 17 17 34

Tier D: Other Action 4 14 18

TOTAL 32 49 81

Projects identified in Tiers A and B (listed in Tables 4 and 5, below) were carried forward to the Secondary Screening Process. Projects included in Tiers C and D were not advanced for further evaluation at this time.

Appendix D c ontains d escriptions o f t he T ier A a nd B pr ojects in corporating in formation available from project data sheets and other sources to date. Appendices E and F list the Tier C and D projects, respectively.


Table 4: Tier A Projects

Project Name

Transit

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor

Eastside Light Rail Access (Gold Line) Bike and Pedestrian Access Improvements

Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor (Including Metro Green Line from Redondo Station to South Bay

Corridor)

Metro and Municipal Regional Clean Fuel Bus Capital Facilities and Rolling Stock

Metro Gold Line Foothill Light Rail Transit Extension: Azusa to Montclair (Phase B)

Metro Red Line Westside Subway Extension: Wilshire/Western Station to Westwood via Wilshire

Boulevard Alignment

Regional Connector: Light Rail from Los Angeles Union Station to 7th Street/Metro Center

Union Bus Division

Highway

Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations Phase II

Countywide Soundwall Construction

I-710 South (Including I-710 South Early Action Projects)

Table 5: Tier B Projects

Project Name

Transit

Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit Extension: Atlantic/Pomona Station eastward (At Grade or

Elevated)

San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway (Phase 2)

Highway

BNSF Grade Separations in Gateway Cities

High Desert Corridor: East-West: SR-14 to San Bernardino County Line and North-South: SR- 14 to SR-138

Improvements

Highway Operational Improvements in Arroyo Verdugo Subregion

Highway Operational Improvements in Las Virgenes/Malibu Subregion

I-5 Carpool and Mixed Flow Lanes: I-605 to I-710

I-5: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)


Project Name

I-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges

South Bay Ramp and Interchange Improvements: I-405, I-110, I-105, and SR-91

SR-138: I-5 to SR-14

SR-138 Capacity Enhancements: Pearblossom Highway to San Bernardino County Line

SR-14 Carpool Lanes: Avenue P-8 to Avenue L

SR-14: I-5 to Kern County Line (HOV and Mixed Flow Improvements)

SR-710 North Extension

US-101 Corridor between Route 27 (Topanga Canyon) and Route 2 in Downtown Los Angeles

US-101 Corridor between Route 27 and the Ventura County Line

3.2. Secondary Screening: Preliminary Risk Assessment

A preliminary risk assessment on all projects in Tiers A and B was completed. The risk assessment provided a n in itial understanding o f the t echnical, f inancial a nd le gal c hallenges for each project.

The understanding of possible project delivery risks can also be used to identify opportunities for the private sector to better manage certain risks through a PPP type arrangement.

A “high-level” preliminary r isk a ssessment w as conducted ba sed o n t he be st information available at this time, combined with the expertise, experience and knowledge of the team. In subsequent w ork, more detailed r isk analysis w ill be c onducted f or t he p rojects a dvanced f or consideration.

3.2.1. Risk Categories

The preliminary risk assessment considered the following categories of project delivery risk:

• Design and Construction: addresses significant t echnical d esign and c onstruction opportunities a nd c onstraints that m ay a ffect a P PP pr oject d elivery method, in cluding definition o f t he s cope o f w ork, right-of-way (ROW), utilities, g eotechnical, h azardous materials and construction difficulty, as well as need for design innovation.

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M): addresses O &M i ssues s uch a s e xisting s ervice contracts, e mergency o perations, t oll a nd f are box o perations a nd c ollection s ystems (if applicable), union is sues, asset management, life cycle costs, O&M innovation, regulations and enforcement.

• Acceptability: addresses the public and political perspectives on the project itself as well as the project delivery method, whether a traditional financing or PPP, as well as the reaction to potential tolls and user fees. Note that reaction to real tolls or user fees could be mitigated by using shadow tolls or availability payments. Corridor need scores from the Draft LRTP and


noted community concerns w ere c onsidered a s le ading i ndicators regarding project acceptability and benefits to the community.

• System Interface: addresses the importance of a fully integrated solution (HOV network, rail operations, technologies, etc.) The connectivity of the planned project and how the project will achieve the stated mobility objectives should be considered. Additionally, the interfaces with and integration in to existing and operational t ransit and h ighway systems need to be addressed, specifically existing signaling, power, and communication systems.

• Legal: addresses key legislative or local ordinance considerations including:

- Legal limitations for the anticipated project or PPP agreements;

- New o r m odified le gislation o r lo cal o rdinances r equired t o s upport d esired outcomes; and

- Possible legal challenges to the project and/or selected delivery method.

• Project Schedule: addresses project readiness assessments and the potential for future delays in the project schedule. Key components of project readiness include:

- Current s tatus o f a lternatives a nalyses a nd e nvironmental a pprovals ( NEPA, CEQA approvals, etc.);

- Consideration for FTA New Starts requirements, if applicable;

- Delays expected due to expected legal challenges, design exceptions (e.g. private sector innovation or known exceptions) or change in project delivery (e.g. tolls);

- Possible project acceleration (e.g. environmental, funding, regional priority); and

- Allowance for procurement and negotiation timelines.

3.2.2. Risk Assessment Methodology

Each project was assessed against each risk category listed above using a three point scale of high, m edium a nd lo w. At t his pr eliminary s tage o f a nalysis, a m ore c omprehensive r ating scheme w as ju dged t o b e p remature. The assessment w as g uided by t he g eneral r isk characteristics s ummarized i n Table 6 below and a pplied using the expertise, ex perience a nd knowledge of the team.

Table 6: Summary of Potential PPP Projects Preliminary Qualitative Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment Typical Project Characteristics

Low • Risks are perceived to be manageable at relatively low cost • Simple design and construction are required • Environmental clearances are expected with a low probability of

legal challenges • Minor mitigation measures required • Limited hazardous material findings


Risk Assessment Typical Project Characteristics

• ROW acquisitions and utility/rail relocation are expected to be manageable

• Little or no multi-agency coordination required

Medium

• Anticipated risks may be complicated to manage and/or may delay project completion or present an unknown cost impact

• Moderately difficult design and construction requirements • Environmental clearances are expected to be obtained, but there

is a medium probability of legal challenges • Moderate mitigation measures are required • Moderate hazardous material findings • ROW acquisitions and utility/rail relocation may be difficult to

negotiate • Moderate multi-agency coordination required

High • Potential for risk that is highly unusual or unique to the specific project

• A risk that may be difficult to manage and/or could threaten Project completion and could significantly increase its cost

• Challenging design and construction requirements (e.g. tunnel construction or construction in densely populated and developed area)

• Environmental clearances are expected to be obtained, but pose a high potential for legal challenges

• Significant mitigation measures are required • High level of hazardous material findings • ROW acquisitions and utility/rail relocation are expected to be

difficult to manage • Extensive multi-agency coordination required

As m entioned e arlier in t his s ection, t he pr eliminary risk a ssessment w as c arried o ut t o b etter understand t he t echnical, f inancial a nd le gal c hallenges associated w ith e ach project irrespective of delivery mechanism. Therefore, a high risk designation for a given project or risk category does not mean that the project is not feasible or nor does it dictate the procurement method.

Although general statements can be made about risk allocation in PPP contracts, each project must be carefully evaluated in its own individual context. One key principle of PPP contracts is that different types of risks are allocated to the party that is best able to manage those risks. The individual project characteristics and risk allocation associated with candidate PPP mechanisms will be assessed as part of Task 3.

Appendix G contains preliminary risk assessment results for all Tiers A and B projects against each category.


3.2.3. Summary of Risk Assessments

Tables 7 and 8 below contain an overall risk assessment result and a summary rationale for each project.

Table 7: Preliminary Qualitative Risk Assessment of Tier A Transit and Highway Projects

Project Risk Assessment Rationale

Transit

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor Medium

Main technical risk is system interface with Metro Green Line, if LRT. (Metro Green Line will require system upgrades). Schedule risk relates to restrictions, diversions and ROW. Multi-agency and stakeholder coordination required including BNSF. Acceptability depends on chosen mode.


Unknown The project is not yet defined to the point where potential risks can be identified.

Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor (Including Metro Green Line from Redondo Station to South Bay Corridor)

Medium

Varies with different alternatives under analysis. Potentially significant interface requirements with Metro Green and Crenshaw Lines and LAX people mover. Multiple stakeholders, BNSF rail agreements.

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension: Azusa to Montclair (Phase B)

Low Main risk identified relates to need for multi-agency coordination and stakeholder agreements.

Metro Red Line Westside Subway Extension: Wilshire/Western Station to Westwood via Wilshire Boulevard Alignment

Medium

Risk potential identified in design & construction because of lengthy tunnel construction and major utility relocations. Potential methane gas area. System interface required with Metro Red and/or Purple line. Multi-agency coordination required.


Medium

Risk in system interface with Metro Gold, Blue and Expo Lines. Other risks involved in construction in highly developed area, tunnel construction and significant utility relocation requirements.


Low No design component. Purchase of rolling stock only. No construction/ implementation risks identified.

Union Bus Division Low Discussions with labor union needed if DBOM.

Highway


Unknown Insufficient information available in order to assess potential risks.




Medium

Interchanges and elevated structures, ROW needed, extensive traffic management required, relocation of major utilities required, UP rail agreements required, potential environmental opposition, multiple stakeholders involved.

Countywide Soundwall Construction Low Projects in various stages of development.

Table 8: Preliminary Risk Assessment of Tier B Transit and Highway Projects


Transit

Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit Extension: Atlantic/Pomona Station eastward (At Grade or Elevated)

Low Multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders involved.




Low Main risk identified relates to multiple stakeholders (businesses) along corridor.

Highway

BNSF Grade Separations in Gateway Cities Unknown

The various project components are not yet defined to the point where potential risks can be identified.


Medium

ROW required for E-W section, uncertain design risk due to early stage of development. Potential environmental opposition. Multiple stakeholders involved.


Unknown The various project components are not yet defined to the point where potential risks can be identified.

Highway Operational Improvements in Las Virgenes/ Malibu Subregion

Unknown The various project components not yet defined to the point where potential risks can be identified.


Medium

Interchanges and elevated structures, ROW needed, extensive traffic management required, potential environmental opposition, multiple stakeholders involved.


Low No major risks noted.

I-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges Unknown The project is not yet defined to the point where potential risks can be identified.





SR-138: I-5 to SR-14 Unknown No current planning work underway; unable to assess potential risks.


Low No current planning work underway.





SR-710 North Extension High

High risk related to community opposition and to stakeholders involved – legal challenges. Tunnel construction, potential geotechnical and seismic risks, Superfund sites identified.


Medium Local opposition. ROW is highly constrained, extensive stakeholder involvement required.


Medium Some ROW is constrained, stakeholder involvement required.

3.3. Project Delivery Mechanism Categorization

All Tiers A and B projects were further classified as candidate projects for project delivery as PFP, DB or DBB. Project d elivery categorization w as ba sed o n available d ata r egarding multiple factors including: project scale, scope, characteristics and development. Below are some general characteristics for the project delivery mechanisms under consideration:

• Private Financial Participation in Project Delivery (PFP): As described i n S ection 1 .2, PFP project delivery t ypically includes the sharing of various responsibilities and r isks associated with a project including the design, construction, finance, operations and maintenance. PFP delivery models utilize pr ivate sector financing necessary to develop the project, generally including an at-risk equity investment which will require a suitable return on investment.

Projects were recommended as possible candidates for PFP project delivery owing generally to the potential value for money the public sector could receive in relation to the transfer of risks a nd r esponsibilities allocable to t he pr ivate sector. O ther c onsiderations in cluded the potential for possible project delivery acceleration and the potential of the project to garner a user-generated revenue stream.

• Design-Build (DB): DB pr oject d elivery is g enerally o f pa rticular r elevance t o pr ojects t hat could be nefit substantially from s chedule a dherence, r eduction a nd/or c ontrol o f c osts, sharing o f r isks a nd r esponsibilities, a nd a pplication o f in novation. I n a ddition, t he pu blic sector re tains control o ver k ey pr oject e lements a nd r isks, in cluding t hose r elated t o


environmental, in stitutional, pr ocedural, r evenues (if a pplicable) a nd pu blic a nd po litical interface.

• Design-Bid-Build (DBB): Generally, projects were categorized for DBB when determined that the public sector would be best able to manage the risks and project development of the candidate project.

Although this study considers a Project Development Agreement (PDA) a future PPP option for project delivery, projects have not been categorized as best suited for PDA delivery at this level of study. PDA projects may ultimately be developed as PFP or DB delivery models and additional pr oject information will n eed to b e d eveloped be fore P DA suitability c an be determined.

4.0 SCREENING RESULTS

Projects w ere c lassified as c andidates f or P FP a nd D B ba sed o n t he m ethodology pr eviously presented. N ote t hat projects id entified initially as suitable PFP c andidates may u ltimately be procured as DB projects, should private financial participation prove inapplicable.

4.1. Tier A: Early Action Program

Selection of t he p roject d elivery m echanisms for Tier A p rojects s hould be c onsidered immediately. Table 9 summarizes the Tier A projects that have been identified as candidates for PFP in project delivery. The table separates highway and transit projects and those recommended for DB from those recommended for PFP. The summary risk assessment rationale for determining DB or PFP are included for each project.

Table 9: Tier A Projects with Potential for Private Financial Participation (PFP)

Project Risk Assessment

Rationale for PFP Selection

Transit

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor Medium

BRT option could have operations separate from Metro Bus operations, making PFP delivery options with operations responsibility a possibility. DB with financing from private sector also an option.


Medium

If self propelled vehicle option is selected as the preferred alternative then separate technology could make this a potential option for PFP including involvement in operations and/or maintenance.

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension: Azusa to Montclair (Phase B) Low

Has potential for expediting delivery using private financing.





Medium Potential to leverage FTA New Starts funding. Opportunity to manage tunnel and methane gas risks, and expedite delivery.


Medium Potential to leverage FTA New Starts funding. Opportunity to manage system interface and tunnel risk, and expedite delivery.

Union Bus Division Low Environmental impacts are being assessed. Has potential for PFP with maintenance option.

Highway


Medium Has potential revenue streams via port fees and/or user charges. PFP could include participation in facility operations.

Table 10: Tier A Projects for Potential Design-Build (DB)


Rationale for DB Selection

Highway


Unknown Project implementation could be potentially accelerated with DB.

4.2. Tier B Projects: Intermediate Action Program

The project delivery mechanisms for Tier B projects should be considered at this time in order to identify opportunities to accelerate project delivery and leverage funding. Table 11 summarizes the T ier B pr ojects t hat h ave be en id entified a s c andidates f or PFP. Table 12 identifies the remaining T ier B pr ojects w ith po tential f or D B d elivery ba sed on t he in formation a vailable t o date.

Table 11: Tier B Projects for Potential for Private Financial Participation (PFP)



Transit


Low

Phase 1 is close to construction completion so systems are new – this makes expedited delivery of Phase 2 an efficient option. Private investment could expedite DB phase.




Highway


Medium Has potential revenue stream via tolls. PFP could also include participation in facility operations. JPA already considering PFP approach.


Medium Has potential revenue stream via tolls (HOT lanes). PFP could include participation in facility operations.


Low

Has potential revenue stream via tolls (HOT lanes) and possible private toll operations ability, which could accelerate implementation of HOV component.


Low Has potential revenue stream via tolls (HOT lanes). PFP could include participation in facility operations.


Low

Could be bundled with SR-14 from I-5 to Kern County Line. Has potential revenue stream via tolls (HOT lanes) if bundled. PFP could include participation in facility operations.

SR-710 North Extension High

Early private sector involvement could manage the high DB risk thereby accelerating implementation. Has potential revenue stream via user charges. PFP could include participation in facility operations.

Table 12: Tier B Projects with Potential for Design-Build (DB)


Rationale for DB Selection

Transit


Low Project implementation could be potentially accelerated with DB.

Highway


Unknown Has potential to be expedited through DB, but not considered to have new revenue stream.

Countywide Soundwall Construction Low Non-continuous projects; could be expedited through DB.

I-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges Unknown Non-continuous projects; could be expedited through DB.

SR-138 (I-5 to SR-14) Unknown Project implementation could be potentially accelerated with DB.


Low Project implementation could be potentially accelerated with DB.


4.3. Other Tier A and Tier B Projects

One Tier A project and seven Tier B projects were considered to be more suitable for traditional Design-Bid-Build implementation or other implementation than either PFP or DB. The rationale for this determination is presented below.

Table 13: Other Tier A and Tier B Projects

Project Rationale for DBB or Other Selection

Eastside Light Rail Access (Gold Line)

Bike and Pedestrian Access

Improvements

The project is a series of bicycle and pedestrian

improvements associated with the Eastside LRT project,

considered more applicable to DBB.

Metro and Municipal Regional Clean

Fuel Bus Capital Facilities and Rolling

Stock

Project has no design or construction component; funding is

identified.

San Fernando Valley East North-South

Rapidways

Projects incorporating Intelligent Transportation Sy stems (ITS)

and o perational i mprovements more a ppropriate f or D BB

delivery.

Highway Operational Improvements

in Arroyo Verdugo Subregion

Has potential to be reconsidered once specific project(s)

have been defined.

Highway Operational Improvements

in Las Virgenes/Malibu Subregion


have been defined.

South Bay Ramp and Interchange

Improvements: I-405, I-110, I-105, SR-91


have been defined.

US-101 Corridor between Route 27

(Topanga Canyon) and Route 2 in

Downtown Los Angeles

Has potential to be reconsidered pending resolution of

community considerations. Currently recommended as DBB.

US-101 Corridor between Route 27

and the Ventura County Line

Has potential to be reconsidered pending resolution of

community considerations. Currently recommended as DBB.

4.4. Tier C Projects: Future Program

Tier C projects are at an early stage of development and are expected to obtain environmental clearances after 2014. These projects should be revisited periodically to ascertain whether or not it would be appropriate to undertake further analysis. Appendix E shows the 17 transit projects and 17 highway projects designated as Tier C.


4.5. Other Potential for Private Sector Participation

The pr ivate sector m ay a lso pa rticipate in c ertain M easure R a nd Draft LRTP p rojects t hat a re currently near o r under construction as o f t he date of t his report. B ecause t hese p rojects a re near o r u nder c onstruction, it is lik ely t hat project d elivery m ethods h ave a lready b een determined. H owever, t here a re possibilities that t he pr ivate sector m ay be a ble d eliver n ew funds to Metro in exchange for the rights to certain revenue streams related to these projects. Therefore, it may be possible for private sector funding to facilitate the construction of additional critical pr ojects. It is a lso po ssible t hat Metro may be a ble t o c reate o ther pr ivate s ector partnerships that deliver cost and time savings.

In addition to the identified Measure R and Draft LRTP projects, it is possible that other existing highway (e.g. existing HOV or carpool lanes) and transit facilities could be private sector participation candidates for Metro to consider.

4.5.1. Transit Projects

Conceptually, t here a re o pportunities f or t he pr ivate s ector t o pa rticipate in c ertain t ransit projects and/or in system operations and maintenance on a contractual basis. These contracts would n eed t o c onsider t he im pact o f M etro’s existing la bor c ontracts. As t he fo cus o f t his screening memorandum is to d eliver new pr ojects, s uch o pportunities a re n ot a ssessed in t his document. For illustrative purposes, some transit projects under construction or near construction may benefit from future private sector participation, if they offer connectivity to other possible PPP projects. There is also the possibility of the private sector taking the responsibility of fare box collections and routine operation and maintenance, if merited by the individual project delivery economics and characteristics.

4.5.2. Highway Projects

If the Metro Board approves the implementation and conversion of additional HOV to HOT toll lanes in the future, there are also possibilities for the pr ivate sector to participate in future PPP contracts for highway projects in the region that are under construction or will be under construction in the near future. For example, existing HOV lane facilities and/or proposed HOV lane projects that are currently under construction may be converted to HOT lane facilities in the future. D esign, c onstruction, operation, a nd maintenance will be r equired in r elation t o enhancing r oadway cap acity, constructing the t olling e lements, and im plementing toll collection and traffic control operations. Additionally, such opportunities may benefit from allowing the pr ivate s ector t o c ollect and/or r eceive tolls o n a pr oject in e xchange f or a n upfront fee. Alternatively, such toll revenue proceeds may be used to supplement other sources of funding that can be used to develop other projects in Los Angeles County.


Below are Measure R and Draft LRTP highway projects that have the potential for future private sector pa rticipation. Currently, t hese projects ar e cl assified as Tier D p rojects that are u nder construction or will be under construction in the near future.

Table 14: Complete or Under Construction Highway Projects that have the Potential to be Future Highway PPP Projects

Future Potential Highway PPP Projects

(Assumes the conversion from HOV to HOT lanes)

I-10 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Puente Av (under construction)

I-405 Carpool Lanes: SR-90 to I-10

I-405 NB Carpool Lanes: I-10 to US-101

I-405 SB Carpool/Auxiliary Lane: Waterford St to I-10

I-5 Capacity Enhancement from I-605 to Orange County Line (mixed flow & carpool lanes)

I-5 Capacity Enhancement from SR-134 to SR-170

I-5 Carmenita Road Interchange Improvement

I-5/SR-126 Interchange Reconstruction (Phases I & II)

I-5/SR-14 Carpool Lane Direct Connector Capacity Enhancements

4.6. Project Delivery Domain Matrix

This section introduces the concept of a “delivery domain matrix” to summarize the results of the screening pr ocess for t he c andidate pr ojects f or various forms o f pu blic-private partnerships. Three delivery approaches and two timing options are shown in the delivery domain matrix. All projects in T iers A a nd B were id entified a s having o ne o f the t hree potential project d elivery mechanisms.

As shown in Tables 15 and 16, the delivery d omain matrices categorize p rojects t o reflect t he following characteristics:

• Projects that could involve capital risk;

• Non-capital risk projects, including those that could be delivered through DB; and

• Projects n ot c onsidered c ompatible with the PPP d elivery m odel and t hus cat egorized for a DBB delivery.


Table 15: Preliminary Transit Project Delivery Domain Matrix

Timing Project Delivery Approach

Project Delivery Domain Early Action Intermediate Action

PPP Potential for Private Sector

Financial Participation

PPP Potential for Design-Build

Project Delivery

Potential for Design-Bid-Build

Project Delivery or ‘Other’

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor Early Action: PFP ● ●


Early Action: PFP* ● ●


Early Action: PFP ● ●



Regional Connector: Light Rail from Los Angeles Union Station to 7th Street/ Metro Center


Union Bus Division Early Action: PFP ● ●


Early Action: DBB ● ●


Early Action: Other ● ●

Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension from Atlantic/ Pomona Station eastward (At-grade or Elevated)

Intermediate Action: PFP ● ●

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway Intermediate Action: DB ● ●


Intermediate Action: DBB ● ●

*If a new transit technology, could also be considered for private participation in operations and/or maintenance


Table 16: Highway Project Delivery Domain Matrix

Timing Project Delivery Approach

Project Delivery Domain Early Action

Intermediate Action

PPP Potential for Private Sector Financial

Participation

PPP Potential for Design-Build

Project Delivery

Potential for Design-Bid-Build Project Delivery


Early Action: PFP* ● ●

Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations Phase II Early Action: DB ● ●

Countywide Soundwall Construction (Several Packages)

Early Action: DB ● ●


Intermediate Action: PFP* ● ●

I-5 Carpool & Mixed Flow Lanes: I-605 to I-710 Intermediate Action: PFP* ● ●

I-5 North Capacity Enhancements: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)


SR-14 Carpool Lanes: Avenue P-8 to Avenue L Intermediate Action: PFP* ● ●



SR-710 North Extension Intermediate Action: PFP* ● ●

BNSF Grade Separations in Gateway Cities Intermediate Action: DB ● ●

I-605 Corridor Hot Spots Interchanges Intermediate Action: DB ● ●

SR-138: I-5 to SR-14 Intermediate Action: DB ● ●


Intermediate Action: DB ● ●



Highway Operational Improvements in Arroyo Verdugo


Highway Operational Improvements in Las Virgenes/ Malibu



Intermediate Action: DBB* ● ●


Intermediate Action: DBB* ● ●

* If tolled, project could also be considered for private participation in operations and/or maintenance


5.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

Based o n t he a nalysis a nd pr eliminary s creening o f a ll pr ojects listed in the Measure R Expenditure P lan and t he Draft Long R ange T ransportation P lan, a n umber o f “ Tier A - Early Action” and “T ier B - intermediate Action” pr ojects a re r ecommended in t his T echnical Memorandum for further consideration as having the potential for Private Financial Participation (PFP) in project delivery. Other projects have been recommended for project delivery utilizing a Design-Build (DB) approach.

Together, these recommendations signal a s ignificant potential for acceleration in the delivery of h ighway and t ransit p rojects deemed a priority f or the c itizens of Los Angeles County. The recommendations contained in this Technical Memorandum provide the basis for determining those projects to be carried forward for further development and potential implementation. It is recommended that M etro proceed to a nalyze and d evelop t he seven potential PFP pr ojects identified in Section 4.2 – Early Action Program and the seven potential PFP projects identified in Section 4.3 – Intermediate Action Program. Subsequent w ork will include comprehensive strategic a ssessments and qu antitative analysis of each p roject s elected b y M etro. The 1 4 projects r ecommended t o a dvance in to t he d evelopmental s tage f or P rivate F inancial Participation are identified below in Table 17.

Table 17: Potential PFP Projects Identified in Screening Analysis

Transit Projects Highway Projects

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor I-5: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)


SR-14: I-5 to Kern County Line (HOV/Mixed Flow Improvements)


High Desert Corridor: East-West SR-14 to San Bernardino County Line; North-South SR- 14 to SR-138 Improvements



Union Bus Division I-5 Carpool & Mixed Flow Lanes: I-605 to I-710





Seven projects were identified as candidates for DB delivery, as shown in Table 18.


Table 18: Initial Projects Recommended for Design-Build Delivery

Transit Project Highway Projects

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway (Phase 2) Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations Phase II

SR-138: I-5 to SR-14



I-605 Corridor Hot Spot Interchanges


The preliminary screening of projects completed for this memorandum was expedited – in some cases with limited existing data – in order to arrive at a set of recommendations for accelerating project d elivery. Subsequent pr oject e valuation a nd d evelopment r equires s ignificantly more information t o c arry out t his detailed level o f a nalysis, including public funding assumptions, advanced cost e stimates, engineering and technical i nformation, and r idership / t raffic forecasts.

The st rategic assessment of p rojects to be undertaken in Task 3 is c ritical to better understand the u nique c haracteristics o f each pr oject in t erms o f statutory e nvironmental pr ocesses, r isk transference potential, capital and life-cycle costs, committed and potential funding, financing mechanisms, s cheduling c onstraints, a cceleration o pportunities a nd other r elated pr oject considerations. The strategic assessments require a comprehensive and advanced evaluation to pr epare a d etailed t echnical, le gal a nd f inancial r ationale f or s election o f pr ojects t o be delivered utilizing pr ivate s ector pa rticipation. Therefore, it will be n ecessary t o c ollect m ore comprehensive a nd d etailed f inancial, t echnical a nd pr oject d elivery in formation t o s upport and complete the Task 3 project strategic assessments.

Subsequent project development will include the following types of assessments:

• Engineering appraisal of intended functionality and current design scope.

Technical Assessment

• Current capital expenditures and operating cost estimates with respect to current scope and functionality.

• Project e conomics, including development patterns t hat may be linked to a dditional revenue streams such as tolls, premium fares, project-oriented development, etc.

• Detailed risk assessments considering all potential delivery strategies.

• Initial risk allocation, including determination of those parties best able to manage various types of risk.

• Financial feasibility modeling of potential public and private funding, including transaction costs, capital costs, operations costs, maintenance costs and management / oversight costs.

Financial Assessment


• Financing strategies including T IFIA, P rivate Activity B onds ( PABs), Bu ild A merica Bo nds (BABs), tax-exempt financing, etc.

• Public funding availability and the associated timing of funds available (e.g. Measure R, Proposition C, New Starts, other state, local and federal Funds).

• Opportunities to bring new revenue sources to Metro’s system, including the possibility of the conversion of existing highway or highway projects under construction to tolls and/or HOT lanes, with Metro Board approval.

• Project attractiveness to potential private sector investors.

Optimal Project Delivery Assessment

• Project and/or scope options to enhance the attractiveness to private sector investors.

• Project acceleration potential and asssociated impact on identified funds.

• Current market and potential ability of the private sector to accept various types of risk.

• Comprehensive assessment of project ‘bundling’ opportunities.

• Legal considerations for assumed PPP delivery methods.

• Outreach activities, including community involvement and public information.

In a ddition t o a nalyzing PFP pr oject d elivery m ethod suitability, a s imultaneous pa th c ould be considered to advance Tiers A and B projects for Design-Build project delivery, which will help accelerate t hose P PP pr ojects w hich d o n ot c ontemplate P rivate F inancial P articipation. It is also possible that detailed analysis in Task 3 could be completed for certain high priority projects, and r ecommendations made r egarding t heir advancement for f urther d evelopment a nd potential procurement activities, prior to completion of the full set of Tier A and T ier B projects. This approach should also assist in meeting project acceleration objectives.

Another c ritical near-term s tep w ill be to develop s trong business cases to best determine if a given pr oject c an d eliver v alue using t he r ecommended delivery model. D uring t his s tage, comprehensive business cases will be crafted for each project selected for delivery with private sector participation. Detailed value for money and life cycle costs analyses will be completed to compare the assumed PPP delivery methods against traditional delivery methods available to Metro. Once individual project business cases have been completed, projects may be available to continue into procurement, program management, project development and project implementation, as directed by the Metro Board.

Public Private Partnership A-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix A: List of Measure R and 2008 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Projects


Table A-1: Measure R and Draft LRTP Transit Projects

Transit Projects

2008 Draft LRTP

Recommended Plan

2008 Draft LRTP

Strategic Unfunded

Measure R

Burbank/ Glendale Light Rail: Los Angeles Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station

X

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor (Project Acceleration)

X X


X

Exposition LRT Phase I (7th Street Metro Center to Culver City)

X X

Exposition LRT Phase II (Culver City to Santa Monica) X X Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor (Including Metro Green Line from Redondo Station to South Bay Corridor)

X X

I-405 Corridor Busway: Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station to Metro Green Line Aviation Station

X X


X X


X X

Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit: Phase I X Metro Gold Line Foothill Light Rail Transit Extension: Azusa to Montclair (Phase B)

X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: LAX/Aviation Station to Exposition Line Santa Monica Station

X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: Norwalk Station to Norwalk Metrolink Station (Elevated or Underground)

X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: South Bay Galleria to Pacific Coast Highway Harbor Transitway Station

X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: Redondo Beach Station to South Bay Corridor

X X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension to Los Angeles International Airport

X X

Metro Rail Capital Projects: System Improvements, Rail Yards, and Rail Cars

X X

Metro Red Line Extension: North Hollywood Station to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station

X


Table A-1: Measure R and Draft LRTP Transit Projects, Cont.

Transit Projects

2008 draft LRTP

Recommended Plan

2008 draft LRTP

Strategic Unfunded

Measure R


X X

Metrolink Capital Improvements X X People Mover to LAX (funded by others) X Rail Projects within Los Angeles County (Operations, Maintenance, and Expansion)

X


X X

San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways X San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways: Canoga Corridor

X X

Silver Line Light Rail: Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station to City of La Puente

X

SR-134 Transit Corridor BRT: Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station to Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station

X

Union Bus Division X Vermont Corridor Subway X West Santa Ana Branch Corridor X X Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway (Phase 2) X Yellow Line Light Rail: Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station to Regional Connector 3rd/Flower Street Station

X


Table A-2: Measure R and Draft LRTP Highway Projects

Highway Projects

2008 draft LRTP

Recommended Plan

2008 draft LRTP

Strategic Unfunded

Measure R

Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations Phase II X X BNSF Grade Separations in Gateway Cities X Countywide Soundwall Construction X X High Desert Corridor:

- East-West: SR-14 to San Bernardino County Line

- North-South: SR-14 to SR-138

X X


X


X

I-10 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Puente Ave X I-10 Carpool Lanes: Puente Ave to Citrus Ave X I-10 Carpool Lanes: Citrus Ave to SR-57 X I-10: Add one HOV lane in each direction between Lincoln Boulevard (in Santa Monica) and the I-5 Freeway interchange

X

I-405 Carpool Lanes: SR-90 to I-10 X I-405 NB Carpool Lanes: I-10 to US-101 X I-405 SB Carpool/Auxiliary Lane: Waterford St to I-10 X I-405/US-101 Interchange X I-405: Add N/B aux lane from Hawthorne to I-105* X X I-405: Add S/B aux lane from Rosecrans to Inglewood*

X X

I-5 Capacity Enhancement from I-605 to Orange County Line (mixed flow & carpool lanes)

X X

I-5 Capacity Enhancement from SR-134 to SR-170 X X I-5 Carmenita Road Interchange Improvement X X I-5 Carpool and Mixed Flow Lanes: I-605 to I-710 X I-5 Carpool Lanes: SR-14 to SR-118 to SR-170 X I-5/I-10 Interchange X I-5/I-405 Carpool Lane Direct Connector X I-5/I-405 Interchange X I-5/SR-126 Interchange Reconstruction (Phases I & II) X I-5/SR-134 Interchange X I-5/SR-14 Carpool Lane Direct Connector Capacity Enhancements

X X

* Part of South Bay Ramp and Interchange Improvements Project


Table A-2: Measure R and Draft LRTP Highway Projects, Cont.

Highway Projects

2008 draft LRTP

Recommended Plan

2008 draft LRTP

Strategic Unfunded

Measure R

I-5/SR-14 Interchange X I-5/SR-170 Interchange X I-5/SR-2 Interchange X I-5 North Capacity Enhancements: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)

X X

I-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges X X I-605 HOV lanes: I-210 to I-10 X I-710 South (including I-710 South Early Action Projects)

X X X


X

SR-138: I-5 to SR-14 X SR-138 Capacity Enhancements: Pearblossom Highway to San Bernardino County Line

X X

SR-14 Carpool Lanes: Avenue P-8 to Avenue L X SR-14: I-5 to Kern County Line (HOV and Mixed Flow Improvements)

X

SR-57 HOV lanes: SR-60 to I-210 X SR-57/SR-60 Mixed-Flow Interchange X SR-60 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Brea Canyon Road X SR-60 HOV lanes: US-101 to I-605 X SR-71 Freeway: I-10 to Mission Blvd X SR-71 Freeway: Mission Blvd to Rio Rancho Road X SR-710 North Extension X X SR-91/I-110 (partial HOV connector – from east to south and from east to north)

X


X

US-101 between Route 27 and the Ventura County Line

X

Public Private Partnership B-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix B: Project Data Request Sheets


Data Request

Priority Request Due Date:

July 13

Request Due Date: July 20

Response and Name of Source Document, as applicable

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name

Project Web Address/URL (if available)

Project Type (Road, Managed Lanes, Light Rail, etc.)

Project Length and Limits

What is the Purpose and Need for the project? (Note source document)

What is the project description from the current environmental document?

(Note source document)

PROJECT MANAGER

Name, phone number and e-mail address

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

1. What are the estimated capital costs of the project?


Data Request


July 13



a. What project upfront capital costs and schedules have been defined? Please provide available information, by fiscal year, if possible. Are the capital costs consistent with the costs shown in the current Metro Long Range Plan? Are project capital costs expected to be updated? If so, when are updated costs expected to be available?

b. Specify the assumed implementation schedule (as per Metro’s most recent draft Long Range Transportation Plan).

c. Cost in constant dollars (specify year of constant dollars, such as 2008)

d. Cost in year of expenditure dollars (specify assumed implementation schedule/year)

2. If available, what are the estimated O&M costs for the project? (ideally, by year and individual cost category/funding source)

a. When was the estimate done?

b. What were the estimate assumptions and methodology?

3. If available, what is the estimated life cycle cost for the project? (ideally, identify by year and individual cost category)

4. What are the proposed sources of capital funding for the project? (to be provided by Regional Programming)

a. Provide proposed capital funding amount, by year, by source


Data Request


July 13



b. Can any identified capital funding be moved to different priority projects if all funding is not necessary?

5. Are there one or more project-specific revenue streams identified for this project?

a. If yes, provide annual estimated revenue stream, by source.

b. What level of study has been performed to analyze the possible revenue streams available for the project? When was the study completed? (Examples of such studies include toll estimates and New Starts financial plans.)

c. Please provide a copy of the major assumptions and any revenue analysis report(s) that have been performed for the project.

6. Have any other economic impact or benefit studies been performed in relation to the project? If yes, please provide a copy of the report.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

1. What is the project’s current expected delivery method (e.g., design-bid-build; design-build, etc.)?

2. What is the design development status?

3. Is the project in the FTA and/or FHWA/Caltrans project development process? Clarify what approval is being sought.


Data Request


July 13



a. Provide web reference or provide the most recent FTA and/or FHWA/Caltrans document prepared for the project.

4. Are there significant design and/or construction constraints or risks? Please explain.

5. Have the ROW, HazMat, or Geotechnical investigations been completed? Have they identified any significant risks? Please explain.

a. What is the status of the ROW investigation and/or acquisition? Provide the latest document.

i. Will the project require ROW acquisitions? If so, have estimated costs of the ROW been included in the estimated capital costs of the project?

ii. Have any negotiations commenced to acquire ROW? Please explain estimated timing of ROW negotiations and acquisition.

b. What is the status of the Hazardous Materials investigation? Provide the latest document.

c. What is the status of the Geotechnical analysis? Provide the latest document.

6. Have the utility relocations been identified? (to be provided by Engineering/Construction)


Data Request


July 13



a. Has a sub-surface utility engineering study been completed? If so, please provide a copy of the document.

b. Are there any major utilities impacted? Please explain.

c. Have any discussions commenced with the utilities? Please explain estimated timing of discussions/resolution of outstanding issues.

7. Does the project require any rail relocations or rail improvements?

a. Please explain the rail agreements that will be required for the project.

b. Have any rail relocation or improvement agreement negotiations commenced?

8. What is the proposed technology? (To be provided by Planning / Construction / Operations)

a. Is the proposed technology currently used in the Metro and/or Caltrans system with respect to:

i. Mode technology

ii. Environmental mitigation technologies

iii. Sustainability measures (reducing carbon, etc.)

iv. Engineering design


Data Request


July 13



b. Is there any proposed technology that is new to the US market, has not been used extensively overseas, and/or does not have any necessary product approval? Please explain.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

1. What are the proposed sources of routine operation and maintenance funding for the project? (to be provided by Regional Programming)

a. Provide proposed cash flow, by year, by source.

IMPACTS OF APPROVAL PROCESS

1. What is the status and schedule of the environmental approval process?

c. Is an EIS and/or EIR required under CEQA, NEPA, or both? If so, what is the status and the expected timing for completion?

d. Have there been modifications proposed to the project scope and/or design that will require updates / supplements to the current project environmental document? Does the current environmental document contemplate the current project delivery method and project scope? If yes, what is the timing expected related to possible approval delays?

e. Please provide a copy of the most recent environmental document.

2. Is any approval needed from the Army Corps of Engineers? If so, what is the status and the expected timing for completion?


Data Request


July 13



3. Other governmental approvals

a. What is the status of the project with regard to approval for projected State funding (if any)?

i. Has project been proposed for Proposition 1B funding (or any other State bond funding)?

b. Does the project need CTC approval? If so, what is the status?

c. Is the project being considered for future ARRA funding (either through anticipated local application or state application)?

d. What is the status of the project with regard to approval for projected federal funding (other than ARRA) (if any)?

i. High Priority Project designation under SAFETEA-LU?

ii. Proposed High Priority Project designation under reauthorization?

4. Are any other significant regulatory approvals required? If so, please describe. What is the status and the expected timing for completion?

5. Status of project in current draft LRTPs:

a. What is the status of the project in Metro’s most recent draft Long Range Plan?


Data Request


July 13



i. Funded? Strategic Tier 1? Strategic Tier 2?

b. What is the status of the project in the adopted SCAG Regional Transportation Plan? (to be provided by Long Range Planning)

i. Financially constrained plan? Strategic element?

6. How is the project ranked by the Performance Analysis as shown in the draft Long Range Transportation Plan?

a. Project Performance Score

b. Corridor Need Score

c. Total Combined Score

PROJECT SYSTEM INTERFACE

1. Is the project an extension of an existing facility? If so, describe.

a. Must the project be integrated operationally or can it be operated independently?

2. Does the project require completion of another project(s) to perform as projected?

a. If so, what other projects are required?


Data Request


July 13



3. What are the technical interfaces with the existing system with regard to the following: Transit - connects two or more existing services, requires through-routing of vehicles on routes currently in service, is an extension of an existing line, requires use of existing or new maintenance/vehicle storage facilities, etc. Highways - serves as extension of an existing facility, requires upgrade or widening of existing interchanges or freeway-to-freeway connectors, potential utilization of existing or proposed toll collection systems, etc.?

a. What entity would be responsible for that interface?

4. Have negotiations been started with 3rd

parties (i.e., railroads, freight, Caltrans,

PUC, Coastal Commission, utilities, etc.)?

5. Does the project feasibility study or similar document, if any, include any notable findings of benefit (e.g., expectations to improve the operations and/or efficiency of other elements of the highway and/or transit system, or provide other benefits to the region)? State source document.

a. If so, what other benefits are expected and how are they to be achieved?

Public Private Partnership C-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix C: Initial Screening Results


Table C-1: Initial Screening Results: Transit Projects

Project Name

Project Readiness A B C D

Early Action Intermediate Action

Longer Term Action Other Action

Env. studies substantially complete by

12/2011


12/2014

Env. studies substantially

complete after 12/2014

Ready for Construction,

Under Construction, or

Complete Burbank/ Glendale Light Rail Transit from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station

X

Crenshaw Boulevard Transit Corridor X Eastside Light Rail Access (Gold Line) Bike and Pedestrian Access Improvements X

Exposition Light Rail Transit Phase I (from 7th Street Metro Center to Culver City) X

Exposition Light Rail Transit Phase II (from Culver City to Santa Monica) X


X

I-405 Corridor Busway: Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station to Metro Green Line Aviation Station

X


X


X

Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit: Phase I X

Metro Gold Line Foothill Light Rail Transit Extension: Azusa to Montclair (Phase B) X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: LAX/Aviation Station to Exposition Line Santa Monica Station (*note that this project may be in Tier B depending on the results of the Crenshaw Corridor environmental work)

X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: Norwalk Station to Norwalk Metrolink Station (Elevated or Underground)

X


Table C-1: Initial Screening Results: Transit Projects, cont.

Project Name





complete by 12/2011


12/2014





Complete Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: South Bay Galleria and Pacific Coast Highway Harbor Transitway Station (*note that this project may be in Tier B depending on the results of the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor AA)

X

Metro Green Line Light Rail Transit Extension: Redondo Beach Station to South Bay Corridor (*note that this project may be in Tier B depending on the results of the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor AA)

X

Metro Green Line Extension to Los Angeles International Airport (*note that this project may be in Tier B depending on the results of the Crenshaw environmental study)

X

Metro Rail Capital Projects: System Improvements, Rail Yards, and Rail Cars X

Metro Red Line Extension: North Hollywood Station to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station

X


X

Metrolink Capital Improvements X People Mover to LAX (funded by others) X Rail Projects within Los Angeles County (Operations, Maintenance, and Expansion)

X


X


Table C-1: Initial Screening Results: Transit Projects, cont.

Project Name





12/2011


12/2014





Complete San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways X

San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways: Canoga Corridor X

Silver Line Light Rail: Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station to City of La Puente

X

SR-134 Transit Corridor BRT: Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station to Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station

X

Union Bus Division X Vermont Corridor Subway X West Santa Ana Branch Corridor X Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway (Phase 2) X

Yellow Line Light Rail: Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station to Regional Connector 3rd/Flower St Station

X


Table C-2: Initial Screening Results: Highway Projects

Project Name





12/2011


12/2014





Complete Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations Phase II X

BNSF Grade Separations in Gateway Cities X

Countywide Soundwall Construction X High Desert Corridor:

- East-West: SR-14 to San Bernardino County Line

- N-S: SR-14 to SR-138

X

Highway Operational Improvements in Arroyo Verdugo Subregion X

Highway Operational Improvements in Las Virgenes/ Malibu Subregion X

I-10 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Puente Ave X I-10 Carpool Lanes: Puente Ave to Citrus Ave X

I-10 Carpool Lanes: Citrus Ave to SR-57 X I-10: Add one HOV lane in each direction between Lincoln Blvd. (in Santa Monica) and the I-5 Freeway interchange

X

I-405 Carpool Lanes: SR-90 to I-10 X I-405 NB Carpool Lanes: I-10 to US-101 X I-405 SB Carpool/Auxiliary Lane: Waterford Street to I-10 X

I-405/US-101 Interchange X I-405: Add N/B auxiliary lane from Hawthorne to I-105* X

I-405: Add S/B auxiliary lane from Rosecrans to Inglewood* X

I-5 Capacity Enhancement: I-605 to Orange County Line (mixed flow & HOV lanes)

X

* Part of South Bay Ramp and Interchange Improvements Project


Table C-2: Initial Screening Results: Highway Projects, cont.

Project Name





12/2011


12/2014





Complete I-5 Capacity Enhancement: SR-134 to SR-170 X

I-5 Carmenita Road Interchange Improvement X

I-5 Carpool and Mixed Flow Lanes: I-605 to I-710 X

I-5 Carpool Lanes: SR-14 to SR-118 to SR-170 X

I-5/I-10 Interchange X I-5/I-405 Carpool Lane Direct Connector X I-5/I-405 Interchange X I-5/SR-126 Interchange Reconstruction (Phases I & II) X

I-5/SR-134 Interchange X I-5/SR-14 Carpool Lane Direct Connector Capacity Enhancements X

I-5/SR-14 Interchange X I-5/SR-170 Interchange X I-5/SR-2 Interchange X I-5 North Capacity Enhancements: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)

X

I-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges X I-605 HOV lanes: I-210 to I-10 X I-710 South (Including I-710 South Early Action Projects) X


X

SR-138: I-5 to SR-14 X SR-138 Capacity Enhancements: Pearblossom Highway to San Bernardino County Line

X


Table C-2: Initial Screening Results: Highway Projects, cont.

Project Name





12/2011


12/2014





Complete SR-14 Carpool Lanes: Avenue P-8 to Avenue L X

SR-14: I-5 to Kern County Line (HOV and Mixed Flow Improvements) X

SR-57 HOV lanes: SR-60 to I-210 X SR-57/SR-60 Mixed-Flow Interchange X SR-60 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Brea Canyon Road X

SR-60 HOV lanes: US-101 to I-605 X SR-71 Freeway: I-10 to Mission Blvd X SR-71 Freeway: Mission Blvd to Rio Rancho Road X

SR-710 North Extension X SR-91/I-110: partial HOV connector – from east to south and from east to north X


X

US-101 between Route 27 and the Ventura County Line X

Public Private Partnership D-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix D: Project Descriptions for Early Action and Intermediate Action Projects (Tiers A and B)

Transit Tier A



Project Type Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Location Southwest of Central LA and North of South Bay Cities

Length LRT: 8.5 miles

BRT: 12.0 miles

Project Cost LRT: $1.47 billion (2008 $)

BRT: $500 - $600 million (2008 $)

Environmental Schedule

Draft EIS/EIR submitted to FTA and released for public review. Public hearings will take place in October 2009 followed by Board decision on locally preferred option (BRT/LRT). Completion of EIS/ EIR and Record of Decision (ROD) anticipated in December 2010.

Planning Document Measure R Yes LRTP (2008 draft)

Recommended Plan

Funding Planned Measure R $1.2 billion (2008 $)

Other Funding

Local, Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Federal Formula, and Earmarks

Implementation Schedule

Based on the Measure R Expenditure Plan, funds are available beginning in FY2010 with an estimated completion in FY2018.

Transit Tier A


Project Description Construction of a new transit facility along the Crenshaw Corridor.

Two alternatives are under consideration in the DEIS/DEIR:

1. 8.5 mile LRT alternative from the Expo Line to the Metro Green Line via Crenshaw Boulevard and the Harbor Subdivision. Requires grade separations, street reconfiguration, connections to LAX, BNSF coordination and provision of new stations.

2. 12.0 mile BRT alternative from Wilshire/Western to the Metro Green Line via Crenshaw Boulevard and the Harbor Subdivision. Requires grade separations, street reconfiguration, exclusive lanes or mixed flow operations through lane conversions in certain segments, connections to airport and BNSF coordination.

Minimal ROW acquisition is anticipated other than a proposed maintenance and storage facility.

The purpose and need of this project is to improve mobility in the Crenshaw Corridor, a traditionally underserved area, to relieve heavy congestion and provide enhanced transit services including improved connectivity to LAX. The project study area includes some of the lowest income communities in the Country with a large number of transit-dependent residents.

Tier A – Early Action

Delivery Method Recommendation

Potential for Private sector Financial Participation

Transit Tier A



Project Type Bicycle and pedestrian access improvements

Location Along the Eastside Extension LRT

Length N/A

Project Cost $30 million (YOE $)

Environmental Schedule N/A

Planning Document Measure R Yes LRTP (2008 draft) No

Funding Planned Measure R $30 million

(YOE $) Other Funding TBD



Project Description Implementation of bicycle and pedestrian access improvements that were not included with the original implementation of the Metro Gold Line.


Transit Tier A



Project Type Rail (mode has not yet been identified)

Location Downtown Los Angeles to the Wilmington area

Length Four alternatives being considered vary in length. The study area is approximately 35 miles long.

Project Cost

Measure R Expenditure Plan provides funding of the Green Line Extension to the South Bay Corridor (Local South Alternative) at $272 million (in 2008 $) (excludes 3% local contribution of $8 million). The estimated cost for the extension with the LRT mode is $495 million (in 2009 $). The AA Study has estimated the costs for the other alternatives ranging between $413 million to $2.2 billion, which includes local, regional, and express options.


Currently conducting Alternatives Analysis and conceptual engineering. Board action on the AA study and authorization to proceed into environmental is expected in November 2009.


Strategic Unfunded

Funding Planned Measure R

$272 million for the Green Line Extension to the South Bay Corridor (Local South Alternative) (2008 $)

Other Funding TBD



Transit Tier A


Project Description Metro is currently performing an Alternative Analysis in a 35 mile area that includes segments off the ROW and is evaluating potential transit alternatives that could be operated along the corridor. The alternatives include:

• Local South Alternative – rail extension through the South Bay to the Harbor area, likely extending the Metro Green Line. Note that this is the only alternative that could be funded by Measure R monies.

• Local North Alternative – service between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) and LAX.

• Regional Alternative – commuter type service between LAUS and South Bay and Harbor area.

• LAX Express Alternative – direct express service between LAUS and LAX terminals.

Various technologies are being considered as part of the alternatives analysis including: LRT, ‘self propelled’ (clean diesel or diesel-electric hybrid), Electrical Multiple Units (EMU) and commuter rail.

Each alternative utilizes the existing Harbor Subdivision, which is a Metro-owned railroad right-of-way (ROW) in southwestern Los Angeles County spanning approximately 26 miles from south of downtown Los Angeles to the Wilmington area. Operating agreements with BNSF will be required. Rail relocations / improvements will be required throughout the corridor.



Potential for Private Sector Financial Participation

Transit Tier A



Project Type Vehicle Purchase

Location N/A

Length N/A

Project Cost

Environmental Schedule N/A


Constrained and Strategic Unfunded

Funding Planned Measure R $150 million (YOE $)

Other Funding TBD



Project Description It is understood that Metro will use its share of Measure R funding to purchase clean fuel buses.



N/A

Transit Tier A



Project Type Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Location San Gabriel Valley

Length 12.5 miles

Project Cost $550 million (2008 $)

Operations and maintenance estimated at $31.7 million per year

Environmental Schedule Alternatives Analysis is complete, draft EIS/EIR has begun

Planning Document Measure R No LRTP (2008 draft)

Strategic Unfunded

Funding Planned Measure R None Other Funding TBD


Project Description The majority of construction will take place within existing railroad ROW and the project will include new rail stations and parking in the cities of Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair. This phase of the project and Phase A (expected to be let as a Design-Build project in early 2010) will require a maintenance yard, which may be incorporated into Phase A. Phase A (Pasadena to Azusa) is a Measure R project.

Track reconfigurations and systems upgrades along the existing railroad will be required. Multiple stakeholders will be involved including BNSF, Metrolink, Caltrans and several cities along the route.




Transit Tier A



Project Type Heavy Rail Transit (HRT)

Location Westside

Length Phase I: Wilshire/Western Station to Fairfax (3.2 miles)

Phase II: Fairfax to Century City (3.3 miles)

Phase III: Century City to Westwood (2.0 miles)

Total (all phases): 8.5 miles

Project Cost

Phase I: $1.65 billion (2008 $)

Phase II: $1.65 billion (2008 $)

Phase III: $0.8 billion (2008 $)

Total (all phases): $4.1 billion (2008 $)


Draft EIS/EIR is underway. Public hearings followed by Board approval of Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) are anticipated in summer/ fall 2010. ROD is estimated to be received from the FTA by December 2011.


Strategic Unfunded


Other Funding TBD



Transit Tier A


Project Description Construction of new Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) line to extend west from the Metro Purple Line at Wilshire/Western to Westwood. Only the portion along Wilshire Boulevard to Westwood was included in the Measure R expenditure plan, however, additional alignments to West Hollywood and to Santa Monica are being considered. Alternative alignments are being considered in the DEIS/DEIR and public scoping meetings.

The purpose of the project is to address the mobility needs of residents, workers, and visitors traveling to, from and within the highly congested Westside Extension Corridor by providing faster and more reliable high-capacity public transportation than existing services.

The entire alignment is expected to be below ground so major urban tunneling will be required. Major utilities are expected to be impacted. Rail upgrades to the existing HRT system may be required including upgrades to signal synchronization systems, vent shafts and expansion of the Metro Rail Operations Control Center. Services are expected to run continuously from the existing Metro Purple Line along the new facility. Interfaces will be required with other modes of transportation.




Transit Tier A



Project Type Light Rail Transit

Location Downtown Los Angeles

Length 1.8 miles

Project Cost Alternatives vary in cost up to $1.3 billion (YOE $)

Operations and maintenance costs also vary with alternatives and are estimated to range between $5.1 million and $13.6 million per year.


Draft EIS/EIR is currently being prepared and is scheduled to be completed in June 2010. The project’s final environmental and request to enter PE is estimated to be submitted to the FTA by October 2011.


Strategic Unfunded


Other Funding TBD



Project Description Construction of new LRT line to provide a direct connection through downtown Los Angeles. The connector will link the Metro Gold, and Blue Lines as well as the Metro Expo Line. The purpose of the project is to improve the region’s public transit service and mobility by providing a direct connection through downtown Los Angeles.

The connector will travel through an area that contains the highest level of density in the region. Expansions of roadway and highway networks within the study area are limited. Four project alternatives are being prepared for evaluation in the Draft EIS/EIR including a no-build alternative, a TSM alternative, two build alternatives: an at-grade light rail and an underground light rail. The dense urban center location gives rise to technical and physical challenges including utility relocation, storm drain relocation and potential construction of a new underpass at the intersection of 1st

Tier

Street and Alameda Street. Existing maintenance and storage facilities would be utilized. Upon completion, trains would operate on any alignment between the Metro Gold, Blue and Expo Lines.

A – Early Action



Transit Tier A


Union Bus Division

Project Type Maintenance and Operations Facility

Location Northeast Downtown Los Angles

Length N/A

Project Cost


Completed Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in 2008, filed Addendum in 2009.


Recommended Plan



Project Description The purposed Metro Union Division Bus Maintenance and Operations Facility Project consist of an approximately 359,000-square foot public facility development, including the construction of a three-story parking structure, a circular structure and vehicle bridge, and the reuse and expansion of an existing building. The proposed location is on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Vignes Street and Cesar E. Chavez Avenue.

According to the 2008 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: as of June 2006, each of the 11 Metro bus operations and maintenance facilities in Los Angeles County was operating with bus fleet in excess of its individual facility capacities. Therefore, an immediate need exists to provide increased capacity. The Union Bus Division would reduce the inefficiency of transit service in Central/Downtown Los Angeles by reducing pressure on existing overburdened Divisions.




Highway Tier A



Project Type Grade Separations


Length

Project Cost $1.6 billion (YOE $)




Other Funding TBD


Complete by 2017

Based on the Measure R Expenditure Plan, funds will be distributed as they become available.

Project Description Constructs bridges or underpasses and improves the operation of other railroad intersections along a 35-mile stretch of the San Gabriel Valley. The cost estimate includes budget for 14 active or completed grade separations and 6 inactive grade separations.



Design-Build

Highway Tier A



Project Type Highway – Soundwalls

Location Los Angeles County (various locations)

Length Various Locations

Project Cost $2.4 billion (YOE $) to complete Phases 1 and 2.

Environmental Schedule Projects at various stages


Recommended Plan


(YOE $) Other Funding


Expect to complete projects between 2014 and 2039.


Project Description Continued construction of soundwall projects as mitigations for previously constructed HOV projects to reduce freeway noise levels.



Design-Build

Highway Tier A


I-710 South (including I-710 South Early Action Projects)

Project Type Highway

Location Gateway Cities

Length 18 miles (improvements at various locations)

Project Cost

$5.5 billion (2008 $) as per Measure R expenditure plan

Estimated $7 to $8 billion (2008 $) as per recent estimates

Long Beach interchanges and Shoemaker bridge - $310 million (2008 $)

Firestone Blvd. - $30 million (2008 $)

Atlantic/Bandini - $50 million (2008 $)


Corridor DEIR/DEIS is expected to be completed in summer of 2010. Completion of FEIR/FEIS and Project Report is anticipated in summer of 2011.

Early action projects under consideration would avoid significant environmental impacts and thus meet the requirements for a Categorical Exemption of Finding of No Significant Impact.


Recommended Plan

Strategic Unfunded


(2008 $) Other Funding TBD


Implementation is contingent upon approval of FEIR/FEIS and funding availability.

The Measure R Expenditure Plan does not specify when funds will be available.

Highway Tier A


Project Description The Long Beach Freeway (I-710) is a vital transportation artery, linking the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to Southern California and beyond. As a result of population growth, cargo container growth, increasing traffic volumes, and aging infrastructure, the I-710 Freeway experiences serious congestion, air quality, an safety issues.

Metro has partnered with six other agencies to conduct an Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to analyze the range of possible improvement alternatives for the I-710 Corridor. The purpose and need of the project is to improve air quality, traffic safety, and mobility along the corridor.

Three alternatives are under consideration in addition to the No Build Alterative. Alternative 5A includes widening the mainline to ten general purpose lanes, reconfiguring all of the local access interchanges throughout the corridor, and eliminating some of the design deficiencies at the I-405 and SR-91 interchanges. Alternative 6A builds on Alternative 5A; in addition to the improvements in Alternative 5A, it provides four at-grade and/or elevated truck lanes between Ocean Blvd. and the intermodal rail yards in Vernon and Commerce. Alternative 6B also builds on Alternative 5A: in addition it provides four at-grade and/or elevated freight movement lanes between Ocean Blvd. and the intermodal rail yards in Vernon and Commerce for use by zero-emission trucks. The freight corridor will be designed not to preclude future conversion to a fixed-guideway goods movement system.

Early action projects under consideration are interchange congestion relief projects located along the I-710 Corridor. Each of these projects has independent utility and can follow an independent project approval and development process for early implementation because they do not have significant environmental impacts. Candidate projects will correct design deficiencies, reconfigure interchanges, replace older bridges, and/or allow for increased open space. The reconfigurations would be compatible with potential future improvements to the I-710 mainline.

While various locations along I-710 are being evaluated where current local freeway interchange deficiencies can be corrected, three locations have been identified: Shoreline Drive to Willow Street in the City of Long Beach (replacement of Shoemaker Bridge, and reconfiguration of the Anaheim, PCH, and Willow interchanges), reconfiguration of Firestone Boulevard in the City of South Gate, and reconfiguration of Atlantic/Bandini interchange in the City of Vernon.




Transit Tier B


Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit Extension: Atlantic/Pomona Station Eastward (At Grade or Elevated)

Project Type Light Rail Transit

Location San Gabriel Valley / Gateway Cities border

Length 8 to 9 miles depending on alignment

Project Cost

The four alternatives studied in the AA range between $1.1 billion and $1.8 billion. The Measure R cost estimate is $1.3 billion (2008 $).

Operations and maintenance cost estimates range between $130.7 million and $141.2 million per year.


Currently working to narrow down the four alternatives studied in the AA to the two alternatives that will be considered in the Draft EIS/ EIR.

Draft EIS/EIR will be underway in early 2010, and is expected to be available for public review in December 2010. This will be followed by public hearings and returned to the Board to decide the Locally Preferred Alternative in May 2011. Final EIS/EIR is anticipated in 2013.


Strategic Unfunded


Other Funding TBD


Based on the environmental schedule, construction is anticipated to begin in 2015 and to be completed in 2020.


Transit Tier B


Project Description Construction of an extension to the Metro Gold Line Eastside currently near to completion from the terminus at Atlantic/Pomona Boulevard station.

Four alternatives were analyzed in the AA:

• Add eight miles of new rail primarily along SR-60.

• Add eight miles of new rail primarily at grade on Beverly Boulevard.

• Add eight miles of light rail primarily at grade on Beverly and Whittier Boulevards.

• Add nine miles of light rail primarily aerial on Washington Boulevard.

The purpose of the project is to link cities further east of Los Angeles with the regional transit network; to improve mobility in the project area by enhancing transit options and to plan for projected growth in a sustainable manner. The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project seeks to provide a reliable transit alternative to driving and improving mobility in an area facing rapid growth and mounting traffic congestion in the coming years.

Services will run continuously along the extension from the existing and soon to be completed Gold Line.

Tier B – Intermediate Action



Transit Tier B



Project Type Rapidways

Location San Fernando Valley

Length




Funding Planned Measure R $68 million (2008 $)

Other Funding TBD



Project Description Construct infrastructure improvements to increase operating speeds in four eastern San Fernando Valley corridors: Sepulveda, Reseda, Lankershim and Van Nuys with emphasis being placed on Van Nuys.



Design-Bid-Build

Transit Tier B



Project Type Bus Rapid Transit

Location Wilshire Boulevard

Length

Project Cost Phase 1: $31.5 million

Phase 2: TBD

Environmental Schedule Environmental analysis of Phase 1 is underway.


Recommended Plan

Funding Planned Measure R None Other Funding Federal

Other TBD


Phase 1 scheduled for completion in 2012.

Phase 2 scheduled for completion in 2015.

Project Description This is a single project with 2 phases:

- Phase 1 is a $30M project to create bus-only lanes curbside on both d irections of W ilshire B oulevard f rom d owntown Los Angeles to S anta M onica. It will be a m ixture o f as phalt an d concrete materials. The environmental work will be completed by Ju ne 2010 a nd c onstruction wi ll s tart Ju ly 2010. I t s hould open between January and July of 2012. It is funded by a Very Small Starts grant (3/4) and local funds (1/4). This project is fully funded and not under consideration for private involvement.

- Phase 2 was originally planned for post-2020, but in the 2009 proposed LRTP it has been moved up to 2015. This phase includes the repavement of Wilshire Boulevard in concrete and adds amenities such as bus shelters and park and ride lots.



Design-Build

Highway Tier B



Project Type Grade Separations


Length 5 locations

Project Cost $270 million (YOE $)

Environmental Schedule 30% design complete



(YOE $) Other Funding TBD


Expected completion beginning in 2017 and continuing from there.


Project Description Construction of rail and roadway grade separations in the Gateway Cities area at five locations including: Rosecrans / Marquardt Avenues, Passons Boulevard, Los Nietos Road / Norwalk Boulevard, Lakeland Road and Pioneer Boulevard.



Design-Build

Highway Tier B


High Desert Corridor: East-West: SR-14 to San Bernardino County Line and North-South: SR-14 to SR-138


Location North Los Angeles County / San Bernardino County

Length Approximately 50 miles

Project Cost Approximately $2.4 billion (2002 $)


Feasibility Study and draft environmental document scheduled to begin late 2009 according to JPA. No environmental studies completed at this time.


Strategic Unfunded

Funding Planned Measure R $33 million (for environmental studies) (2008 $)

Other Funding TBD


Opening dates contingent upon successful negotiated PPP or identification of federal/state matching funds.

Expected environmental completion by 2014; expected project completion by 2020.


Highway Tier B


Project Description The High Desert Corridor links the Antelope Valley to Apple Valley in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. The four to six lane freeway/expressway from SR14 to I-15 is proposed to relieve congestion for freight by creating a new freight corridor to relieve truck traffic from the ports by stimulating Inland Ports in the High Desert of each County and stimulating rail freight transport along the Alameda Corridor East to Victorville. The project was part of E220 and designated as a High Priority Corridor from Los Angeles to Las Vegas via Palmdale and Victorville in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU. Near Palmdale, the project is proposed to link with truck climbing lanes on the I-5 and will allow freight vehicles from the northern states and the Central Valley to bypass east-west routes in the LA area by intercepting and directing truck traffic eastward to the I-15 via the High Desert Corridor.

The North-South Improvements proposed by Metro were identified in the North County Corridors Study and reflect expansion of an existing arterial.

The Measure R funding provides for the initial environmental study of the High Desert Corridor between SR-14 and the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Line as well as any north-south improvements.




Highway Tier B



Project Type Highway Operational Improvements

Location Arroyo Verdugo Subregion

Length

Project Cost




Other Funding TBD


Opening dates contingent upon identification of projects by the subregion and identification of federal/state matching funds. The Measure R Expenditure Plan does not specify when funds will be available.


Project Description This project involves implementing freeway operational enhancements as identified by the subregion.



Design-Bid-Build

Highway Tier B


Highway Operational Improvements in Las Virgenes/Malibu Subregion


Location Las Virgenes/Malibu Subregion

Length

Project Cost




Other Funding TBD




Project Description This project involves implementing freeway operational enhancements as identified by the subregion.



Design-Bid-Build

Highway Tier B





Length 7.8 miles

Project Cost $2 billion


The project is currently in the Environmental Document/ Preliminary Engineering Phase.


Strategic Unfunded



It is expected to enter the design phase by 2012.

Project Description Widen existing facility to provide HOV lanes and general purpose lanes, reconstruct interchanges and provide freeway to freeway connectors.




Potential for Private Sector Operations and/or Maintenance Participation (for HOT lanes converted from HOV lanes)

Highway Tier B


I-5 North Capacity Enhancements: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)


Location North Los Angeles County

Length Segment 1: SR-14 to Pico Canyon: 4 miles

Segment 2: Pico Canyon to Parker Road: 8 miles

Segment 3: Parker Road to Kern County Line: 30 miles

Total (all segments): 42 miles

Project Cost

$2.8 billion (2008 $)

Measure R funding assumes partial funding by fees, public/private partnerships o r t olls. Measure R f unding is f or truck la ne po rtion o f project only.


Completed Environmental Study for Segments 1 and 2 (SR-14 to Parker Road).

Segment 3 has a completed PSR.


Strategic Unfunded

Funding Planned Measure R $410 million (for truck lanes only) (2008 $)

Other Funding TBD


Expected to complete to Pico by 2014; complete to Parker Road by 2025; complete to Kern County Line by 2039


Highway Tier B


Project Description The purpose of this project is to reduce delays to vehicles caused by slower moving trucks through the elevated terrain in the southern portion of this segment of I-5 and improve operational and safety design features to facilitate movement of people, freight and goods on the project segment (Caltrans Project Report, December 2008). The project is located in Los Angeles County on I-5 from State Route 14 (SR-14) on the south to the Kern County Line. Within the limits of the project, I-5 currently provides generally four mixed-flow lanes in each direction, with the exception of three mixed flow lanes in each direction at the I-5/SR -14 interchange. In the project area, two truck lanes are separated from the mainline freeway south of Weldon Canyon Overcrossing. This truck bypass route begins/ends just north of the I-5/SR-14 interchange.




Potential for Private Sector Operations and/or Maintenance Participation

Highway Tier B


I-605 Corridor “Hot Spot” Interchanges



Length Multiple locations

Project Cost $2.4 billion (2008 $)


Currently in planning stages


Strategic Unfunded


Other Funding TBD



Project Description This project consists of operational, design, and capacity improvements on and adjacent to I-605 between I-405 and SR-60. Projects include interchange, ramp, highway and TSM improvements to address current and future capacity, goods movement and safety issues.



Design-Build

Highway Tier B




Location South Bay Cities

Length n/a





Other Funding TBD




Project Description This project involves implementing ramp and interchange improvements on the I-105, I-110, and I-405 freeways as well as the SR-91.



Design-Bid-Build

Highway Tier B


SR-138: I-5 to SR-14



Length 43 miles

Project Cost $700 million (in 2002 $)



Strategic Unfunded



Project Description Based on the North County Corridors Plan (NCCP) adopted in 2004, this project involves adding two mixed flow lanes in each direction between I-5 and SR-14.



Design-Build

Highway Tier B





Length 36 miles



Final Environmental Report to be completed in 2010


Strategic Unfunded


Other Funding TBD



Project Description Based on the North County Corridors Plan (NCCP) adopted in 2004, this project involves adding two mixed flow lanes in each direction between I-5 and SR-14.

The Measure R monies complete the funding to widen SR-138 to the San Bernardino County Line (7 segments were funded through the constrained plan in the LRTP).



Design-Build

Highway Tier B





Length 4 miles

Project Cost $120 million (in 2008 $)



Recommended Plan

Funding Planned Measure R None

Other Funding

$120 million (Metro)


Project Description To provide HOV lanes between Avenue P-8 and Avenue L.




Potential for Private Sector Operations and/or Maintenance Participation (HOT lanes would be applicable for the section of SR-14 between I-5 to Avenue L, inclusive of this project)

Highway Tier B





Length 52 miles

Project Cost $1.0 billion (in 2002 $)



Strategic Unfunded



Project Description The purpose of this project is to fill in gaps in the mixed flow and HOV lanes and to provide 3 continuous mixed flow lanes in each direction.




Highway Tier B





Length 5-10 miles (depending on alternative)

Project Cost Estimated $4 billion to $5 billion


Geotechnical study to be released November 2009; Environmental work expected to begin by 2012.


Strategic Unfunded


Other Funding TBD



Project Description This project calls for construction of a tunnel to complete a 4.5 mile gap between Valley Boulevard in Los Angeles just north of I-10 and Del Mar Boulevard in Pasadena, extending SR 710 northward from its current terminus to I-210. In 2006, a Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment found that tunneling might be physically and environmentally feasible. Alternative tolling options were considered as part of the assessment of financial feasibility. Caltrans is conducting further technical studies including geotechnical analysis.




Potential for Private Sector Operations and/or Maintenance Participation

Highway Tier B


US-101 Corridor between Route 27 (Topanga Canyon) and Route 2 to Downtown Los Angeles


Location Hollywood/ San Fernando Valley

Length

Project Cost


MIS completed 2003.


Strategic Unfunded



Project Description This project calls for adding an HOV lane in each direction between Route 2 in Downtown Los Angeles and Route 27 (Topanga Canyon) and restriping for additional mixed flow lanes in each direction. A Major Investment Study of the corridor was completed in 2003.

Note that the State Legislature passed a law that any modifications of US-101 in the City of Los Angeles would require a two-thirds majority of the Metro Board.



Design-Bid-Build

Highway Tier B


US-101 Corridor between Route 27 to Ventura County Line


Location San Fernando Valley

Length

Project Cost


MIS completed 2003.


Strategic Unfunded



Project Description This project calls for addition of an HOV lane in each direction between Route 27 and the Ventura County line. This would be in addition to the mixed flow lane proposed in the 2001 LRTP adopted Recommended Plan. A Major Investment Study of the corridor was completed in 2003.



Design-Bid-Build

Public Private Partnership E-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix E: Tier C Projects


Table E-1: Tier C Transit Projects

Burbank/ Glendale Light Rail from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station I-405 Corridor Busway: Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station to Metro Greenline Aviation Station Metro Green Line Extension between LAX/Aviation Station to Expo Santa Monica Station Metro Green Line Extension between Norwalk Station and Norwalk Metrolink Station (Elevated or Underground) Metro Green Line Extension between South Bay Galleria and Pacific Coast Hwy Harbor Transitway Station Metro Green Line Extension from Redondo Beach Station to South Bay Galleria Metro Green Line Extension to Los Angeles International Airport Metro Rail Capital Projects - System Improvements, Rail Yards, and Rail Cars

Metro Red Line Extension from North Hollywood Station to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station

Metrolink Capital Improvement People Mover to LAX (funded by others)

Rail Projects within Los Angeles County (Operations, Maintenance, and Expansion)

Silver Line Light Rail between Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station and City of La Puente SR-134 Transit Corridor BRT between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station Vermont Corridor Subway West Santa Ana Branch ROW Corridor Magnetic Levitation between Los Angeles Union Station and Santa Ana Metrolink Station Yellow Line Light Rail between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Regional Connector 3rd/Flower Street Station

Note: Tier C projects are not yet defined and/or are expected to complete environmental studies after 2014.


Table E-2: Tier C Highway Projects

I-10: Add one HOV lane in each direction on Santa Monica Freeway between Lincoln Blvd. (in Santa Monica) and the I-5 Freeway interchange. I-405: Add N/B lane from Hawthorne to I-105 (Approximate length = 3.5 miles) (Included in South Bay Ramps and Interchanges) I-405: Add S/B lane from Rosecrans to Inglewood (Approximate length = 1.0 mile) (Included in South Bay Ramps and Interchanges) I-5/I-10 Interchange I-5/I-405 Carpool Lane Direct Connector I-5/I-405 Interchange I-5/SR-134 Interchange I-5/SR-14 Interchange I-5/SR-170 Interchange I-5/SR-2 Interchange I-605 HOV lanes: I-210 to I-10 SR-14 Carpool lanes: Avenue P-8 to Avenue L SR-57 HOV lanes: Route 60 to I-210 SR-57/SR-60 Mixed-Flow Interchange SR-60 HOV lanes: Route 101 to I-605 SR-71 Freeway: I-10 to Mission Blvd. SR-71 Freeway: Mission Blvd. to Rio Rancho Road SR-91/I-110 (partial HOV connector – from east to south and from east to north)

Note: Tier C projects are not yet defined and/or are expected to complete environmental studies after 2014.

Public Private Partnership F-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix F: Tier D Projects

Public Private Partnership F-2 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Table F-1: Tier D Transit Projects

Exposition Light Rail Transit Phase I (from 7th

Exposition Light Rail Transit Phase II (from Culver City to Santa Monica) Street Metro Center to Culver City)

Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit: Phase I

San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways: Canoga Corridor

Table F-1: Tier D Highway Projects

I-10 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Puente Ave I-10 Carpool Lanes: Puente Ave to Citrus Ave I-10 Carpool Lanes: Citrus Ave to SR-57 I-405 Carpool Lanes: SR-90 to I-10 I-405 NB Carpool Lanes: I-10 to US-101 I-405 SB Carpool/Auxiliary Lane: Waterford Street to I-10 I-405/US-101 Interchange I-5 Capacity Enhancement: I-605 to Orange County Line (mixed flow & HOV lanes) I-5 Capacity Enhancement: SR-134 to SR-170 I-5 Carmenita Road Interchange Improvement I-5 Carpool Lanes: SR-14 to SR-118 to SR-170 I-5/SR-126 Interchange Reconstruction (Phases I & II) I-5/SR-14 Carpool Lane Direct Connector Capacity Enhancements SR-60 Carpool Lanes: I-605 to Brea Canyon Road

Note: Tier D projects are under construction, will be under construction within approximately 6 months, or are already completed.

Public Private Partnership G-1 Project Screening Technical Memorandum Consulting Services October 9, 2009 (DRAFT)

Appendix G: Risk Assessment Matrix

Key = high project delivery risk

= medium project delivery risk

= low project delivery risk


Project Risk Assessment – Tier A Projects

PROJECT MODE DATA SHEET

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ACCEPTABILITY

SYSTEM INTERFACE LEGAL SCHEDULE OVERALL


Transit Y LOW Grade sep - low risk, geotech/ hazmat unknown at current stage, disruption to existing traffic and railroad, Minimal ROW needed.

LOW

MEDIUM Depends on preferred option

MEDIUM If LRT then continuous service through Metro Green Line

MEDIUM Multi-agency public and private coordination required. Agreements required with BNSF

MEDIUM Residential area restrictions on construction and diversions, ROW acquisition

Medium


Transit N Risks will be identified as the projects are defined further.

Unknown


Transit Y LOW At grade construction on existing ROW - 4 study alternatives

MEDIUM Potentially requires separate maintenance facility

LOW None currently identified

MEDIUM Interfaces with Metro Green Line, Crenshaw and LAX people mover. Potential technology interfaces

MEDIUM Multiple stakeholders involved - based on the 4 study alternatives

LOW Depends on Funding

Medium










Transit N Note that this project consists of Metro both purchasing buses and providing funding to various Los Angeles County Municipalities for the purchase of clean fuel buses in compliance with Board-adopted policy. Risks are considered low.

Low


Transit Y LOW No significant risks identified

LOW

LOW Generally thought to have good level of community support

LOW Interface with Phase A, but based on newest technology so minimal risk

MEDIUM 6 Cities and 2 Counties involved and existing railroad and Metrolink - multiple Stakeholder Agreements required

LOW Depends on Phase A completion - assume on time Low


Transit Y HIGH Complex Engineering project - tunnel construction and major utility relocations / diversions required

LOW

LOW

MEDIUM System upgrade for entire Metro Red Line planned

MEDIUM

LOW

Medium










Transit Y MEDIUM Tunnel construction and major utility relocations / diversions required in dense urban environment. Known geological conditions

LOW Assuming use of existing facilities - Metro Gold Line completed under Phase 2A

LOW

HIGH Interface with three lines (Metro Gold, Blue, Expo)

LOW

LOW

Medium

Union Bus Division Transit N LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM Labor discussions will be necessary if DBOM

LOW

Low


Hwy N Risks will be identified as the projects are defined further.

Unknown


Hwy N Various projects are included within this program. Overall they have low risks and have been studied extensively. Low









I-710 South (including I-710 South Early Action Projects)

Hwy Y MEDIUM Interchange reconstruction, traffic management, and elevated structures. Some additional ROW required. Existing facility potentially required to be brought up to revised Standards, Utility diversions and oil pipe lines required

LOW LOW Local opposition – but involved in the environmental process


MEDIUM Multiple stakeholders involved - UP rail agreements required

MEDIUM Depends on reaching agreement with stakeholders

Medium





Project Risk Assessment – Tier B Projects






Transit Y LOW No significant risks identified – final options to be decided

LOW

MEDIUM Potential for regional equity issues

LOW Interface with Phase 1 under construction now, brand new so minimal risk foreseen

MEDIUM Multiple stakeholders involved

LOW Depends on Phase 1 completion - assumed full operational

Low


Transit N Risks will be identified as the projects are defined further. Unknown

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway

Transit N LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM Multiple potential parking garage stakeholders

LOW

Low


Hwy N Risks will be identified as the projects are defined further. Unknown









High Desert Corridor: East-West: SR-14 to San Bernardino County Line and North-South: SR-14 to SR138

Hwy Y MEDIUM New ROW required for E-W. Areas of design uncertainly because of the early stage of project development

LOW Potential truck tolls

MEDIUM Potential environmental opposition




Medium



Unknown



Unknown










Hwy Y MEDIUM Interchange reconstruction, traffic mgt, and elevated structures. Some ROW take required. Existing facility potentially required to be brought up to revised Standards

LOW

MEDIUM Potential environmental opposition




Medium

I-5: North Capacity Enhancements: SR-14 to Kern County Line (HOV and Truck Lane Improvements)

Hwy Y LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

Low

I-605 Corridor "Hot Spot" Interchanges

Hwy N Risks will be identified as the projects are defined further. Unknown



Unknown









SR-138: I-5 to SR-14 Hwy N Risks will be identified as the projects are defined further. Unknown SR-138 Capacity Enhancements: Pearblossom Highway to San Bernardino County Line

Hwy N LOW LOW MEDIUM Some community opposition possible.

LOW LOW ROW may need to be acquired

LOW

Low


Hwy N LOW None currently identified

LOW

LOW


LOW Located in State-owned ROW

LOW

Low


Hwy N LOW

LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW

Low









SR-710 North Gap Closure

Hwy N MEDIUM Tunnel construction average length 6/7 mi - possible alternatives 12mi, final route and profile selection to be determined, some seismic problems identified, some Super Fund sites identified

LOW

HIGH Considerable opposition


HIGH Multiple stakeholders involved, potential legal challenges

MEDIUM Depends on reaching agreement with local opposition and stakeholders and duration of proposed studies

High

US-101 Corridor between Route 27 (Topanga Canyon)and Route 2 in Downtown Los Angeles

Hwy N MEDIUM ROW – significantly constrained corridor

LOW

HIGH Well-organized local opposition



MEDIUM Depends on reaching agreement with local opposition and stakeholders and duration of necessary studies

Medium









US-101 between Route 27 to the Ventura County Line

Hwy N MEDIUM ROW – some areas are constrained in the corridor

LOW

MEDIUM



MEDIUM Depends on reaching agreement with local opposition and stakeholders and duration of proposed studies

Medium

Public-Private Partnership Consulting...

Documents

Transcript of Public-Private Partnership Consulting...